tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post5082266608009719855..comments2024-03-28T20:30:10.681-04:00Comments on southern orders: CROCODILE TEARS CAN'T BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY UNTIL THE PRESIDENT CRIES FOR THE UNBORN WHOM HE SACRIFICES TO A WOMAN'S CHOICE TO KILL EVEN WITH PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION--HIPOCRACY TO THE NTH DEGREE!Fr. Allan J. McDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16986575955114152639noreply@blogger.comBlogger66125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-15888731429715755512012-12-20T10:15:53.071-05:002012-12-20T10:15:53.071-05:00Templar, Your analysis of the cases seems logical ...Templar, Your analysis of the cases seems logical to me. Like I said, this isn't my area of legal expertise so I'll defer to you on that. I can certainly agree with your sentiment of state elitism leading to an erosion of rights (the 4th Amendment is a striking example of this that I encounter regularly in practice). <br /><br />I further agree that the mentally ill being "on the loose" is a problem. But, there is another issue there: how do we identify who is mentally ill? To do so in a widespread way would violate other rights (1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment rights, and eventually 8th Amendmet rights as well). In one of the cases I'm thinking of, for example, there was no indication of mental illness prior to the murder. In some others, there were clear indicators. Of course, we are never going to prevent all violence in this county or any other. <br /><br />Given the other rights implicated by the identification, seizure, and forced treatment of the mentally ill, I'm more comfortable eroding the 2nd Amendment than the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments. But, I really haven't put much thought into that question until you raised it. At first blush, though, I can see we share an understanding of the "problem" which at least forms the basis for a meaningful conversation about solutions. In that regard, we are light years ahead of the politicians and pundits!<br /><br />There are more illustrious legal scholars here than me. I'll defer to them. My practice is experiential (therefore perhaps of more limited import), there's more academic. So, their insight may be of widespread relevance. <br />Marcnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-18198740875105443022012-12-20T09:44:51.237-05:002012-12-20T09:44:51.237-05:00A2, as for your second point: I suppose I've a...A2, as for your second point: I suppose I've already answered that in my "If guns are outlawed" statement above. There are just so many darned guns in circulation both in America, with its porous borders, and in the world, that this jinn simply can't be put back into the bottle. I'm not even sure a police state could do it these days. Thus, any government attempt to eliminate (or even significantly reduce) the number of guns in circulation in the name of public safety would be overbroad and affect people in my position far more heavily than the aggressors out there.<br /><br />I sympathize with your Burkean conservatism. I have long subscribed to that school myself, though in recent years the classical liberal in me has been resurfacing a bit more. But on reflection, I would say that theory aside, in practice, the Burkean law and order model must be taken with a grain of salt. We currently have in America--and especially in inner cities, where I live--a curious mix of excessive government oversight in some areas, such as high taxation, real property regulation, and draconian water and sewerage administration, and lack of control in others, such as crime, control of school discipline, and of course the absolute right of a woman to kill her own--excuse me, control her own body. Thus, my concern about the aggressor in the bedroom door aren't nearly as hypothetical as I would like it to be. I can foresee, by not much of a stretch, a government attempt to take my weapons coincident with an aggressor's attempt to take my life.<br /><br />As for "common good," at some point the social contract model also breaks down. I think that to some degree (how much is debatable), my contribution to the common good must be an act of will on my part rather than being extracted forcibly from me by the government on the basis of a contract that I personally ever agreed to. Police states kill individuals without due process and without any consent in the name of the common good. From there it's a short step to states that let individuals die without due process and without any consent.Hammer of Fascistshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08647227447212096501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-45086730999057157702012-12-20T09:39:24.702-05:002012-12-20T09:39:24.702-05:00Marc; Actually prior to Heller no one had ever ac...Marc; Actually prior to Heller no one had ever actually challenged that the 2nd Amendnment meant what it explicitly stated. Prior to the rise of the Statist Elite in ths US I think we actually read the Bill of Rights. You are correct that I am no fan of the Roe v. Wade decision, but it is not analogous to Heller. In Heller the SCOTUS rendered a decision on what the 2nd Amendment Rights were. In Roe the SCOTUS created a right that doesn't exist in the Constitution (not even today). Not the same at all. Heller is "this what we think these words mean"; in Roe it's "this is what we think".<br /><br />I will not question your personal experiences, how can one logically do so, however isn't the problem really the Menatlly Ill acting violently and not what they act violent with? Why are the mentally ill loose on the streets? Why are they not identified and treated, and the rest of society protected from the threat they pose? <br /><br />Templarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204866760862707908noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-35817943952913102542012-12-20T09:21:24.809-05:002012-12-20T09:21:24.809-05:00A2,
