This is it!

Well, I predict that there are at least six votes which will uphold Miller

The four dissenters from Printz (Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer). Justices Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy and Alito will affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force. See: http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/amendment-02/index.html

I think that Justice Thomas is the only justice who buys the "new scholarship", but he has a Segal-Cover score of 0.415 for being qualified for the job (0 being unqualified and 1 being most qualified).

I just found out that one of Justice Anthony Kennedy's law clerks, Orrin Kerr, recently predicted this precise scenario. After declaring that there is an individual right under the Second Amendment, "Kennedy will endorse a relatively deferential standard of review that will end up allowing a great deal of gun regulation," wrote Kerr.

Sounds like the "individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force" language to me.

I have found there are a lot of people out there who spout collective right language while saying that the Second Amendment protects an "individual right". It's one of those mantras out there to say "individual right" in a way that seem to try and placate the masses. Never mind that this is not the "individual right" believed to exist by the masses.

This is because no one out there is willing to say Argumentum ad populum/Argumentum ad numerum is fallacious thinking.

Yet More DC v. Heller

OK, I have an interest in this given a strong background in DC gun laws.

Although, I am a lot less bothered that the SCOTUS will listen to the masses and will not follow it's precedent in US v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).

First thing is Miller, supra, is out there. While both sides argue about the applicability of this. I would say it is pretty well accepted in legal circles that the holding is:

The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

To summarise, the Second Amendment must be interpreted as a whole. the declaration, that is “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", and the guarantee, the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” bit, need to be interpeted as a whole. There is loads of legal doctrine behind this. For example, Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), discusses how none of the language of the Constitution can be considered "surplusage". The Constitution was written in a considered fashion and what was written must be considered essential to its interpretation.

The Appellant (Heller) would like us to believe that the declaration is a superfluity. Additionally, he would appreciate it if the Miller decision were interpreted as looking to the nature of the firearm, when the court said "Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense." Meaning that the court doesn't need to take this into account as the right is to ensure the effectiveness of the militia, which was set up under Article I, Section 8.

The gun is irrelevant! Trying to compare the Second Amendment to the other Amendments is silly. The Second Amendment is to ensure the Article I, Section 8 Militia is not disarmed.

I like to quote Patrick Henry:

9.1 Let me here call your attention to that part which gives the Congress power "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States—reserving to the states, respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."

9.2 By this, sir, you see that their control over our last and best defence is unlimited. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless: the states can do neither—this power being exclusively given to Congress. The power of appointing officers over men not disciplined or armed is ridiculous; so that this pretended little remains of power left to the states may, at the pleasure of Congress, be rendered nugatory. Our situation will be deplorable indeed: nor can we ever expect to get this government amended, since I have already shown that a very small minority may prevent it, and that small minority interested in the continuance of the oppression. Patrick Henry, Against the Federal Constitution, June 5, 1788

My guess is that there are at least five votes (Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, with either Kennedy or Alito possibly both) for the collective right. I am using the dissent in Printz v. United States), 521 U.S. 898 (1997), to predict the four votes to keep Miller. Alito stays consistent with his dissent in Rybar and holds the Collective right.

US v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273, 286 (3d Cir.1996), recapped for those who missed it followed the collective right interpretation to the Second Amendment. Of course, There was a dissent in Rybar.

The dissenting judge's name: Samuel Alito.

Yes, this is the case which earned Alito the nickname "machinegun Sammy". Funny thing, Alito was silent about the collective right issue in his dissent and only used the US v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) Commerce clause issue.

What if Alito holds the collective rights interpretation of the Second Amendment? What if Alito beings along Roberts and Scalia? Not so crazy an idea. Scalia is a strong believer in stare decisis and upholding Heller would screw up a lot of legal opinions out there.

Scalia, while calling himself a textualist, defers to legislators and also doesn't like stirring up accepted legal doctrines. DC's gun laws were enacted under the home rule statute in 1976: Legally legislated. Additionally, there are loads of decisions out there interpreting the Second Amendment as enabling the militia, that is now the National Guard.

Sure, the masses believe the Second Amendment can be divorced from the "well-regulated militia" language, giving the "people" "a right to keep and bear arms", but that type of logical thinking is fallacious. It's called Argumentum ad populum (argument or appeal to the public). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by showing that the public agrees with you. Also known as Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers). This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right. Example: "At least 70% of all Americans support restrictions on access to abortions."

Well, maybe 70% of Americans are wrong!

Live with it!

More District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.

I have to admit that all this talk about rights is amusing to me.

It seems that it has gotten lost that the District of Columbia's gun laws were locally enacted. Not to mention that most law abiding DC citizens support it.

On the other hand, it bothers the heck out of a lot of people who don't live in Washington, DC.

Case in point, Robert A. Levy, a senior fellow at Washington’s libertarian Cato Institute, plaintiff's lawyer, and pretty much the driving force behind all this.

Though Levy is a native of the dis­trict, he moved to Maryland 25 years ago. Today he splits his time between a gated community in Naples, Fla., and a home in Asheville, N.C. The investment analyst-turned-lawyer doesn’t own a gun and doesn’t want one. For Levy, the case really isn’t about guns.

Really? I have to admit curiosity as to why he is raising this issue then??? Is he out to get a definitive ruling on the law?

This may change the tack of this post, but the NRA (another non-DC resident) is worried about this and wants to bypass the court system. It wants the D.C. Personal Protection Act passed by the Legislature (yet more non-DC residents who don't represent the Citizens of DC). This legislation that would repeal the ban and moot out the Second Amendment issue.

Now, I have to admit that my opinion is that the correct interpretation of the Second Amendment is that it refers to the arming language in Article I, Section 8 and only means that the militia will never be disarmed: not to any personal right to gun ownership.

Additionally, I find Justice Robert's statement at his confirmation hearing to be ambiguous. I don't trust Justice Alito either after reading the U.S. v. Rybar(103 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 1996)) decision. I think the court will only clarify US v Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), or not bother to hear the case.

Either way, the Miller Opinion remains legal precedent. This is why the NRA DOESN'T want to see Heller go to court.

But that is neither here nor there in relation to my point.

My point is that the District's gun law was locally enacted and locally supported. The people who are trying to get rid of it aren't citizens, weren't elected by the people of DC and definitely don't represent the people of DC.

It was desire to self-govern which was a driving force behind the revolution, not taxes, guns, free speech, etcetera.

Especially not guns.

From what I know of the founding fathers. I believe they would support the District of Columbia from the outside meddling in its affairs.

But as the DC licence plates say these days:

TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION

Founding fathers on revolution against the Constitutionally created government.

I see loads of rubbish about how the Second Amendment allegedly means that "the people" have a right to rebel against the Constitutionally created government.

Usually this neglects Article 3, Section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

Quick question how does the Second Amendment negate Article 3, Section 3 and allow for citizens to wage war against the US government?

Of course, people who buy into the RKBA myth usually neglect logic such as that.

Anyway, here are some quotes from the founders about rebelling against an elected government.

"Rebellion against a king may be pardoned or lightly punished, but the man who dares to rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death." Samuel Adams about Shay's Rebellion

"I would infinitely prefer a limited monarchy, for I would sooner be the subject of the caprice of one man than the ignorance of the multitude." Noah Webster

"I am mortified beyond expression when I view the clouds that have spread over the brightest morn that ever dawned in any country... What a triumph for the advocates of despotism, to find that we are incapable of governing ourselves and that systems founded on the basis of equal liberty are merely ideal and fallacious." General George Washington about Shay's Rebellion.

James Madison once described democracy as the “most vile form of government”. In Federalist Paper No. 10, he had the following to say about democracy:

“A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

Alexander Hamilton, in a June 1788 speech urging his fellow New Yorkers to ratify the Constitution: “It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.”

Samuel Chase, a signer of the declaration of independence and U.S. Supreme Court Justice, delivered a charge to a Baltimore grand jury in which he blasted Congress and the Jefferson administration for repealing the Judiciary Act of 1801 which unseated federal circuit court judges on 2 May 1803. He also lashed out at the Maryland legislature for eliminating property qualifications for the franchise and for interfering with the operation of Maryland's courts. Chase railed that America was risking a descent into "mobocracy," This led to his impeachment

Of course, you probably believe that the US is a democracy if you believe the Second Amendment allows you the right to wage war upon the US government.

The Key to Peace

Ever notice that Palestinian sites have pictures like this of people with the Keys to their houses? Like this one:


According to legend, when the Jews were also expelled from Spain in 1492, they took with them the keys to their homes and synagogues hoping that one day they would return.

Sound familiar?

