News Hour

pdog · May 9, 2002, 12:12 PM

Did anybody watch the News Hour on PBS last night. How did you feel about the comment that the real debate about the 2nd Am. should not be about individual vs. collective, but rather if it should be repealed or not?

First Post but have been lurking.

MP Freeman · May 9, 2002, 12:16 PM

I'm not in a position to comment as I have given up on the Television drug for quite some time.

DO you have a link?

My only comment based on information you've given is 'What do you expect from the People's Broadcasting?'

MP

pdog · May 9, 2002, 12:20 PM

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/newshour_index.html

pdog · May 9, 2002, 12:32 PM

I was actually quite surprised at the debate, most of panel members. Seemed to support the contention that RKBA is and always has been a individual right, and that the long held interpretation of Miller is simply wrong and illegitamate.

Hook em

Byron · May 9, 2002, 01:31 PM

Interesting that the woman and the black guy were pro-RKBA; the two white guys were for the collective rights view.

The comment about debating the repeal of the 2nd Amendment was a good one. That's the straightup way for anti-gunners to go about it, not by twisting the meaning of legal precedents, publishing junk science, and lying about the statistics.

Will they take that advice? Of course not. They don't have a ghost of a chance at repeal, and they know it. The reason is that it would depend on people voting for it. These folks can't get their agenda adopted that way; their only hope is to go through the courts, which is what they always do.

pdog · May 9, 2002, 01:44 PM

What about the concept that rights are granted by God or whatever, and the BoR simply enumerates specific right. Is there an argument to that? Do antis agree with BoR concept of enumeration. If one agrees with it I don't see how a right could be repealled, without undermining our concept of Rights.

Hookem

Brett Bellmore · May 9, 2002, 01:55 PM

Of course, Cornell is wrong (I could stop right there.

) about the 2nd amendment being the only one anyone's proposing to fiddle with; They held a vote just last year to gut the 1st amendment, and about a third of the Senate voted to do it. There's actually LESS of a movement to actually repeal the 2nd. Of course, that's largely because the 1st amendment is actually being enforced, while the 2nd has been ignored by the courts for years, and there's not a whole lot of point in repealing a dead letter.

I suspect that if the courts start enforcing the 2nd amendment in any meaningful way, you'll see real efforts to promote the idea of repealing it. Won't get very far, though, what with 44 of the states having 2nd amendment analogs in their own constitutions. The votes just aren't there to ratify such an amendment, even if Congress were reckless enough to send one to the states.

It's a pity the News Hour could devote so little time to the subject; You know, I think they actually covered things in more depth when they only had a half hour, because they would devote it more to one story.

MuzzleBlast · May 9, 2002, 02:08 PM

Overall, I'm really impressed that a news program on PBS would resist the temptation to stack the deck in any discussion like this. All four of the commentators seemed to aggree that the 2nd amendment was being misinterpreted, and that the interpretations of U.S. v. Miller were "distorted", to use the word of one of the professors, to fit the modern political needs of the gun control movement.
Generally, I get the impression that most law scholars have never really read the 2nd am and pondered on its meaning before now, or at least, before the 2000 elections. They are doing that now, and revisiting U.S. v. Miller, and most are coming to the conclusion that we have been right all along. I am still not expecting a sweeping change to happen just any day now. I don't think the Supremes are going to meet tomorrow and summarily throw out all gun laws going back to GCA 1934, but I do see reason for cautious optimism that the tide really is turning. Baby steps these may be, but definitely in the right direction.

pdog · May 9, 2002, 02:21 PM

I wonder what Mr. Lehrer's personal views are on the subject. I think he is from the Oklahoma Texas area.

OF · May 9, 2002, 02:27 PM

Quote:

How did you feel about the comment that the real debate about the 2nd Am. should not be about individual vs. collective, but rather if it should be repealed or not?

That's how the debate should be framed. You want gun control? Deal with the constitutional issues and then maybe you can have it. Good luck.

Also, I understand that the BoR, comprised of the first 10 Articles, cannot be 'repealed' or altered in any way...vote or no vote. Only the subsequent amendments are vulnerable to adjustment. The BoR enumerates (as pdog pointed out) pre-existing, unalienable rights that are inherent to a free people, and wholly necessary, and as such are not subject to the whims of the majority or the winds of change.