Regarding point number 1: I'm in substant...A2,<br /><br />Regarding point number 1: I'm in substantial agreement with most of your statements here, including facts and policy goals. But I disagree with a few.<br /><br />First, yes, gun control can encompass many things other than gun bans, and to the extent that they're reasonable, I have no objection to them. We already have many state and federal regulations in this regard. I doubt they prevent school shootings, but perhaps they help with accidental deaths or crimes of passion.<br /><br />Second, my opposition to bans on particular types of weapons is driven primarily by a pragmatic belief that such bans would fail to reduce events like Connecticut's by any measurable degree (or even any degree at all), while at the same time opening the door to bans on more "legitimate" weapons.<br /><br />Third, yes, the shooter had a Bushmaster .223, which is essentially a civilian (and unless he modified it, a semi-automatic) version of the M-16. But he also carried Sig and Glock handguns. I in fact do have some familiarity with weapons (being a Southern boy), and in close quarters such as a school room or hallway, the Bushmaster really doesn't have much, if any, advantage over these two handguns. It has more power, but it's slower to aim, harder to conceal while getting to the scene, and has a larger ammo transportation problem. It can certainly be used in such circumstances and to deadly effect, but if I were doing it, I wouldn't use one, and I don't know if we know yet which of the three was the main murder weapon. Why did he choose a Bushmaster? Perhaps for some Freudian reason or to make a statement or because real men use bigger guns or something. But I promise that had he had only the two handguns and not the Bushmaster, the death toll would have been the same. (My bet is that you won't hear this fact from the media, which seems to be getting on board the push for the assault weapons ban.)<br /><br />Likewise, I suppose I do subscribe to the "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" mantra. There's roughly one AK-47 for every two people alive on earth (And an AK-47 is like a Bushmaster on Steroids). Unless we're willing ot build that fence on the border that bleeding heart Dems and money-grubbing Reps won't let us build to keep out immigrants, a ban just won't work.<br /><br />To be continued . . .Hammer of Fascistshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08647227447212096501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-45577558765429330182012-12-20T06:30:23.275-05:002012-12-20T06:30:23.275-05:00Anon 5:
You are not an “ultra-conservative” in w...Anon 5: <br /><br />You are not an “ultra-conservative” in wanting to be able to protect yourself and your family if the government will not or cannot protect you. Clearly, the government is not providing as effective protection as is needed; otherwise we would not have over 9000 killings by firearms each year or massacres such as the one that has just occurred. That is why you have the right to own a firearm for your defense under social contract theory. So, let’s agree on that so we don’t get distracted by it again.<br /><br />However, that is not all you said. There are two other ways in which what you said seems to tend towards ultra-conservatism:<br /> <br />(1) You said: “I do in fact see the gun control lobby's call to ban assault rifles as the thin end of the wedge that ideally (in their view) would result one day in the banning of all (or nearly all) weapons.” <br />Now, perhaps I misunderstand you here, but I interpret that statement as implying opposition to any kind of weapons ban, especially as you also suggested a ban on assault weapons would be ineffectual and therefore the government would have to ban other types of firearms too. As I have said before, I am no expert in the area of firearms, and clearly we should only want the government to make policy based on sound information. That is why I suggested the details would have to be the subject of study and debate. But I bet there are many types of measures that could improve the situation through reasonable regulation – background checks in the case of private secondary market sales (which apparently comprise 40% of all gun sales) is one suggestion I heard this evening, for example. Moreover, the killer of the schoolchildren did not use a handgun, as you say you would prefer to use yourself; he used a Bushmaster .223 (whatever that is), so why not ban those and others that can do such terrible damage so quickly? I can think of other possible measures too but, as I said, I really don’t want to get hung up on the details; let’s leave those up to the experts, including representatives from the “gun lobby” who know about such things.