Ragnar on Heller
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.
With these words Justice Antonin Scalia just saved our country.
A few years ago I had the pleasure to work with a gentleman from the south who had the clearest explanation of why the 2nd Amendment was written that I ever heard. He said this: “ The 2nd Amendment ain’t about duck huntin; it is about making sure the nobody takes the pitchforks away from the Serfs so they can’t storm the castle if things get too bad.”
Justice Scalia said the same thing a little more eloquently:
The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
The 2nd Amendment is why we are a free country. It is why we are free men and not subjects. Hitler knew that his first step in establishing his Reich had to be banning individual gun ownership, so he did. The Japanese feared attacking our western coast because they knew there was an armed man behind every bush and tree. Today the United Nations pushes for global disarmament of the World population, and as it has since it was formed, America stands as a beacon of freedom against such repression. And we will continue to do so as one of my heroes said, “until they pry our guns from our cold, dead, fingers.”
A man wrote the words, “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.” He must have agonized over every sylable to make sure it was perfectly clear, to make sure that it could not be twisted, or misused, or read to mean anything other than exactly what it said.
Could he have ever imagined that 200 years later the highest court would have to issue rulings to explain the meaning of clear English usage, that four ninths of the court would be so lost in a Socialist/Marxist haze that they would argue the words had double meaning and a more subtle intent lost on the common man they were were written to serve? Would he be proud that the country he worked to build from a dream would still exist, or would he be shocked to think the rights he risked his life and family for, that so many men have bled for, would have slipped so close to the precipice? To within one judge’s opinion of being lost forever.
The other thought my Southern friend told me is this, “Once you give up your rights, or let some carpet-bagger take em away, they’s awful hard to get back.”
Josh’s friend said this decision will benefit Democrats. He is only half correct. It benefits all Americans. On behalf of my children, Thank you Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Scalia.
Comment by Anonymous on 26 June 2008 at 12:10 pm:
“He must have agonized over every sylable to make sure it was perfectly clear, to make sure that it could not be twisted, or misused, or read to mean anything other than exactly what it said.”
So clear that 9 of the most educated people in the world argued about it for a year.
Comment by Brian on 26 June 2008 at 12:46 pm:
I have no particular beef with this decision, as it appropriately leaves a lot of the real argument over gun control to be determined another day in another case. But if the rationale Ragnar puts forth in support of a right to gun ownership (the citizenry protecting itself against tyranny) is correct, can I just ask the gun-owners in the crowd how confident they feel in their ability to overtake the US government with handguns and hunting rifles? I’m pretty sure all the fighter jets and everything that the government has at its disposal ensures that if it ever decides to get together to create a police state, it can do so without having to worry much about an (effective) armed insurgency.
Comment by Anonymous on 26 June 2008 at 2:01 pm:
Well, Brian, they’re doing pretty well in Iraq.
Comment by J. Prescott on 26 June 2008 at 2:09 pm:
Brian -
Thank god you are not a general, because you would be pretty lousy at it.
First off, those planes have to know where to bomb and stuff, and as Afghanistan and Iraq has shown us, that is easier said than done. The majority of that stuff is meant to go head-to-head against a conventional army, which any rebel force would not be. So most of the tech’s advantages would be neutralized to start.
Two, against a high tech opponent that can monitor electronic transmissions, you don’t use high tech communications. You go low tech. So most of the Americans tech superiority would be ineffective against a coordinated low tech enemy. Again, see Iraq and Afghanistan.
Three, against an armed insurrection in a given territory, the people on the ground would have the advantage of having superior knowledge of the territory, would be more effectively able to scavenge off the land, and would have easy targets in supply lines and a centralized enemy, since I don’t think they would stretch themselves to thin. Meanwhile, the rebel forces could scatter, adopt guerrilla tactics and go with a “death by a 1000 cuts strategy” and just wear them out. The only thing they would lack is the products necessary to do damage to the enemy which hunting rifles and handguns can inflict.
All of this does not even count the fact that in an armed insurrection, you would have people from the federal government that either a) don’t want to be there, b) feel bad about fighting their fellow countrymen, or c) some combination of the two. Now, for the Federal government to effectively achieve a police state while combating an armed rejection, they would have to go with a scorched earth strategy, which would be immensely unpopular, and would move the majority of the people towards supporting the rebels.
