What the gun control movement should do

[TPaine7]

The gun control movement has been hemorrhaging political power and credibility. They can regain credibility, but it will require bold and painful action:


Admit Past Mistakes

Claims that there would be “blood in the streets” and Wild West shootouts at every fender bender were preposterous. So were claims that the Second Amendment was written to protect the rights of states—like Virgina and Georgia—instead of “the right of the people” as the words actually say.

They should admit that they twisted the words of the Constitution and the fabric of reality out of fear. This is not only true, it is their best excuse. Good people can distort reality to avert extreme danger—either unconsciously or by intentionally lying. What mother wouldn’t lie to protect her innocent child?

Of course she shouldn’t lie to protect a guilty child from the authorities. Nor should she lie to distort the meaning of the Constitution because of her fears. It might not be right, but it is understandable.


Accept Current and Future Reality

The Second Amendment wasn’t written to protect States’ rights. CCW doesn’t lead to shootouts at every fender bender. These lies have died ugly deaths, deaths that damaged gun control advocates’ credibility. Why create new lies?

The Constitution protects the right to “keep and BEAR arms.” The Supreme Court hasn’t gotten to the “bear” part yet, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t in the text. Resisting nationwide CCW is stupid—at least it’s stupid if the anti-gun forces don’t want nationwide OPEN carry. That’s the only logical alternative.

Congress is specifically empowered to uphold the Second Amendment against the states and to ensure full faith and credit between the states. It makes no sense for a person who can carry concealed in Florida to be unable to carry concealed in New York, Illinois, or Hawaii, unless they forbid concealed carry outright. And if they forbid concealed carry to their own citizens, they CANNOT—constitutionally speaking, at least—forbid open carry.

Refusing to admit this makes gun control advocates appear to be illiterate, liars, or insane. They should get out in front of the issue and admit the obvious.


Be Constructive

There are people who are violently opposed to constitutional reality. That is their perfect right. They are entitled to say that the Second Amendment granted the right to carry arms only in militia service. They are entitled to claim that nationwide concealed carry will cause massive problems that have not been seen in any of the states that have adopted “shall issue” CCW policies. But the tide is turning. Eventually, in the minds of the vast majority of Americans, these positions will assume their rightful place next to the flat earth hypothesis. They will enjoy the same First Amendment protection, the same amazed incredulity, the same respect.

There are two constructive paths open to gun control advocates. Those who actually want to save lives while respecting the Constitution and reality can come clean and then agitate for laws that save the most lives while respecting the constitutional rights Americans enjoy. They will have to actually learn things in order to accomplish this goal. They will have to understand firearms technology, criminology, law and statistics. Everyone won’t have to be an expert, but the level of competence must definitely rise. Even the non-experts should be versed enough not to repeat mistakes obvious to any gun rights advocate.

Constructive activism within the constraints of the Constitution and reality won’t eliminate conflict—nor should anyone expect it to. There is a natural tension between rights activism and safety. I don’t expect police officers to see how far they can stay away from violating suspects’ Fourth Amendment rights; that would be ludicrous. Their job is to see how far they can go in the pursuit of legitimate suspects without violating the Fourth Amendment. And that’s ok. Sometimes we will disagree on where the line is. That’s even ok, within reason—that’s what courts are for. What is not OK is pretending that no search is unreasonable or that forbidding the bearing of arm is a reasonable restriction on the right to bear arms.

The other constructive path is constitutional amendment. Anti-gun advocates could use the legitimate path to changing the legal playing field. This path should be taken quickly. It was once possible to convince many people that CCW would lead to a massive population decline. Now that’s laughable. Soon it won’t be possible to convince people that there will be multitudes of gunfights in our national parks, or that nationwide CCW will lead to disaster. It is always technically possible to change the constitutional landscape; it is much harder to change what people know based on personal experience.

Most people, myself included, believe that repealing the Second Amendment has a snowball's chance in hell in the foreseeable future. But stranger things have happened. And at least efforts in that direction are honest. They can be respected.






PS: I believe that the odds of most gun control fanatics taking this advice is significantly less than the odds of the Second Amendment being repealed in the next four years. Telling gun control fanatics--as opposed to the few honest gun control advocates out there--how to gain credibility is like telling a pig how to behave at a formal ball.

[derby378]

1. Would you mind terribly if I posted this on Facebook, MySpace, etc.?

PM me when you can...

[joecool65]

2. Two mistakes

One, Vermont was not a state when the Constitution was written.
Second, the Bill of Rights was originally intended as a check of the federal government and did not apply to the states. The second amendment WAS intended as a check by the states against the federal government.
Some original wording of the second amendment and today's translation.
"well-regulated" in today's verbage means "well-trained"
The Founding Fathers did not want any yahoo to be in a militia without proper training.
"keep" meant for common purposes.
"bear" meant for military purposes. The word "carry" in late 18th century lingo would have meant for purposes like hunting.
I am not getting into an argument for or against gun control. The main purpose was to point out two mistakes in your post.