Those keys - large iron keys in the old Spanish style - lay in drawers and boxes, gathering dust, getting lost among clothes and cooking pots, sometimes for years until the family moved or someone died. Others were hung proudly above the front door; reminders of a culture they had loved and hoped to maintain.

Some years ago an Indiana University professor named Joelle Bahloul wrote an article in a journal that told of a rabbi in New Jersey whose ancestors had lived in Spain. One summer, the rabbi went back to the city of Toledo and tried to fit the family's ancient key in the door of the house where they were supposed to have lived. According to the rabbi, it fitted the lock perfectly! But, of course, these are legends. We don't know for sure. As symbolism, however, his gesture was very meaningful. The presence of the key really did "open" the door to memories and traditions of the past, allowing later generations to learn about the old customs.

Sephardic Jews like Yair Dalal treat their Palestinian friends as friends and see the similarities not the differences.

Why should the law of return only apply to Jews in the Holy Land? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that: "Everyone has the right ot leave any country, including his own, and return to his country." This is reiterated in the International Convention on Elimination of Racial Discrimination (Article 13(2)). UN Resolution 194 ratified on 11 December 1948 was the first of many to affirm this right of return. There have been 130 UN resolutions on the Right of Return which have been ratified to almost unanimously (exceptions Israel and the US).

Support for Israel places the United States in violation of its own laws which require it to not fund regimes which violate human rights and basic freedoms. The right of return, as shown above, is a basic right. I could add that Israel is a rogue state as well, but that would include discussion of its attacks such as the one on the USS Liberty.

The US could exert enough pressure on Israel to force it to comply with international law, yet the US refuses to show the leadership to do this. In fact, the US slavishly aids Israel.

In short. The right of return is an inalienable right which politicians cannot negotiate. Israel has not fulfilled the legal conditions required for its membership in the UN based upon the enactment of these resolutions in practise. The international community can impose sanctions upon Israel until it complies with international law.

The right of return is not hard to implement.

The UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East) has existed since 1948. This means there exists a huge database of millions of Palestinians - where they come from in Palestine, and where they are residing today, their family structure and their ages. Today, 90% of them reside within 100 km of their homes, 50% within 40km and many can actually see their home on the opposite hill.

That is not all. The refugees’ land is still sparsely populated. Eighty per cent of Israeli Jews still live in the same area they acquired during the Mandate and a little more, but 15% of Israel in total. About 18% of the remaining 20% of the Jews live mostly in half a dozen originally Palestinian or mixed cities, considerably enlarged. This leaves 2% of Israeli Jews who are the members of Qibbutz and Moshav.

This small number of population, in addition to the army, use and control 85%-88% of Israel’s area, which is the patrimony of 6 million Palestinian refugees. To take an example, all the rural Jews in the southern district from Ashdod (Isdud) to Eilat (Umm Rashrash) are less in number that one refugee camp in Gaza. Their density is six persons per square kilometre while that of Gaza population - the owners of this very land - is 6,000 per square kilometre. These owners of the land are held captive by the occupier in a concentration camp called Gaza.

I hope the Palestinians do not have to wait hundreds of years for their right of return to be implemented.

Gun control in the Talmud

First off, one principle of Judaism is that of Tikkun Olam, or healing the world. Jews are supposed to be an example of good in the world. That's what being chosen is about. It is to be an example of how to be Godly and show the light into the world.

What does that have to do with firearms anyway? Some Jews, such as JPFO, use appeals to history and the Judaic tradition. These pleas to oppose gun control are far from convincing. To argue that Jews must respond to gun violence with a paranoid impulse to grab guns in self defense is a dangerous perspective. This is using darkness ro fight the darkness in the world

The bigger picture does not support opposition to firearms regulation, especially if that will lead to the prevention of harm. Life is sacred in Judaism. Preservation or a human life can even justify violating mitzot with only three exceptions: avoda zarah [idol worship], shfichas damim [murder], and giluy arayus [illicit relations]!

In Judaism, safety is a religious concern, especially if protecting human life is involved. The Bible requires that a roof be properly gated, in order to prevent people from falling off of it (Deuteronomy 22:8). This commandment is understood by the Talmud as a general directive to remove any safety hazard (Bava Kamma 15b; Shulchan Aruch CM 427:8). Contemporary rabbinic authorities include in this commandment an employer's responsibility to ensure occupational safety (Piskei Uziel 47) and an injunction against reckless driving (Minchat Yitzchak 8:148). Someone who refuses to remove a safety hazard can be punished by excommunication (YD 334:7). In general, safety regulations are treated with far greater stringency than any other section of halacha (YD 116:7). Clearly, any Jewish view of gun control places high value on safety.

In the Talmud there are specific regulations that resemble gun control. There is a law against owning a dangerous dog (Bava Kamma 79a). One who owns a dangerous dog must keep it tied in metal chains at all times (CM 409:3). Even if the dog is defanged or trained not to harm people, it must be chained because it may frighten strangers, and as a result may cause stress related injuries such as miscarriage and heart attacks (Shabbat 63b). One of the more pious Rabbis, Rabbi Pinchas Ben Yair, was so stringent about this law that he refused to own mules, because they can occasionally cause injury (Hullin 7b; Terumat Hadeshen 2:105).

There were instances when allowances were made to these rules. In border communities, where there is a threat of marauders, owners of dangerous dogs may unchain them at night for protection. Some say that any dangerous city is similar to a border community (CM 409:3).These sources demonstrate that halacha would require any gun to be carefully locked at all times, with allowances made in cases where the gun is actively being used for security. Those who are more stringent would avoid guns completely. (It should also be noted that many authorities prohibit hunting for sport; Rama OH 316:2, Darchei Teshuva YD 117:44)

There is a second halacha that is relevant to this issue. The Talmud prohibits someone from selling offensive weapons to idol worshippers and suspected criminals (Avodah Zarah 15b; YD 151:5-6). The rule against selling to idol worshippers is based on an assumption that the idol worshippers will use them against Jews; however, if the Jews are allied with the idol worshippers, it is permitted to sell them arms. It is likewise prohibited to sell such weapons to anyone suspected of reselling them to criminals. This halacha requires that the buyers of firearms be carefully screened, and resembles in many ways laws requiring a national registry of gun and rifle owners.

Although halacha is extremely concerned about safety, it does not prohibit the ownership of guns. However, recognizing that a gun is a dangerous object, halacha (like many current gun control laws) requires that owners and vendors of guns take all possible precautions to prevent their guns from causing any harm.

Jewish tradition compels us to uphold the sanctity of life. An instrumentality like a firearm is not more valuable than a human life. The ownership of firearms must be responsible. These isntrumentalities must be regulated in a manner which respects life. Anyone who argues otherwise is going against Talmudic tradition.

Gun control and Genocides

A tip of the hat to Matthew White who compiled this list (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/gunsorxp.htm) with some additions from me.

There's an old saying: "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions", so wouldn't it be really ironic if a law created with the purpose of cutting back on the number of murders actually had the opposite effect?

Of course, there's another old saying: "Yew-juice is sovereign against snake-bite", which goes to show you that sometimes old sayings are just plain stupid. Sometimes good intentions turn out just fine, and sometimes laws don't have ironic outcomes.

But among the advocates of irony, the leading cause of 56 million needless deaths would seem to be gun control. Here's an account ledger that is reposted at several sites:

CONSIDER THIS... This is just part of the known tally ...

* In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
* In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
* Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
* China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
* Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
* Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
* Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.

Well, right off the bat I can see that whoever compiled this tally has a different definition of defenseless than I do. I myself wouldn't declare the largest military machine on the planet "unable to defend itself", but by adding 20 million from the Soviet Union, this list does. After all, Stalin's most infamous terror fell heavily on the Soviet Army, culling tens of thousand of officers, and executing three out of five marshals, 15 out of 16 army commanders, 60 out of 67 corps commanders and 136 out of 199 division commanders. In one bloody year, the majority of the officer corps was led away quietly and shot. It may be one of life's great mysteries as to why the Red Army allowed itself to be gutted that way, but obviously, lack of firepower can't be the reason.

I am not sure that the assumption that Turkey's institution of "gun control" would have helped the Armenians either. One problem with "pro-gun" arguments is that they have the unspoken assumption that people owned guns prior to the enactment of these laws (such as comparisons to England and Australia). Usually, there wasn't wide spread gun ownership prior to the enactment of these laws, which is likely in the case of the Armenian genocide. Additionally, this happened during the First World War. The Armenians who were in the Ottoman Empire (which is now called Turkey) army were disarmed, but again, this sounds like what happened in the Soviet union.

