Normally, I’d have served up the first sentence of the LA Times editorial Gun control made harder in California as a Quote of the Day. I couldn’t do it. I couldn’t leave it to our Armed Intelligentsia. I wanted to be first in the parsing parade like a Dixie debutante wants to be the belle of the ball. Here’s the lead: “Even if you accept the notion that the 2nd Amendment confers an individual right to bear arms — a proposition we wish the Supreme Court had rejected — states should be able to place reasonable restrictions on that right in the interests of public safety.” I promise I’ll make this quick . . .
Even if you accept the notion that the 2nd Amendment confers an individual right to bear arms . . .
Notice that the author uses the word “notion” to describe American gun rights instead of “idea.” He knows full well that “notion” means “an impulse a desire, esp. one of a whimsical kind.” At the same time, he deploys the word to suggest that the individual right to keep and bear arms is “notional” as in “existing in the mind only.”
The rights protected by the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution — all of which are individual — are neither whimsical nor theoretical. They are as real as the men and women who have sacrificed their lives — and sent their children to war — to protect them. They are our natural, civil and Constitutionally protected rights.
The Constitution doesn’t “confer” (as in “grant or bestow”) the right to keep and bear arms. Like all our rights, the right to keep and bear arms is God-given or natural, depending on your perspective. But no matter where you ascribe their genesis, our right to protect ourselves, our families, communities, and country by force of arms exists outside the Constitution. The Second Amendment was created to shield that right from government infringement. That is all.
— a proposition we wish the Supreme Court had rejected —
The individual right to keep and bear arms is not a “proposition.” It is a fact. To call our gun rights a “proposition” is to demean and devalue them. What’s more, the word suggests that individual gun rights are subject to approval by someone other than the individual themselves. If rights can be proposed, they can be rejected. Speaking of which . . .
The author’s desire to see the Supremes reject an individual right to keep and arms — in favor of a collective right — indicates that he’s a collectivist. Someone who believes in the “ownership and control of the means of production and distribution by the people collectively, usually under the supervision of a government.”As well as everything else, including guns. Especially guns. History shows collectivism cannot be achieved with an armed populace.
. . . states should be able to place reasonable restrictions on that right . . .
Here’s how thefreedictionary.com defines “reasonable”:
1. Capable of reasoning; rational: a reasonable person.
2. Governed by or being in accordance with reason or sound thinking: a reasonable solution to the problem.
3. Being within the bounds of common sense: arrive home at a reasonable hour.
4. Not excessive or extreme; fair: reasonable prices.
Which of these four definitions describes current gun control regimes?
I know that no amount of logic will convince civilian disarmament proponents that their position lacks coherent reasoning and sound thinking, stands outside the bounds of common sense, and imposes extreme and unfair burdens on Americans. But even if gun control advocates’ regulations are/were “reasonable” — and I am not saying they are given that “reasonable” is an entirely subjective word — tough shit.
Every gun control law is an infringement on our natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Regardless of their entirely dubious efficacy, none of them are reasonable. Not one. Is it reasonable to deny men their right to practice their own religion or speak freely? Like that. Or like this . . .
Should states be able to place “reasonable restrictions” on voting rights like, say, a literacy test? It’s reasonable to think voters should be educated enough to cast their ballots sensibly. By the same token, it’s “reasonable” to insist that people who want to carry a gun should have to train in its use, undergo a criminal, legal and psychological background check, and show “just cause” for packing heat. But it’s not right. Nor is it legal.
. . . states should be able to place reasonable restrictions on that right in the interests of public safety. [emphasis added]
Ah yes, public safety. What could be more important than public safety? Individual rights. Especially (but not exclusively) the natural or God-given rights protected by the U.S. Constitution. As any student of World War Two movies will tell you, as soon as someone screams WE MUST HAVE ORDER! you know who the bad guy is. In this case, it sure as hell ain’t gun owners.
There is more to the editorial, of course. Who cares? The author’s put all his cards on the table in the first sentence. Except for one: “In some circumstances, permitting a citizen to carry a concealed weapon is justified.” It’s nice when statists deign to grant a citizen the ability to exercise their individual rights. It’s even better to see these proto-fascists humbled by the return of the rule of law, and then fade back into the darkness from whence they came. From my lips to God’s ears.