[rd_kent]

4. Well, we should have just come to you for the definitions then

Since it is so straight forward and all.

"The Founding Fathers did not want any yahoo to be in a militia without proper training. " Really, what training was that? The militia was actually anyone who volunteered and owned a gun, mostly farmers with no training.


"keep" meant for common purposes.
"bear" meant for military purposes. The word "carry" in late 18th century lingo would have meant for purposes like hunting.

And what makes you think that is the only way those words are defined in this way?

[joecool65]

6. What kind of training? Militia training, sir!

Because attendance would be so low at for militia practices, beer was often given out afterwards as an incentive for men to attend. Attendance would improve
Militias did have training.



And what makes you think that is the only way those words are defined in this way?

Because that is the way those words would have been defined in that context during the late 18th century.
I have a read a number of letters, pamphlets, publications, etc... from the late 18th century, and it is VERY clear there is a distinct difference in the usage between the words "bear" and "carry."
I studied late 18th/early 19th century primary sources in some length and detail when I was studying for my master's in History at Slippery Rock.
Where did you study primary documents from this era in your graduate history program?
Just wondering, since you present yourself as an expert in this field.

[iverglas]

10. hee hee

I've tried to explain that "bear" thing in the past. You may find you are dealing with the slow class. ;)

[rd_kent]

16. Perhaps if you tried something other than mis-characterization and snark

you might get someone to see your point, but since you rarely ever seem to have a point........

[TPaine7]

17. The Slow Class

Yes iverglas, you have tried to explain "that 'bear' thing." You've also tried to explain many other things you didn't understand.

If joecool65 really wants to identify the slow class, he should read this post and follow the links: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x186346#186686 .

A more recent example of the slow class in action is your current (cluelessly ironic) OP about your taking the prize.

You are an excellent comedienne, iverglas, I'll grant you that.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

32. And you were wrong then also.

[rd_kent]

15. I consider myself re-educated then. Nice explanation.

I see where you are coming from. I dont agree with your definitions, or at least how you are applying them to these words.

[iverglas]

20. "I see where you are coming from"

but do you see --

I dont agree with your definitions, or at least how you are applying them to these words

-- that your agreement or lack of agreement actually has no effect on the meaning of words?

If you want to say something meaningful, you really do need to offer something to support your opinion.

Mind you, so did the maker of the initial assertion, probably. I guess to those of us who deal in the history and meaning of words, some things are just kinda self-evident.

[rd_kent]

21. If I wanted your opinion, I would have....nevermind, I dont want your opinion.

If you are trying to get us started again, I am game, but no complaints this time.

[TPaine7]

22. Take your time being persuaded...

Here's some evidence to take into consideration:

At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford).When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “{s}urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate{s}: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We think that JUSTICE GINSBURG accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization.


From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s arms-bearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.” 2 Collected Works of James Wilson 1142, and n. x (K. Hall & M. Hall eds. 2007) (citing Pa. Const., Art. IX, §21 (1790)); see also T. Walker, Introduction to American Law 198 (1837) (“Thus the right of self-defence guaranteed by the constitution”);see also id., at 157 (equating Second Amendment with that provision of the Ohio Constitution). That was also the interpretation of those state constitutional provisions adopted by pre-Civil War state courts.9 These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia.


The phrase “bear Arms” also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: “to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight” or “to wage war.” See Linguists’Brief 18; post, at 11 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). But it unequivocally bore that idiomatic meaning only when followed by the preposition “against,” which was in turn followed by the target of the hostilities. See 2 Oxford 21. (That is how, for example, our Declaration of Independence ¶28, used the phrase: “He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country . . . .”) Every example given by petitioners’ amici for the idiomatic meaning of “bear arms” from the founding period either includes the preposition “against” or is not clearly idiomatic. See Linguists’ Brief 18–23. Without the preposition, “bear arms” normally meant (as it continues to mean today) what JUSTICE GINSBURG’s opinion in Muscarello said.

Source: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

As the Supreme Court notes, state constitutions spoke of bearing arms personally, not as part of any organization. This is the most relevant and analogous type of original historical source--contemporary legal documents, constitutions even.

The first time the Supreme Court addressed the Second Amendment, it called it a "right of person." It spoke of citizens being able to keep and "carry" arms wherever they went--carry was obviously a synonym for "bear" as far as they were concerned. And there's more where that came from. If you read original sources directly on point--old Supreme Court decisions speaking to the Second Amendment, old state constitutions, etc.--you may form a different opinion.