And aren’t you one of the guys decrying why we can’t win Iraq because of all of these issues? You think if the Iraqis can stymie the US military, Americans wouldn’t be able to? Really?
Comment by Brian on 26 June 2008 at 2:54 pm:
I concede that being a general would not be my forte (unlike Prescott, who would be superb, I’m sure). Nevertheless, I maintain that the real protections against tyranny lie in the structural provisions of the Constitution and in our country’s long history of civil society, not in the fact that Ragnar is packing heat.
Comment by tet on 26 June 2008 at 3:14 pm:
I agree with Ragnar one hundred percent.
The possibility of us, as a people, taking the fork in the road which will grant us freedom just got higher.
I applaud the decision and God-bless SCOTUS. They’ve been protecting the rights of people now successfully for most of my lifetime. Sometimes I disagree with them, sometimes, like today, I agree.
But, in spite of my anarchist leanings, I have to say that this branch of the government actually works.
Tom
Comment by J. Prescott on 26 June 2008 at 4:18 pm:
Yes. Our long history of civil society. With the exception of the Whiskey Rebellion. And Bleeding Kansas. And the Civil War. And Bloody Sunday. And the Kent State Shootings, the Weathermen, and the Black Panthers. And the 1968 Democratic Convention. And the riots after Martin Luther King was shot (100 cities). And the LA Riots. And a bunch of other events where “civility” would not be an apropos description.
And you are right the structural constraints being used to protect against tyranny. Although, point of clarification, would one of those structures be the Commerce Clause? And if so would it be under the interpretation of the Commerce Clause before or after the Depression period, where a president bent the Court to his will so he could get the decisions he wanted?
Comment by Brian on 26 June 2008 at 4:30 pm:
Gee, Prescott, I didn’t realize you hated America so much. But, yes, you have convinced me that the only thing standing between us and tyranny is the 2nd amendment, seeing as the examples you just listed will inexorably lead to the United States turning into a dictatorship. Well argued!
Comment by JayBandit on 26 June 2008 at 6:35 pm:
Brian,
Your last comment is uber-weak. Jimmy P totally contradicted your response, and instead of replying with thought, you just came off and shot off something to attack him rather than this well though out counter-point.
Make a valid comment or don’t say anything at all.
Comment by Brian on 26 June 2008 at 8:13 pm:
Prescott didn’t make an argument, he tossed out some sarcasm that only sounded like an argument. To state the argument he is implying in logical, reasoned terms would be to say something that would cause Prescott to be laughed at by anybody with a brain and the slightest bit of objectivity (i.e. “The United States is not a civil society because it has experienced moments of extreme violence” or “Structural provisions in the Constitution do not create a meaningful protection against tyranny because the commerce clause has been broadly interpreted.”) If Prescott would like to make those arguments, he can make them and I will respond in an honest way. But I don’t think that’s what he really wanted to do. I think he wanted to say something that would make him feel like he really nailed me, and would make certain of our readers think he really nailed me, without actually advancing a dialogue. And that’s totally fine, and it’s not like I don’t do the same thing sometimes. But let’s not act like I’m the one being petty here when I don’t give him a respectul reply.
Comment by J. Prescott on 26 June 2008 at 8:49 pm:
Brian -
First of all, please note I didn’t take a position on the second amendment, although I will now. Second of all, don’t try to guess what arguments I will and will not be making cause you can’t. Third, I find it disquieting that you would criticize my use of evidence when you rarely use any, or the evidence is of the “John McCain is old” or “I found this on youtube” variety. As for me being smarmy, well, when talking to you I just feel compelled to speak your language. In other words, pot, you are black.
As for my arguments not being relevant, did you not read what you wrote? You wrote in absolutes. First you started off with guns available to commoners not being an effective counterbalance to an industrialized military. I posed an argument saying that those types of weapons have been used effectively in the past against the US military, most recently in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is something that you have at least concurred with in the past. But, to make your point, you forget that argument and ask smugly “how confident they feel in their ability to overtake the US government with handguns and hunting rifles?” Granted, I don’t have a rifle, but I answered, so you can’t be mad at that.
