Join Date: August 25, 2012
My point was not to address the legal in any great detail, but rather to address the philosophy behind our national heritage's right to arms. I aimed to start a discussion of possible compromises which would preserve suitable firepower in the hands of private citizens in this current political climate. By looking at the limited capability of common citizens in the context of modern warfare (I agree with Tennessee Gentleman on that point, and he did a good job exposing ignorance in the original post), I came up with two approaches which would deal with opposition while enabling the regular people to be part of the solution to our national problems. You see, I put higher values just a little bit higher than your precious personal image of freedom and your "rights". It always seemed stupid to me to insist on some benefit which I knew would ultimately lead to the loss of that benefit.
Unfortunately, this site has proven to be full of self-focused, self-defeating individualists who would rather see it all be taken than put their their country first, make sacrifices, and keep what they can. It is that attitude, regardless of ones thoughts on my ideas, that costs us in the political realm, and which might ultimately cost us our national sovereignty and personal freedom. It makes me proud to be a statist, and hence one of the few patriotic Americans here.
Regarding Heller: My concerns in 2008 stand, as by separating the constitutional militia function from the right to arms, the Supreme Court is--intentionally or not--setting up clearance for sweeping "assault weapons" bans. Arguing a right to pistols is easy. Shotguns--easy. Carbines--maybe. Even "hunting rifles" can be justified. However, tt is quite a stretch to argue you have a "right" to an AR or such, unless it is that such arms allow you to contribute to the national security apparatus. Eliminating the militia function precludes arguing that, and makes the "unusual and dangerous" label look attractive for at least some of the targeted arms. Many of them exceed reasonable demands in the area of self-defense, and hobbies and fun might not be enough when people see school shootings happening practically everyday. You see, judges are human. They feel people's pain. They feel pressure. And if they can use their jurisprudence to get around having to invalidate laws most people seem to want, there's no guarantee they won't.
(Just as an aside, the Circuit court in Cases v U.S., 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942) actually alluded to this same anti-hobby in fending off a Second Amendment challenge to NFA in 1942, saying the defendant was "transporting and using the firearm (a submachine gun) and ammunition purely and simply on a frolic of his own and without any thought or intention of contributing to the efficiency of the well regulated militia that the Second Amendment was designed to foster as necessary to the security of a free state." I'm not discussing the legal precedent value, but rather noting the attitude difference between courts then and now, and people then and now.)
I suggested a line of thinking which would keep firepower in private hands, so I'm a "statist." Odd, but oh well. In any case, yes, as I said before, I am indeed a statist. I actually believe in authority and my country. I put that above myself and my little hobbies. I believe in values and principles, and am morally consistent enough to suggest implementing them as possible by force of law. Libertarians, while sometimes loyal, are by definition NOT patriots, as they put the individual (in reality, themselves) before their country. I know I will never convince you of how destructive your attitudes are. It's just too nice to be selfish. But at least by you being selfish, you will have no one to blame but yourselves when it all comes crashing down.
If the Founding Fathers could be resurrected today, they would look at you all and not only not lead another revolution, but also tell you all you deserve tyranny. You gave up principles of uprightness, community, and righteousness in the name of the precious "freedom" which is being used right now to choke your freedom. (It's kinda like what the Muslims in the UK said: "We will use your democracy to destroy your democracy".) Freedom is only good when it is the freedom to what is right, not what is wrong and not the freedom to frolic and play at hobbies. The more we can limit freedom to right choices, the stronger our country is, and thus the stronger our real freedom is. At one time, non-government forces in society could do the restraining. But those days are gone. People have indeed changed, bringing to my John Adams' line, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Oh, and just an aside for whatever mental case said I was disarming women, etc.: The purpose is the militia, but the right is to "the people". My ideas in no way disarm women or anyone else (save cuckoo clocks and criminals). Quite the opposite, all can contribute in some way. As I said, it was an expression of philosophy and vision more than a legal analysis.
One last point before I bid this libertarian cesspool farewell: If major gun bans and confiscations do occur, the firepower scheme I laid out will look very good to you. But it will be too late.