By Charles Thompson III
This is intended as a direct rebuttal to Jim Barrett’s article “Confessions of a 2A Non-Absolutist.” First off, I appreciate you taking the time to so clearly articulate your position. Clear, concise, and intelligible points make my job a lot easier because I don’t have to struggle to understand what you are really trying to say. That being said, you as wrong as wrong can be. There is a fatal flaw in your logic in that you completely misunderstand the concepts of Liberty and Equality. Consider this excerpt from the Declaration of Independence that you referenced in your article . . .
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
While this phrase does not appear directly in the U.S. Constitution, that phrase is the spirit of the guiding principles that shaped the Founding Fathers’ vision for this Country. Liberty, in this context, pertains to the interaction between the government and the people, enforced by the accountability of a duly elected government to the electorate, existing without the permission of the governing body.
In its purest sense as a right, Liberty is the right to property, with property being defined as both physical and real property and the person of oneself. It encompasses the total ownership of self (physically, mentally, philosophically, and spiritually) and all property that one has accumulated without violating the selfsame Liberty of another. Contrary to what the Progressive message would have you believe, the state cannot guarantee that your right to Liberty will not be abridged by your fellow man in the practical sense, nor should it in the ideological sense. People dwell so much on the Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness part that they often overlook the very next part, which states in the most succinct of terms the purpose and limit of government.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
In my opinion, that is the most powerful part of the Declaration of Independence. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness may be the spirit of the U.S. Constitution, but this line is the cornerstone of the purpose and role of our government. Notice that governments are “among” men, not “over” them, and only to the extent that the people as a whole allow (accountability to the electorate).
Accordingly, Government’s role is clearly to draw a line in the sand and to prosecute an offender should they cross that line. It is not within its power, both statutorily and practically, to try to prevent people from crossing that line, only to provide recourse within the Law on the behalf of the offended when that line is actually crossed. Liberty, as a right, is only guaranteed in the interaction between the government and the citizen. In all other things, the government can only act on behalf of the citizen after their Liberty has been infringed.
To illustrate, the FDA can set standards by which food producers must abide that, if followed, provide a product in good faith to the consumer that will not harm them. This level of governance would be comparable to making it illegal to commit murder. If followed, the would-be-victim will not be harmed. However, if they violate these standards, then the government can prosecute on the behalf of the people. In both instances it is not the government’s responsibility to ensure that people are not harmed, because that is impossible, but rather to provide recourse when someone is harmed or violated. That is the context that all laws should be framed by.
A law prohibiting someone from discharging a firearm in a public setting provides recourse should someone be harmed by the actual violation of the law. Prohibiting the ownership of a machine gun contradicts that tenet because no one’s Liberty was infringed by the breaking of that law. The possibility of committing a crime cannot in and of itself be a crime. Otherwise, we find ourselves on the very slippery slope of attempting to regulate “pre-crime.” These victimless crimes have drained our judicial system of all of its effectiveness and rendered it inept at performing the most basic functions of justice and conflict resolution. In keeping with this doctrine, regulation of firearms can only be administered on the actionable use of the firearm that impacts the person or property of another entity. Any other restriction is an infringement and a clear violation of the scope of government to be among the people.
Taking this a step further, restricting ownership by certain persons (i.e. felons or mentally ill) clearly falls into the realm of pre-crime regulation and therefore falls outside the scope of a proper government. We in the gun community opine so often that it is the person that commits the crime, not the gun. Phrased another way, it is the person that is the threat, not the gun. Accordingly, if we restrict ownership of guns, we have not accomplished anything because the person, i.e. the threat, is still free.
If a person is too dangerous to have access to a firearm (which they must have demonstrated as such through action and not based on subjective determinations), then they are too dangerous to be released back into society. Once a criminal has paid his debt, all of his rights should be restored. If he cannot be trusted with his rights, then he cannot be trusted and he has not paid his debt in full and therefore should remain in prison. The punishment must fit the crime comes to mind though. You stated:
There are people walking around who simply should not be allowed to own a gun.
While that is certain, it is far too subjective to act upon. Who gets to determine who is too dangerous and who isn’t? You? Me? You say you agree that “pre-crime” regulations have no place, yet you immediately turn around and argue that training should be a pre-requisite for ownership and that certain people shouldn’t own guns. Isn’t that putting the cart before the horse? I wholeheartedly agree that the more training the better. However, making it a crime to possess and bear arms without training falls squarely into the pre-crime arena. Again, it is not within the government’s practical and expressed power to prevent bad things from happening.