Then you suggest “that the real protections against tyranny lie in the structural provisions of the Constitution and in our country’s long history of civil society.” Again, you write in absolutes. I sugggest instances where there is is not the civility you refer to and where checks and balances have been ignored, indeed for prolonged periods, to show that what you rely on for protection is not nearly as constant as you lead us to believe. I could have gone further, pointing out the higher rate of violent crimes in the US, the past history of fights on Congressional floors, etc., but I thought that would be overkill. Again, you provide no support for your contention, merely relying on “common sense,” which was indeed quite common, and doing your best Bill O’Reilly impression.
I did not think I would have to explain that by my providing examples I was not claiming that civility and checks and balances in the US did not exist at all or were not at all effective. I don’t live in a binary world, where it either works perfectly or it doesn’t work at all. I was demonstrating that while we can be quite civil and checks and balances can work, there are plenty of historical instances where neither is the case.
And I wasn’t trying to pwn you, I was trying to set you up, quite frankly, to hit me back. Specifically, by you making the point above clearly, and with evidence that these checks do work, albeit imperfectly, which would in turn challenge me to draw a line as to whether I thought gun ownership represented the perfect check by the people on the government. I would have said, no of course not, and listed off all of the costs (crime, half cocked revolutions based on poorly thought out ideas, etc.), and would have had to “concede” that gun rights were not the end all be all check against government.
Ultimately, through the give and take, I was going to get us both to arrive at the point that you can’t curtail any of the checks, be it gun rights or traditional political structure, because ultimately one or many can fail, as they have in the past. That all of these checks have value, but all can be unsuccessful as they will be implemented by imperfect individuals. It is why the Founding Fathers instituted a slew of checks as opposed to merely what we learn in high school civics on how the branches interact. Based on this reasoning, this case was important. I argued this way because I knew I can’t convince you of anything straight up, because I am stupid conservative and therefore everything I say must be discounted.
Unfortunately, I didn’t count on you reading more into my arguments than was on the paper. You didn’t notice I didn’t take a position on gun control, and you thinking I thought guns were the be all end all, it spun out of context. So instead, I have to do both sides of the conversation I wanted to have, we waste time with your ineffective insults (really, I hate America? Sean Hannity called, he wants his catchphrase back. Also, the late 1990s called; they want this and the last joke back, as well), and everyone gets hacked off.
So, if you are going to read anything into future arguments I make, let me at least provide some guidelines. 1) I don’t live in a binary world. I find that more often than not there are shades of grey. So if you read something I write, and it sounds like I am taking an absolute position, read it again. 2) You are not in a position to read my mind, you are in a position to read my text. Do the latter, not the former. 3) If I think you are a wise ass, I am going to be a wise ass to you. If I think you are being genuine and are trying to think things out, I’ll respond in kind. So don’t get upset if I am a bastard to you; feel free to be a bastard back. Just try to provide something more than just your opinion, all the time.
Comment by Brian on 26 June 2008 at 9:47 pm:
John McCain IS old. Like, over 70. Seriously.
Comment by kofi the only my name is followed by sentence fragments on 26 June 2008 at 11:09 pm:
Quit stealin my schtick, Brian.
Comment by Mike on 27 June 2008 at 12:22 am:
My question is whether the people defending gun rights here currently support the assault rifle ban. Clearly, guerrilla warfare does work. However, I am pretty sure that these guerrillas have access to more advanced weaponry than pistols and hunting rifles. Secondly, isn’t it true that guerrilla warfare works mostly where there is a foreign invader, rather than situations where the internal government decides to put the insurrection down? I honestly don’t know, so I would appreciate an answer.
I guess my real question to people is this: Do we really think that with the weapons we are currently allowed under law that we could take down the government? I have a hard time believing that, even understanding that guerrilla warfare works on occasion.
Comment by Buck B. on 27 June 2008 at 12:54 am:
Two words: Red Dawn.
If Patrick Swayze can take on the entire Soviet military, I doubt some crazy-ass survivalists in Utah would have much problem with an Army division.
