Conservative Wanderer

“A troubled and afflicted mankind looks to us, pleading for us to keep our rendezvous with destiny; that we will uphold the principles of self-reliance, self-discipline, morality, and, above all, responsible liberty for every individual that we will become that shining city on a hill.” — Ronald Wilson Reagan

Black Friday Takes On New Meaning

…and it’s not a good meaning.

Two people were gunned down and killed Friday inside a Toys R Us in Palm Desert, Calif., authorities said.

Riverside County sheriff’s Sgt. Dennis Gutierrez said Palm Desert police got a call saying shots had been fired inside the store around 11:35 a.m.

One juvenile is in custody, according to unconfirmed reports.

(emphasis in original)

Condolences to the family and friends of the victims.

That aside, it’s marvelous how those strict gun control laws in California stop this kind of thing, isn’t it?

Category: General Conservatism
Tag:
  • ministryofjackboots

    “That aside, it’s marvelous how those strict gun control laws in California stop this kind of thing, isn’t it?”

    Well, for that matter, I’d say that the statutes against murder are clearly unenforceable and should be wiped off the books. Probably the laws against drug use and sale, as well, since those activities proceed apace despite the fact that we have legislated against them.

  • http://conservativewanderer.wordpress.com/ Conservative Wanderer

    Show me where the Constitution shows that we have a right to murder, or to do drugs, and you might have a valid point. However, the Constitution clearly says that we have the right to keep and bear arms, so you’re comparing apples and oranges.

    Thanks for trying, tho.

  • ministryofjackboots

    Show me where the Constitution shows that we have a right to murder, or to do drugs, and you might have a valid point. However, the Constitution clearly says that we have the right to keep and bear arms, so you’re comparing apples and oranges.

    Well, no. The point of your post was not that gun controls were unconstitutional; rather, your point was that they were ineffective. How do I know? I’ll show you:

    Black Friday Takes On New Meaning

    …and it’s not a good meaning.

    Two people were gunned down and killed Friday inside a Toys R Us in Palm Desert, Calif., authorities said.

    Riverside County sheriff’s Sgt. Dennis Gutierrez said Palm Desert police got a call saying shots had been fired inside the store around 11:35 a.m.

    One juvenile is in custody, according to unconfirmed reports.

    (emphasis in original)

    Condolences to the family and friends of the victims.

    That aside, it’s marvelous how those strict gun control laws in California stop this kind of thing, isn’t it?

    See? That’s the whole post. Nowhere do you mention constitutionality, but you do mention ineffectiveness. Where? Here:


    it’s marvelous how those strict gun control laws in California stop this kind of thing, isn’t it?

    Maybe that’s not the point you intended to make, but that’s not my problem. In the real world, I’m stuck with responding to what you actually wrote, rather than what you wanted to write.

    Life’s hard.

    Apples vs. apples, and my apples win!

  • http://conservativewanderer.wordpress.com/ Conservative Wanderer

    Okay, I’m a secure enough adult to admit that might not have been the best point to try to make, and concede your victory on that point.

    Now, shall we discuss whether those anti-gun laws are constitutional?

  • ministryofjackboots

    Okay. Going right back to the original document, and ignoring all the stuff that has been said on either side for the past couple of hundred years, how do you get past the “well-regulated militia” part? Also: do you interpret “shall not be infringed” part to literally mean that all bets are off, and that the regulation of firearms in any way at all constitutes “infringement?”

  • http://conservativewanderer.wordpress.com/ PhyCon

    “Amendment II

    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.”

    ministry: Many of the problems I have always had with people who parse documents (including the Bible and Constitution) is they tend to forget a few things about language and time. Languages tend to drift over time and words, even ones in the same language, gain and/or lose meanings. So, while you may argue certain parsing of the 2nd Amendment, please follow a simple rule of thumb of mine: when looking at a document that was written many years ago and/or translated many a time, keep the ‘spirit’ of the document in mind before taking it piece by piece.

    From Roe v Wade’s decision words of “emanations from the penumbra” to “shall not be infringed” in the 2nd Amendment, these words are either “there” or “not there” in the documents. In the case of R v W, the ‘right to an abortion’ appeared to “emanate from the penumbra” for the majority decision writer. There is NO such specific right enumerated in the Constitution, yet a group of 5 Supremes agreed there was. With respect to the 2nd Amendment, the words “shall not be infringed” (and other phrases) exclude any legislation.

