Last night I flipped a wing nut relative

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

on at least one issue and actually got him to think for himself (if only temporarily).

This person was ranting about how it’s OK for Bush* to bypass FISA and do his little domestic spying thing to protect us against evil terrorists (i.e. Quakers, vegans, etc.)

This person is also a devout gun nut/people have a right to own shoulder-launched missiles type person and anyone who advocates any form of gun law – regardless of how minor - is branded liberal scum for violating their constitutional 2nd amendment rights and must be taken out and shot.

When I pointed out to him that domestic spying without a warrant or probable cause as explicitly stated in the 4th amendment directly violates the Constitution while, say, background checks for gun buyers to weed out murderous felons (i.e. Quakers, vegans, etc.) in no way violates the letter or even spirit of the 2nd amendment he holds so dear – he about blew a gasket and grudgingly agreed that Bush* is, in fact, breaking the law - or at least that's the gist of our discussion.

Was this a valid argument or an overly simplistic comparison of apples and oranges? I’m not a constitutional scholar but to me you can’t have it both ways (support one part of the constitution and not another).

[JeffR]

1. You did great!

Nice.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

2. Thanks!

[JeffR]

4. I'm no constitutional scholar either

But I think you framed your argument beautifully.

[benburch]

3. You done good.

Bush is coming for the guns next.

[gratuitous]

5. You tailored the argument in terms he could understand

Valid? Yes, in my opinion. Simplistic? Perhaps to a constitutional scholar, but surely set out in terms that your absolutist relative could understand. I wouldn't have a second thought about it, if I were you.

[Skidmore]

6. And them gun-totin' Quakers are really tough hombres too.

[madmom]

7. I've used this argument also they can't have their backround checks

because it invades their privacy but spying is ok. NOT!

[Swamp Rat]

8. Tell him to hide his guns and burn his NRA card because

Bushler will be rounding up gun owners to prevent his overthrow.

The freeps I know are already doing this and have turned 100% against Bushler.

[Cats Against Frist]

16. True -- one day I did a survey of state militia pages

And, to my surprise, they were split about 50/50 -- some were Bushler-worshipping nuts, while the other half trashed on the patriot act and had links to 9-11 "conspiracy." I found it very interesting, and renewed my faith in the "don't tread on me" crowd. Of course, half of them are still delusional, but at least some arsenals out there will be anti-right-wing-authoritarian government.

[gulliver]

9. Good point, and also ... you can point out to gun folks that ...

... the 4th Amendment freedom from unreasonable search and seizure is very much a foundation for their 2nd Amendment rights. What if registered Republican Timothy McVeigh committed the second worst terrorist incident on American soil today (instead of a few years ago)? Would Bush be spying on all militia members?

[savemefromdumbya]

10. Print it out and deliver it to the GOP strongholds

people could do with an explanation

[underpants]

11. I learned this recently via DU-there is no 2d Amend. right to bear arms

see Mr.Benchley's posts on this thread. No court (NONE of them ) in over 100 cases since 1939 has said that there is an individual right to bear arms. Oh, the NRA doesn't argue that there is either...at least in court they don't.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2390697

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

13. then what are all these

mouthbreathers going on about? Personally - I don't care if you own a gun (or accidently shoot it off in your office like a certain legislator across the street from me - bwahaahaahaa!)

[underpants]

14. I don't know

Take a few minutes and read it. I was shocked too. I have to say it amazing the sheer weight of BS that I had bought into all these years.

Be careful how you bring this up in conversation, I know I am.

[benEzra]

17. That's one side of a two-sided argument...

with around 70% of the U.S. population, and a majority of peer-reviewed legal scholars, coming down on the individual-right interpretation. Mr. B. is no less idealogically committed to the no-individual-right interpretation than the NRA is (or I am) to the individual-right interpretation.

Here's the five Supreme Court cases that have touched on the 2ndA so far: Supreme Court Cases. The court decisions can be read both ways, depending on which portions one wishes to cite (U.S. v. Miller is a good example). Note that the Supreme Court felt that Miller as an individual DID have standing to bring a case on 2ndA grounds, and upheld his conviction on the grounds that a sawed-off shotgun was not a militia type weapon and therefore an individual was not guaranteed the right to own one without going through the NFA approval process. They did NOT rule that the 2ndA did not apply to him, but rather that it did not necessarily apply to an illegally-hacked-up hunting gun. They DID state that the members of the militia (defined as all able-bodied male citizens) were expected to own their own firearms, which tends to undermine the anti-individual-right interpretation.


The prohibitionists also like to ignore the fact that the vast majority of STATE constitutions specifically protect the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, and most are very explicit on the application to the individual citizen (so the collective-right dismissal doesn't work there). Currently, 44 of the 50 states have such provisions; the only ones that don't are California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York. You can read the personal-arms provisions of the various state constitutions in R. Dowlut, "Federal and State Constitutional Guarantees to Arms" 15 (Dayton Law Review 59-89 (1989)). Scroll down to the Appendix (about halfway through the document) to see the state constitution provisions.

Another article you may find interesting, written by a liberal who hates guns, is Sanford Levinson, "The Embarrassing Second Amendment" (99 Yale Law Journal 637-659 (1989)).

A compendum of pro-individual-right legal scholarship on the 2ndA, including links to full-text law journal articles, can be found here: http://www.guncite.com/journals/index.html.

It's not by any means the consensus that the gun prohibitionists would like to portray it. Please make up your own mind...

[JohnnyRingo]

12. The argument for gun control

Which was stated as:
"If you didn't do anything wrong you shouldn't mind a background check"
and:
"Gun registration makes us safer from crime and criminals"

...should sound vaguely familiar to your relative as he argues for domestic spying.

[FreedomAngel82]

15. I would've used that too

So I think it's a good way. Next time ask if he'd want President Hillary Clinton to be able to spy on him.

[benEzra]

18. Good argument...

and a lot of gunnies are already on the anti-Patriot-Act side, since it's very likely to be used against us at some point...

A lot of gunnies, even the half or so that are repubs, are a lot more civil-libertarian than the neocons are...for that reason. Which may be why neocons like Bill Bennett hate us so much.

[LittleClarkie]

19. Even a very Conservative friend of mine

thinks that anyone who wants to carry a gun should go through the same gun training as a cop, and have to renew their license every 6 months. He was talking about the concealed gun law that the wingnuts in Wisconsin keep trying to pass. Fine, he said. Carry a concealed weapon. But this is what you'll have to do first, and on your own dime.

He's not a Bush fan either. But he couldn't forgive Kerry for the medals thing, so he voted for Bush anyway.