The Third Reich did not need gun control (in 1938 or at any time for that matter) to maintain their power. The success of Nazi programs (restoring the economy, dispelling socio-political chaos) and the misappropriation of justice by the apparatus of terror (the Gestapo) assured the compliance of the German people. Arguing otherwise assumes a resistance to Nazi rule that did not exist. Further, supposing the existance of an armed resistance also requires the acceptance that the German people would have rallied to the rebellion. This argument requires a total suspension of disbelief given everything we know about 1930s Germany. Why then did the Nazis introduce this program? As with most of their actions (including the formation of the Third Reich itself), they desired to effect a facade of legalism around the exercise of naked power. It is unreasonable to treat this as a normal part of lawful governance, as the rule of law had been entirely demolished in the Third Reich. Any direct quotations, of which there are several, that pronounce some beneficence to the Weapons Law should be considered in the same manner as all other Nazi pronouncements - absolute lies.

A more farfetched question is the hypothetical proposition of armed Jewish resistance. First, they were not commonly armed even prior to the 1928 Law. Second, Jews had seen pogroms before and had survived them, though not without suffering. They would expect that this one would, as had the past ones, eventually subside and permit a return to normalcy. Many considered themselves "patriotic Germans" for their service in the first World War. These simply were not people prepared to stage violent resistance. Nor were they alone in this mode of appeasement. The defiance of "never again" is not so much a warning to potential oppressors as it is a challenge to Jews to reject the passive response to pogrom. Third, it hardly seems conceivable that armed resistance by Jews (or any other target group) would have led to any weakening of Nazi rule, let alone a full scale popular rebellion; on the contrary, it seems more likely it would have strengthened the support the Nazis already had. Their foul lies about Jewish perfidy would have been given a grain of substance. To project backward and speculate thus is to fail to learn the lesson history has so painfully provided.

Just a few steps down, we can trim another 20 million from our total. Take a look at China, 1935. Picture, if you will, a long, peaceful line of naive little natives queueing up to dump their guns into an industrial smelter, while off to the side, a bureaucrat with a clipboard checks their names off the list. That's the image this list would like to create. The problem is, in 1935 China was in the midst of the Age of Warlords. Even if you know nothing about Chinese history, just the name "Age of Warlords" should tip you off. It was a pistol packer's paradise, a lawless Wild West where all power flowed from the barrel of a gun.

But it's not just the ready availability of guns in China that contradicts the Big Tally. No, it's just as important what everyone was doing with all those guns -- fighting for supremacy, fighting against the Communists, fighting the Japanese. In other words, gun control or not, everyone who had a side to take had already taken sides. Everyone who wanted a gun already had a gun. The enemies of the state who were killed after 1949 weren't defenseless; they were just plain beaten.

This is what I call the Cold-Dead-Hands Test. If the only way to get someone's gun is to pry it from their cold, dead hands (literally or figuratively), that's not gun control. When Grant disarmed the Confederates at Appomattox, that wasn't gun control; that was taking prisoners. When the Soviets disarmed the remnants of the German 6th Army at Stalingrad, that wasn't gun control either. Mao didn't come to power in China by tricking the populace into surrendering their arms. He pummeled his well-armed opponents in a stand-up fight. There's a big difference between unable to fight back, and fighting back but losing.

It's just as hard to label the Cambodians defenseless when you remember that they had just spent five years and a half million lives trying to stop the Khmer Rouge. It's also hard to call the Guatemalans defenseless when it took a 30-year civil war to rack up their body count. Even most of the victims of Hitler went down kicking and screaming. The majority of the Jews and Gypsies were hunted down in countries like Poland and Russia that had been overrun in open battle, and if they were lacking guns, it certainly wasn't German laws that created the situation.

Frankly, this list is a pitifully weak argument against gun control, simply because most of the victims listed here did fight back. In fact, if there's a real lesson to be learned from this roster of oppressions, it's that sometimes a heavily armed and determined opposition is just swept up and crushed -- guns or no guns.

The Myth of Nazi Gun Control

By N. A. Browne
from http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html

A commonly heard argument against gun control is that the National Socialists of Germany (the Nazis) used it in their ascent to and maintenance of power. A corollary argument is sometimes made that had the Jews (and presumably the other targeted groups) been armed, they could have fought off Nazi tyranny. This tract seeks to counter these misassumptions about Nazi gun control.

Gun control, the Law on Firearms and Ammunition, was introduced to Germany in 1928 under the Weimar regime (there was no Right to Arms in the Constitution of 1919) in large part to disarm the nascent private armies, e.g. the Nazi SA (aka "the brownshirts"). The Weimar government was attempting to bring some stability to German society and politics (a classic "law and order" position). Violent extremist movements (of both the Left and Right) were actively attacking the young, and very fragile, democratic state. A government that cannot maintain some degree of public order cannot sustain its legitimacy. Nor was the German citizenry well grounded in Constitutional, republican government (as was evidenced in their choices at the ballot box). Gun control was not initiated at the behest or on behalf of the Nazis - it was in fact designed to keep them, or others of the same ilk, from executing a revolution against the lawful government. In the strictest sense, the law succeeded - the Nazis did not stage an armed coup.

The 1928 law was subsequently extended in 1938 under the Third Reich (this action being the principal point in support of the contention that the Nazis were advocates of gun control). However, the Nazis were firmly in control of Germany at the time the Weapons Law of 1938 was created. Further, this law was not passed by a legislative body, but was promulgated under the dictatorial power granted Hitler in 1933. Obviously, the Nazis did not need gun control to attain power as they already (in 1938) possessed supreme and unlimited power in Germany. The only feasible argument that gun control favored the Nazis would be that the 1928 law deprived private armies of a means to defeat them. The basic flaw with this argument is that the Nazis did not seize power by force of arms, but through their success at the ballot box (and the political cunning of Hitler himself). Secondary considerations that arise are that gun ownership was not that widespread to begin with, and, even imagining such ubiquity the German people, Jews in particular, were not predisposed to violent resistance to their government.

The Third Reich did not need gun control (in 1938 or at any time thereafter) to maintain their power. The success of Nazi programs (restoring the economy, dispelling socio-political chaos) and the misappropriation of justice by the apparatus of terror (the Gestapo) assured the compliance of the German people. Arguing otherwise assumes a resistance to Nazi rule that did not exist. Further, supposing the existance of an armed resistance also requires the acceptance that the German people would have rallied to the rebellion. This argument requires a total suspension of disbelief given everything we know about 1930s Germany. Why then did the Nazis introduce this program? As with most of their actions (including the formation of the Third Reich itself), they desired to effect a facade of legalism around the exercise of naked power. It is unreasonable to treat this as a normal part of lawful governance, as the rule of law had been entirely demolished in the Third Reich. Any direct quotations, of which there are several, that pronounce some beneficence to the Weapons Law should be considered in the same manner as all other Nazi pronouncements - absolute lies. (See Bogus Gun Control Quotes and endnote [1].)

A more farfetched question is the hypothetical proposition of armed Jewish resistance. First, they were not commonly armed even prior to the 1928 Law. Second, Jews had seen pogroms before and had survived them, though not without suffering. They would expect that this one would, as had the past ones, eventually subside and permit a return to normalcy. Many considered themselves "patriotic Germans" for their service in the first World War. These simply were not people prepared to stage violent resistance. Nor were they alone in this mode of appeasement. The defiance of "never again" is not so much a warning to potential oppressors as it is a challenge to Jews to reject the passive response to pogrom. Third, it hardly seems conceivable that armed resistance by Jews (or any other target group) would have led to any weakening of Nazi rule, let alone a full scale popular rebellion; on the contrary, it seems more likely it would have strengthened the support the Nazis already had. Their foul lies about Jewish perfidy would have been given a grain of substance. To project backward and speculate thus is to fail to learn the lesson history has so painfully provided.

The simple conclusion is that there are no lessons about the efficacy of gun control to be learned from the Germany of the first half of this century. It is all too easy to forget the seductive allure that fascism presented to all the West, bogged down in economic and social morass. What must be remembered is that the Nazis were master manipulators of popular emotion and sentiment, and were disdainful of people thinking for themselves. There is the danger to which we should pay great heed. Not fanciful stories about Nazi's seizing guns.

In other words, people should stop mindlessly repeating the same nonsense and start thinking for themselves. RKBA is a myth, the tyranny the founding fathers had in mind, a large standing army, is here.

Is the US becoming facist or just going Insane?

