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.
Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks
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.
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.
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."
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. ;-)
The founding fathers had the answers, we don't.
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.
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
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.
Something tells me that's how a lot of people will approach it (or ignore it I should say).
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...!
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.
They're reading your e-mail too.
"TeeHeehe"
Also, in a similar vein, Lincoln is considered on of the greatest presdients we have had. Yet he completely suspended Habeus Corpus...If Bush did that, we would be screaming for impeachment immediately, but nobody ever says Lincoln should have been impeached.
1) The FISA law already allowed for after-the-fact warrants.
2) The proposed FISA law allows for mass data mining. With NO warrants.
3) Lincoln's suspension of HC was during a time of "rebellion or invasion."
4) All rights are subject to a "balance" against other rights. Odd that you would hedge on the 4th while supporting the 2nd without reasonable regulation. Got sliding scale?
IF Bush suspended HC? He ALREADY DID!!! Plus, he has given himself the unilateral power to declare someone an "enemy combatant" -- even if they are a US citizen -- and then into the black hole they go.
Please reconsider.
You're right about England, and I agree with the SCOTUS on that decision too!
And as regards Lincoln, he suspended Habeas Corpus during a time of rebellion AND invasion! Further, please research it, you will find that he only suspended it in the border states that he ALSO declared martial law in!
If you defend this, why do you think rights of Habeus Corpus extend to persons engaged in acts of war against the United States and its armies, taken on or near the battlefield and held outside the borders of the United States or its territories.
Traditionally, Unlawful Combatants have been treated as spies by warring powers. Never in our history have we ever extended right of Habeaus Corpus to Prisoners of War, much less Unlawful Combatants. Yet the Liberals on the SCOTUS have recently done just this.