Comments on: David Barton, Guns, and the Second Amendment

By: Warren

Warren — Wed, 30 May 2018 20:03:38 +0000

In reply to sbh.

sbh – Thanks for the link…

By: Tom Van Dyke

Tom Van Dyke — Sat, 16 Feb 2013 01:31:53 +0000

Rodda points out that Barton chopped up Blackstone’s citation to remove the qualifications on the right to keep and bear arms.
Coincidentally, I just ran across some old notes on Roe v. Wade
In his majority opinion, Justice Harry Blackmun cites Blackstone on [post-quickening] abortion, that it was a “misdemeanor.”
What Blackmun left out was that Blackstone actually wrote “hideous misdemeanor.” Ironic, eh, Warren?
Barton fans who read here: help me understand why Barton omitted these sections. How can one get a complete picture of the history of the Second Amendment if relevant portions of historical writing are omitted? By not including these phrases, what meaning is conveyed? Does his presentation of Blackstone provide the truth about Blackstone’s position?
No excuses for Barton here, but he’s the Toy Dept. next to the man who wrote Roe, abusing history [and Blackstone] in the process. I suppose that’s what irks me the most about the Barton thing, that so much energy is put into such a small fry. There are so much bigger fish, much more influential lies and liars out there for the conscientious and diligent soul to correct.
http://hnn.us/articles/justin-dyer-fictional-abortion-history
“Justin Dyer teaches political science at the University of Missouri. He is the author, most recently, of Slavery, Abortion, and the Politics of Constitutional Meaning (forthcoming from Cambridge University Press).
“Forty years after the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Roe v. Wade, prominent historians and lawyers continue to rely on a narrative history that is based on two demonstrably false premises: (1) abortion was a common-law liberty at the time of the American founding and (2) the primary purpose of anti-abortion laws in the 19th century was to protect women rather than the lives of unborn children. In the 1960s and 1970s, lawyers trying to build a case against century-old state abortion statutes trumpeted these two claims, all the while knowing they were false…”

By: Tom Van Dyke

Tom Van Dyke — Sat, 16 Feb 2013 00:52:20 +0000

I think you’ll find that [even] Justice Scalia allows that the states have a right to regulate firearms*. But I would argue that to ban them would be a violation of the natural right of self-defense, something that exists pre-politically, before the Constitution, even if the 2nd Amendment did not exist.
As for carrying firearms in public, I see that as consistent with the 18th century concept of “militia”–EVERYBODY is a member of the militia, and indeed there was a prejudice against the idea of standing armies.
I’m quite comfortable with a state where everybody’s armed, and if some joker starts a massacre, the people are carrying the firepower to shoot him back.
OTOH, I don’t think it’s unconstitutional for a state to ban such things either, as long as this regulation doesn’t abridge the natural right to self-defense.
I would add that if, as the Declaration says, man has an unalienable right to life and liberty, the populace has a right to keep and bear arms not just against criminals, but against the tyranny of government as well. Although this seems alarmist in 2013, it wasn’t that long ago that blacks were terrorized by Night Riders and the local governments not only did nothing, they often aided and abetted them.
*http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/why-liberals-should-thank-justice-scalia-for-gun-control-20130119
“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. [United States v.] Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”
—Scalia’s majority opinion in Heller

By: Scotty G.

Scotty G. — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 21:53:45 +0000

Patrocles,
I don’t disagree with your statement. One right ends where another begins. But as the articles mentioned in the original post suggest, it may not be established that an individual has the right to carry a firearm with them in public at will.
There are numerous rights we have within the confines of our home that are curtailed or rescinded when we are in public. It could be argued that it is ones right and even responsibility to protect their home. But in public that right and responsibility belongs to the local and federal authority which also regulates that responsibility (i.e. have trained professionals).
I have a co-worker whose husband owns several guns. He had her get a license as well even though he is the enthusiast. I idly asked if she had to pass some kind of competency test (comparable to getting a drivers license) since I honestly didn’t know. The answer was no. You just fill out an application and submit to a back ground check. Upon passing, you can now own a deadly weapon.
Police officers go through months of training to learn how to handle a weapon (not to mention the additional months learning how to react in a crisis situation). John Q. Citizen doesn’t even have to prove he knows how to use one. At this point I think the general population has the right to be safe from the ineptitude of John Q. while in public.
Admittedly, most people who travel in public know more then John Q. But how many have crises situation training and experience.
Again there are no easy answers, and as I stated above, there are plenty of examples of good Samaritans saving lives by having a gun in their possession. I am just thinking that I can no longer listen to the ‘right to bear arms’ mantra without a more critical mindset.

By: Scotty G.

Scotty G. — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 21:42:22 +0000

Warren,
I’ve read your more recent thoughts regarding mental illness and gun regulation. I believe at face value it seems logical. And if implemented properly, could potentially have a large impact in at least preventing the massacres making the headlines of late. Your vocation probably allows you a better insight then most. But I see a lot of hurdles in its execution. I guess I’m just not sure how it would be done. Submitting to psychoanalysis at the time of license application? Periodic reviews? What is the baseline for passing and what are the odds of false diagnosis? And lastly of course, who would oversee this and how would it be paid for?
Again, maybe you have a clearer picture of how this would look.