I have to admit that the reaction to the Virginia Tech shootings that we need more guns and have armed students on campus and that it was gun control which caused the shootings which seems ubiquitous has me dumbfounded. I mean, the lack of a decent background check was what really caused these shootings, not gun control. The kid couldn't have bought a gun if there had been adequate gun control!

Additionally, the masses say that Parker v. DC was "correctly decided" despite the fact that it goes against just about everything proper in legal reasoning (e.g., stare decisis).

As P.T. Barnum said, "nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people".

Another thing which has me amazed is that public transport in the US is pitiful (with the exceptions of Washington, DC and New York). The price of fuel is finally catching up with the rest of the world, but it seems everyone wants and SUV or other gas guzzler. People also move out of the cities to the middle of nowhere and increase the traffic and amount of services needed so that there will soon be no natural spots.

Never mind global warming or recycling. Instead of demanding better public transport, people want more roads and bypasses. Sort of like some people think more guns means less crime, more cars will mean less traffic.

Oh, yeah, how could I forget health care, which sucks in the USA. I mean I have health insurance and I get the bottom of the barrel care. A national health service, "socialised medicine" seems to be a fantastic idea. It's that word "socialised" which sounds like "Socialism".

Oh, yeah and a woman's right to choose is getting more and more under threat.

This is by the same people who say they support the Constitution, yet try to get religion (usually Christianity) in under the radar. The US is supposed to be religiously neutral, which works for me as I would take all of December off (12 days of Christmas, Hanukkah, St. Stephen's day, St. Nicholas's Day, etc.)

I could go on, but this ramble is getting me annoyed.

Zionists!

Anybody who knows me, knows that I am not anti-Jewish or even really anti-Israel.

Well, other than having qualms about how the Israelis treat the Palestinians, but not every Israeli tolerates that either. So, as long as someone supports the right of return and full citizenship for everyone in the state of Israel, I don't have a problem.

And I'd send you to http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/ as well.

On the other hand, I have a problem with Zionists.

You might be surprised who they are. Sure, there are a few Jews in that crowd, but a whole lot of them are Christians.

Christian Zionism is a belief among some Christians that the return of the Jews to the Holy Land, and the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, is in accordance with Biblical prophecy. Christian Zionism, as a specifically theological belief, does not necessarily entail sympathy for the Jews as a nation or for Judaism as a religion. Since the biblical text is filled with references to God's chosen people, it is common for Christian Zionists to emphasize the Jewish roots of Christianity, and even to promote Jewish practices and Hebrew terminology as part of their own practice; however, Christian Zionists commonly believe that to fulfill prophecy, a significant number of Jews will accept Jesus as their Messiah, and that in the last days, such Messianic Jews will practice a thoroughly Hebraic form of Christianity.

Examples of Christian leaders combining political conservatism with Christian Zionism are Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, leading figures of the Christian Right in the 1980s and 1990s. Falwell said in 1981: "To stand against Israel is to stand against God. We believe that history and scripture prove that God deals with nations in relation to how they deal with Israel." They cite part of Genesis 27:29 Those who curse you [Israel] will be cursed, and those who bless you will be blessed.

The government of Israel has given official encouragement to Christian Zionism, allowing the establishment in 1980 of an "International Christian Embassy" in Jerusalem. The main function of the embassy is to enlist worldwide Christian support for Israel. The embassy has raised funds to help finance Jewish immigration to Israel from the former Soviet Union, and has assisted Zionist groups in establishing Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

Deep down, these folks would be happy if every Jew in Israel were incinerated, especially if that brings the prophetic role of Israel in the apocalyptic End Times.

Oy gevalt!

More Parker vs. the District of Columbia

I called Judge Silberman senile in a previous post and I now stand by that after reading this decision.

Unlike everyone else on the web who has no legal knowledge and calls this "the correct decision", this decision is only worthy of picking up my dog poop. Silberman must have let his clerk write this and not proof read it if he isn't senile.

There are four reasons this is crap:
1) Stare decisis
2) Misunderstanding of Miller v. US, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
3) Poor scholarship and use of citations.
4) Silly logic

Let's start with stare decisis. Judge Silberman should know this as it's something everyone learns before law school and should have grasped by first term. Sure US law schools are dogshit, but come on--it's a basic.

Stare decisis for those of you who don't understand it. including you Judge Silberman, is a Latin legal term, used in common law to express the notion that prior court decisions must be recognized as precedents, according to case law. More fully, the legal term is "stare decisis et non quieta movere" meaning "stand by decisions and do not move that which is quiet" (the phrase "quieta non movere" is itself a famous maxim akin to "let sleeping dogs lie").

The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a higher court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which a lower court cannot overturn. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and lower courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do occasionally ignore.

Stare decisis is one of the basics for the rule of law, which is predictability. It screws the system up if some joker judge decides he doesn't like precedent.

In short, Silberman, you have to follow precedent if the Supreme Court makes a ruling whether or not you agree with it until it is overturned. You buck that tradition in violation of the principle of stare decisis.

Which takes us to point number 2, misunderstanding of Miller v. US, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).

Judge Silberman, while the ignorant classes can say that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right, the Supremes have said it only guarantees a collective right. Other courts understand this. You have the dubious distinction of writing an opinion which contradicts this rather large corpus of decisions which take the collective right position.

United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 2362 (2002) isn't really an exception since the court there was sensible enough to use their opinion as a soap box for the idiotic "individual rights" argument you actually use! The Emerson court only spouted that shit as dicta, you actually use it as logic for your ruling.

I have serious wonders if you cheated to get through law school given the scholarship of your opinion. Did you actually read what you quote? I can expect that sort of ignorance from the hoi polloi, but not someone who is allegedly educated.

You would find that your sources contradict your opinion and support the dissent's opinion. I would much rather embarrass you in public by having you sue me for slander, but your quote From Cooley, which is short enough you should have read it:

SECTION IV. — THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

The Constitution. — By the Second Amendment to the Constitution it is declared that "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The amendment, like most other provisions in the Constitution, has a history. It was adopted with some modification and enlargement from the English Bill of Rights of 1688, where it stood as a protest against arbitrary action of the overturned dynasty in disarming the people, and as a pledge of the new rulers that this tyrannical action should cease. The right declared was meant to be a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and as a necessary and efficient means of regaining rights when temporarily overturned by usurpation.[1]

The Right is General. — It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.

Standing Army. — A further purpose of this amendment is, to preclude any necessity or reasonable excuse for keeping up a standing army. A standing army is condemned by the traditions and sentiments of the people, as being as dangerous to the liberties of the people as the general preparation of the people for the defence of their institutions with arms is preservative of them.

What Arms may be kept. — The arms intended by the Constitution are such as are suitable for the general defence of the community against invasion or oppression, and the secret carrying of those suited merely to deadly individual encounters may be prohibited.[1]

-[1] 1 Tuck. Bl. Com., App. 300.

Summing up Cooley, the Right to keep and bear arms is predicated upon militia service which is a counterbalance to a standing army. In fact, a militia means there shouldn't be a standing army.

Have you seen the how much money is budgeted lately for the military each year. Silberman? Doesn't sound like the militia is a very vibrant institution.

Actually, Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys 154 (Tenn. 1840) is a much better repudiation of your logic since the right to keep and bear arms relates to military service, that is training for militia duty.

The right to keep and bear arms as mentioned in the Second Amendment is not a personal one. Look to state constitutions for examples of how it would be written if it were intended to have been a personal right.

Which takes me to point number 4: silly logic.

Using your logic, I am allowed to keep machineguns, tanks Chemical weapons, and even nuclear weapons.

Take the recent US invasion of Iraq with it's shock and awe would a mere firearm do to repel such a foe? The same goes for a tyrant. I mean, People were, and are, armed to the teeth in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. He just used Chemical weapons on them.

What would repel a tyrant like that other than an H-bomb?

Now, should individuals be allowed such weaponry?

Anyway, it is obvious from Cooley and the post-Miller precedents that "With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces (Militia set up under Article I, Section 8) the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."

I mean, where does this stuff about not having standing armies come in? Does that make any sense to you? Did you miss that in what minimal research you did to write this?

What is the real agenda for trying to come up with an "individual right". I mean do you want to abolish the standing army in favour of a citizen's militia like what Switzerland had at one time? Does that really make any sense to you? Did you fail to think all this through?

Anyway, I have this H-bomb I need to register thanks to your categorising the right to keep arms "suitable for the general defence of the community against invasion or oppression" as an individual right.

"Mission Accomplished"?????

It was four years ago that George Bush announced that the mission was accomplished in Iraq.

Sure, it doesn't seem that way to the vast majority of us, but I've been thinking about it.

