The guy may not like Bush, but he gets it! He understands that the purpose of the Second is to buttress all the other Amendments against any potential domestic tyrrany.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
Posted on 05/10/2002 6:16:52 PM PDT by alaskanfan
COLUMN: Steve Sebelius Talking about The Issue
When it comes to talking politics with me, there's always The Issue.
On most points on the political spectrum, I proudly come down on the left. I don't think government is evil. I applaud spending on programs from highways to welfare, because both are necessary for people in need. I'm not reflexively against all taxes, even if my esteemed colleagues across the page disagree. I believe in the concept of public education. And I think government is acting at its highest and best when it regulates to prevent environmental destruction and capitalist excess.
But there's still The Issue. The gun issue.
On guns, I find myself on the other side, taking aim -- if you'll pardon the pun -- at my brethren on the left, many of whom unabashedly say they want to ban guns outright.
It's a shortsighted, wrongheaded and totally futile instinct, not to mention the fact that gun ownership is protected by the Second Amendment. I know my leftist friends have read the Constitution, since they quote from the First, Fourth, Fifth and 14th Amendments all the time.
It happened again the other day, as I was talking to a Democratic operative. I mentioned guns, and she was appalled at my stance: Go down to the store and pick up a fully-automatic M-16A1 rifle with attached M-203 grenade launcher? I support it, so long as you toss in a few 20-round magazines.
She was shocked, as many liberal friends are. What are you, a crazy militia type? her tone asked. I thought you hated Montana.
Well, I don't know about Montana, but I am a militia type, at least if you accept the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the 1939 case United States v. Miller, which concluded that "... the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." But I digress.
I am often critical of the administration of President Bush. He's abandoned worthwhile treaties, such as the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972, and moved to "unsign" the reasonable International Criminal Court treaty, as well. He's shown little regard for the environment, and even tried to relax the Clinton-era standard for arsenic in the drinking water. And, of course, he signed off on Yucca Mountain.
But there may be an issue I can finally get behind Bush on. The gun issue.
This week, the Bush administration argued in court papers before the U.S. Supreme Court that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns, and is not simply a guarantee of weapons for the National Guard. "The current position of the United States ... is that the Second Amendment more broadly protects the rights of individuals, including persons who are not members of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to possess or bear their own firearms," says a brief written by Solicitor General Theodore Olson. It's a shift from the Clinton days, when the government didn't endorse the idea of constitutionally protected private gun ownership.
Olson adds the right to own firearms is "subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse." And there he's half-right: I have no problem with requiring criminal and mental-health background checks for gun purchasers, including those who buy their weapons at gun shows. But show me a firearm that isn't capable of being criminally misused, and I'll show you a museum piece.
How far does the Second Amendment go? All the way: A fully automatic AK-47? You bet. Heckler & Koch MP5, with suppressor? Absolutely. The classic M-14? Can't get enough of them. A Barrett .50-caliber rifle with a round that can rip through a car's engine block like Oscar Goodman through a martini? I'll take two. And toss in the classic Bond piece, the Walther PPK, would you? For formal occasions.
Why would a liberal take this stance? Because the Constitution is clear: We have the right to do it. And I'll let you in on a little secret, too. I don't believe the Second Amendment was written to protect our ability to hunt deer. It's there to make sure no government ever gets so big and oppressive that we turn into slaves. It's there to keep Washington in check, when everything else has failed. It's there to give The Man pause. And I'm glad it is.
My friends on the left, with whom I agree on many other issues, simply don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to banning guns. First, it's a betrayal of our Bill of Rights. Second, it's foolish from a policy perspective; a ban wouldn't stop a criminal from buying a gun. And third, guns (and their militia owners) are absolutely necessary to the security of a free state.
So, comrades, let's talk taxes, health care, the social safety net and jobs. But keep your hands off my guns.
In the language of diplomacy, we'll just agree to disagree.
But note the "comrades" ...
I always thought it was the folks in north Idaho that were "under the gun."
I would imagine he'd have at a minimum a collection of hunting rifles and a shotgun or two...
Do you suppose G.W. has shot a few squirrels in his day?
The guy may not like Bush, but he gets it! He understands that the purpose of the Second is to buttress all the other Amendments against any potential domestic tyrrany.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
Do you think it will be any different in 2004?
It is nice to see a liberal that "gets it."
Every liberal should be required to post then following statement in his/her front lawn:
I BELIEVE IN GUN CONTROL, THERE ARE NO FIREARMS IN THIS HOUSE.
This would quickly eliminate any opposition to gun control.
The "Clinton era" must have been short-lived then, because the absurd arsenic standard was passed via executive order in the eleventh hour of Clinton's shameful occupation of the White House. Prior to his final days in office, it didn't register as much of an issue. One might even suspect he passed said regulation as much to embarrass his successor as to protect anyone from a nonexistent threat. But Bill Clinton would never do such a thing, would he?
The neighbors bemoaned the fact that their enjoyment of their secluded property this weekend had been destroyed by this fellow apparently seeing how fast he could empty out a 30-round magazine from a semi-auto rifle -- over and over again all day. Now these neighbors aren't anti-gun (I checked on that before making an offer on the property), but they are understandably annoyed when a neighbor's gun hobby interferes with their quieter hobbies (the husband is learning to play an antique pump organ, for example).
I would very much have liked to reply to their e-mail by saying that I have a semi-auto rifle too, but that being a considerate person, I always use a silencer when shooting in a residential area. The gun banners don't want me to be able to do that, because fewer people will have grudges against guns and "gun nuts" that way.
How many suburbanites have plenty of room in their backyards to practice target shooting with handguns, but wouldn't dream of doing so because the noise alone would upset the neighbors? Lots, and I'll bet there are even more who've thought of buying a gun and learning how to use it, but because they don't live near a shooting range, or wouldn't have time to get to one very often, they just skip the gun because they figure they can't practice with it at home.
The silencer ban may originally have been aimed at criminals, but today, when the materials and instructions for making silencers are readily available (materials for a few bucks at the hardware store, instructions free on the Internet), obviously no criminal who's planning on going out and shooting someone will have any trouble equipping himself with a serviceable makeshift silencer. Today, the silencer ban is all about discouraging gun use among the general, law abiding public.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.