This segues nicely into the second major flaw in your logic which is your application of the concept of equality, or, to state another way, the basis for resolution of differences. The purpose of the courts is to resolve conflict between two parties when one or the other has allegedly violated the Liberty of another. All citizens should have equal protection and power before the law. From your post:
As I said earlier, RF’s opinion on the specific meaning of 2A is no more and no less valid than Michael Bloomberg’s opinion. What matters is the SCOTUS’s opinion.
Practically, what SCOTUS thinks matters because it is enforced by the rule of law, which, ironically, is enforced by the point of a gun. However, on a philosophical level, what makes the opinion of a Supreme Court justice any more valid than my own? Or Sylvester Stalone’s? Or Peyton Manning’s? Or Bradley Manning’s?
You make the case that SCOTUS’s opinion in DC v. Heller leaves room for regulation, and rightly so. However, that doesn’t align with the Constitution or the concept of Liberty. Are you just going to throw your hands up and say “Oh Well” if SCOTUS reinstituted slavery? Certainly not! How can citizens have equal protection under the law if SCOTUS decries that they can be regulated separately and unequally between the several states? However, your most troubling statement encompassed the subjective interpretation of the public good and its application.
Society has the authority to take your liberty or even your life if you act against the common good. Since the right to keep and bear arms stems from the fundamental right to life (the right to protect one’s life), it seems hard to dispute the fact that if the society has the right to abridge life and liberty, then it certainly can abridge the right to keep and bear arms.
The common good? Who is the final authority on what the common good is or isn’t? Countless times throughout history, men speaking out on the tenets of Liberty have been persecuted and oppressed by their governments, all in the name of the common good. Society and the state do not have the authority to abridge life and liberty for the common good under a Social Contract.
In its simplest terms, the Social Contract should be stated as “If you don’t hurt us, we won’t hurt you.” There is no cessation of life and liberty to guarantee that nobody will get hurt, rather there is the promise that there will an appropriate response of justice should one party violate the rights of another party. I agree that there has to be a way to resolve our differences . However, it is not for SCOTUS to decide what the power of government is to be or the rubric by which they can resolve conflict. SCOTUS does not have the power to write the rules that it will in-turn adhere to. It is for the people to decide and the state (including SCOTUS) is limited to the expressed powers that the people have defined.
…deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed , –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it
The people have reaffirmed on countless occasions that the Constitution is the final authority on the power of government among the rights of the people. Therein, as a bastion of protection from the tyranny of an oppressive government, is our guarantee as citizens 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.
Until such time that people determine to redesign the fundamentals of the greatest social contract ever devised, personified in words of the Constitution of the United States of America, that document remains the final authority on the resolution of our differences.
I could expound further, but let this be summation of my argument. Shall not be infringed. Period.
Amen!
Society has the authority to take your liberty or even your life if you act against the common good.
Hell no, it doesn’t! The government has the authority to deprive of you liberty and your life if you violate the law, after due process and a trial, not the riotous mob. Jim Barrett, your writing sounds like dangerous socialist claptrap.
Agreed. The very concept of “common good” is abhorrent to me. It is an infinitely corruptible concept in that is it subjective in the extreme, only defined by either the majority or by a coercive authority, and subject to the winds of change and temperament.
Agreed. The best good for the “common good” is the good for each individual of the set. As the good for each individual varies there is no “common good.” Therefore, the common good is a compromise – a negotiation – blanketing everyone which is not fair to anyone. That is why we have rights and that is why rights are not up for debate – not even for the majority.
That is also why the founding fathers were against democracy and instituted a republic.
“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”
-Thomas Jefferson
Under Universal Liberty, the Greater Good can, and usually does, arise spontaneously.
As true now as when Blackstone first wrote it:
In vain may it be urged, that the good of the individual ought to yield to that of the community; for it would be dangerous to allow any private man, or even any public tribunal, to be the judge of this common good, and to decide whether it be expedient or no.—Blackstone’s Commentary, Ch. 1§III, 1765-1769.
Every time I hear someone talk about “the common good” or “the greater good”, I always think of the village council in the movie Hot Fuzz. Total wackjobs who’d murder someone over the flowers in their front yard because “it would keep us from being called the prettiest town, and killing them was for the greater good”.
What you are all missing is not the accuracy factor or skill factor IT IS THE TIME OF FLIGHT at these long distances and no ( hunter) shooter has any control over or knowledge of how the animal is going to act, move as you pull the trigger. Two or even one and a half seconds means a wounded animal when it moves and you are 500m to 1000m away for another poor follow up shot.TrackingPoint rifles have no place in hunting.Target shooting for fun sure.South Africa
OMG! That ladder has an assault shotgun! OMG!
