TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/08/01/ ... nslade.htm

It's Time To Break Out The Torches And Pitchforks!
By Robert Greenslade © Nitwit Press





January 28, 2008

Constitutional Restraints on the Powers of Government are Now "Reasonable Restraints" on Your Rights

In an act of absolute disdain for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, U. S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, in a friend of the Court brief filed with the U. S. Supreme Court in the District of Columbia firearms case, claims the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are subject to "reasonable regulation" by the federal government.

According to Clement and the Bush Justice Department, and I use the word "Justice" reluctantly, all federal limits on guns should be upheld because: "Nothing in the 2nd Amendment, properly understood, calls for invalidation of the numerous federal laws regulating firearms."

Clement also claims: "Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the 2nd Amendment."

Sorry, Mr. Clement, but the Second Amendment, "properly understood," does not "permit" or authorize the federal government to do anything. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand? The Second Amendment is a denial of power, not a grant of power. It specifically restrains the powers of the federal government concerning the right enumerated in the Amendment. Thus, contrary to Clement's assertion, the Second Amendment does not "permit" or authorize the federal government to impose "reasonable regulations" on anyone's rights.

If Mr. Clement "properly understood" the Bill of Rights, he would know that the sole purpose of the Amendments, as stated in the preamble to the Bill of Rights, was to prevent the federal government from "misconstruing or abusing its powers." To accomplish this, "further declaratory and restrictive clauses" were being recommended. In other words, the Bill of Rights, when adopted, placed "constitutional prohibitions" on the powers of the federal government to prevent that government from "misconstruing or abusing its powers" concerning the rights enumerated in the Amendments. Thus, it is constitutionally impossible for the Second Amendment to "permit" or authorize the federal government to regulate a right. No such power is found in the Amendment.

The assertion that government has the constitutional authority to place a "reasonable restraint" on a right enumerated in the Bill of Rights when the Amendments were specifically written and adopted to restrain the powers of the federal government is beyond an absurdity. Where does the federal government, Mr. Clement, get the constitutional authority to change the meaning of an Amendment that restrains federal power? If the federal government has this power, then the Constitution and Bill of Rights are meaningless because government can simply modify or remove any restraints on its power.

Only in the twisted minds of the reprobates in the Bush Justice Department could a constitutional restraint on the powers of federal government be converted into the power to impose restraints on the rights of the American people. This blatant attempt to pervert the original intent of the Bill of Rights and empower government should be the signal to the American people that the time has come to breakout the torches and pitchforks.

There is other good reading material at that site.

I rest my case........for now.

Anygun

I agree with everything Mr Greenslade says, except his reference to "only the reprobates in the Bush Justice Department". The reprobates in the Klinton JD, the Obama, JD, the Guiliani JD (not that that is likely to occur), the McCain JD would be even worse.

LarryH wrote:I agree with everything Mr Greenslade says, except his reference to "only the reprobates in the Bush Justice Department". The reprobates in the Klinton JD, the Obama, JD, the Guiliani JD (not that that is likely to occur), the McCain JD would be even worse.

Why would you say that, especially about Repubs? The RNC wants to get as far away from the Bush Administration as it can plausibly be. Bush's approval rating keeps hitting new lows, and it's largely due to a war the public was misinformed about when we started it, an overreaction to a terrorist event that has cost billions and not made us a whole heck of a lot safer, renewed tensions with Russia, and the unmitigated destruction of our reputation with many of our allies around the world. In short, it's a very Big Brother, big-government policy. The RNC, if they want any chance of putting another of their number into the Presidency, are going to have to practically disown Bush in their campaign strategy for whoever wins the primary.

Maybe so, but it would be nice if they distance themselves from administration flacks who make statements like "Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail . . ."

Liko81 wrote:

LarryH wrote:I agree with everything Mr Greenslade says, except his reference to "only the reprobates in the Bush Justice Department". The reprobates in the Klinton JD, the Obama, JD, the Guiliani JD (not that that is likely to occur), the McCain JD would be even worse.