The Bill of Rights is inviolate. These rights are your rights, as in you personally. You have these rights (of which the BoR is but a list of some of the most important) because you are a free person and they are your birthright as such, not because you are an American. The BoR simply states this truth.

So, at the end of the day, the gun grabbers (in an honorable debate) are dead before they begin. They have to surmount the constitutional issues first, which are insurmountable.

Unfortunately, nobody plays fair. Which is why we have the 2nd Amendment.

- Gabe

Brett Bellmore · May 9, 2002, 02:52 PM

GRD, the "immunity" of the Bill of Rights to amendment is more of a moral than legal matter; There's absolutely nothing in the Constitution to suggest the BOR is exempt from the amendment process, and they could have said it explicitly, since they DO say that the States can't be deprived of equal representation in the Senate without their consent.

But as a moral matter, the Constitution was only ratified given the promise that a bill of rights would follow, and amending the BOR would violate that guarantee. We all know how attentive the government is to such moral niceties, of course.

Brett Bellmore · May 9, 2002, 03:05 PM

By the way, I just caught a few seconds of NPR, they're doing a call in segment on this now. "Talk of the Nation", I think. Akil Amar v. Eugene Volokh (Sp?).

Don Gwinn · May 9, 2002, 04:14 PM

Pdog, there certainly is a debate over enumeration of rights vs. granting of rights. Antis prefer to think of things like RKBA as being granted by the Constitution. Combined with their view of the Constitution as too old to be anything but obsolete, this means that the RKBA can be removed with a clear conscience any time it becomes too outdated to be workable.

If RKBA is an innate right possessed by all people, then repealing or gutting the 2nd Amendment doesn't remove it. It would simply mean oppressing people by denying them an inherent right. Would you want that on your conscience? Well, neither do antis, so they have to profess to believe there is no inherent right.

jimpeel · May 9, 2002, 04:21 PM

The New Hour with Jim Lehrer had a civilized (but too short, only 16 minutes) segment on the change in the government's position with respect to the 2nd Amendment. The panel consisted of Robert Cottrol, Joyce Lee Malcolm, Saul Cornell, and Jack Rakove. I think the good guys won easily, thanks mainly to Professor Cottrol's concise, confident presentation. Malcolm was pretty good but looked a little ill at ease on TV. Judge for yourselves:

Listen: Requires RealPlayer

dZ · May 9, 2002, 05:19 PM

Thursday, May 9, 2002
The Justice Department has changed its
position on the Second Amendment to
recognize an individual's right to bear
arms. Thursday on Talk of the Nation,
guest host Steve Inskeep explores the
legal scholarship and White House policy
on the Second Amendment.

The audio for this program will be available online after 6PM ET, 3PM PT.

http://www.npr.org/programs/totn/

jimpeel · May 9, 2002, 06:12 PM

Thursday, May 9, 2002
The Justice Department has changed its position on the Second Amendment to recognize an individual's right to bear arms. Thursday on Talk of the Nation, guest host Steve Inskeep explores the legal scholarship and White House policy on the Second Amendment.

The audio for this program will be available online after 6PM ET, 3PM PT.

http://www.npr.org/programs/totn/

Quote:

Guests:

Nina Totenberg
* NPR Legal Affairs Correspondent

Akhil Amar
* Constitutional Law Professor at Yale

Eugene Volokh
* Law Professor at UCLA (teaches free speech law, copyright law, the law of government and religion)

Matt Nosanchuk
* Litigation Director, Violence Policy Center

Trish Gregory
* Spokesperson, National Rifle Association

The Justice Department has amended its position on the 2nd Amendment from protecting states' rights to organize militias to protecting the right of individuals to bear arms. On Talk of the Nation, guest host Steve Inskeep explores the legal scholarship and White House policy on the Second Amendment.

StarfuryZeta · May 9, 2002, 09:21 PM

I was surprised to hear this on NPR today. I only caught bits and pieces of it, but what I heard was Amar and Volokh both using the interpretation of individual rights (militia is the armed citizenry of America). I'm glad this will be available.