The Iraqis don't really need democracy. And the US can't really expect to install it there anyway for a myriad of reasons. The US system is a republic, not a democracy for one. The other is that the US has a president who wasn't popularly elected (Well, I didn't vote for him). Anyway, the will of the people is thwarted by special interest groups, such a AIPAC and the NRA.

I mean is that a democracy?

AIPAC is the group which really wanted this war to try and relieve Israel and put a US base in the region to save Israel's sorry ass. I don't think there were many people who wanted this last war.

Well, maybe with the exception of the people who thought there REALLY were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that the mission was accomplished. This is the crowd that thinks having a gun in your home makes you safer despite much more scientific showings that you are more likely to harm a family member with your gun. You know "more guns, less crime."

Which brings us to the NRA, which tells us that it is freedom if everybody has a gun. Going on that Iraq was free under Saddam. But they are freer now since Saddam is gone and lord knows who is really running the show. I mean the daily body count.

As the NRA tells us: "It's the price of freedom!"

Which is why nothing gets done about firearms in this country and we have a long way to go until we are as free as Iraq. Hell, they top Virginia Tech everyday and everybody has a gun.

Never mind that most people in this country want firearms regulation, but that is blocked by a minority of gun toting [insert your choice of epithet here].

Now, isn't an armed minority holding the will of the people hostage tyranny?

I mean we are living in terror which is similar to Iraq. Of course, we are going to teach the Iraqis about democracy and the American system. But, how can we do that when the will of the people is thwarted by lord knows who.

So, does all that explain to you how Dubious could say "Mission Accomplished" on that battleship four years ago?

Neo-Conned on gun control

Would it surprise you that one of the proposals for the Second Amendment was:

That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power.

Not that I am making this up Elbridge Gerry said during the ratification debates:

This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the maladministration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.

What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.

Usually, when people discuss this they neglect things like this from Joseph Story's Commentaries on the US Constitution:

. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people.

Patrick Henry's response to the Constitution Article I, Section 8 was "A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny." Which then led to this great quote which has been taken out of context ""The great object is that every man [of the militia] be armed.--But can the people to afford to pay for double sets of arms &c.? Every one who is able may have a gun. But have we not learned by experience, that necessary as it is to have arms, and though our assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case. When this power is given up to Congress without limitation or bounds, how will your militia be armed? You trust to chance....""

Now, I know it's a popular belief that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep a gun, but why has this stuff about Standing Armies and congress's power over the militia been left out of the debate?

Even more salient, why has all this individual's right nonsense come up in the last 50 years? I mean up until the 1980s, the Second Amendment was pretty much a dead issue as far as scholarship goes. Then, there came all this "new scholarship" in the 1990s.

Actually, the confusion probably began back in the 50s and 60s when the term "citizen soldiers" came to mean draftees.

Excuse me. Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, Book V, Ch. 1, contains an extended account of the Militia. It is there said: "Men of republican principles have been jealous of a standing army as dangerous to liberty." "In a militia, the character of the labourer, artificer, or tradesman, predominates over that of the soldier: in a standing army, that of the soldier predominates over every other character; and in this distinction seems to consist the essential difference between those two different species of military force."

That is the standing army v. the militia, the professional soldiers v. the amateurs. The militias are the citizen soldiers, as distinguished from those trained to arms as a profession, and who constitute elements of a standing army. Since both the States and Congress shared concurrent authorities over the militia, it was essential to protect the people who made up the militias from any pretense of Congress in disarming them for the establishment of a standing army.

Now, with Iraq, which is a perfect example of what the founders were afraid of in the debates, an out of control leader with a standing army running amuck, and Virginia Tech, which isn't what the founders had in mind, doesn't this seem particularly germane?

I mean who stands to gain from all this if the Second Amendment is not an individual right to bear anything, but a security of the people to keep and bear arms for purposes of maintaining public militias as a guard against a standing army?

I mean everybody comes off looking like dickheads if what all this means is that Iraq shouldn't have happened, because we should have been demanding a Swiss style military instead of screaming about how having more guns in the streets makes us "safe".

So, while we are scared shitless of the Columbines and Virginia Techs, the Military Industrial Complex is laughing their asses off and seeing the tyranny that the founders anticipated happening with the establishment of a professional, standing army!

Think about it!

The Economist Newpaper again goes where most American Media will not.

The tragedy in Virginia Tech is such a shockingly gruesome crime that has had me feeling very disturbed for days.

But perhaps what has most surprised me about it is the incredibly idiotic “discussion” that has been heard in the media about it. In the first few hours after the incident, I came across “analysis” blaming this incident on Islamic terrorism, Pakistani culture, Korean military ruthlessness, Korean “male anger”, “militant Christianity”, “capitalism’s excesses”, bullying in school and countless other phenomena too stupid to even mention. None of these explanations deserve to expound on and refute.

But, as expected, the Economist offers one of a very few voices of reason on American issues.

While everyone is discussing every single aspect of issues that have nothing to do with this crime, the most important point is missed: Every society has deranged people like this criminal; only in America can he walk into a gun store with a history of stalking, instability and violence, and purchase semi-automatic weapons with the same ease with which he purchased the tapes he used to film himself; the same tapes that got thousands of hours of play in the media, while no one even discussed where he might have gotten his guns from.

How convenient it is for the NRA that everyone is talking about other issues and avoiding the issue of guns. And the few voices that have mentioned this issue (on Fox News) have criticized the university for not allowing teachers to carry guns in class. Indeed, what an intelligent idea: a fully-militarized society is the answer to gun-crime.

As pro-Palestine activists in America know all too well, when there are powerful special interest groups, open debate becomes an impossibility. On this issue as well, let’s try and not fall into this trap.

After the Virginia Tech massacre America’s tragedy: Its politicians are still running away from a debate about guns
Apr 19th 2007
From The Economist Newspaper print edition

In the aftermath of the massacre at Virginia Tech university on April 16th, as the nation mourned a fresh springtime crop of young lives cut short by a psychopath’s bullets, President George Bush and those vying for his job offered their prayers and condolences. They spoke eloquently of their shock and sadness and horror at the tragedy (see article). The Democratic speaker of the House of Representatives called for a “moment of silence”. Only two candidates said anything about guns, and that was to support the right to have them.

Cho Seung-hui does not stand for America’s students, any more than Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris did when they slaughtered 13 of their fellow high-school students at Columbine in 1999. Such disturbed people exist in every society. The difference, as everyone knows but no one in authority was saying this week, is that in America such individuals have easy access to weapons of terrible destructive power. Cho killed his victims with two guns, one of them a Glock 9mm semi-automatic pistol, a rapid-fire weapon that is available only to police in virtually every other country, but which can legally be bought over the counter in thousands of gun-shops in America. There are estimated to be some 240m guns in America, considerably more than there are adults, and around a third of them are handguns, easy to conceal and use. Had powerful guns not been available to him, the deranged Cho would have killed fewer people, and perhaps none at all.

But the tragedies of Virginia Tech—and Columbine, and Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania, where five girls were shot at an Amish school last year—are not the full measure of the curse of guns. More bleakly terrible is America’s annual harvest of gun deaths that are not mass murders: some 14,000 routine killings committed in 2005 with guns, to which must be added 16,000 suicides by firearm and 650 fatal accidents (2004 figures). Many of these, especially the suicides, would have happened anyway: but guns make them much easier. Since the killing of John Kennedy in 1963, more Americans have died by American gunfire than perished on foreign battlefields in the whole of the 20th century. In 2005 more than 400 children were murdered with guns.

The trigger and the damage done

The news is not uniformly bad: gun crime fell steadily throughout the 1990s and early 2000s. But it is still at dreadful levels, and it rose sharply again in 2005. Police report that in many cities it rose even faster in 2006. William Bratton, the police chief of Los Angeles (and formerly of New York), speaks of a “gathering storm of crime”. Politicians on both sides, he says, have been “captured” by the vocal National Rifle Association (NRA). The silence over Virginia Tech shows he has a point.

The Democrats have been the most disappointing, because until recently they had been the party of gun control. In 1994 President Bill Clinton approved a bill banning assault weapons (covering semi-automatic rifles plus high-capacity magazines for handguns) and the year before that a bill imposing a requirement for background checks. But Democrats believe they paid a high price for their courage: losing the House of Representatives in 1994 shortly after the assault-weapons ban, and then losing the presidency in 2000. Had Al Gore held Arkansas or West Virginia or his own Tennessee, all strongly pro-gun, he would have won the election. These days, with hopes for a victory in 2008 dependent on the South and the mountain West, it is a brave Democrat who will talk about gun control. Some of them dismiss the very idea as “insensitive”.