Why would you say that, especially about Repubs? The RNC wants to get as far away from the Bush Administration as it can plausibly be. Bush's approval rating keeps hitting new lows, and it's largely due to a war the public was misinformed about when we started it, an overreaction to a terrorist event that has cost billions and not made us a whole heck of a lot safer, renewed tensions with Russia, and the unmitigated destruction of our reputation with many of our allies around the world. In short, it's a very Big Brother, big-government policy. The RNC, if they want any chance of putting another of their number into the Presidency, are going to have to practically disown Bush in their campaign strategy for whoever wins the primary.

This isn't a debate on the war on terror.

Chas.

I find myself somewhat surprised and taken aback at the direction this thread has taken.

I expected that the question of what might be "reasonable restrictions" would produce two distinct camps. On the one hand would be those who assert that no restrictions are a) constitutional, or b) reasonable. On the other hand, there would be those who believe that some restrictions on the RKBA might be reasonable.

Employing the reductio ad absurdum technique, I attempted to show that 1) constitutional rights cannot be absolute due to situations where two or more rights conflict with either each other or with one or more enumerated powers, and 2) the "no restrictions" position led to numerous absurd situations and conclusions. To drive the point home, I posited that if there were truly no restrictions at all, then various WMD's could be freely bought, sold, possessed and transported, including nuclear bombs made right here in TX. I attempted to show that if this were possible, terrorists and other mass murderers would surely avail themselves of these opportunities and obtain such weapons (as easily as writing a check), and that if they did we could expect that they would detonate nukes in our cities and kill us by the millions.

I expected that in response, the people saying that any restriction on the RKBA was an unconstitutional infringement of the 2A would say, "Well, we're not talking about area weapons, WMD's, poison gas, ballistic missile subs, and other such weapons. We're talking about pistols, rifles, shotguns, etc., long or short barreled, semi or full auto, etc. The weapons that a person could and would use in lawful self defense and to protect innocent life." Something like that. (Not quibbling about the details here. This is just off the top of my head.)

At that point, we would all have agreed that some restrictions on the RKBA were constitutional and reasonable.

Then I expected that an interesting discussion of where, among variety of personal weapons listed above, should "the line" be drawn, and under what circumstances LAC's should be able to possess and carry those types of weapons.

Instead, people posted all sorts of elaborate arguments as to why nukes and other WMD's shouldn't be regulated or banned. These were often accompanied by "questions" like, "What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?" Some also implied or accused me of being a gun control advocate. (Note: These things do not trouble me. I've got a thick skin, and I believe that everyone has a right to think whatever they want about me. So let me say clearly, "No offense taken.") Others argued that simple possession of a nuke shouldn't be a problem, and that only if someone detonated one should it violate the law.

To be quite honest about it, I find these positions to be incomprehensible. To me it is evident that, regardless of the law, the constitution, or anything else, if nuclear bombs could be freely purchased, transported, carried, and possessed by any adult (more or less the same way shotguns can be purchased, possessed, transported, and carried in TX), our country would literally be blown up right out from under us, and we would all be incinerated.

And I guess I can't explain it any better than that.

Someday, I would like to have a discussion as what might constitute reasonable restrictions on the RKBA, without infringing the 2A. I even listed a set of points for suggested debate.

Maybe I'll take those points and start a new thread.

But I have no interest in debating whether or not people should be able to ride around with a half a ton of Sarin in the back of their pickup truck, just in case they might "need" it, or just "because they can."

frankie_the_yankee wrote:I find myself somewhat surprised and taken aback at the direction this thread has taken.

I can't imagine why, you were the one that took it there.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:I expected that the question of what might be "reasonable restrictions" would produce two distinct camps. On the one hand would be those who assert that no restrictions are a) constitutional, or b) reasonable. On the other hand, there would be those who believe that some restrictions on the RKBA might be reasonable.