Take your time.

[Statistical]

24. Well done TPaine. Bear Arms obviously means to carry for offensive or defensive purposes.

One can bear arms for defensive or offensive purposes unrelated to military service. While most of the time bear arms does mean bear arms for military service that definition is not exclusive.

The state constitutions give credence to that.

That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. - Alabama Constitution

If bear arms was restricted by definition to ONLY military service this sentence makes no sense.

Who carries arms in military service to defend ones self? If anything military service tends to increase the likelihood ones self will be sacrificed for some larger goal (state or country).

Here are some more states:
Connecticut - 1788
SEC. 15. Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

Delaware - 1787
Section 20. A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.

Vermont - 1791
ARTICLE 16. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State - and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

There are more but I picked State Constitutions with ratification around the time of Federal Constitution.

[TPaine7]

26. Thanks.

And no offense intended to our new member, but you didn't have to be in a master's course to read that, did you? I've read so many original sources and legal documents bearing on the Second Amendment that I could see the errors in the DC brief and the supporting briefs. Many others could as well, I am sure.

Usual meaning does not equal exclusive meaning, especially when the most analogous documents possible--contemporary constitutions--emphatically prove the point.

It's fascinating how our resident sophist stubbornly refuses to admit her defeat, multiple spankings notwithstanding.

[TPaine7]

5. I appreciate constructive criticism.

One, Vermont was not a state when the Constitution was written.

True. More to the point, it was not a state when the Second Amendment was written, though it probably was when the Second Amendment came into effect:

In 1791, Vermont joined the United States as the fourteenth state, and the first outside the original Thirteen Colonies.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont

In the United States, the Bill of Rights is the name by which the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution are known.<1> They were introduced by James Madison to the First United States Congress in 1789 as a series of articles, and came into effect on December 15, 1791, when they had been ratified by three-fourths of the States. Thomas Jefferson was a proponent of the Bill of Rights.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

I was simply illustrating "state" to be one of the 50 states, as opposed to the historically accurate meaning of "free state" which is "free country" as I have documented on this site before citing UCLA professor Eugene Volokh.

Second, the Bill of Rights was originally intended as a check of the federal government and did not apply to the states. The second amendment WAS intended as a check by the states against the federal government.
Some original wording of the second amendment and today's translation.
"well-regulated" in today's verbage means "well-trained"
The Founding Fathers did not want any yahoo to be in a militia without proper training.
"keep" meant for common purposes.
"bear" meant for military purposes. The word "carry" in late 18th century lingo would have meant for purposes like hunting.
I am not getting into an argument for or against gun control. The main purpose was to point out two mistakes in your post.

I am aware of and agree with most of your points. I know that--debatably at least--the Bill of Rights was not originally intended to apply against the states. I don't see where I've said anything to conflict with that. But the Constitution has been amended. The Second Amendment most emphatically was intended by the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment to apply against the states, as they explicitly and repeatedly said. I also take issue with your understanding of "bear"--"'bear' meant for military purposes." Not exclusively; read Heller.

[joecool65]

9. Bear

I am talking about the late 18th century usage of the word "bear," not a later interpretation. It is very clear in late 18th century primary sources that "bear" and "carry" had different meanings.
For example, "bear" your "musket, firearm, etc..." to church, for we shall have military exercises after."
Or "carry your "firearm" to church, for we shall hunt after."
That is not the original wording, just a paraphrase, of documents I have read but I have done enough primary research from the Constitutional era to know that the words "bear" and "carry" had distinctive meanings when it came to firearms.
"Bear" was for military purposes.
"Carry" was for civilian purposes, such as hunting.

[TPaine7]

13. Heller cites primary sources,

I am not referring to "later interpretation."

According to the Supreme Court, "bear" meant to "carry on or about one's person in case of confrontation" {paraphrase from memory}. That is totally consistent with your paraphrases above and with the primary sources the Supreme Court cited.

[joecool65]

18. Supreme Court rulings are later interpretations

Wording was pretty simple in the 18th century and obvious to those living at the time.
"bear" meant for military purposes, "carry" meant for civilian purposes.
When the Supreme Court "interprets" anything, it is not the original meaning.

[TPaine7]

19. Welcome to DU

I had high hopes for a civil and intelligent conversation with you--you're new.

I have no idea why you're ignoring the substance of my response--I'll just assume it's a misunderstanding on one of our parts until I see more of your posts.

Good day.

[jmg257]

28. Hmm...wonder what interpretation the Pennsylvania Min. were using when they wrote...

"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves

and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing

game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them,

unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from

individuals;"


in 1787.


Their wording certainly was very simple.