MP Freeman · May 9, 2002, 10:23 PM

I listened to their 'legal' expert, Nina Totenburg, open the show with how ALL intelligent legal and constitutional scholars agree that the second amendment is definitely a collective right. And the scholar hosting the program was admittedly stated he was in the corner of the collective right camp. That did not suprise me coming from these folk, but to openly admit that the staff is non-RKBA was actually refreshing. Honesty is so rare. But the other folk were OK, the chick from the NRA wasn't the strongest but overall, it wasn't bad. Not many intelligent callers got in. I REALLY Tried, but to no avail.

MPF

Don Gwinn · May 9, 2002, 10:29 PM

Well, they have a point. Only lunatic-fringe right-wingers like Amar and Laurence Tribe argue for an individual interpretation.

papercut · May 9, 2002, 11:12 PM

Quote:

GRD spake:
Also, I understand that the BoR, comprised of the first 10 Articles, cannot be 'repealed' or altered in any way...vote or no vote. Only the subsequent amendments are vulnerable to adjustment. The BoR enumerates (as pdog pointed out) pre-existing, unalienable rights that are inherent to a free people, and wholly necessary, and as such are not subject to the whims of the majority or the winds of change.

Gabe, actually, that's not the case. What we call the "Bill of Rights" is nothing more than ten amendments to the Constitution. They were introduced in and passed by Congress, and then ratified by the states just like any other amendment. As such, they can be repealed in the same manner as any other amendment (or any other part of the Constitution, for that matter).

Minor point I like to make to lefties regarding the Bill of Rights: Many of them love to proclaim how the 1st amendment was proposed first because it's so much more important than the rest. It's fun to watch their faces when pointing out that their beloved 1st was actually 3rd in a list of twelve. When they don't believe me, I point them to the National Archives website image of the original document as written to present to Congress. Oh, and for the record, the original 2nd amendment is now the 27th amendment, having been ratified by a sneak attack from the states in 1992.

pdog, who were the guests?

Quote:

pdog barked:
the comment that the real debate about the 2nd Am. should not be about individual vs. collective, but rather if it should be repealed or not?

Do you remember which guest made this comment? Was it one of the pro-2A people or the antis? If an anti, then it seems to me that this statement implies acceptance that the 2nd means what we claim, and that the only way to get their way is to repeal it.

Standing Wolf · May 10, 2002, 12:02 AM

Leftist so-called "common sensible gun control legislation" and "safety laws" for "the sake of the children" are the abolition of the Second Amendment on the installment plan. They'd repeal the Second Amendment in half a heart beat if they thought they could get away with it.

jimpeel · May 10, 2002, 10:32 PM

The program invited letters to the program and they will be reading them on Monday. Get those keys working, guys. Address is: totn@npr.org

My letter:

Quote:

Re: The Second Amendment (05-09-02)

If the term "People" in the Second Amendment actually means "States" then the Tenth Amendment, which reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." would instead read: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the States."

It is obvious that when the Founders wrote the Constitution they differentiated between the People and the States and that they knew the difference.

Sincerely,

Jim Peel
Longmont, CO

Pendragon · May 11, 2002, 12:21 AM

It seems to me that for them to come out for repealing the 2ndA is to tacitly admit that it is an indivual right.

Afterall - why would they want to repeal the right of the states to keep a national guard?

May 9, 2002, 12:12 PM	#1
pdog Junior Member Join Date: February 4, 2002 Posts: 14	News Hour Did anybody watch the News Hour on PBS last night. How did you feel about the comment that the real debate about the 2nd Am. should not be about individual vs. collective, but rather if it should be repealed or not? First Post but have been lurking.

May 9, 2002, 01:55 PM	#7
Brett Bellmore Senior Member Join Date: March 17, 1999 Location: Capac, MI, USA Posts: 1,927	Of course, Cornell is wrong (I could stop right there. ) about the 2nd amendment being the only one anyone's proposing to fiddle with; They held a vote just last year to gut the 1st amendment, and about a third of the Senate voted to do it. There's actually LESS of a movement to actually repeal the 2nd. Of course, that's largely because the 1st amendment is actually being enforced, while the 2nd has been ignored by the courts for years, and there's not a whole lot of point in repealing a dead letter. I suspect that if the courts start enforcing the 2nd amendment in any meaningful way, you'll see real efforts to promote the idea of repealing it. Won't get very far, though, what with 44 of the states having 2nd amendment analogs in their own constitutions. The votes just aren't there to ratify such an amendment, even if Congress were reckless enough to send one to the states. It's a pity the News Hour could devote so little time to the subject; You know, I think they actually covered things in more depth when they only had a half hour, because they would devote it more to one story. __________________ Sic semper tyrannis!