And to those who espoused no such thing as reasonable restrictions, you came up with the ridiculous example of vending machines with a-bombs at the UN.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Employing the reductio ad absurdum technique, I attempted to show that 1) constitutional rights cannot be absolute due to situations where two or more rights conflict with either each other or with one or more enumerated powers, and 2) the "no restrictions" position led to numerous absurd situations and conclusions. To drive the point home, I posited that if there were truly no restrictions at all, then various WMD's could be freely bought, sold, possessed and transported, including nuclear bombs made right here in TX. I attempted to show that if this were possible, terrorists and other mass murderers would surely avail themselves of these opportunities and obtain such weapons (as easily as writing a check), and that if they did we could expect that they would detonate nukes in our cities and kill us by the millions.

That is not reductio ad absurdam, it is a formal fallacy and fails to make any point, much less that there may be reasonable restrictions.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:I expected that in response, the people saying that any restriction on the RKBA was an unconstitutional infringement of the 2A would say, "Well, we're not talking about area weapons, WMD's, poison gas, ballistic missile subs, and other such weapons. We're talking about pistols, rifles, shotguns, etc., long or short barreled, semi or full auto, etc. The weapons that a person could and would use in lawful self defense and to protect innocent life." Something like that. (Not quibbling about the details here. This is just off the top of my head.)

And instead, we saw through your fallacy.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:At that point, we would all have agreed that some restrictions on the RKBA were constitutional and reasonable.

Except that we don't, there are no reasonable restrictions, and you have failed to come up with any realistic scenario to replace your failed formal fallacy.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Then I expected that an interesting discussion of where, among variety of personal weapons listed above, should "the line" be drawn, and under what circumstances LAC's should be able to possess and carry those types of weapons.

Since there can be no line there can be no such discussion.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Instead, people posted all sorts of elaborate arguments as to why nukes and other WMD's shouldn't be regulated or banned.

Which was a door you opened, and I fail to see anything particularly elaborate about any of the arguements, regulating them is a violation of the Second Amendment.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:These were often accompanied by "questions" like, "What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?"

A question you have not answered.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Some also implied or accused me of being a gun control advocate.

Nope, only that you are using the same old, worn out, arguements.

. . .

frankie_the_yankee wrote:To be quite honest about it, I find these positions to be incomprehensible. To me it is evident that, regardless of the law, the constitution, or anything else, if nuclear bombs could be freely purchased, transported, carried, and possessed by any adult (more or less the same way shotguns can be purchased, possessed, transported, and carried in TX), our country would literally be blown up right out from under us, and we would all be incinerated.

And I can't find it comprehensible that you would think so.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Someday, I would like to have a discussion as what might constitute reasonable restrictions on the RKBA, without infringing the 2A. I even listed a set of points for suggested debate.

There are no reasonable restrictions, all of them infringe.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Maybe I'll take those points and start a new thread.

Good idea, just don't start veering off into WMDs again.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:But I have no interest in debating whether or not people should be able to ride around with a half a ton of Sarin in the back of their pickup truck, just in case they might "need" it, or just "because they can."

[/quote]

So don't introduce that as an example, and people won't debate you on it.

Since there can be no line there can be no such discussion.

Then I am surprised you and like-minded people didn't set upon anygun for posing the question in the first place. I mean, if there was nothing to discuss, why bother?

Were people expecting that when anygun posed the question, 10 or 20 people would simply chime in stating that there were no such things as reasonable restrictions, and you would all congratulate and agree with each other about that and move on?

What would be the point of that?

frankie_the_yankee wrote:
Employing the reductio ad absurdum technique, I attempted to show that 1) constitutional rights cannot be absolute due to situations where two or more rights conflict with either each other or with one or more enumerated powers, and 2) the "no restrictions" position led to numerous absurd situations and conclusions. To drive the point home, I posited that if there were truly no restrictions at all, then various WMD's could be freely bought, sold, possessed and transported, including nuclear bombs made right here in TX. I attempted to show that if this were possible, terrorists and other mass murderers would surely avail themselves of these opportunities and obtain such weapons (as easily as writing a check), and that if they did we could expect that they would detonate nukes in our cities and kill us by the millions.