And obviously shows "bear arms" originally meant, & means, more then 'for military usage'.

[Statistical]

31. Stop using logic & references, it isn't fair. n/t

[Statistical]

25. Here are some primary sources.

Connecticut Constitution - 1788
Section 15. Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

Delaware Constitution - 1787
Section 20. A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.

Vermont Constitution - 1791
Article 16. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State - and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

If bear arms is replaced with "carry arms for military purposes" those documents make no sense.

"A person has the right to keep and carry arms for military purposes for the defense of self, family, home"? WTF?

So a persons has the right to defend their self, family, and home BUT ONLY through the military? How often is the purpose of a military manuver to protect a single persons family or home?

Obviously makes no sense.

While bear arms is commonly used to mean military action it doesn't have that exclusive definition.

The wording of the state Constitutions and other historical primary sources indicate that the word bear had meaning beyond military service.

The Federal Court in looking at historical documents reached the same conclusion.
That there are numerous instances of the phrase 'bear arms' being used to describe a civilian's carrying of arms. Early constitutional provisions or declarations of rights in at least some ten different states speak of the right of the 'people' "to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state,' or equivalent words, thus indisputably reflecting that under common usage 'bear arms' was in no sense restricted to bearing arms in military service. - United States v. Emerson

[Euromutt]

27. Concerning "bearing/carrying one's musket to church"...

Your argument is logically inconsistent. If one "bore" firearms for military purposes, but "carried" them for non-military purposes, it follows that one would not "bear" firearms to church, even if militia drill were scheduled immediately after service, since one would not be taking the weapon to church for "military purposes." By your interpretation, one would carry the weapon to church for the purpose of subsequently bearing it during militia drill.

[TPaine7]

7. I had to correct a couple of offensive typos

so I changed "Vermont" to "Virginia."

I didn't mean it the way you took it, but this just makes everything cleaner.


@$#*ing Typos! :)

[jody]

30. SCOTUS said in Heller the 2nd is one of the pre-existing rights that don't depend upon constitutions

c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “{t}his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .”

Also consider my threads "Parsing Pennsylvania and Vermont constitutions, 1776 and 1777" and "Interesting question because the rights I mean are what protect the minority in a democratic" that summarize thoughts similar to those SCOTUS used in Heller when it acknowledged the Second Amendment is a "pre-existing right".

[TxRider]

33. The supreme court disagrees... n/t

[Why Syzygy]

34. So cowboys and ranchers

didn't "carry" arms in the 1800's? Of course they did. The meaning went well beyond "hunting".
They carried for protection.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

35. Yeah but....

[rd_kent]

3. Great post! But asking for the gun grabbers to change

is like asking a fundie to go atheist. There is no middle ground for these folks, especially since it would involve "admitting past mistakes" and "be constructive".

[iverglas]

8. what TPaine7 should do

Register for some course where he will be marked on his musings. And spare the rest of us.

What's that thing called? Oh yeah. Concern thingy.

The ones that come out from under their bridges and wring their hands and plead sincerely with the people they want to eat to persuade them to come down under the bridge out of the rain so they don't drown ...

[PavePusher]

29. Mirror, mirror, on the wall....

"Register for some course where he will be marked on his musings. And spare the rest of us.

What's that thing called? Oh yeah. Concern thingy."


If only she could follow her own advice... sigh.

[zipplewrath]

11. Not sure you mean this

I'm not even sure the SC would agree with your interpretation of the 2nd. They recognized that there was a right, but I'm not sure they said that the 2nd was written to "protect" that right. The 2nd was written to check the power of the feds over the states. The 2nd "recognizes" that there is "a" right. What that right is was not particularly fleshed out (I suspect many folks didn't think it needed to be). I also suspect that the SC would say that the 2nd allows the states to control their own militias and may extend to that the authority to define their own weapons laws.

I suspect the "safest" avenue to what you want is for a combination of the 10th and the "full faith and credit" provision of the constitution to suggest that states must demonstrate that you can't "carry" within their state if you are authorized to do so in your "home" state. Your problem there is that states are allowed to restrict you in similar ways in which they restrict their own citizens. In other words, you can "carry", but subject to the same carry laws that residents must follow.

[TPaine7]

14. I think you're being hypertechnical

I also thought this would be easy to clear up. It was:

Held:
1. 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.

Source: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf (bottom of page 1)

Let's not argue for argument's sake.

[proteus_lives]

12. Great post!

:thumbsup:

I've known sane gun-control advocates and I don't mind some of their ideas but they don't scream as loud as the anti/banning zealots and the politicians who make grand and pointless gestures for a few votes and good polls.

The orthodox antis would never admit they are wrong. It's like getting a fundie to be pro-choice.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.