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

Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks

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.....

[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.

[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"

[Angelus2007]

I agree there should be warrants unless it is an immediate issue of security. Waiting an extra 48 hours to get a warrant to eavesdrop is not a big deal in most cases. Unless you have very good reason to beleive that the communications are leading to an immediate incident. I also think the supreme court made the right decision. Many people point to other countries like England who don't have guns (England does have more violent crime than we do, just less murder). But we have one thing that England doesn't....The Constitution, so like it or not, the 2nd amendment, like the 4th, and all the others are here to stay unless they are repealed.

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.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Oy.
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.

[bgregs]

There should be warrants no matter what, especially since under FISA (as it was written before this!) you could start a wiretap and then wait up to 72 HOURS before asking for the warrant! Therefore, even with an immediate incident, you can STILL obey the law!

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!

[NL207]

"you will find that he only suspended it in the border states "


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.