May 9, 2002, 02:08 PM	#8
MuzzleBlast Senior Member Join Date: September 11, 2001 Location: Arkansas. Much better place since Bill and Hillary went home. Posts: 974	Overall, I'm really impressed that a news program on PBS would resist the temptation to stack the deck in any discussion like this. All four of the commentators seemed to aggree that the 2nd amendment was being misinterpreted, and that the interpretations of U.S. v. Miller were "distorted", to use the word of one of the professors, to fit the modern political needs of the gun control movement. Generally, I get the impression that most law scholars have never really read the 2nd am and pondered on its meaning before now, or at least, before the 2000 elections. They are doing that now, and revisiting U.S. v. Miller, and most are coming to the conclusion that we have been right all along. I am still not expecting a sweeping change to happen just any day now. I don't think the Supremes are going to meet tomorrow and summarily throw out all gun laws going back to GCA 1934, but I do see reason for cautious optimism that the tide really is turning. Baby steps these may be, but definitely in the right direction. __________________ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ArkansasShooters/ Molwn labe!

May 9, 2002, 02:52 PM	#11
Brett Bellmore Senior Member Join Date: March 17, 1999 Location: Capac, MI, USA Posts: 1,927	GRD, the "immunity" of the Bill of Rights to amendment is more of a moral than legal matter; There's absolutely nothing in the Constitution to suggest the BOR is exempt from the amendment process, and they could have said it explicitly, since they DO say that the States can't be deprived of equal representation in the Senate without their consent. But as a moral matter, the Constitution was only ratified given the promise that a bill of rights would follow, and amending the BOR would violate that guarantee. We all know how attentive the government is to such moral niceties, of course. __________________ Sic semper tyrannis!

May 9, 2002, 03:05 PM	#12
Brett Bellmore Senior Member Join Date: March 17, 1999 Location: Capac, MI, USA Posts: 1,927	By the way, I just caught a few seconds of NPR, they're doing a call in segment on this now. "Talk of the Nation", I think. Akil Amar v. Eugene Volokh (Sp?). __________________ Sic semper tyrannis!

May 9, 2002, 12:16 PM	#2
MP Freeman Senior Member Join Date: July 28, 2000 Location: Secret volcano lair Posts: 489	I'm not in a position to comment as I have given up on the Television drug for quite some time. DO you have a link? My only comment based on information you've given is 'What do you expect from the People's Broadcasting?' MP

May 9, 2002, 12:20 PM	#3
pdog Junior Member Join Date: February 4, 2002 Posts: 14	http://www.pbs.org/newshour/newshour_index.html

May 9, 2002, 12:32 PM	#4
pdog Junior Member Join Date: February 4, 2002 Posts: 14	I was actually quite surprised at the debate, most of panel members. Seemed to support the contention that RKBA is and always has been a individual right, and that the long held interpretation of Miller is simply wrong and illegitamate. Hook em

May 9, 2002, 01:31 PM	#5
Byron Senior Member Join Date: December 4, 1999 Location: Sandia Park, NM Posts: 270	Interesting that the woman and the black guy were pro-RKBA; the two white guys were for the collective rights view. The comment about debating the repeal of the 2nd Amendment was a good one. That's the straightup way for anti-gunners to go about it, not by twisting the meaning of legal precedents, publishing junk science, and lying about the statistics. Will they take that advice? Of course not. They don't have a ghost of a chance at repeal, and they know it. The reason is that it would depend on people voting for it. These folks can't get their agenda adopted that way; their only hope is to go through the courts, which is what they always do.

May 9, 2002, 01:44 PM	#6
pdog Junior Member Join Date: February 4, 2002 Posts: 14	What about the concept that rights are granted by God or whatever, and the BoR simply enumerates specific right. Is there an argument to that? Do antis agree with BoR concept of enumeration. If one agrees with it I don't see how a right could be repealled, without undermining our concept of Rights. Hookem

May 9, 2002, 02:21 PM	#9
pdog Junior Member Join Date: February 4, 2002 Posts: 14	I wonder what Mr. Lehrer's personal views are on the subject. I think he is from the Oklahoma Texas area.

