Responding to Sheila Kennedy’s blog post entitled, “Why Do Gun Rights Trump All Other Rights?” I left a comment that I thought I’d go ahead and re-post here:
I think the reasoning usually advanced, when proponents bother explaining at all, is that the Second Amendment is the right upon which all the rest depend — sort of a revenge fantasy where the government is intent on taking away free speech rights, the right to trial by jury, and all the rest; but then a brave group of citizens throws off the yoke of tyranny with their trusty firearms.
But, given the seeming lack of interest in, say, defending the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures; I have a hard time seeing Second Amendment triumphalists rousing themselves to protect too many of the other rights.
For many, I think it’s an extension of the culture war mixed in with some gender issues. Guns (at least the right kinds of guns) are manlier, more rural, speak of a simpler time – they are John Wayne and NASCAR. (Not sure what Second Amendment enthusiasts have to say about gangsta rappers with their AKs.)
In any case, Amendments like the First, Fourth, and Sixth are dependent on words and lawyers and craftiness you know in your heart are wrong but can’t quite articulate why.
Most modern Second Amendment enthusiasts would be surprised at the role that the Black Panthers played in pushing the modern gun movement to the fore: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/8608/
For my part, I’ve been trying to determine why both left and right are perfectly happy to focus on just one or two of the ten Amendments making up the Bill of Rights, and would be content to see half or more of the others go away. I want all ten.
The 9th and 10th amendments are the best. Especially the 10th. We’d be living in a libertarian paradise (not much different than an Amish Paradise) if the 10th Amendment got the respect it deserves.
That Atlantic article is pretty cool. I am sure that the author is anti-2nd Amendment, but I read it as a very pro-gun piece.
It is also an excellent and unexpected indictment of elites, and how badly they run things because of hubris. The NRA used to be an elitist organization, and was ineffective towards its mission as a result. It was the efforts of ordinary members that turned it around.
Great response Mike.
Doug: I can only speak for my local tea party, but if you attended the same Tea Party events I do, you would see that people are concerned about their 4th Amendment rights (in addition to 9the amendment, 5th amendment takings, and so on). A great example of this is Barnes, which is mighty unpopular among most people I talk to.
Kennedy’s argument is pretty poor. The campus ban is kind of bogus. It doesn’t stop anyone from carrying, it just disarms the law abiding.
Typical poorly thought out, emotional argumentation.
2nd Amendment folks are not “a religion”, they have very thoughtful arguments backed up by statistics (there is a reason that the NRA documents every single news story of a law abiding citizen defending themselves with a firearm). The problem is that people like Kennedy are not presuadable.
I recall liberals getting roasted pretty good by conservatives back when they had the temerity to challenge the NSA’s warrantless wiretap program (see e.g. this at Free Republic) or the suspension of habeas corpus at Gitmo (Free Republic again). Apparently such challenges were evidence that you hated America and wanted the terrorists to win and whatnot.
Libertarians aren’t wrong when they note a whiff of tribalism behind when and how hard the major parties embrace certain rights.
You should read Dubya’s “Decision Points”. He certainly does not argue for those programs with that kind of ad homenum argument.
Buzzcut: I was going to ask if Dubya could even spell “ad hominem” but then I noticed that you had the same issue too :)
People aren’t concerned with illegal searches and seizures? Doug, I think there are plenty of people concerned. Let’s not forget the infamous Barnes case. You are seeing more and more conservative Republicans who want a more strict application of the 4th Amendment and are less in favor of giving police broad authority. What is surprising to me is that Democrats, who have long claimed to be the civil libertarians, are nowhere in sight when it comes to such things as represented by the Barnes decision.
I don’t think that reaction to Barnes reflects a groundswell of Fourth Amendment enthusiasm. But, I’ll concede that I’m wrong when I see the same reaction in response to resistance to a search of the person of a suspected drug user as opposed to home entry in a domestic violence case.
Buzzcut: I was going to ask if Dubya could even spell “ad hominem” but then I noticed that you had the same issue too :)
I blame spellcheck. I’m sure Dubya would too.
The Republican Liberty Caucus, to which I belong, is very concerned with indefinite military detentions of US citizens.
An argument can be made that since IU takes public money, then law-abiding citizens of the state who obtain a license to carry a handgun from the state should have the ability to do just that. If universities want total control over their buildings, their property, etc., then they should become 100% privately funded entities (or at least have a minimal amount of income from taxes. ie: Grants, etc.).
As far as the preacher types, some are looking for a quick buck. Their entire goal is to look and sound crazy and say things which are legal, but upset many people. Universities have been sued because the powers that be don’t agree with the message, and thus treat these people different. This can include moving them from high profile areas where just one week ago, some pro-abortion person was allowed to preach about how we should have abortion on-demand, no questions asked.
