I'll Trade You the 2nd Amendment for the 4th

Conservatives are thrilled about the Supreme Court decision settling the 2nd amendment issue in favor of individual gun owners (versus the idea that gun rights are only within the framework of a well-regulated militia). They are celebrating the constitution today. God bless their hearts. I wish they did that more often and about more amendments.

I believe in gun control. I believe that guns do kill people. In fact, they are designed to kill things. It is indisputable that they make killing a lot easier. That's what they're made for.

But I believe my side has lost this issue for now in the court of public opinion and in the Supreme Court. There are actually two different issues here. One is the policy argument concerning how much gun control we should have. The other is the constitutional argument of what the second amendment means.

I think it is reasonable to disagree on the meaning of the second amendment. In fact, I'm torn on it. If I heard this case myself as a judge and ultimately came down against the majority decision (which is not a certainty at all, I think this presents an excellent and close constitutional question -- apparently the Supreme Court agreed since they split 5-4 on it), I still wouldn't find the majority position unreasonable.

So, I am happy to concede that we should follow the second amendment to the letter of the law (as interpreted in this case). Now, can conservatives find it in their heart to agree that we should also follow the fourth amendment to the letter of the law? And if they can't, what possible logical or constitutional arguments can they have for fervently defending one amendment and rejecting another?

The fourth amendment clearly states that the government needs a warrant with probable cause in order for it to conduct a search or seizure. The Bush administration has been in flagrant violation of this for seven years now. They refuse to get warrants to wiretap conversations of Americans speaking with or emailing people abroad. This is clearly illegal and unconstitutional. But here conservatives find the constitution a little more inconvenient.

Justice Scalia warned after the recent Guantanamo Bay case, that the majority had almost certainly caused the deaths of many Americans with their decision. I think that's absurd hyperbole. But what is entirely possible is that the second amendment decision written by Scalia will lead to many more American deaths. But I don't begrudge him that. If he thinks that's the correct interpretation of the amendment, then our only recourse is to pass another amendment overriding it (not going to happen). We'll have to live with the extra deaths. Freedom isn't free.

But here, I propose a very fair trade. I will trade the second amendment for the fourth amendment. If the Bush administration releases the fourth amendment that it is currently holding hostage, I'm happy to consider the Supreme Court decision on the second amendment final and decisive. You keep the second amendment, we keep the fourth.

That seems like the fairest possible trade. My guess is that conservatives won't bite. They will continue the party line about how crucial it is that we follow the constitution when it comes to the second amendment and how important it is that we ignore the constitution when it comes to the fourth.

Young Turks on You Tube

Comments

[RTS4HP]

Cenk, I'll trade you the 4th for the child rape ruling.

[zizyphus]

When we lose our right to bear arms, game's over.

[gevan]

A search warrant has to specify a name or a place to be searched and what is to be seized. The program involved searches generically and hopefully, but not neccessarily (and neither within the 48 hour grace period), can put a name or number to the presumed illegality of the evil-doers. We are all John Does in this scenario.

[Stevo]

So you would be okay with a regulation that required gun owners to (1) apply for a permit to purchase a gun, (2) take a course in gun safety, (3) register the gun annually just the way we do for cars, and (4) pay a registration fee?

The NRA is against any regulation. They are against even a 3 day waiting period. They are against doing background checks to see if the gun buyer is a felon or mentally unstable. They are against restrictions on armor piercing bullets. Why?

Also, if the govt is allowed to ban grenades and missiles, why can't they ban handguns within city limits? Why do you gun freaks elevate guns to a loftier status than any other "arm" such as flame throwers or artillery? Your arguments are simply not logical.

[CanisLatrans]

It's actually very logical-- if you know anything about weapons at all.

Explosive and area-effect weapons (ie, flamethrowers) cannot be controlled: their destructive energy is released. You cannot aim (and take responsibility) for their destructive energy. A gun must be aimed, a target chosen, and you take responsibility for that target.