Snark aside, I’m with Prescott on this one big time. The Founding Fathers wanted us to have guns so we could fight our government if we had to, and they were damn right.
Comment by Brian on 27 June 2008 at 6:39 am:
I have little doubt that the founders considered guns an important safeguard against a tyrannical government. All I’m saying is that in present-day America, our culture and our separation of powers, while flawed, are the most important checks against tyranny, while guns are not very likely to be helpful. I do, of course, understand that a small armed insurgency can absolutely cause problems even for a superpower military. I just think that if the government becomes truly tyrannical (an unlikely prospect in its own right), private gun ownership will not solve that problem.
For one thing, if our democratic society crumbles to the point where an armed insurgency would be a good idea, why do we think the 2nd Amendment will be an effective deterrent to the government taking away your guns? Obviously by that point the government won’t be paying much attention to constitutional restrictions. That doesn’t mean people won’t still be able to possess guns, but it does mean that if we assume the existence of a tyrannical government, the 2nd Amendment is not going to be what’s protecting private gun ownership; rather, individuals choosing to resist the rule of a tyrannical government will do that.
Ultimately, the only way the policy rationale of “guns protect against tyranny” works is when all of the following circumstances are met: (1) A tyrannical government comes into existence, despite the other more meaningful protections that exist in the Constitution, (2) despite this tyrannical government, the 2nd Amendment is still for some reason respected, and (3) private gun ownership allows for an effective armed insurgency against a tyrannical American government.
I find that confluence of events to be exceedingly unlikely in modern times, and thus the “guns protect against tyranny” policy rationale to be insignificant enough that the more relevant conversation about gun control is what the costs and benefits are of ACTUAL, REAL-LIFE use of guns. Now, there’s plenty of reasonable debate to be had around those costs and benefits, and I don’t have a particularly firmly established opinion. But I DO think the right to own a gun is not a meaningful check against governmental overreaching.
Comment by Ragnar on 27 June 2008 at 8:01 am:
Brian, ask the Nazis about the French Resistance. They did pretty good with handguns and hunting rifles. And it is not Ragnar’s rationale, it is Justice Scalia’s (and Ragnar’s).
Comment by Brandon Ruiz on 27 June 2008 at 8:33 am:
“Brian, ask the Nazis about the French Resistance. They did pretty good with handguns and hunting rifles. And it is not Ragnar’s rationale, it is Justice Scalia’s (and Ragnar’s)”
…are you serious? Yeah, cause DuGalle marched into Paris at the head of the French resistance because the Nazis up and went home because of their valiant efforts…
Word of the wise: NEVER use the French as an example of military success unless you’re referring to Martel or Napoleon.
Comment by Brian on 27 June 2008 at 10:18 am:
Justice Scalia was referring to the framers’ intent in the context of a legal argument about the 2nd Amendment, and I said I don’t think that’s an inaccurate reading of the original intent of the framers of the 2nd Amendment. He also went on, by the way, to say that the intent was not JUST related to protection from tyranny but also because guns were important for hunting and self-protection. All I’m saying is that in modern-day America, the *policy* rationale that supports gun ownership is much stronger as it relates to hunting and self-protection rather than protection against tyranny. Which is not to say the hunting and self-protection rationale is necessarily a GOOD one (I’m not sure whether it’s a good one or not), just that there’s a much more reasonable debate to be had on those points than on the protection-from-tyranny front.
Comment by tet on 27 June 2008 at 10:28 am:
Brandon, I have to call BS on your last statement.
The French Resistance was essential in the weeks leading up to the Normandy Invasion. The German military was forced to move along roads because the rail system (as well as the land communication system) was notoriously unreliable due to partisan action.
There’s an even better example: the partisan forces in the Soviet Union was so effective that entire German units were created to counteract their depredations.
In the 21st Century, as Alvin Toffler described in War and Anti-war, the communications presented by the Internet and cell phones make partisan actions even more effective. Case in point, Chechnya, where guerrillas used cell phone to pinpoint Russian tanks. They then dropped tarpaulins onto the tanks, cutting off vision, immobilized the tank, and then killed the Russians when they emerged.
Remember, two dozen guys with the Internet and box cutters started two wars and cost billions of dollars.