Well written, delight to read and nicely layered. A fine addition to this blog. Thanks for sharing it
Even if the Constitution acknowledges the right to keep and bear arms without infringement we of the LA TIMES say, “Screw you, Mr. Constitution Loving American. We know better.”
Same old, same old.
I wonder if he had to show “good cause” to publish his birdcage liner?
This hunting story was a whole lot more interesting than the early post containing the video of a guy shooting an Elephant hand picked for him, watching a guy set up his rifle rest, and then he and a couple other guys helping him shoot it five times.
If they were to use “acceptable” or “tolerable” in place of “reasonable” they would reveal themselves to me more-than-proto-fascists.
But they don’t want to do that.
It’s not because they consciously want to deceive us. But, rather, because it would force them into the same crushing realization James Taggart has in the last chapter of Altas Shrugged, where they have John Galt in the basement “laboratory”.
Spoiler alert!
Everyone in America needs to read that book. Twice.
Epic fail
Is the editorial the red pill, or the blue pill?
Blue Pill…. blissful ignorance of illusion (or more properly, delusion). They crave the safety of their mommie’s embrace. They have no need for any reality or fact that doesn’t fit in with their preconceived ideology or support their delusion.
“…a proposition we wish the Supreme Court had rejected…”
You know what they say about wishing and hands, don’t yah?
4’10”. Good things come in small packages. Like my wife too. Congrats on 38 years together.
How about the PETA folks volunteering to take the pigs place? I think the US military still use goats.
“But this was a moral question, and the answer to it may not have been legally relevant.”
― Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil
Since when was legal relevancy and adherence a roadblock to these folks? But, I digress, its Kalifornia,….the land of fruit and nuts to be sure.
Amazing! It made it to the NYDN:
NOT IN MY HOUSE! Detroit mom armed with rifle opens fire on three gun-toting thugs trying to rob home — SEE THE VIDEO
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/detroit-mom-fires-intruders-video-article-1.1619522
But…on the other hand…does anyone pay any attention to “newspapers” anymore anyway?
Hardly.
I’d plug in ‘1st Amendment’ to that sentence except I bet they would prefer individuals NOT have the right to free speech so that they could have a monopoly.
Fairness doctrine.
That sentence made my blood pressure rise and made my bourbon bottle lose its cap and pour into my glass.
And rise and pour itself down your gullet, I hope. If you got that going on, who needs the glass?
“Bottle, RISE!”
No matter what comes of it China will own that market too. Especially once liberals make 3D printers illegal because someone made a single shot .380 out of plastic.
Let’s see them take down a 6’4″ 250 male who knows how to handle himself and spent time in the joint.
you put this article away, almost as well as this gun rights guy from West Virginia Citizens Defense League does in the below clip:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e6a_1392674590
LIKE A BOSS.
(he only gets extra points because his interaction was live and boy is he quick on his feet)
More and more we get prime evidence of that fact that Gun Control really is crack pot religion. Propagated by zealots that will never be swayed by and fact.
— a proposition we wish the Supreme Court had rejected —
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
With the intent of staying civil RF’s response pretty much covers it. Concise and aptly written. One of his best pieces IMO. It’s also my opinion that people who express these types of notions publicly, in the name of journalism do not deserve a civil response.
I’m all for the same type of “reasonable restrictions” on guns in the same way that there are “reasonable restrictions” on speech or religion.
You’re not allowed to say “I order you to kill that guy” to an employee. You’re not allowed to practice human sacrifice as part of your religion. In the same way, you’re not allowed to murder someone by shooting them simply because you have a right to keep & bear arms. I can go for that.
Oh, that’s not what they meant? They meant that we should throw up as many legal hurdles as possible for law-abiding folks, make things outrageously expensive, and eventually just disarm all of the good people?
Well %@#$ that. That’s just plain dumb.
Holy crap! There is a lot of dialogue on this. I’m going to simplify it considerably.
1. As per Heller, guns in common use cant be banned (it’s a matter of a law suit to prove this in NJ or elsewhere).
2. There is no 2, see 1.
Given that guns in common use included virtually everything but a ‘smart gun’ the NJ law is unconstitutional on it’s face and can’t survive even a circuit court challenge. SCOTUS has no reason to hear it since they have already ruled against NJ.
