Double speak and lies
September 23rd, 2008 by Brian Withnell
One of the things I can’t stomach about almost any politician is double speak: saying one thing that clearly means something other than what you mean. The Demoncrats are at it in spades with this paragraph from their platform document (page 50).
Firearms
We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we ill preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that he right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce commonsense laws and improvements – like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system, and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Acting responsibly and with respect for differing views on this issue, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.
The second amendment clearly states that the people have an individual right to arms, and if anything, those arms should be what would clearly be useful in self-defense and defense of a family. The rights of the people are not contingent upon location. The rights of those in Cheyenne clearly do apply to those in Chicago, as long as both are within the United States.
The Democrats what to change the constitution, but not through constitutional means. In a sense, they are traitors to the constitution. Pragmatism is no excuse. Even if “what works in Cheyenne may not work in Chicago” that is beside the point. The rights are not given based on “what works” or what does not work. If change is needed, the change is to be done through amendment … not through laws or even the court (I suppose I should make that “The Court”). Changes to the constitution through any other means is not upholding the constitution, it is subversion of the constitution.
Those “common sense laws” are neither common, nor sensible. There is no “gun show loophole” in that ordinary citizens are allowed to sell their personal property anywhere they want. While nobody wants to sell guns to criminals, any sane man will not want to give up liberty for security. Liberals tend to see that as stop the government from knowing what I do, restrict police in their ability to search, wiretap, read internet communications. For these they see “do not give up liberty for security” as a good thing. But there is another side to that same thought. The right to own just about any personal firearm is a liberty which we enjoy. Those that want to restrict it for security (even if that security was in fact real) are doing exactly what they don’t want in another context. They fear a “police state” that is intrusive into their personal lives, yet they hold no fear for a police state (or criminals) in an even broader sense. How foolish to fear the government has too much power in one case, and then want to give the government even more power in the other. How forgetful of history.
The Democratic platform is one of fear. Fear based on a premise that the goverment is the only one you can trust to take care of problems. If someone has a problem, the government should fix it. Insecure people that have no sense of self-reliance and self-determination. People that think 2 minute response times for police calls is more than enough (until they are the ones that have someone taking a baseball bat to their head in 20 seconds–but they won’t think it too long for very long … they will be dead.)
If people are going to have such fears and insecurity that they feel they must live with everyone they know unarmed they should move to a true police state. (By the way, it won’t be everyone around them disarmed, because even the most staunch gun control advocate still sees a need for the police to have guns, and some of them do go bad.) They want to force their views on others. They are so insecure they become intolerant. I fully respect someone for believing they are either incapable, or even just don’t want to, carry a gun. What I don’t respect is that person attempting to force others into the same position.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, September 23rd, 2008 at 10:40 pm and is filed under 2nd Amendment, Campaign 2008. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
September 24th, 2008 at 7:39 am
I must disagree in one aspect, Brian, and that is that, “if anything, those arms should be what would clearly be useful in self-defense and defense of a family.”
Allow me to quote the relevant passage in UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939):
The Second Amendment protects our right to own MILITARY WEAPONS, not personal defense or hunting weapons. Thus, a ban on .22 LR rifles and pistols, .700 H&H Nitro Express Rifles, and other weapons used primarily for hunting would be constitutional, bans on select-fire weapons such as the M-16, M-14, and M-60 are not.
That is what REALLY scares the leftists — between the Heller decision’s saying the people have an INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms, and the Miller decision’s saying that the Second Amendment protects our right to have MILITARY firearms, they are really frightened.
Don’t worry about a ban on hunting weapons, either. An M-16 is a great varmint rifle, and the M-1 and M-14 are fantastic deer rifles.
September 24th, 2008 at 9:23 am
The M-1 and M-14, can be used for Elk as well.
September 24th, 2008 at 9:47 am
In fact, the .30-06 and .308 Winchester (7.62×51 NATO) used in the M-1 and M-14, respectively, are recommended for Moose in the 2008 Maine Moose Hunter’s Guide:
I cannot find it now, but I read one story of a Moose hunter in Maine who unloaded his Marlin .45-70 into a Moose at 100 yds. The beast just stood there as the hunter fired, and then wandered off into the marsh. So the guy figured he had missed, and something was wrong with his rifle. Still, he searched the place where the moose had been standing, and shortly found a blood-trail. He followed the trail a hundred yards or so, and the moose was quite dead. All four shots had hit the lungs! Any one would have killed the moose, but they just don’t die quickly.
September 24th, 2008 at 9:54 am
For sake of accuracy, the .308 Winchester and the 7.62×51 NATO are not exactly the same:
http://www.smellysmleshooters.net/ammopressure.htm
Although the external case specs are the same, the military brass tends to be thinker than civilian (saves the civilian manufacturers money) and tend to be “hotter” (ditto).
September 24th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Here is a wonderful treatise on the Second Amendment from the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.
September 24th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Also, the .308 Winchester was released in the civilian marketplace before the military adopted it as the 7.62×51.
September 24th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
I know what Miller said, but Heller states:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
That is on page one, prior to anything within the longer majority opinion (it is the “held” section on page one of the decision). While Miller stated, but Heller being the later, and more relevant to personal defense (Miller did not address that at all) Heller would supersede Miller in the case of prohibiting firearms for self-defense or the defense of the family.
September 25th, 2008 at 7:22 am
While the USSC ruled in Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, nothing was said about how strongly that right is protected. That level of protection is where the next court battle(s) will be fought.
There are three standards of judicial review applied to rights:
- Strict scrutiny is the most stringent and applies to the First and Fourth Amendments.
- Intermediate scrutiny is met if a regulation involves important governmental interests that are furthered by substantially related means. It is used most for “Title IX” regulations.
- Rational Basis Review, the least stringent, is applied by asking whether the governmental action at issue is a rational means to an end that may be legitimately pursued by government.
By using the phrase “reasonable regulation” in its platform documents, the DNC is indicating that it (and thus, the people in the Party) believe that the Second Amendment protection is subject to the lowest level of scrutiny, which is really no protection at all.
September 25th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Sterling,
None of the bill of rights are less that strict scrutiny. Even if a future court decides otherwise, the bill of rights was put in place because it those rights were so fundamental that the founding fathers wanted to place them beyond any restrictions of law.
There were those that did not believe the bill of rights should have been written, but not because they thought those right enumerated should ever be restricted, but because they felt that enumerating some would put other rights open to question and regulation that should not have been regulated. The debate was not over should these rights be less strongly protected (strict scrutiny) but should they enumerate any lest other rights be trampled that also should have protection. Ultimately, the 10th was used to limit the power of government (not that it has done any good) so all rights would be protected.
September 26th, 2008 at 12:16 am
Well put, Brian, but you’re talking about the 9th Amendment. The 10th is reserving power to the states and the people.
September 26th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Brian - while I agree that none of the bill of rights should be subject to less than strict scrutiny, sadly, there are legislators and judges who don’t agree. Until the USSC makes a ruling on it, there will be court battles.
October 6th, 2008 at 12:32 am
Jack,
I was talking about the 10th. The 10th says in essence that anything the government doesn’t have a charter to do within the constitution is outside the power of the federal government; i.e., “Those powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the states and the people.” What that clearly means is that the federal government is violating the bill of rights if they do anything that are not delegated to the United States. Can anyone say “Department of Education”?
October 6th, 2008 at 6:53 am
By your statement,
I took you to be referring to the 9th Amendment, which says,