<br /> <br />(2) And to return to the opening point, you said that “If the government can't or won't protect my life from an aggressor, I have a natural and inalienable right to do so for myself.” Although we agree on this, I suspect that your premise about lack of protection depends on the ultra-conservative position in (1) because, unless we have reasonable gun control, we will make it very difficult, perhaps impossible, for government to provide such protection. Thus one major way in which government can provide protection is to make sure that would be aggressors cannot get guns so easily, and certainly that they cannot get the kind of gun that was used on those innocent children. But if you insist on (1), and thus disable the government from protecting you, then I submit that is tantamount to taking the law into your own hands.<br /><br />I am not so much a Lockean conservative as a Burkean conservative in the Disraeli British conservative tradition. As such, while recognizing the value of self-sufficiency and individualism, I also value the organic community and set a high value on law and order. Therefore, I tend to resist the kind of “hyper-individualism” represented by certain brands of conservative libertarianism in America as being, in my view, somewhat pathological and certainly in tension with, if not in contradiction to, a Catholic understanding of the “common good.” By the same token, I question whether we need to be so absolutist regarding the exclusionary rule. Other countries, such as Britain, seem to manage by giving the judge discretion to exclude illegally obtained evidence, and do not require exclusion in all cases. Why can’t we do the same? As I said before, however, I defer to people like Marc on this as they will know more. Perhaps there are peculiar American circumstances that justify exclusion that do not pertain in other countries.Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-66558600514143706812012-12-19T22:10:43.371-05:002012-12-19T22:10:43.371-05:00A2,
If you're suggesting that I'm an ultr...A2,<br /><br />If you're suggesting that I'm an ultra-conservative, I'll point out for the record that I generally support the exclusionary rule, and I believe that we should zealously protect and police _Katz's_ reasonable expectation of privacy.<br /><br />Further, I'm not sure how discussing the basis of the social contract makes me an ultra-conservative. To the degree that government prevents self-determination in matters that the Declaration of Independence, both Due Process Clauses, and probably Catholic theology and natural rights theory presumably identify as my most basic right--i.e., life--I have a very hard time with that and will not submit to it. (Just to show that this can have bleeding heart ramifications, I also have a hard time with it in the context of military conscription.) I think you'll find that a good bit of classical liberal thought agrees with me on this.<br /><br />Furthermore, I don't see the above arguments and position (as you apparently attribute to me) as either an argument for, or on the same legal or moral basis as, vigilantism. I'm not looking for an opportunity to take the law into my own hands as a sword. But I will claim the right to do so as a shield in the face of a government claim that I may not. I'm not talking about hunting down a persecutor after some conflict, but shooting an armed assailant who is currently darkening my bedroom door. In that sense, and in that sense only, I will give up my gun when the government pries my cold dead fingers from around it--OR when the government can give me an guarantee that I will not need it due to effective government protection from violent criminals. I think that this is a reasonable position, and I _don't_ think you'll find many right wingnuts qualifying the aphorism as I do here.Hammer of Fascistshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08647227447212096501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-36399643021633720752012-12-19T21:14:04.301-05:002012-12-19T21:14:04.301-05:00Gene: I'm not a gun control freak. I just thin...Gene: I'm not a gun control freak. I just think people getting killed is senseless regardless of how they're killed. I don't claim to have any special insight into how to resolve that problem except to say that I've seen the consequences of it. So, while many bluster about how great guns are. You take a utilitarian view of the matter, which I can appreciate. I really don't know where I stand on the issue. But I know that my clients are usually mentally ill, which when combined with guns has resulted in death. <br /><br />Templar: I wasn't providing a legal analysis of SCOTUS jurisprudence on the 2nd Amendment. I have more pressing legal matters to reseach! But, I think it is correct to say that prior to your case from 2008, the Court had not interpreted the 2nd Amendment as an individual right to own guns with minimal regulation. Now, I'm sure you aren't a fan of SCOTUS inventing a right to abortion from the penumbra of the 1st Amendment - I would suggest they did the same thing when they created a right for individuals to have mostly unregulated access to guns from the 2nd Amendment. <br /><br />But, unlike A5, I am not an historian or a Constitutional law expert. So, I'll defer to him on that. <br /><br />As for your argument that a gun is merely a "tool", I agree. But it is a tool that all too often ends up in the hands of a mentally ill person who uses that tool to senselessly kill others. I can only share my personal experience and that is that I have seen cases where without that tool many more people would be alive. And when I say that I am keeping in mind that there are other weapons - knives, bows, etc. - and dangerous instrumentalities - cars and explosives - that can be used to cause death. No, in these instances the gun particularly was used in a situation where nothing else would have been used and now multiple people are dead. So, you can espouse statistics and SCOTUS opinions and other anecdotal conjecture. Respectfully, it means little to me based on my actual experience. <br /><br />But, again, I'm not suggesting that I have the answer or that regulation is even in the realm of the answer. But, I do think that we can't get to the answer until we can agree to the subject matter of the problem...Marcnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-47747752810538314172012-12-19T20:59:13.239-05:002012-12-19T20:59:13.239-05:00Templar:
I am no constitutional law expert (thus ...Templar:<br /><br />I am no constitutional law expert (thus I defer to Anon 5, who is), but my inexpert understanding is that the Heller decision leaves the door open for reasonable regulation.<br /><br />On the textual merits, my question is: Why even mention militias at all unless that clause is intended to have a limiting effect? I am sure there is an answer to this. However, I do not know what, or how persuasive, it is.<br />Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-77851179001867788042012-12-19T20:47:59.371-05:002012-12-19T20:47:59.371-05:00Gene,
Someone who supports reasonable and prudent...Gene,<br /><br />Someone who supports reasonable and prudent gun control may be mistaken (opinions clearly differ on that point) but it does not make them a “gun control freak.”<br /><br />Although someone who wants to ban all guns might be a “gun control freak,” I don’t think Marc is suggesting that. Instead his support of regulation seems to be informed by his confrontation with a dark and horrible reality.<br /><br />Your own confrontation with that reality leads you in a different direction, but that is a good faith disagreement between reasonable people. It does not make you a “gun nut.”<br /> <br />And your statement that “as long as they are killing each other that is just fine with me. Saves the taxpayers money and eliminates one more felon” is, I assume, characteristic outrageous hyperbole that is not intended to be taken literally. =).<br />Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-22431135438999709552012-12-19T20:41:02.619-05:002012-12-19T20:41:02.619-05:00Shame on you Marc. You're a lawyer. You abov...Shame on you Marc. You're a lawyer. You above others should know to check previous rulings.<br /><br />DC vs. Heller (2008)<br /><br />In the Majority Opinion (Scalia) we find this phrase which deals directly with your assertion that the 2nd Amendment applies to Militias NOT people:<br /><br />"The majority opinion held that the amendment's prefatory clause (referencing the "militia") serves to clarify the operative clause (referencing "the people"), but does not limit the scope of the operative clause, because "the 'militia' in colonial America consisted of a subset of 'the people'...."<br /><br />Item (1) of the ruling states: "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."<br /><br />The assault against weapons by well meaning folks such as you and Father McDonald are misguided. A weapon is a tool. It is incapable of killing without a person being attached to it. And if they could you could just charge them with racism and lock them up that way since guns seem to kill Blacks at 3x their demographic representation.Templarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204866760862707908noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-14663377862522522762012-12-19T19:55:58.930-05:002012-12-19T19:55:58.930-05:00Marc, I suppose we could argue all day about what ...Marc, I suppose we could argue all day about what a "well regulated" militia means. I do not think it means gun control.<br /><br />I have seen people killed by violence and I have worked in ER's covered in blood from knife and gunshot wounds. <br /><br />Unfortunately, given the milieu and background of the majority of your clients (when you were a PD here), as long as they are killing each other that is just fine with me. Saves the taxpayers money and eliminates one more felon.<br /><br />I do not think the argument is "we need guns to protect us from all the guns." The argument is that we need guns to protect us from all the human predators and cut throats out there. Please do not tell me you are a gun control freak...Genehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672484450736725268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-86367523736313324472012-12-19T17:02:01.900-05:002012-12-19T17:02:01.900-05:00Anon 5: Thank you for adding your informative insi...Anon 5: Thank you for adding your informative insights regarding interpretation of the Second Amendment.<br /><br />Regarding your natural rights/substantive due process argument, I really am an arch-conservative in the old tradition on this point and so I question your premise when you say “If the government can't or won't protect my life from an aggressor.” <br /><br />We need to stop disabling the government from performing its primary legitimate function. And that includes retreating from ultra-liberal constitutional interpretations protecting the accused (Miranda is fine; but the exclusionary rule as opposed to discretion? – only in America I believe) as well as ultra-conservative statutory rights and constitutional interpretations allowing people to take the law into their own hands.<br /><br />That said, on the protection of the accused, I will defer to Marc who sees all this up close on an daily basis.Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-45180303117702353552012-12-19T15:24:45.789-05:002012-12-19T15:24:45.789-05:00The unintentional misspelling in my reply to Templ...The unintentional misspelling in my reply to Templar has inspired me to rephrase part of that reply:<br /><br />My response is that, just as gums are regulated when thought is manifested in the world through the act of speech, so also guns can be regulated when the thought of them is manifested in the world through the act of carrying them, or even possessing them.<br /><br />=).<br />Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-24706484028951279492012-12-19T15:19:22.795-05:002012-12-19T15:19:22.795-05:00Gene: Although I was not familiar with the film yo...Gene: Although I was not familiar with the film you mentioned, I have now read a bit about it. I like Tommy Lee Jones as an actor too, but I suspect I would not like to see this film as I do not care for graphic violence on the screen.<br /><br />Regarding Shenandoah, I do take your point but I would also note that Charlie Anderson was surrounded by, and then eventually affected by, the senseless violence and carnage of the Civil War/War Between the States. I realize I may be entering somewhat dangerous territory here around these parts, but I would suggest that the film’s perspective on that event (and war more generally) is worth attending to. I do not immediately see why mass violence organized by and perpetrated in the name of the state, especially when a people is tearing its own self apart in a civil war (with over 600,000 killed), is so very different from the non-state violence depicted in No Country for Old Men. But, as I said, I have not seen the film or read the novel. BTW, I feel the same way about mass violence organized by, and perpetrated in the name of, religion.<br /><br />This is the situation as I see it: Although pelvic issues are important (and are certainly sexier to talk about =)), they pale when compared with the human propensity to violence -- except for abortion, which of course involves horrible violence. Indeed, the abortion example is instructive – and this is the point I have been making all along: Just as so many in society today accept abortion because they either do not see the violence it entails or because they have become so inured to it, so also so many in society today accept other forms of violence for the same reasons. Whatever the primordial eating of the apple actually consisted in,wasn’t the first recorded sin after expulsion from Eden an act of violence?<br /> <br />Civilization is a thin veneer on top of a boiling cauldron of passions and animal drives. It is fragile and we weaken it at our peril for the forces of hell can easily break through the cracks. And violence in all its forms is top of the list. It is our seeming collective inability to understand this which I find the most disturbing about America today.<br /><br />Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-32754835210709215282012-12-19T14:02:24.907-05:002012-12-19T14:02:24.907-05:00Templar: You have, it seems, shifted your argument...Templar: You have, it seems, shifted your argument. However, I do like the point you make. It is a good one. My response is that, just as speech is regulated when thought is manifested in the world through the act of speech, so also gums can be regulated when the thought of them is manifested in the world through the act of carrying them, or even possessing them. Some acts (some types of speech, possession or carrying of some types of firearms) are so contrary to public safety or public order that they should not be permitted.<br /> <br />In addition, of course, I subscribe to the points made my Marc and Father McDonald in their most recent responses.<br /><br /><br />Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-68589006432379035902012-12-19T12:51:50.013-05:002012-12-19T12:51:50.013-05:00I'll point out one part of the Second Amendmen...I'll point out one part of the Second Amendment text that isn't often remarked upon: It's a communal right. The right of _the people_ to keep and bear arms, as opposed to the rights of _persons_. Make what you will of that.<br /><br />Mark has raised an interesting point in bringing in the Fourth Amendment. Does it give a right against private aggressors as well as government agents?<br /><br />A2, I do in fact see the gun control lobby's call to ban assault rifles as the thin end of the wedge that ideally (in their view) would result one day in the banning of all (or nearly al) weapons. I suppose there's an ex post fact problem with confiscating existing guns, but perhaps with civil penalties rather than criminal ones or maybe the use of the Commerce Clause, that could be gotten around. <br /><br />Fact is that to own a full automatic--i.e., a machine gun--you have to register with FBI or ATF or someone, probably get fingerprinted, and pay a tax of a few hundred dollars, last time I checked. So the "assault rifle ban" is for weapons that are at least manufactured to be semi-auto. To be morbid for a moment and put myself in the mind of a shooter, if I'm going to be limited to semi-auto, I'm going to choose a handgun anyway. More concealable and easier/faster to aim, rate of fire just as fast as an AR-15 so I can kill just as quickly, ammo is lighter and easier to carry. So the assault rifle ban will do little in iteslf; it's just a first step.