This is a still born law and an example of the desperation of anti rights politicians.
The great hope is that smart guns will lead to a prohibition on possessing old fashioned guns and then the smelters can be started.
Reasonable restrictions for public safety lat? Who is the public that is not safe with lawfull gun owners? Is it the soccer mom driving her kids to school(no, she is safe), is it the little girlscout selling cookies(no she is safe),is it the Black gentleman walking his family down the sidewalk(no, he is safe), Is it the people of the church leaving after service(no, they are safe). Then who is the “public” thats not safe with armed citizens?. Sadly, we may never be able to figure this out, dratt the luck.
Remove thw NY pigtail spring. Add hogue grips. enjoy.
This story warms my heart. Not the part about the poor mother getting broken into – that’s no fun. But the part where she busts caps in thugs’ azzes, now that part warms my heart.
Momma almost fixed the 3rd robber’s stupidity problem when he tried going back in AFTER being shot at.
Good for mom. Now can Detroit PD shake down the trio of “misguided” youths’ parents to pay for the damage their little angels caused to her door and door frame? Pawn their TVs, cell phones, chains, and Xboxs if they have to…make this woman whole.
oh god…
Y’know, I’ll have to disagree with RF and side with the CNC. Maybe these two midgets aren’t suited to the job.
The world isn’t one-size-fits-all, and certain people cannot do certain things.
Maybe these two are suited better to jobs in which small stature is an asset, rather that those in which they’ll need a step ladder in order to reach the window to check in evidence or cuff anyone older than eight.
I for instance will never be a wise choice to model Spedoes; these gals are unsuited to be cops.
Who Needs A 15-Round Ammunition Magazine?
Anyone attacked by more than 5 people.
Next Question?
They appeal: They MAY win, but it will then go to SCOTUS, and they can be set back permanently as opposed to just in their little world.
They don’t appeal: The ruling really only pertains to the west coast, doesn’t go to SCOTUS, and they can keep their anti-gun ways.
If they do not appeal, then anyone applying for a CCW in any county that imposes “good cause” restrictions greater than mere “self-defense” can sue in federal court, win a slam dunk case (because all California federal courts in the district will follow the decision) and get his/her attorney’s fees, thus forcing that county to follow the Peruta decision. Soon, every county will be virtual “shall issue,” and those sheriffs and city police chiefs who have long opposed the issuance of CCW permits will have lost for all time.
If they are unalterably opposed to CCW, then they have no choice but to appeal, first for en banc (any shot not taken is an opportunity lost) and then to SCOTUS. The ONLY countervailing consideration, about which some have speculated, is that the east coast interests, having decided the battle for California is lost, will do anything they can to avoid, as long as they can, any case reaching SCOTUS, or at least until the composition of the court is changed to one more inclined to a “favorable” outcome. Personally, I don’t think review at this point can be avoided–there are other cases in the pipeline, and failing to appeal Peruta will confirm the existence of a fundamental circuit split. If Peruta does not go up, then an east coast case, probably from New Jersey, will likely go up. Again, under a game theory, there really is no viable option to the gun banners but an appeal of Peruta, at least to an en banc panel, with a re-evaluation thereafter if en banc is declined or the decision is affirmed.
They must be dwarves because I probably have the smallest hands I’ve ever seen on a grown man and I can shoot my 17 veeeeeerrrrry comfortably.
Reportedly, in NC they used to make female Troopers learn to pull the trigger with their longer, middle finger if their hands were too small to reach it with the normal trigger finger.
I like the video. The guy is shooting an engine block to see if a .50 API will go through it, but is using a pile of brush as a back stop. Classic.
Oh wait. That’s not Bob Saget?
I wonder if such idiots realize that if this can be done to one of the Amendments, it can be done to all off them. Then I think, yes the probably do and maybe that’s the point.
Fiocchi has a really good price point, too.
Off to the FEMA camp for a little re-education sir.
“Budgets are getting tighter every year, so in order to meet the nutritional requirements of our fighting men and women, US special forces have been tasked to take advantage of the post-valentines day “food” sale.”–Jay Carney