Mr Bush however, has done active damage. On his watch the assault-weapons ban was allowed to lapse in 2004. New laws make it much harder to trace illegal weapons and require the destruction after 24 hours of information gathered during checks of would-be gun-buyers. The administration has also reopened debate on the second amendment, which enshrines the right to bear arms. Last month an appeals court in Washington, DC, overturned the capital’s prohibition on handguns, declaring that it violates the second amendment. The case will probably go to the newly conservative Supreme Court, which might end most state and local efforts at gun control.

Freedom yes, but which one?

No phrase is bandied around more in the gun debate than “freedom of the individual”. When it comes to most dangerous products—be they drugs, cigarettes or fast cars—this newspaper advocates a more liberal approach than the American government does. But when it comes to handguns, automatic weapons and other things specifically designed to kill people, we believe control is necessary, not least because the failure to deal with such violent devices often means that other freedoms must be curtailed. Instead of a debate about guns, America is now having a debate about campus security.

Americans are in fact queasier about guns than the national debate might suggest. Only a third of households now have guns, down from 54% in 1977. In poll after poll a clear majority has supported tightening controls. Very few Americans support a complete ban, even of handguns—there are too many out there already, and many people reasonably feel that they need to be able to protect themselves. But much could still be done without really infringing that right.

The assault-weapons ban should be renewed, with its egregious loopholes removed. No civilian needs an AK-47 for a legitimate purpose, but you can buy one online for $379.99. Guns could be made much safer, with the mandatory fitting of child-proof locks. A system of registration for guns and gun-owners, as exists in all other rich countries, threatens no one but the criminal. Cooling-off periods, a much more open flow of intelligence, tighter rules on the trading of guns and a wider blacklist of those ineligible to buy them would all help.

Many of these things are being done by cities or states, and have worked fairly well. But jurisdictions with tough rules are undermined by neighbours with weak ones. Only an effort at the federal level will work. Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, has put together a coalition of no fewer than 180 mayors to fight for just that. Good luck to him.

What don't you understand about "Shall not be infringed"?

O.K., let's suppose ad arguendo the Second Amendment has nothing to do with the Militia.

The wording is indeed "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

That is "the People" as in "We the People", which meant that the constitution was written by the entire population of the United States who came to Philadelphia to be part of this momentous occasion, instead of a small, elite band.

People being an individual as in "he be my people".

Funny, I always thought people was plural. It's hard to imagine it referring to an individual.

Anyway, people is an individual. I know that's not really grammatical or makes sense, but we have to believe that "People" refers to an individual.

It's all part of the argument.

It is the right of this people, as an individual "to keep and bear arms". Keep means exactly that, you can possess them. Bear also means that, you can have them out an open.

Arms. Those are military weapons and "this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government" according to St.George Tucker.

According to the Supreme Court in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."..."With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."

Now, given that language it's safe to assume that "Arms" means some form of military weapon, and not hunting or target firearms.

This means any weapon which is in use by the military! That means I can own a thermonuclear device, howitzer, rocket launcher, etcetera.

"Infringe" means to violate or invalidate.

"Shall not" is imperitive.

That means any individual can own a thermonuclear device. the government can't regulate that.

This means criminals cannot be barred from owning firearms, unless they lose their rights as citizens (Dred Scott and Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990)).

As the saying goes "What don't you understand about "Shall not be infringed"?"

Now, isn't that plain off silly? I would like to think most people who support their "Second Amendment Rights" would agree that SOME form of regulation is possible, which means they don't really understand "Shall not be infringed".

"Shall not be infringed" means precisely that, that this right cannot be abrogated.

Does that make any sense to you?

This is made even sillier when one considers that individuals are supposed to be able to have arms so that they can wage war on the government if they feel oppressed.

Never mind the Consitution Article III, Section 3 states: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

Oh, yes, it's the "patriots" who make this argument.

More Second Amendment

I found this in my research. It is particularly appropriate.

So, since I am feeling lazy today.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND GUN CONTROL: A SKEPTICAL VIEW
by Steve Gustafson
Please distribute this text freely

Just like science, the law also knows its paradoxers and eccentrics. What a good society is, or what the law ought to be, are questions aboutwhich reasonable people can always differ, as no ultimate evidence canbe brought to bear on either of them. What the law now -is-, though, isa question that can be decided by reference to authoritative sources open to all who wish to consult them.

As such, it is possible to say that the law knows cranks andcrackpots, people who insist on exploded theories long after they havebeen decisively falsified. A person who claimed that individual stateshad the right to secede from the United States, or nullify legitimatelypassed Federal legislation, would certainly deserve the label of"crank." Whatever sophisms he could put forth in favour of thosepositions have been decisively rejected by both law and history; thoughthey may once have been viable positions, they are no longer.

Other legal cranks claim that various aspects of United Statescurrency, dollars unredeemable for gold, or the Federal Reserve Banks,or other financial institutions, are unconstitutional. Despite the factthat proponents of this nonsense are inveterate litigators and some havefiled literally dozens of lawsuits to establish these claims, they havebeen universally rejected by the courts. [See, e.g., HANSON v. GOODWIN(1977) 432 F. Supp 853; PETH v. BREITZMANN (1985) 611 F. Supp 50]

Some of the people who make these claims have tawdry and venal goals,trying to escape paying their taxes or mortgages, or other obvious sortsof self-interest. On the other hand, these claims are oftenorchestrated by dangerous and evil anti-Semitic cults, aligned withneo-Nazism, holocaust revisionism, and the more homicidal forms ofquackery. These groups proselytize for these false beliefs, hoping byan appeal to self-interest to suck in people for their neo-Nazimovements. When these claims meet universal rejection, this is held tobe evidence of the Jewish "conspiracy" at work.

I. CURRENT LAW FINDS NO INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO FIREARMS IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT, MUCH LESS THE RIGHT TO A STATE OF ARMED ANARCHY THAT IS SOMETIMES CLAIMED.

Then there are those who claim that the 2nd Amendment to the U. S.Constitution gives them a right to own handguns or other firearms, andprevents regulation of gun ownership, licencing, waiting periods, andother proposals for gun control. Like the gold standard advocates,their claims make an intuitive appeal to the way things allegedly werein the distant past. The minutemen and Indian fighters of old needed tohave guns at their side to repel attacks, right? And it was just suchmen who whupped the redcoats, right? So no matter how times havechanged, the Founding Fathers enshrined in the Constitution a right toguns equal to that needed in those days.

Whatever the merits of arguments for or against gun control, claimsof a Second Amendment individual right to own a handgun or any otherparticular firearm are simply false. Those claims have typically metwith universal rejection by courts that have considered them. In short,those who claim under the Second Amendment a Federal constitutionalright to own firearms are as much cranks as the people who claim aconstitutional right to a gold standard.

The Courts have generally held that the 2nd Amendment's purpose wasto guarantee the integrity of militias organized by the states, not toconfer an individual right to firearms. Moreover, any rights created bythe 2nd Amendment have not been applied to the States through theFourteenth Amendment, the true source of the enforceability of portionsof the Bill of Rights against the States.

The Second Amendment to the U. S. Constitution was ratified by theStates on Dec. 15, 1791. It provides that "A well regulated Militia,being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the peopleto keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The militia was or is a group of citizens volunteering or legallycompelled to turn out for active military service upon order of theseveral States. For purposes of federal law, it is defined as all malesbetween the ages of 17 and 45 who are or intend to become citizens. [10U.S.C. 31]

The Congress shall have Power. . .

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the

Militia according to the Discipline provided by Congress. . .

[U. S. Const. art. 1, sec. 8, cl. 15-16] The President is Commander inChief of all the state militias when they are called into service of theUnited States. [U. S. Const. art. 2 sec. 2, cl. 1) When the Presidentis not exercising this authority, it is usually held by the governors ofthe several states or territories. (Cf., Northwest Ordinance of 1787,ss. 6; Indiana Const. art. 5, sec. 12)

From the foregoing, it is apparent that the Federal Government hasbroad authority to prescribe rules and regulations for any militia,active or inactive. Believers in a 2nd Amendment individual right tofirearms point only to the Amendment, and claim that everyone isautomatically deemed to be in the militia. At minimum, these argumentsare unavailable to women, or to senior citizens.

More importantly, they duplicitously ignore Congressional authorityover any alleged militia conferred by article 3. Reading this inconnection with the 2nd Amendment, it should be clear that membership inthe militia confers no individual rights. Quite the opposite, it-subjects- you to Congressional authority over what sort of arms, ifany, you are entitled to bear. You are subject to whatever disciplineCongress chooses to provide for the militia. You have no right to aweapon that Congress doesn't want you to have.