May 9, 2002, 04:14 PM	#13
Don Gwinn Staff Emeritus Join Date: March 9, 2000 Location: Virden, IL Posts: 5,919	Pdog, there certainly is a debate over enumeration of rights vs. granting of rights. Antis prefer to think of things like RKBA as being granted by the Constitution. Combined with their view of the Constitution as too old to be anything but obsolete, this means that the RKBA can be removed with a clear conscience any time it becomes too outdated to be workable. If RKBA is an innate right possessed by all people, then repealing or gutting the 2nd Amendment doesn't remove it. It would simply mean oppressing people by denying them an inherent right. Would you want that on your conscience? Well, neither do antis, so they have to profess to believe there is no inherent right. __________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Don Gwinn: Chicago Gun Rights Examiner

May 9, 2002, 04:21 PM	#14
jimpeel Senior Member Join Date: October 12, 1999 Location: Longmont, CO, USA Posts: 4,391	Got this by e-mail The New Hour with Jim Lehrer had a civilized (but too short, only 16 minutes) segment on the change in the government's position with respect to the 2nd Amendment. The panel consisted of Robert Cottrol, Joyce Lee Malcolm, Saul Cornell, and Jack Rakove. I think the good guys won easily, thanks mainly to Professor Cottrol's concise, confident presentation. Malcolm was pretty good but looked a little ill at ease on TV. Judge for yourselves: Listen: Requires RealPlayer __________________ Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm. "Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare "Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed" -- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey

May 9, 2002, 05:19 PM	#15
dZ Senior Member Join Date: June 1, 1999 Location: Exiled, Fetid Swamp, DC Posts: 7,549	Thursday, May 9, 2002 The Justice Department has changed its position on the Second Amendment to recognize an individual's right to bear arms. Thursday on Talk of the Nation, guest host Steve Inskeep explores the legal scholarship and White House policy on the Second Amendment. The audio for this program will be available online after 6PM ET, 3PM PT. http://www.npr.org/programs/totn/ __________________ "O tell the Lacedomecians to damn the torpedoes." BOTR, Chapter V: Some Monsters

May 9, 2002, 09:21 PM	#17
StarfuryZeta Senior Member Join Date: July 5, 2000 Location: FL, USA Posts: 119	I was surprised to hear this on NPR today. I only caught bits and pieces of it, but what I heard was Amar and Volokh both using the interpretation of individual rights (militia is the armed citizenry of America). I'm glad this will be available.

May 9, 2002, 10:23 PM	#18
MP Freeman Senior Member Join Date: July 28, 2000 Location: Secret volcano lair Posts: 489	I listened to their 'legal' expert, Nina Totenburg, open the show with how ALL intelligent legal and constitutional scholars agree that the second amendment is definitely a collective right. And the scholar hosting the program was admittedly stated he was in the corner of the collective right camp. That did not suprise me coming from these folk, but to openly admit that the staff is non-RKBA was actually refreshing. Honesty is so rare. But the other folk were OK, the chick from the NRA wasn't the strongest but overall, it wasn't bad. Not many intelligent callers got in. I REALLY Tried, but to no avail. MPF

May 9, 2002, 10:29 PM	#19
Don Gwinn Staff Emeritus Join Date: March 9, 2000 Location: Virden, IL Posts: 5,919	Well, they have a point. Only lunatic-fringe right-wingers like Amar and Laurence Tribe argue for an individual interpretation. __________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Don Gwinn: Chicago Gun Rights Examiner

May 10, 2002, 12:02 AM	#21
Standing Wolf Senior Member Join Date: April 26, 2002 Location: Colorado Posts: 1,649	Leftist so-called "common sensible gun control legislation" and "safety laws" for "the sake of the children" are the abolition of the Second Amendment on the installment plan. They'd repeal the Second Amendment in half a heart beat if they thought they could get away with it. __________________ No tyrant should ever be allowed to die of natural causes.

May 11, 2002, 12:21 AM	#23
Pendragon Senior Member Join Date: August 10, 2001 Location: Austin, Texas Posts: 1,155	It seems to me that for them to come out for repealing the 2ndA is to tacitly admit that it is an indivual right. Afterall - why would they want to repeal the right of the states to keep a national guard?