But emotional hyperbole is much easier.

BTW, the NRA actually SPONSORED the instant check system, as an alternative to the 3-day -wait, and they wanted to link mental health files (which would have stopped the VTech shooter) but concerns about "privacy" shot that down.

I don't have a problem with aspects of liscencing and safety courses, though.

[bgregs]

You're partially correct. Guns CAN be aimed, but they can also just be shot in any old direction. I can't count the number of innocent bystanders killed in Chicago just in this year, but I know that it's more than 100. Now granted, that's not too many in a city of more than 2 million, but.....

[DJStuCrew]

The NRA isn"t against ANY regulation, just those that won"t impact violent crime. The average crime gun is six years old; making waiting periods nonsensical. They can even be dangerous: women in divorce proceedings have died while waiting to buy a gun.

The NRA worked with Congress to improve the background check system that would've stopped the Virginia Tech shooter from legally buying a gun. Nobody wants mental patients and felons getting guns. The failing of gun control is that they"ll get them anyway.

NO COP HAS YET BEEN KILLED by a so-called "cop killer" bullet. In fact, many police officers use the demonized "Black Talon" (now re-branded as the Ranger XT) in their service pistols. They weren"t made to pierce armor. They were made to expand -- good because it stops a bad guy with one hit. Also, they don"t penetrate the attacker " safer for bystanders.

Grenades and missiles are weapons of mass destruction; indiscriminate, designed to kill many people at once. This is why they're not covered.

You should be able to defend yourself anywhere you can be attacked. Heard of any attacks out in the country lately? Gangs, rapists and muggers are inner-city creatures.

Do not be so eager to give up a fundamental right. As Benjamin Franklin wrote, "They that can give up an essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety."

[CanisLatrans]

You're right-- Conservatives won't bite. But they lost their "American" creds a long time ago. I used to be a conservative. Years of abuse and dodgy deals with our liberties undid all that. I refuse to believe that "Patriotism" means choosing a war that wasn't necessary, sending folks to that war with inadequate equipment, and covering it all up with a $1.99 flag pin and some pap about God.

I would love for them to honor ALL of the Constitution but let's face it, they won't. I'm voting Canis Hussein Latrans this year. The conservatives are free to go create the Corporate-Theocratic (Infrastructurally-incompetent) States of America on the Moon if they can get there.

You're wrong about the 2nd and gun control, though. Heh. ;-)

[letsgetsmart]

I agree the logic here is way out some where. Why would the founding fathers make sure that it was so hard to take the guns away from the citizens? Maybe it was so they could be used if the government was abusing the citizens like on the fourth amendment. I can understand a scenario where a political group wanted to take away the guns and then abuse our other rights but to arm the people that you are abusing is kinda nuts. When we break down your door in an illegal search we want to make sure that you could have every gun you desire to shoot us with. Maybe even tanks and rocket launchers. Like I said, kinda nuts.

[sustainable]

The 2nd is sacrosanct and the fourth for that matter.

The founding fathers had the answers, we don't.

[Chuckbutcher]

Pah,
This isn't about left or right, it is about authoritarianism. I may be left of Cenk and I find this ruling flawed in fact if not in result. Many of my activist Democratic friends are gun owners and supporters of the 2nd as an individual right. I am, personally, about the expansion of liberties rather than their narrowing, and the 4th is high on my list. Conservatives applaud and liberals cry? Not so. Thanks for reinforcing a stereotype that costs us votes and credibility.

[PixelMarx]

For all progressives that want to give away our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms in any circumstance, I suggest some history lessons. Start with the Spanish Civil War where the fact that those who wanted a more progressive government were faced with a fascist government that took away their rights. And in trying to do battle, were no match for the Nazi equipped Franco regime. The right to rise up against an oppressive government is important, and while peace is always the first priority, there are times when war becomes necessarily. On the eve of July 4th, I'd think more would understand this basic fact.