Mike, in answer to your question:
I do not believe that the police in a given area should be allowed to have weaponry or body armor superior to the firepower of the locals. This, to me, would insure cooperation with the citizenry and guard against their abuse.
More later, Perhaps,
Tom
Comment by Mike on 27 June 2008 at 11:51 am:
Let me table the effectiveness discussion, at least with respect to my comments.
My other question is this. If we are going to agree that the 2nd Amendment stands was instilled to allow the citizenry to rise up against a tyrant (or give them the ability to do so, I’m oversimplifying here), then how can we accept an assault rifle ban? An AK-47 or a Tank would surely help me rise up against a tyrant.
In other words, how is it unconstitutional to ban handguns across the board, but not machine guns or other more sophisticated weaponry?
Comment by Anonymous on 27 June 2008 at 3:18 pm:
Originalist rationale. There were no assault rifles or tanks back then.
Comment by J. Prescott on 27 June 2008 at 3:35 pm:
Or…the idea is that those weapons that are available to the general public should not be prohibited. Tanks and the like might be equivalent to cannons back then, and cannons were not generally acquired by the common citizen back in those days. So if 1770s citizen tried to acquire a cannon, he might be prohibited; from a musket he wouldn’t be. Translate that into modern day. Maybe? I don’t know, its a reach, but its all I got right now.
Comment by tet on 27 June 2008 at 3:38 pm:
No, but there were cannons with canister and cavalry units, which filled exactly the same niches.
Weapons have filled the same roles in every war we’ve ever had. They’re designed to kill people, break things, and deny access to ground. The rate at which they do it has increased, but the increase from assault rifles is no greater than the one from machine guns at the beginning of last century–it’s a multiplier, not a paradigm shift.
Mike is right. I don’t think that assault weapons can or should be banned. As a matter of fact, I think we’re less than twenty-five years away from a time when the guy down the street could easily make WMDs in his basement if he wishes (nuclear, biological, virtual, or nanotech).
In order to survive, we’re going to have to rethink the meaning of a civil society, rather than worry about what laws are going to be passed or not. The laws are going to be uninforceable in that world, anyway, without a consensus on their propriety.
Tom Trumpinski
Comment by tet on 27 June 2008 at 5:36 pm:
In any case, most of this discussion is still really 20th Century. We should not be worried about the legality of assault rifles in the future as much as worried about the legality of things like this in private hands.
Tom
Comment by Brandon Ruiz on 28 June 2008 at 10:02 am:
Yes Tom and by the year 2000 all wars will be fought by robots in space as our martian colonists (ungrateful bastards!) try to splinter from the Earth.
Comment by tet on 28 June 2008 at 10:12 am:
Well, Brandon, we don’t have that, but we do have an interlocking set of virtual worlds where some people make millions of dollars trading virtual goods, live lives where they’re known by their avatars, and have access to 24/7 instant communications (as in True Names).
We do have a Britain where you are photographed over one hundred times per day as you go about your business (as in 1984).
Hey, I want flying cars as much as the next guy, but the future is created by fear and money, not ideals or shiny things.
The future we really get is going to be a lot more interesting and a lot more dangerous than we can possibly imagine.
Tom
Comment by Billy Joe Mills on 28 June 2008 at 11:07 am:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped0627blogjun27,0,1333854.story
Comment by Anonymous on 3 July 2008 at 6:19 pm:
and yet, our rights are disappearing before our eyes, even though there are more guns in private hands than people in this country.
However, that just makes sense, as a 9 mm pistol ain’t gonna be much of a defense when the government has Blackhawk helicopters.
Non-violent uprisings are widely more powerful and successful than armed revolts, which lead to years of stalemate and insane bloodshed.
Comment by Abigail Clark on 21 July 2010 at 9:56 pm:
gun control is really necessary to reduce violence and crimes.-~.
Comment by Projector Lamp : on 23 October 2010 at 9:42 am:
i think that gun control should always be implemented at all times to reduce gun related violence*.’
Comment by Garden Lighting %0B on 13 December 2010 at 1:58 pm:
i think that gun control is a must because more guns means more deaths ,’;