<br /><br />I think that, rather than resting gun ownership rights on the Second Amendment, I would ground it in either natural rights, fundamental rights, or a substantive due process right to life. If the government can't or won't protect my life from an aggressor, I have a natural and inalienable right to do so for myself. The social contract is valueless to me, and thus means nothing to me, if I don't retain that right.<br /><br />A2, I'm in agrement with you that changing hearts is the way to go. But in a world broken by original sin, such a utopia will never happen, so we must think in terms of contingencies.Hammer of Fascistshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08647227447212096501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-41922154071708768282012-12-19T11:44:59.803-05:002012-12-19T11:44:59.803-05:00Marc, I appreciate your comments and the need for ...Marc, I appreciate your comments and the need for regulation of militias according to the 2nd amendment. <br />American is a gun crazed culture, glorifying weaponry and we've inherited this from our forefathers in the wild, wild west. <br />I see no plot to keep Americans from self-defense by those who wish to limit the types of weaponry that are out there and easily made accessible to the insane whether they be criminally insane on a permanent basis or only temporarily insane or enraged. <br />We have to stop glorifying violence and guns in our media, in our video games and in our minds. Fr. Allan J. McDonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16986575955114152639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-44082295681431550742012-12-19T11:34:53.831-05:002012-12-19T11:34:53.831-05:00The 2nd Amendment plainly calls for regulation. Af...The 2nd Amendment plainly calls for regulation. After all, te texts dependent clause states "A well-regulated militia..." As many are arguing they need weapons to protect themselves and others (making them a de facto "militia"), it seems regulation is necessary to comport with the Amendment. <br /><br />The argument that we need guns to protect ourselves from all the guns is silly to me. Perhaps it is because I've met people convicted of murder by firearms and seen the crime scene photos (unlike many of the gun supporters commenting here). I have a couple cases right now that certainly would not be murder cases absent the ready accessibility of guns - that's 4 people right there that would still be alive and another that wouldn't be paralyzed. Again, that is only the toll in 2 cases I'm working on right now. If I went back and thought about all the murder cases I've worked, the number would surely grow. Marcnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-11137151145690270182012-12-19T10:46:50.535-05:002012-12-19T10:46:50.535-05:00Actually ANon 2, I think the comparison between 1s...Actually ANon 2, I think the comparison between 1st and 2nd Amendment enforcement is perfect. The 1st Amendment grants the right to free speech, unless and until you use it in certain situations, then the hammer falls.<br /><br />So, for 2nd Amendment rights, I should have the right to self arm in any manner I deem appropriate, and laws should be written that punish me when and if I use them inappropriately. I can live with that.Templarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204866760862707908noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-46723242476099681012012-12-19T06:19:57.885-05:002012-12-19T06:19:57.885-05:00Anon 2, Society has changed a bit since the era de...Anon 2, Society has changed a bit since the era depicted in "Shenandoah," neh? It is sort of like why no one can write or understand a "comedy of manners" anymore, such as "Vanity Fair." There are no longer any manners. It is the same with movies portraying "common decency" and nineteenth century Western Judaeo-Christian values. Those things can no longer be assumed.<br />If you want a movie depicting our times and the values, if you can call them that, of our era, try "No Country For Old Men."Genehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672484450736725268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-79262890710796368782012-12-19T05:34:54.553-05:002012-12-19T05:34:54.553-05:00Templar: I am not sure how much your comparison wi...Templar: I am not sure how much your comparison with the First Amendment helps you actually. The First Amendment does not confer an absolute right to free speech, Indeed, reasonable gun control legislation under the Second Amendment can arguably be analogized to reasonable restriction of speech under the First Amendment:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States#Types_of_speech_restrictions<br /><br />Moreover, I do not approach the gun control issue from the Left as a liberal but from the Right as a conservative in the old tradition which accords high value to law and order. In addition, as a conservative, I would like to see more restriction of speech than many liberals would. For example, I have always been appalled at the psychic pollution produced by graphically violent video games, movies, etc. To me it is just one more symptom of our sick society that is so addicted to violence.<br /> <br />Marc: I defer to Anon 5, our resident constitutional scholar on this one. Indeed, later on I may have some quesions of my own for him about interpretation of the Second Amendment. <br /><br />Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-11575507322913528132012-12-18T23:40:55.215-05:002012-12-18T23:40:55.215-05:00Let me elaborate a bit on my last comment.