    Of course, that right has been infringed upon with legislation and policies. Perhaps we should, instead of just discussing a specific Amendment, look at the entire Constitution in spirit? Since this thread has been a bit more specific, I think a comparison with another piece could be fun.

    “Amendment I
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. ”

    Is there a difference between “Congress shall make no law” and “shall not be infringed”?

  • http://conservativewanderer.wordpress.com/ Conservative Wanderer

    Minister, there are several ways to look at the Second Amendment. One is to realize that, grammatically, the phrase “a well regulated militia” is subsidiary to the rule that the people will be permitted to keep and bear arms. The best exposition of this that I have found to date is from Professor Nelson Lund, Professor of Law at George Mason University… hardly a duffer when it comes to legal matters. I’ll excerpt a rather longish portion of his exposition on the subject (emphasis in original, though I had to reproduce it manually… apologies if I goofed on it):

    It should come as no surprise that there are so many obvious problems with reading the operative clause of the Second Amendment to protect any sort of right belonging to state governments. If the Constitution had simply provided that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” nobody could maintain with a straight face that the provision could mean anything other than that individuals have that right. Doubts about the plain and obvious meaning of that clause have been raised only because of the prefatory phrase “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . . . ”

    Before looking at these words more closely, we should pause to focus on a few things that the Second Amendment does not say:

    1. It emphatically does not say that it protects the right of the militia to keep and bear arms.

    2. Nor does the Second Amendment say that the people’s right to arms is sufficient to establish a well regulated militia, or that a well regulated militia is sufficient for the security of a free state.

    3. Nor does the Second Amendment say that the right of the people to keep and bears arms is protected only to the extent that such a right fosters a well regulated militia or the security of a free state.

    As these observations suggest, the grammar of the Second Amendment emphasizes the indefiniteness of the relation between the introductory participial phrase and the main clause. If you parse the Amendment, it quickly becomes obvious that the first half of the sentence is an absolute phrase (or ablative absolute) that does not modify or limit any word in the main clause. The usual function of absolute phrases is to convey information about the circumstances surrounding the statement in the main clause, such as its cause. For example: “The teacher being ill, class was cancelled.”

    The importance of this can be illustrated with a simple example. Suppose the Constitution provided:

    A well educated Electorate, being necessary to self-governance in a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.

    This provision, which is grammatically identical to the Second Amendment, obviously means the following: because a well educated electorate is necessary to the health of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed. The sentence does not say, imply, or even suggest that only registered voters have a right to books. Nor does the sentence say, imply, or even suggest that the right to books may be exercised only by state employees. Nor does the lack of identity between the electorate and the people create some kind of grammatical or linguistic tension within the sentence. It is perfectly reasonable for a constitution to give everyone a right to books as a means of fostering a well educated electorate. The goal might or might not be reached, and it could have been pursued by numerous other means. The creation of a general individual right, moreover, would certainly have other effects besides its impact on the electorate’s educational level. And lots of legitimate questions could be raised about the scope of the right to books. But none of this offers the slightest reason to be mystified by the basic meaning of the sentence.

    The Second Amendment is no different. Modern readers may have difficulty in seeing how a general right of individuals to keep and bear arms could contribute to a well regulated militia and to the security of a free state, and we shall explore that question in more detail below. But the text of the Second Amendment offers not the slightest warrant for presupposing that the answer to the question is that its framers were semi-literate fools who meant to say something like “The states shall have the right to maintain independent military forces for use against the federal government.”

    We should also recall, as Professor Lund points out later in his article, that a militia is different from an army. Therefore, the phrase about the militia does not in any way reflect the necessity of arming an army; the Constitution deals with the army separately.

    As for infringement, that’s a tough one, but I’d say that we should infringe on the Second Amendment about as much or little as we infringe on our other Constitutional rights… for instance, taking certain rights from convicted felons, such as the right to vote, doesn’t really bother me, nor does taking away their right to keep and bear arms. It’s when they start taking away the right of owning a gun from citizens who’ve never been convicted of anything more than speeding once in a while that I get a little uptight.