Bill Maher Throws Cold Water On Gun Control. It's Not Going To Change Anything

[Crow]

Fellow Cascadian, Joe, has made his opinion clear in the last two threads, and I absolutely respect him for it..... However, I think it's time for another Cascadian to chime in with a different perspective.

------------

You will probably need to wear headphones or crank the volume up on this clip... The volume is soft on the video.

Bill Maher nails it home... Yes, if we COULD stop the violence through bans; I would be all for it. But such an idea is not rooted in reality. We are not a country where you can give a right one day, and take it away the next, and not expect any consequences from the populace.

[stubby2]

But notice what is said about the 2nd amendment. Owning firearms is not a right guaranteed in the constitution as often implied by pro-gun advocates. Actually it is, but you would have to be part of a militia, and a well regulated militia.

I don't have a problem with people owning guns, but to claim it is a constitutional right is a fallacy.

[Crow]

But notice what is said about the 2nd amendment. Owning firearms is not a right guaranteed in the constitution as often implied by pro-gun advocates. Actually it is, but you would have to be part of a militia, and a well regulated militia.

I don't have a problem with people owning guns, but to claim it is a constitutional right is a fallacy.

That would have been a valid claim to make a few years ago...

However, since McDonald v. Chicago in 2010, the Supreme Court gave their interpretation, and the holding is as follows:

The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self defense in one's home is fully applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded.

(( I should note that this didn't clarify the second amendment once and for all... But, it made things a little less murky; in favor of individual right ))

[stubby2]

From my understanding, and I am not a lawyer, It clarified the right to protect ones home, but it did not open the flood gates to unlimited rights to own anything and everything. It is extremely unlikely it will ever be legal to own a service to air rocket launchers, grenade launchers, grenades, attack helicopters, etc, etc. There certainly will be limits on the right to bare arms.

The question is going to be where the line is drawn and that will happen in the courts. The question isn't, as often mistaken by pro-gun people, that the people have a absolute right to own any type of weapon the want with no restrictions.

[Crow]

From my understanding, and I am not a lawyer, It clarified the right to protect ones home, but it did not open the flood gates to unlimited rights to own anything and everything. It is extremely unlikely it will ever be legal to own a service to air rocket launchers, grenade launchers, grenades, attack helicopters, etc, etc. There certainly will be limits on the right to bare arms.

The question is going to be where the line is drawn and that will happen in the courts. The question isn't, as often mistaken by pro-gun people, that the people have a absolute right to own any type of weapon the want with no restrictions.

I never said (or implied) that it opens access to all sorts of weapons.

I said that it clarified things a bit (explicitly allowing individuals to defend themselves with arms, as opposed to the argument that the Second Amendment ONLY applies to "state militias".)

I think Penn summed it up nicely (re: the whole "only applies to state militia" argument)...

[stubby2]

I never said (or implied) that it opens access to all sorts of weapons.

I said that it clarified things a bit (explicitly allowing individuals to defend themselves with arms, as opposed to the argument that the Second Amendment ONLY applies to "state militias".)

I think Penn sums it up nicely (re: the whole "only applies to state militia" argument)...

My opinion of Penn is pretty low. Why the qualifier of the well regulated militia? If the writers of the constitution wanted unlimited rights for the people to bare arms there would have been no reason to add the qualifier of a well regulated militia. It has absulutly no place in the sentence if that was the intent. Just so anyone reading this knows, the McDonald v. Chicago case was not an unanimous decision. It was a close one at 5-4. Opinions still vary.

Other then that I pretty much agree with you.

As you stated earlier, McDonald v. Chicago does give the people the right to defend themselves with a handgun, but at this point it is limited. No doubt future court cases will decide where the line is drawn as to what the people can own as far as firearms.

[Crow]

My opinion of Penn is pretty low. Why the qualifier of the well regulated militia? If the writers of the constitution wanted unlimited rights for the people to bare arms there would have been no reason to add the qualifier of a well regulated militia. It has absulutly no place in the sentence if that was the intent. Just so anyone reading this knows, the McDonald v. Chicago case was not an unanimous decision. It was a close one at 5-4. Opinions still vary.

Penn is a Libertarian, and he speaks with passion (that usually pisses off his "opponents").. Do I agree with him politically? No, not really. But I would say we have similar means goals.

When it comes to politics, we've got very little in common.

Penn aside... The 5-4 decision went along ideological lines... We have a conservative-leaning court. I recognise that this is a partisan/ideological issue, and a large segment of the party have their minds set on achieving their end goals of gun control... It doesn't mean I agree with it.

Why the bit about a 'well-regulated militia'? Because the two go hand in hand.

The intent of the forefathers was to ensure individual states (and its citizens) were well-armed; should the government turn tyrannical. Some fellow liberals will be quick to discredit your logic by claiming your paranoia. It's a method of political attack that I am aware of, but I disagree with wholeheartedly. However, it's worth keeping in mind that all institutions have their own methods of procedure.

Other then that I pretty much agree with you.

As you stated earlier, McDonald v. Chicago does give the people the right to defend themselves with a handgun, but at this point it is limited. No doubt future court cases will decide where the line is drawn as to what the people can own as far as firearms.

That's right, it is still limited (that's why I said it only cleared the murk a bit). And you are correct, there will be future court cases when it comes to firearms. It's almost impossible to envision a scenario where that doesn't happen.

-----------

I should probably point out that in no way, shape or form, do I believe that the government is turning tyrannical. I'm just pointing out the intent of the amendment as the forefathers designed it.

[stubby2]

If you want some entertainment do a bit on reading on the militia act of 1792

The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. Militia members were to arm themselves with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.[5] Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. Otherwise, men were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall.

It goes on and on as to what exactly is a militia. The direct descendent of the militia is the national guard. I don't know how relevant it is to the current discussion but it does give some insight into the politics of the time.

[Crow]

If you want some entertainment do a bit on reading on the militia act of 1792

It goes on and on as to what exactly is a militia. The direct descendent of the militia is the national guard. I don't know how relevant it is to the current discussion but it does give some insight into the politics of the time.

That is interesting... I will have to read into the Militia Act further sometime.

Thanks for sharing that

[Crow]

That's the way the game is played.

[Zimobog]

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
******** ---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

[Zimobog]

[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.
******** ---Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

[Zimobog]

Roger Sherman, during House consideration of a militia bill (1790):

[C]onceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular states, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend, by force of arms, their rights, when invaded.
******** 14 Debates in the House of Representatives, ed. Linda Grand De Pauw. (Balt., Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1972), 92-3.

[Zimobog]

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States

[Zimobog]

"Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would. Nor is there anything in the common law of England ... inconsistent with that right."
John Adams(1735-1826) Founding Father, 2nd US President
Source: BOSTON GAZETTE, September 5, 1763, The Works of John Adams, p.438 (Charles F. Adams ed., 1851).