[Tommygun264]

Have you read the 2nd Amendment? Not the edited version quoted by the NRA, but the actual 2nd Amendment in its entirety. If you haven't, you should. Then you can explain to me why we should ignore the word "MILITIA", which is what the 2nd Amendment refers to as the reason for citizens to have the right to keep and bear arms - as part of a trained MILITIA. Somehow the NRA and everyone on the right edits that part out.

With regard to your plans to rise up against an oppressive government, will your shotgun and 357 Magnum stand up against military grade weaponry such as helicopter gun ships and cruise missiles? How do assault rifles stand up against a Howitzer? Will the body armor you purchase online protect you when a tank rolls over you, or keep you safe from military grade ammunition tipped with depleted uranium? If an oppressive dictatorship, like a President that believes he is above the law, were to declare martial law, he could label any armed civilian resistance as terrorists and crush them quickly and completely. The only way we as citizens can stop an oppressive dictatorship for coming to power is through restoration of the three coequal branches of government and the rule of law as outlined in our constitution. Legislation and the system of checks and balances may not give you the same thrill as holding a big, hard, powerful, but it is more realistic than armed revolution.

[Zankee]

Militia= non-professional soldiers; organized ARMED citizens in cases of emergency.

Don't worry about an "...armed revolution."..; to many pacifists and cowards and not enough unity or strengths.... It would be a far better world if guns didn't exist, but they do,.. and if my enemies have access.., then I want access also....

The Constitution also provides that a citizen has the "right" not to own a gun.., and those with guns will protect your "right".., ...as best they can....

[Rocku]

This is a speciuos argument! Tell the Veitnamese and Iraqis that having only portable arms will not get you anything. Armed resistance by over 90 million of us (the total estimated number of American gun owners) will certainly get SOMEONES attention! No standing army can survive in those circumstances... NONE! So please, dont start with the "your shotgun against a tank" thing. Those guys gotta come out of those tanks sometime, and then they're toast! And, by the way, the same people who keep fighting to ban whole classes of weapons, like the so called "assault weapons" (any semi-automatic rifle would fit the description) would want to leave you more helpless in the case of a really vile government. So really... think a little before you say these things. No one wants it to come to that! But should it, things will not go well for either side, but the masses of the armed populace would surely prevail. They could cut off all food and supplies and the regular army would disintagrate.

[CanisLatrans]

If "the People" referred to in the 2nd Amendment only refers to the People employed in the State Militia, then perhaps "the People" protected by free speech refers only to State run printing presses, TV and radio?

Oh, and as for small arms vs. standing army, ask the Afghans. Or the Iraqis. Or the Vietnamese. Or the Sudanese. Or the Lebanese. Guerrillas don't need to storm the capitol of the state to "win", they just need to make things so painful for the army that a political concession is forced.

[Rocku]

And... have you read the entire decision BY the Supreme Court? I thought not! I will not bother to explain all of it to you, and about the power of the comma between the statements about the militia and the MAIN CLAUSE which says: The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Or that that means the right itself predated the Constitution and was merely recognized by it. And to those who say guns have evolved and the Founding Fathers had no idea.... pffft! You must be armed with the same class of weapons as currently exists if defense of self and others is to have ANY meaning. Please... read the majority opinion, THEN you can talk to us about throwing out the one right that protects the rest. AND, YES, I want ALL the provisions of the Bill of Rights protected and enforced. ALL of them. I don't pick and choose. They are all important, and many have been violated to our sorrow. The elimination of any one of them would lead to more mischief than you can imagine. The violation of ANY of them has led us into THIS mess. So ya, I want the whole package, and especially the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments followed TO THE LETTER! And finally, I'm and INDEPENDENT, and it looks like with good reason to be one!