Oh wait, it’s just Commando Fife playing dress up again. Whew! That was close. Move along. Nothing to see here.
Well done
“restricting ownership by certain persons (i.e. felons or mentally ill) clearly falls into the realm of pre-crime regulation ”
True, but – as a certain psychiatrist I know often says – the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.
So how do you square that circle?
Predictions are not one hundred percent, they cannot account for a person truly changing. If they were, petty theft would be a life sentence.
Rights supersede prediction, and freedom supersedes safety – there are two straight edges for your square.
Easy, review the past success/failure rate of psychiatry and the potential and actual abuses of the mental health system worldwide and in America. They are hardly the final arbiters of sanity or how to deal with mental illness, or it would have been eradicated by their professional competence.
You cannot prevent a crazy person (Adam Lanza) from getting a weapon of some sort when they decide to commit their criminal acts. How about pulling a fire alarm and then driving that Honda through the crowd of kids pouring out of the school? Nor can you predict that a person who is entirely “sane: today and has collected his perfectly legal cache of firearms and ammunition will not go homicidal insane tomorrow without ever attracting the attention of authorities or the psychiatric establishment.
People must take responsibility, first for people they know that frighten them and need to be helped, and second for stopping the crazies that make it out into the public and threaten other people. The solution is ALWAYS the ability to stop the threat, whether by intervention of people who know and care before hand, or a well-placed shot group if they do not or cannot. This solution is not fool proof nor perfect, but it is much to be desired over the surrender of our Second Amendment in the vain hopes of securing the “common good”
I suspect that a lot of the unnecessary camo-plastered products are actually bought as gifts. Don’t know what to get for that hunter in your life? Just get some cheap Chinese garbage with camo on it. It’s the gift that truly says, “I know you like hunting, and that’s all I really know about you, so here. Good luck finding this camo flashlight when you drop it in the woods.”
Re-gift that shit.
Many thanks.
That is all.
The really funny thing is that Allen West went on a rant about the EPA engaging in “backdoor gun control” in an editorial on Breitbart only two days ago. We’ve been saying that this is much ado about nothing for well over a month, and so it’s disappointing that LTC West would put information out there that is so easily refuted.
Here’s my take as a “disinterested” Brit:
Those guns were ALWAYS supposed to cross the border & there was deliberate intent to wait for the deaths to begin. Someone knew the Mexican authorities would start picking them up at crime scenes, thus giving weight to demands for greater restrictions on firearms purchases in the US.
Terry’s death scuppered the deal somewhat because some Federal types suddenly recalled they had morals once they realised it could have been THEM getting killed.
Of course the legislature did what it could to use the “US guns over the border” but all they managed (bad enough) was the illegal recording of multiple rifles in certain southern States.
It’s been nothing but smokescreens & lies from those in the know ever since.
Fine, but what restrictions will the EPA place upon the secondary smelters once Doe Run shuts down its primary smelter? They will be next!
The US uses 1.5 million tons or so of lead a year. 1.1 million of those tons are recycled lead. So shutting down the secondary smelters would totally end most manufacturing that uses lead.
…and consign a ridiculous number of Lead Acid Batteries (and other products with containing lead) to landfill. That would be the death knell of the EPA.
Well, the one instance of meeting your heroes that actually may be a good one, was that I grew up in awe of the M1 Garand and played damn near any WW2 game I could find in part because of that. After getting to go to the range with my buddy’s grandpa and actually shoot one, I realized how amazing it was and how silly it would be to think that you could run around and hip fire one through a building like in COD 2 😀
“Once a criminal has paid his debt, all of his rights should be restored.”
Lots of people agree with that line, right up until an ex-con pedophile applies for a job at your kid’s school.
The fact is that the Constitution does indeed allow for denying someone their life, liberty or property; provided they’s been afforded due process. There’s no theorem or other first principle which states that only incarceration counts as punishment and therefore all punishment ends upon release. Yet, there are innumerable examples of non-confinement or post-confinement conditions rightly regarded as part of the total punishment.
It’s a matter of trust: yes, we may believe a given criminal has “paid his debt” with prison time, but that does not ensure he has regained the public’s trust with regard to firearms. Likewise, you may finally receive full payment after very lengthy efforts from a deadbeat debtor. Debt paid, but how soon are you to lend to him again? It’s a matter of trust, you see. But hey, when the ex-con embezzler wants to run for City Controller, we’re cool, right? After all, he paid his debt, so who are we to withold our trust?