As such, any legislation made by Congress that restricts oreliminates the availability of a given weapon is authorized, evenagainst those who claim the status of militiamen, given the power ofCongress to discipline the militia. Indeed, Congress could under thisgrant of authority decide to completely disarm the militia, or providethat the only weapons they were allowed are slings or spears. You getno Constitutional rights from a claim of militia status; you becomesubject to such military discipline as Congress and the States choose toenforce against you.

Indeed, in light of these broad grants of military authority that youare potentially subject to, it strikes me as rather reassuring to knowthat any 2nd Amendment "rights" do not constrain the States through the14th amendment.

It is now well settled that some, but not all, of the provisions ofthe Bill of Rights also curb the authority of the States by means of the14th Amendment's due process clause. Not all of them are: the 5thAmendment requirement of an indictment by grand jury for crimes does notapply to the States, for example.

And, any right to bear arms created by the 2nd Amendment does notapply to the States, either. See, e.g., KELLOGG v. CITY OF GARY (1990)Ind., 562 N.E.2d 685, 692. As such, the states remain free to restrictor ban any firearms in the exercise of their general powers to legislatefor the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens. The SecondAmendment poses no obstacles to such legislation. See, e.g., NEWHAMPSHIRE v SANNE (1976) 364 A.2d 630.

Moreover, for more than a hundred years the United States SupremeCourt has held that the Second Amendment does not grant any individualrights; but rather, it is "a limitation only upon the power of Congressand the National Government. . ." PRESSER v. ILLINOIS (1886) 116 U.S.252, 265. There is no Federally guaranteed right to bear arms for anylawful purpose that is granted by the U. S. Constitution. UNITED STATESv. CRUIKSHANK (1876) 92 U.S. 542.

Likewise, in UNITED STATES v. MILLER (1939) 307 U.S. 174, the UnitedStates Supreme Court held that concerns over safety and concealmentallowed Congress to require registration of sawed-off shotgunstransported across state lines, despite claims that the Federal law inquestion was an attempt to usurp the States' police power, or that the2nd Amendment gave individuals a right to such a weapon.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of [a sawed-off shotgun]. . . at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.



MILLER, 307 U.S. at 178. It is true that the United States Supreme Court has not oftenconsidered the scope of any claims of Second Amendment rights. Some haveattempted to use this silence as implying that some right might exist.In fact, the Supreme Court has broad discretion to decide what cases areworth its time to hear. It is likelier to take up an issue when it seeswidely different standards being applied by lower courts.

On the Second Amendment, though, the Supreme Court is confronted withno such differences of legal opinion. Instead, a survey of currentdecisions shows instead that there is an Amen chorus of agreement thatthe Federal constitution poses no obstacles to gun control.

The courts instead say that the 2nd Amendment guarantees a collectiveright of political organizations to form militias, not an individualright to a firearm. UNITED STATES v. WARIN (1976 6th Cir.) 530 F.2d103; UNITED STATES v. JOHNSON (1974 4th Cir.), 497 F.2d 548. Itprotects state militias, not personal firearms. UNITED STATES v. NELSEN(1988 8th Cir.) 859 F.2d 1318; CASES v. UNITED STATES (1942 1st Cir.)131 F.2d 916, cert. den. Its only purpose is to prevent Congress frominterfering with State militias, and has no bearing on regulation offirearms for public safety or the general welfare. UNITED STATES v.HALE (1992 8th Cir.) 978 F.2d 1016.

The Second Amendment poses no obstacle to state or local laws thatsubstantially burden or completely ban handguns for safety and welfarereasons. QUILICI v. VILLAGE OF MORTON GROVE (1982 7th Cir.) 695 F.2d261, cert. den.; SKLAR v. BYRNE (1984 7th Cir.) 727 F.2d 633. Technicalmembership in an inactive state militia does not confer a right to ownan unregistered submachine gun. UNITED STATES v. OAKES (10th Cir.) 564F.2d 384. To claim a right under the Second Amendment, you must be inactive duty in a militia organized by a state, rather than a merelyprivate organization or a person theoretically subject to militiaservice. VIETNAMESE FISHERMAN'S ASSOCIATION v. KNIGHTS OF THE KU KLUXKLAN (1982 S. D. Tex.) 543 F.Supp 198.

Read 'em and weep, NRA members. You cannot even glimpse at thismaterial without forming the conclusion that anybody who has told youthat you have a Second Amendment right, enforceable in court, topurchase and keep a firearm free from gun control legislation --- hasbeen telling you a lie. I'm not talking about the rhetoric fromAmerican Revolution veterans. I'm talking about what the courts say anddo in the here and now. It just ain't so.

To sum up:

The Second Amendment offers no protection against Congressionalregulation or banning of weapons that still allow state militias inactive duty to be armed. Indeed, Congress has the right to prescribewhat weapons, if any, such militias will be authorized to bear.

The Second Amendment offers no protection against the regulation orbanning of weapons by the States. The Second Amendment does notrestrict the police powers of the States in any way, because it does notapply to the States. The States may decide that some or all firearmsare threats to health and public safety, and restrict or ban them forthose reasons, notwithstanding the Second Amendment.

Former Chief Justice Warren Burger, hardly a bleeding heart liberal,has called the belief that the Second Amendment guarantees an individualright to firearms one of the biggest frauds perpetrated on the Americanpublic by a special interest group. Whatever your opinion on thedesirability of guns or an armed citizenry, given the current status oflegal precedents, his assessment of the situation is correct.

II. THE FEDERALIST PAPERS OUGHT NOT TO BE CITED SO AS TO GIVE AID AND COMFORT TO THE PROPONENTS OF ARMED ANARCHY.

In the course of the endless debate on whether the 2nd Amendmentcreates a Federal constitutional right to own handguns or otherfirearms, some have claimed that the Federalist Papers contain supportfor these claims. In those documents, it is said, the Founding Fathersexpressed their support for an individual right to own firearms. What Iknow of history made me skeptical of those claims, so I looked into it.

These arguments only work on people who are unfamiliar with both theFederalist Papers and the history surrounding them. The claimsgenerally fall into two categories:

First, that the Federalist Papers ought to be interpreted as an expression of the intent of the Framers to create an individual right to gun ownership by the 2nd Amendment; or

Second, that the Papers contain expressions of confidence by the Framers that guns in the hands of private individuals are a bulwark against government tyranny.

The first claim is easily refuted. The Federalist Papers are a poorsource for any information about the intentions of the authors of theBill of Rights. They are suspect on these grounds because the authorswere not advocating the passage of the Bill of Rights; it was not partof the proposal they were defending. Indeed, they argued at length inthe Federalist Papers that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary. In -TheFederalist No. 84-, Hamilton says:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous.

Are these authors then reliable guides for the interpretation of anypart of the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd amendment? It would seemnot so.

The second claim is that the Federalist Papers contain expressionsby the Constitution's original authors, that guns in the hands ofprivate individuals are an important bulwark against tyranny. If youequate "militia" with "anybody" like the NRA would have us do, there aresome passages that could be read as supporting this theory. On theother hand, to read the Federalist Papers is to realize how wrong theNRA is about the nature of a militia.

What people were in fact debating in the days of the FederalistPapers was: are standing armies desirable? Will a standing army beturned into an instrument of tyranny against the people? Will astanding army be turned by the Federal Government proposed by theConstitution to purposes of foreign military adventurism?

Madison, replying to these criticisms, wrote words that might beread as supporting the NRA position:

The only refuge left for those who prophecy the downfall of the State Governments, is the visionary supposition that the Foederal Government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. . .

[After estimating the number of professional soldiers he thought the country could support at the time at 30,000 maximum, Madison continued---]

To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.

(The Federalist, no. 46)

It should first be noticed that the militia imagined by Madison bearslittle resemblance to the ghostly force imagined by the NRA. Themilitia here has officers. It is commanded by state governments. It isnot a mere assembly of self-proclaimed irregulars.

It should also be noted that, whatever confidence Madison had inmilitias, these words give no succour to those who would claim that heintended an -individual- right to own any firearm she pleased. Instead,the liberties defended by the militias here don't belong to anyindividuals, but to the several States.

If we are delving into history as far back as the Federalist Papersto interpret the Constitution, it makes little sense to ignore one majorevent that calls Madison's line of argument above into question: theCivil War. After the Civil War, it seems idle to suggest that statemilitias have a scheme in the Constitutional system to check the Federalgovernment by making war against it. Whatever the 2nd Amendment mightgive to the States, later precedent seems to have taken it away.