And while you point out the crazy preacher and troubled students, lets not forget that even employees of these institutions have also used firearms to kill fellow employees.
The underlying issue is that absent metal detectors and bag searches at every entry point, guns will always be on campus. There are always students with firearms discovered on various campuses. If a criminal wants to bring a gun on campus, they will, and the fact they are a criminal means they will do with that gun whatever they please. A silly administrative rule isn’t going to stop gun crime, ever. It will never stop a person from shooting others on campus. All it will do is prevent law-abiding citizens from being able to at least have a chance at survival.
I have to wonder with regards to IC 35-47-11.1 Local Regulation of Firearms, Ammunition, and Firearm Accessories. This chapter applies to a political subdivision (as defined in IC 3-5-2-38). Part of IC 3-5-2-38 includes “other type of local governmental corporate entity.” The three IC codes that discuss the formation of IU, Purdue, and Ball State all include use of the word “corporate” when describing these entities.
My comment above was originally posted to Kennedy’s blog, but I wanted to post it here if it doesn’t get approved over there.
One other thing I would like to point out is that the reason so many people are arming themselves, or wanting to arm themselves is because the complete failure of our criminal justice system. That system is definitely tied to other issues, which could be reasons why one such person commits a crime. This doesn’t mean crime is justifiable.
My personal opinion is that humans, from super rich to “poor,” are just too greedy. The level at which I’ve seen individual greed rise to is pretty sad, and I do believe it will eventually lead to a collapse of this country. We have poor people who want to steal because they feel they are now owed because Section 8 vouchers, food stamp credits, cash allotments, and subsidized childcare just aren’t enough. They talk as if having a fancy cell phone, having high speed internet, being able to go out to eat or catch a movie is a right, thus there is a large black market within the lower income community at large. While the number of people who commit robberies and steal may be small, there are a lot of girlfriends, moms, dads, etc. who have no problem forcing a thief relative to fork over money they know is stolen to pay a gas bill here, or help out with the rent.
As more and more people who are lucky enough to have a job and decent income start taking more and more pro-active steps to secure their goods/money, then simple pickpockets and burglars could easily turn to armed robbers. Nora is a prefect example of what I see as more violent crime making its way into our neighborhoods where such crimes used to be rare. Nora has been in the new in recent years for ATM robberies, grocery store parking lot robberies, carjackings, and most recently as of today, another scam to lure victims to be robbed (see Indy Star).
In the past, people who would comment on news stories on various media outlets would go to the free to use IN Dept. of Corrections website. They would find that in most cases, some of these folks had been in and out of prison for various crimes. The more this happens, and the more people that know this, the more people won’t feel as if their government can protect them. If people feel this way, they will eventually take steps to protect themselves. It is already happening, and don’t be surprised if it happens more and more.
This is why folks are pushing to be able to carry their guns almost everywhere. They don’t feel safe. They know that most of the time the cops just show up after the fact and take a report. Even if the cops do show up in the middle of a massacre, you may already be dead so what good are the cops then?
This whole post is a bit trollish. It starts with the assumption that you can group people into liberals & conservatives. You really can’t. I personally don’t feel like I fit into one of those labels, or sometimes, I fit into both.
Part of the reason you see some conservatives or liberal calling for one right to be stripped, and then see them crying out over another right being trampled on is because those are not the same people. They’re just part of the same group according to someone’s PoV.
Yes, the politicians that represent them are the same person, but they’re a paradox. They’re just trying to look like they support what the people that vote for them support. The problem is, some of those people take all rights seriously. Some of them are really passionate about a few. Others are idiots that are able to vote. All of them get representation.
Buzzcut: I worry that the Caucus developed such a concern in January of 2009, sometime around Obama’s inauguration. Of course it seems like Democrats do the same flip-flopping, based upon whether or not they are the ones currently in power.
Seeing as how the RLC is a Ron Paul front organization, they most certainly did not develop this concern in 2009 in reaction to Obama.
Possibly, Doug. But in conversations I had with conservatives many no longer support giving police broad authority pursuant to the drug war, sobriety checkpoints, etc. In things like civil forfeiture, I’ve gotten more support from Republicans than from Democrats. On the Barnes matter, I had Democratic legislators suggesting that people had a Section 1983 remedy against police abuses. I told them how hard it was to win a Section 1983 case…that the federal court is very hostile to those types of claims and probably dismiss 80% of them on summary judgment. They didn’t want to believe me.
Doug,
Holy cliche Batman! I think you are painting the 80+ million gun owners in this country with a pretty broad brush. “Guns are manlier, more rural, speak of a simpler time – they are John Wayne and NASCAR? Really? And “gangsta rappers with their AKs?” Yikes! You aren’t implying what it sounds like you are implying with that statement?