The S...Let me elaborate a bit on my last comment. <br /><br />The Shenandoah ideals will surely be lived out differently in the second decade of the twenty-first century than in the mid-nineteenth century. However, suitably adapted to our times (including our necessarily much greater interdependence), the kind of self-sufficiency, family values, non-belligerence, and common decency, represented by Jimmy Stewart’s Charlie Anderson, seem to be healthy and wholesome ideals.<br /><br />Also, when you talk about a “male who is self possessed and masculine enough to go armed,” I certainly hope you are not suggesting that one cannot be self-possessed and masculine_without_going armed. Indeed, I would submit that many who choose_not_to go armed may be even more self-possessed and masculine than many who choose to_go_armed. And for that I invoke another of my favorite Jimmy Stewart movies, Destry Rides Again.<br /> <br />I am, of course, aware of the limitations to this line of thinking as represented by Liberty Valence’s challenge to Jimmy Stewart’s Ransom Stoddard. But the solution here is to combine Ransom Stoddard (commitment to law and order and the rule of law) with Tom Destry Jr.(precise, self-restrained, and evident threat or use of force only when, and only to the extent, absolutely necessary).<br /><br />So, I would propose that an amalgam of Charlie Anderson, Ransom Stoddard, and Tom Destry Jr., suitably adapted to contemorary circumstances, is a pretty good recipe for a healthy temporal masculinity today. <br /><br /><br />Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-34339780597418981672012-12-18T23:19:45.668-05:002012-12-18T23:19:45.668-05:00Drive by commenting:
On Roe v Wade: It should be...Drive by commenting:<br /><br />On Roe v Wade: It should be over turned because it's a crap ruling. It's pretzel logic to find a right to murder in a right to privacy. But I agree that it wouldn't end abortion. As a catholic I agree with Anon2 that the end game state to seek is a condition where abortion is unacceptable by society on a moral basis. As an American I am 100% okay with the idea of over turning Roe and letting the States decide (that's THEIR right). I would make sure to live in a state where it were illegal.<br /><br />On Gun Control, the 2nd Amendment is clear, it's not open for discussion. It's the same exact logic the left applies to the 1st Amendment: it can not be abridged in any way shape or form, no matter how uncomfortable people get when others exercise their 1st Amendment rights. Same goes for my 2nd Amendment rights, it can not be abridged in any way shape or form, and I don't care how uncomfortable that makes anyone. When the left is willing to limit the rights of the Porn industry under the first, I'll be glad to discuss limiting the gun industry under the 2nd, and not a minute sooner.<br /><br />Gene...LOL...I love ya' brother. Your post at 645PM is (as ever) spot on. Hat's off!Templarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204866760862707908noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-81787480139550241832012-12-18T22:02:18.554-05:002012-12-18T22:02:18.554-05:00Since we have the illustrious Constitutional schol...Since we have the illustrious Constitutional scholar Anonymous 5, as well as law professor A2 here, I thought if present this thought for further discussion. <br /><br />What does a comparative analysis of the text and the jurisprudence surrounding the 2nd and 4th Amendments show us?<br /><br />The 4th Amendment reads, in pertinent part: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, _shall not be violated_...<br /><br />The 2nd Amendment reads: 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_.<br /><br />I am certain those practicing lawyers commenting here, along with our resident scholars, are aware that the exceptions to the 4th Amendment swallow the rule. That is to say, there is really no such thing as an unreasonable search under the 4th Amendment. <br /><br />Yet, nearly the same language ("shall not") is employed in the 2nd Amendment. It is, however, interpreted strictly unlike the 4th Amendment. <br /><br />It seems to me there is a more coherent argument from "natural rights" preventing unreasonable searches and seizures than there is for the possession of firearms. So, the inconsistency in interpretation is all the more baffling. <br /><br />I am eager to hear the thoughts of the scholars on this. I don't want to completely derail the abortion discussion. Perhaps that discussion is somehow related to my thoughts , but since I'm forced to type on an iPhone, I won't try to tie that all together. Marcnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-72292554651249254532012-12-18T20:56:27.713-05:002012-12-18T20:56:27.713-05:00There’s a lot there, Gene, so it is difficult to k...There’s a lot there, Gene, so it is difficult to know where to begin.<br /> <br />So, at the moment let me give you a metaphorical answer. Last night I saw again that great movie Shenandoah, starring my favorite actor of all time, Jimmy Stewart. There is a lot in that movie, just as there is in your comment, and Jimmy Stewart’s character provides a large part of my response to you regarding beliefs and ideals to which I would subscribe, and personally hope to be able to live out at least in some measure.Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.com