Finally, it should be conceded that the critics to whom Madison wasreplying were themselves closer to being right than he is. For betteror for worse, we now have a standing professional army. TheConstitution's stricture that a standing army can only be funded for twoyears at a time has been an inadequate check to the growth of theprofessional military establishment. The standing army's advantages inarmament are great enough that it seems hard to imagine that any militiafielded by an aggrieved state government could overcome it, despiteMadison's confidence.

Madison's critics were also right, in that the Federal government'sstanding army has indeed become an instrument of both harshauthoritarian rule, and foreign military adventurism, as they feared.Gun control is not as great a threat to our freedoms, as compared withthe threat of being hauled into boot camp against your will into themilitary service of the Federal government. If Madison and Hamilton ortheir critics had foreseen that, the Constitution never would havepassed.

The Federal government's power to dragoon people into its armies haswithin recent memories been used to support military adventures abroad.The national security establishment has been a major source ofrestrictions on Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, and thepersecution of people for their political opinions. These things werethe very dangers the Anti-Federalists warned us of.

Among those who noisily insist on their alleged right to guns, itseems to me that "national security," military patriotism, and the Flagoften achieve the rank of sacred totems. These beliefs suggest thatMadison's arguments and concerns are an imperfect fit to contemporarypolitical debates. Love of guns for many is not inconsistent withunquestioning support of an authoritarian, centralized military.

Indeed, given what Madison was in fact saying, it would bemealy-mouthed hypocrisy for somebody to cite the Federalist Papers insupport of a right to own guns, and to turn around and label our President Clinton a "draft-dodger," as if that's honourable.

In conclusion:

The Federalist Papers shed no light on what the 2nd Amendment to the U. S. Constitution might mean.

The Federalist Papers do not claim that an armed citizenry in and of itself is an important restraint on tyranny.

The Federalist Papers do support the claim that organized State militias may be a check on the military adventurism or usurpations of the Federal government. After the Civil War, this claim is no longer tenable; given changes in the hardware required for war, it is probably utopian.

III. OTHER MISLEADING, OUT OF CONTEXT QUOTES FROM AMERICAN REVOLUTIONARIES ARE OFTEN CITED IN AN ATTEMPT TO JUSTIFY ARMED ANARCHY.

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the _real_ object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" --- Patrick Henry

This is typical of one of those out of context quotes that are oftenrepeated in gun lobby propaganda. Patrick Henry was not arguing for aright of anybody to own any weapon for any private purpose here.

Observe the pronoun without a reference in the first line. The editorwho would puff this as a pro-gun-anarchy quote chose not to leave in areference to who the "we" are that Patrick refers to here. In context,"we" are not people in general, but the Virginia House of Burgesses.

The issue under discussion was whether the Constitution proposed bythe Federalists should be ratified by Virginia. The specific issueunder discussion was the broadened military powers granted the Federalgovernment by the Constitution. The Constitution allowed the Federalgovernment to raise armies. The Articles of Confederation made raisingarmies a responsibility of the States, who typically had more or lesstrained militias; the Federal government had limited powers to mobilizethem.

Henry was specifically against the section of the Constitution thatgave Congress the power to organize, arm, and discipline state militias.(Article 1, section 8, clause 16) This is what he was talking aboutwhen he mentioned "having our arms under the management of Congress."Not gun control or licensing as a safety or anti-crime measure.

Indeed, if you imagine that you have gun rights as a member of anorganized or irregular "militia," the Constitution gives Congress powerto decide what arms you can bear and the terms of your discipline.Licensing for safety would be one reasonable way for Congress toexercise its explicitly granted power.

For what it's worth, Patrick Henry was on the losing side of thisargument. As an anti-Federalist, he opposed the Constitution and thestronger government it was intended to create. Virginia did end upratifying the Federal constitution on June 26, 1788, although the votein Virginia was close. Even if you read it in support of private gunsrather than state armies, Henry's statements carry little weight todetermine the mind of the authors of the Constitution itself.

You can believe what you wish about the worthwhileness of guns or theundesirability of any or all measures for gun control. But I find itvexing to constantly see out-of-context quotes, distorted history, andmisstatements of the law being dragged into this endless argument.

"THE Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of con- science; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms". (Samuel Adams, Debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87.)

Another quote from an anti-Federalist; in Adams's case he originallyopposed ratification of the Constitution as well. His statements hereare certainly not conclusive; and, again, he was talking about thekeeping of arms for military purposes, not private ones.

I will admit that the Founding Fathers hoped or imagined that astanding army would not be necessary. They believed that it would bepolitically dangerous, and a temptation to foreign interventionism.They imagined that America would be adequately defended by a "militia"constructed on lines similar to the Swiss system. While they thoughtthat everybody would have a rifle to bring and participate in thissystem, they also thought that everyone would be required to drill andacquire at least some minimal military competence.

Over time, it didn't work out that way. Universal militia service collapsed around the 1820's; people just weren't obeying the laws thatrequired them to appear and drill, &c. The next step was to organizelocal regiments of volunteers that formed the core of what was to becomethe National Guard. This was the main body of American arms up untilthe Spanish-American War; although in heavy fighting such as the Civil War this model proved inadequate as well. Still, up until World War IIwe kept the faith of the Founding Fathers that Federal armies should be kept small in times of peace, and in strict subordination to the civil power.

Since World War II, we have had a large standing army in permanent establishment; and as such most of the dangers warned against by theFounding Fathers have come to pass. One quote from Samuel Adams thatfor some reason gets passed over by the NRA or the American Legion comesto mind ---

Soldiers are used to obey the absolute commands of their superiors: It is death to them, in the field, to dispute their authority, or the rectitude of their orders; and sometimes they may be shot upon the spont without ceremony. The necessity of things makes it highly proper that they should be under the absolute control of the officer who commands them; who saith unto one come, and he cometh, and to another go, and he goeth. Thus, being inured to that sort of government in the field and in the time of war, they are too apt to retain the same idea, when they happen to be in civil communities and in a time of peace. [Boston Gazette, Dec. 12, 1768]

It is worthwhile to recall these words when confronted with thep oliticking of veterans' organizations, or their pretense to define by their authoritarian model the One True Patriotism.

We now see the military actively politicking, as view their attempts to claim the nation would be endangered were their budget cut or their numbers reduced; consider also their resistance to their Commander inChief's instructions to end institutional hostility to homosexuals.Veterans' organizations pretend to define the One True Patriotism according to their authoritarian model of following orders.

Instead of the volunteer militias to defend hearth and home imagined by the Founding Fathers, we were given the monstrous tyranny of Selective Service. Today's would-be tyrants claim that the One True Patriotism consisted of unquestioning obedience to its orders, and paint resistance to that loathsome bureaucracy as suspect! In fact, the Selective Service press gangs raised troops for exactly the sort of foreign adventures our founding fathers condemned.

At its most grandiose, it hoped to become an instrument of a national labour and industrial policy that sought to coerce us into a socialist military state. During the dark days of conscription, it was anexplicit national policy to use the threat of forced military service asa club to compel people to make career decisions that favoured thegovernment's idea of what was useful to it, rather than their own interests. Remember General Hershey's infamous "channelling" memo of 1965:

In the less patriotic and more selfish individual it engenders a sense of fear, uncertainty, and dissatisfaction which motivates him, nevertheless, in the same direction. He complains of the uncertainty he must endure; he would like to be able to do as he pleases; he would appreciate a certain future with no prospect of military service or civilian contribution, but he complies with the needs of the national health, safety, or interest --- or he is denied deferment. . .

From the individual's viewpoint, he is standing in a room which has been made uncomfortably warm. Several doors are open, but they all lead to various forms of recognized, patriotic service to the Nation. Some accept the alternatives gladly --- some with reluctance. The consequence is approximately the same.

[The Selective Service: Its Concepts, History, and Operation (Govt.Printing Office, Sept. 1967)] Remember those words the next time you hear the "anti-socialist" rhetoric of professional flagwavers. Remember these words the next time you hear President Clinton being condemned as a "draft-dodger." I submit that "draft-dodgers" were the people who were actually keeping the spirit of our Founding Fathers alive, rather than the latter-day Hessians or Prussians who think obedience to orders is praiseworthy.

In any case, when our Founding Fathers spoke of keeping and bearing arms, they meant for military purposes, under the control of governments and for purpose of national defence. To try and twist their remarks into support for private guns for private purposes is to take them seriously out of context.