Thank you for looking into this issue further.
Yep. Called it.
Inspector Callahan never needed a gillie suit. wtf ? the guy got away because these Rambo’s had to have time to put on their make up an halloweenie suits
Lead is lead. A reduction in the supply of primary ingot is likely to have an unfavorable effect on the price of recycled lead. Companies that currently use primary ingot and can’t get the same will turn to recycled lead, even if they have to clean it up, as long as the cost of recycling and purification doesn’t exceed the cost of the primary lead.
We may not see higher ammo prices because of this today or tomorrow, but we will see higher prices because of this eventually. Less supply without a decrease in demand yields higher prices. The laws of economics are immutable that way.
Exactly. Any permenant reduction of supply will run up price sooner or later.
Yep.
Where does ‘secondary’ lead come from, thin air? Thinking this won’t effect ammo manufacturing is pretty naive. Increasing the cost and scarcity of primary lead has to raise the costs of secondary lead as well.
BTW, those are electric lift truck batteries in the photo not ‘automotive’.
Within that range, batteries are batteries, and most of the supply of “primary lead” already comes from overseas. A tiny reduction in the amount of primary lead coming from inside the US is not going to have a big enough effect on primary lead prices to trickle down to have any effect on the secondary market.
Peru has enormous amounts of lead in the ground, and currently produces about 3/4 the amount the US does. Further, there is nothing stopping US lead-ore miners from shipping it to Chinese smelters. China is by far the world’s major lead miner. China and Australia together produce more than four times the lead than does the US. Canadians fined it economic to send theirs to China for smelting. Vast amounts of iron ore are shipped across the pacific. Bulk shipping is very cheap, notwithstanding those entitled Cali longshoremen that get paid more than the average US professor of mathematics.
You may have noticed that Chinese steel from Western Hemisphere iron ore comes back to the US at a lower price than US steel. There has been a glut of ingot lead in the US for a decade.
If it really gets bad just scream at the Civil Servants and Army PFC’s, “get the lead out!” until they do….
http://www.indexmundi.com/minerals/?product=lead
The striker fired pistol de-cocker is not a new concept. My Walther P99 has one and it’s probably the main reason why it’s my go to carry gun.
The XDm also disengages the sear when you rotate the takedown lever. Disassembly requires no trigger pull.
Government’s sole *legitimate* purpose is to protect *individual* rights. Note the distinct lack of the word “common” (as in “common good”) in that sentence. (Also note that there is no room in this for government getting to decide who gets what goodies in society; it should not be an engine of redistribution.)
In point of fact all *true* rights are individual rights, and no true right can involve making a claim on the product of someone else’s time, property, or labor–they can at most tell him “no you may not do this *to* your fellow human beings.”
I will go one step further than the author of this article though. I do not think even FDA-type regulation is legitimate, because that too is prior restraint, at least as it is currently implemented. As it sits now, a company may not sell a drug until it has gone through a bunch of trials where it must be “proved” both safe and effective, *even if a patient has been educated about the risks and wants it anyway*. The closest thing a government should do to this sort of thing is to punish fraud. Legally define “safe and effective” and let the pharmaceutical industry sell what they want; if they not only sell it but label it “safe and effective” and it doesn’t meet the definition, bust them for fraud; *don’t* hit them with a violation of a regulation that is just as much “prior restraint” on criminal activity as any gun ban ever dreamed of being.
Where’s John Moses Browning when you need him…?
he is now designing guns for gods army ;'(
I’m not gonna vouch for the quality of those patents, but you’re looking at the abstract, which is just a general description of what the patent is about. It has no bearing on what the invention actually is. For that, you need to look at the claims. That is what defines the invention.
This is just another domino that the civilian armament industry has managed to knock down.
The secondary lead smelters will be next. You can count on that!
I’ll take a G11, how many did they make and how many still exist? I’m sure one gun would cost as much as a top end Porsche or Ferrari.
Selectable full auto, no semi version, so it would have to be a post-86 “dealer sample” only. They never ‘released’ much product anyway – it was in the final stages then the Wall came down, and the money that was to be used on it, got retasked with assimilation of East Germany. Almost killed H&K, they were way down the development trail, and were counting on the payoff from mil sales.
I do not think KCI makes 33 rd mags, I went to website where I buy all my KCI’s mags and there is no KCI 33rd mags, I bought 3 I thought were from KCI but when I received them the floorplates do not have a brand name. (I think they are SGM) My regular G19 KCI mags do have KCI floorplates. I searched for a while and cannot find any KCI 33rd mags with KCI’s floorplates. If you think you have a KCI 33rd mag check your floorplates and if you do have one with a KCI floorplate please tell me where you bought it. The site states if you have a KCI magazine it will have a KCI floorplate.