That is not reductio ad absurdam, it is a formal fallacy and fails to make any point, much less that there may be reasonable restrictions.

Ahhhhh. I have to admit I'm curious. What exactly is the "formal fallacy" that you are referring to in my statement?

I understand that you regard my scenario as a hypothetical that would never be allowed in real life. But that's not the same thing as a "fallacy".

In the hypothetical that there were no restrictions, someone could buy, possess, transport, etc. WMD's. But the fact that such a thing would never be allowed doesn't make the scenario a fallacy. It merely demonstrates that there is a broad consensus (incredibly broad in fact) that we should and must have "restrictions" that prevent it from being allowed.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:
Maybe I'll take those points and start a new thread.


Good idea, just don't start veering off into WMDs again.

Well, I wouldn't bother to start a thread about it if people are going to presume to tell me what arguments I can make and which ones I can't make.

As freedom loving individuals, we believe that the rights enumerated by the BOR and other rights not mentioned specifically were bestowed on us by our Creator. Since we all were created the same and are equal, we all have the RKBA.

The discussion seems to continue around WMDs. Let’s see if I can move this somewhere else.

Internet searches provide various references documenting the number of fellow humans who have been eliminated by certain oppressors who imposed reasonable restrictions on the oppressed. The numbers vary but we all can agree that the numbers truly are in the multiple tens of millions, and a large number of those were murdered in our lifetime after having reasonable restrictions imposed on them. The oppressors obviously thought that the restrictions were quite reasonable but you can be sure the oppressed felt differently. I personally believe the genocide chart on the JPFO website documenting over 80 million humans slaughtered as a result of reasonable restrictions. One man’s reasonable restriction is another man’s death sentence.

Looking at history, I want someone to show where the reasonable restrictions implemented by the oppressors who pushed the slaughter of these 80 million prevented the legal lawful use of a firearm. These 80 million people had their RKBA….I’m trying to find the right word here…….wait….. it is on the tip of my fingers…..infringed. That’s it! Infringed!

The Nazis required concealed weapons permits for Jews in their 1938 weapon law that superseded the 1928 law. We know how well those reasonable restrictions worked. Nice to know that freedom loving people support licensing a right the same as the Nazis did. Makes me just glow warm all over!

I have not confirmed this but I am working on it. I have read, and until I verify this I am just throwing this out there to see if the creative juices start flowing here, but the GCA of 1968 is pretty much word for word the Nazi Weapons Act of 1938.

Is it any coincidence that the Nazis enacted their first Weapon Act in 1928 and we were blessed by the NFA in 1934? Have you bought into the explanation that the NFA of 1934 was a revenue generating act? SCOTUS told you it was. How does that kool-aid taste?

I will admit a lot of my reading material lately has bordered on some extremes, but I am beginning to notice some disturbing information regarding the antis in the USA and trends based on history.

Those of you that believe we have made strides in recent history in the positive direction with respect to our RKBA should do some research.

A lot of hoopla is spreading regarding Heller. The good old patriotic baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, and Chevrolet side of me expects a 7-2 decision for Heller because I still am holding out that all is not lost. I am also not holding my breath. The history of mutilations SCOTUS has passed on as decisions obviously has me playing the part of jaded citizen.

I will throw out another one of my beliefs on the RKBA. Convicted felons, having served their sentence and probation, have the RKBA. They still have the right to cast their vote. Remember, we do not decide who has a right. Creator did. We decide who has a privilege. Our government serves us and it is a privilege we give them.

Anygunanywhere

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

Since there can be no line there can be no such discussion.

Then I am surprised you and like-minded people didn't set upon anygun for posing the question in the first place. I mean, if there was nothing to discuss, why bother?

Were people expecting that when anygun posed the question, 10 or 20 people would simply chime in stating that there were no such things as reasonable restrictions, and you would all congratulate and agree with each other about that and move on?