[HappinessHacker]

The integrity, security and safety of our national telephone and Internet communications systems must become a major concern as we look forward to Change in November.
Private government contractors monitor all U.S. telephone and Internet communications.
Some of these private contractors are corrupt or have weak internal controls.
60-70% of the National Security Agency and the CIA's National Clandestine Services budgets are paid to private contractors. See http://HappinessHacker.com for links to NYTimes articles and respected sources that document private government contractor concerns.
Do you think all these private security contractors are honest and honorable?
The War on Terror is a $100+ billion industry, the people and organizations profiting from it will not let go easily.
Can we have fair and free elections in November if our telephone and Internet communications systems are compromised?
Please give this issue some attention

[provgrays]

Last night over a beer, I made that same case to a conservative friend. He's a lawyer and was clucking his tounge about the inherent rightness of the gun case decision. When I said that the Fourth Amendment should be protected as straongly as the Second, he accused me of changing the subject. I hammered him for 20 minutes that one guaranteed right in the Constitution is as important as any other, but he would not be moved.

Your thesis proves out. Conservatives are in love with the Constitution if it jibes with their own beliefs. If you apply their own logic on a closely related point, then they accuse you of moving the goalposts.

Right wing conservatives "think" the truth like King George. Logic is not welcome unless it happens to benefit their own rock ribbed prejudices.

[ihavenobias]

I had a very similar experience yesterday. I was talking to a gun-toting conservative (I'm moderate on the issue BTW) who said I was changing the subject when I asked her why she cared so much about the second amendment but not the fourth.

Something tells me that's how a lot of people will approach it (or ignore it I should say).

[djkrlsn]

And there are gun control supporters here on Huffington Post that not only deny that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right but try to silence the proRKBA people by whatever means possible so both sides have fools posting.

[Elmo]

the bush administration in particular and the republican party in general have not noticeably been behaving in accordance with what i regard as conservative principles. as a self-identified conservative on many issues, i'd like to distance myself ( i can speak for no one else ) from any perception of philosophical support for the boneheaded, invasive, repressive crap they're pulling domestically and overseas.

[bassman4rent]

I view the court decision on the 2nd amendment with mixed emotions. I hear a lot of talk about the "intent" of the founding fathers, but what's not being talked about is their concept of firearms. At that time, one person could fire one weapon at the rate of 3 rounds a minute. Thomas Jefferson couldn't even concieve revolvers or repeating rifles,much less semi-automatic or fully automatic weapons. Had the framers of the constitution even had an inkling of the firepower one person could comand nowadays,they might have come to an entirely different conclusion. With the technology of today, public safety should have had a bigger role in the decision.

[Zankee]

The Constitution is more than a historical document expressing standards and values as guide to a progressive future; it is the platform, of which all Americans can unite, and maintain their "idenity", as seperate but equal. The enemies of such have been secretly, and, at times, blatantly, attempting to destroy the platform, and; if successful, will erase the historical "Identity" of the "American" to a new mutated environment controlled by a "Chip" identifier....

Born "Identity", as an "American", die as an "American";.. they can put the "Chip" where the sun don't shine.., ...when I'm gone.... Till then, I am of the Constitution and for the Constitution.., and I SHALL NOT BE MOVED...!

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

The conservatives actually are holding a second amendment hostage -- the First Amendment. Not just any amendment, the FIRST one.

Corporate control of the media.
Republican party control of who attends White House speaking gigs.
Republican party control of who wears what at joint sessions of Congress at which the President speaks.
Stifling of independent science.
Funding of junk science.
Rules that allow 527's and corporations to inject vast quantities of cash into the political process.

I could go on, but I wouldn't want to be shot by someone who thinks I'm a whiner when I complain my email is being batch-read without a warrrant for containing the words "al Qaeda" and "wire transfer" together.

[Dap]

Well, from what I know about you over the years now, it may be a good thing that they are reading your email and blog comments RIMR. >:-) TeeHeehe

[provgrays]

Dap,

They're reading your e-mail too.

"TeeHeehe"