I’m surprised Dyspeptic Gunsmith hasn’t worked his way into this post.
That’s a nice looking rifle, if a little pricey for my taste.
Ruger made the Service Six and Speed Six in 9mm. Most were sold overseas. A few here when new and some have been re imported.
He has to be up to no good, because he is wearing a hoodie. (sarc)
I’m so sick of all this woodland camo sh*t. You go into Bass Pro, Cabelas or Sportsman’s Warehouse and it’s wall to wall with the stuff.
Hey if they can get some free exposure it suits me for the Brady Bunch and their fellow travelers to provide it. If it is that easy and cheap the rest of the Gun Industry should jump on the free ride.
I’m inclined to agree. My preference is a complete roll back of anti-freedom measures at the federal and state levels, in legislatures and courts. We’re not going to win everywhere every time as it is. So I’d rather hold ground where we must and advance where we can. This seems like a hold proposition., especially timed against Christmas and the Sandy Hook anniversary.
I respect the 2nd Amendment in some weird strange way that’s nothing like actually respecting it.
Pretty much?
Yea her youtube is not a way to contact her if the comments and ratings are disabled.
I wouldn’t think that you could use a recoil reducer on a semi-shotty. If it would actually cycle reliably on a 930 or M2 then that and a comp might be a comfy package.
Whats the point of this when it is $40 a flippin box? They have a long way to go if they plan on matching the Russians.
It’s important to remember that the criminal had a ‘plausible’ excuse for why he was in the home and how he got in. I think that it is easy to get taken in by this kind of social engineering. If there was any confusion as to whether this guy was legit, escorting him out of the home at gunpoint may have been a good option.
I think that some of these critiques don’t contemplate the alternatives. Consider the other options:
a) Shoot him preemptively? Clearly not a good option, especially after the spate of recent news stories of homeowner shootings of ill or drunk people. He could maybe – just maybe – actually be legit.
b) Have him lie on the floor at gunpoint while you wait for the deputies? Then you have a criminal, possibly armed, lying on your floor maybe 10 feet away (because how far can you back away in a house?). He knows he’s going to jail if he doesn’t escape before the police arrive and you have a long 5-15 minutes (this is the country, after all) hoping he doesn’t try to attack.
c) Tie him up? Frisk him? You’re inviting a wrestling match with a potentially armed intruder.
d) Escort him out of the house while he is still surprised by your response, trying his charm approach, and hoping you’ll buy his story?
Option (d) seems to effectively neutralize the threat with the least legal and physical risk to the homeowners. It’s not perfect, but it looks a lot better when you compare it to the alternatives.
What do others think? Any LEOs with an opinion?
Ted Kennedys car killed more people than my AR-15.
What good for the goose is good for the gander. In California law there is a distinction between private property that is open to the public and private property that is not.
This distinction has been used AGAINST unlicensed carry of arms. See, back in 1923 and ever since the law explicitly states you can carry, openly or concealed, in your home, residence or place of business (or with the permission of the homeowner or the proprietor in the case of business) without any license. The courts have even determined that this includes hotel rooms and camp sites. But then they sneak in a distinction (which is inconsistent with the campsite rule), that such a right only exists where the land is not “semi-public.” Understood as being an area where the public may access without molestation.
So if you step onto your front lawn or driveway, unless they are enclosed by a fence, illegal. It is legal in the back workrooms of a store, but not out in front. And other such hairsplitting nonsense.
I always thought that if the law restricts what you can do on your property on the basis that you have opened it to public use/access, it is reasonable that the law should also protect what others do on the property, on the condition that you welcomed the public in the first place.
I can keep anyone out of my home. But if I choose to open a deli, I am a bit more limited there. I don’t see why this same logic should apply to CCW holders.
Best VIP wholesale Lions jerseys Store
“Accordingly, Government’s role is clearly to draw a line in the sand and to prosecute an offender should they cross that line.”
No, the purpose of government is to protect the people from force and fraud. Unfortunately, our government not only fail at these directives, but has actually become the primary perpetrator of each.
It is impossible for the government to guarantee protection. You can argue that that is or should be their purpose all you want but the reality is that there is no way to provide 100% protection from bad things happening to you. The best that the highest functioning government model could hope to accomplish is provide a retaliatory justice system so harsh and effective and finding criminals and prosecuting them that most people are deterred from trying to commit a crime. Nonetheless, there will always be those that will break the law anyway.