What would be the point of that?

Why would we set upon anygun? He posed a question, and others answered, you were the one posing ridiculous scenarios in the guise of reductio ad absurdam.

The point might be a logical discussion, such as reasons why there might be a line to be drawn and how sharp that line might be, but you had to jump in with an illogical extension and hijack the thread.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:
Employing the reductio ad absurdum technique, I attempted to show that 1) constitutional rights cannot be absolute due to situations where two or more rights conflict with either each other or with one or more enumerated powers, and 2) the "no restrictions" position led to numerous absurd situations and conclusions. To drive the point home, I posited that if there were truly no restrictions at all, then various WMD's could be freely bought, sold, possessed and transported, including nuclear bombs made right here in TX. I attempted to show that if this were possible, terrorists and other mass murderers would surely avail themselves of these opportunities and obtain such weapons (as easily as writing a check), and that if they did we could expect that they would detonate nukes in our cities and kill us by the millions.


That is not reductio ad absurdam, it is a formal fallacy and fails to make any point, much less that there may be reasonable restrictions.

Ahhhhh. I have to admit I'm curious. What exactly is the "formal fallacy" that you are referring to in my statement?

You need to re-acquaint yourself with the rules and concepts of debate, it's covered there.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:[I understand that you regard my scenario as a hypothetical that would never be allowed in real life. But that's not the same thing as a "fallacy".

No, you don't understand - I don't regard it as a hypothetical, I regard it as a formal fallacy.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:[In the hypothetical that there were no restrictions, someone could buy, possess, transport, etc. WMD's. But the fact that such a thing would never be allowed doesn't make the scenario a fallacy.

No, the hypothetical involved being able to set up vending machines to dispense WMDs, not the same thing.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:[It merely demonstrates that there is a broad consensus (incredibly broad in fact) that we should and must have "restrictions" that prevent it from being allowed.

But you have failed to demonstrate that concensus.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:
Maybe I'll take those points and start a new thread.


Good idea, just don't start veering off into WMDs again.

Well, I wouldn't bother to start a thread about it if people are going to presume to tell me what arguments I can make and which ones I can't make.

And that's just the reply I would expect.

Internet searches provide various references documenting the number of fellow humans who have been eliminated by certain oppressors who imposed reasonable restrictions on the oppressed.

Whether something is reasonable or not is a matter of opinion.

The internet searches document the numbers of genocide victims. But show me the link or resource that concludes or opines that the restrictions that those victims lived under were "reasonable", or that I would consider them to be reasonable. I do not think that such a link or resource exists.

The numbers vary but we all can agree that the numbers truly are in the multiple tens of millions, and a large number of those were murdered in our lifetime ....

Yes. We certainly agree on that.

.....after having reasonable restrictions imposed on them.

Restrictions that you would think are reasonable? That I would think are reasonable? I don't think so.

The oppressors obviously thought that the restrictions were quite reasonable but you can be sure the oppressed felt differently.

Nothing of the kind is obvious to me.

The oppressors may well have thought that disarming their potential victims would simply make it easier for them to slaughter them. They probably knew that their actions weren't "reasonable", and didn't care. And you yourself admit in your statement that you believe that there was a difference of opinion between the oppressors and the oppressed as to what was "reasonable".

There is no basis to equate what a mass murderer might think is reasonable with what some people on this board might think is reasonable.

I personally believe the genocide chart on the JPFO website documenting over 80 million humans slaughtered as a result of reasonable restrictions.

I don't. In fact I think that in almost every case you are referring to, if you listed out the restrictions on the people's RKBA that were in place, or that were put in place by the oppressors, I would evaluate those restrictions and say that in my opinion they were unreasonable, and why.

Finally, I think that the discussion would be better focused on what Americans living under the US Constitution would or should consider reasonable restrictions, and what might or might not be constitutional.

That's what's of direct interest to most of us, I think. Not whether Zimbabwe has good gun laws or ever had them.