Fisking: "NRA’s constitutional fraud" (SALON .. not surprising)

NRA’s constitutional fraud: The truth behind the “right to bear arms” - Salon.com:
(Monday, June 02, 2014)

The notion that the framers meant for every nut to have unlimited guns is a sham. Here's the little-known reality

HEATHER DIGBY PARTON

In the wake of the horrific Isla Vista, California, mass killing, Americans have once again engaged the debate over gun proliferation. Victims’ families issue primal cries for regulation of these deadly weapons and gun activists respond by waving the Constitution and declaring their “fundamental right” to bear arms is sacrosanct. Indeed, such right-wing luminaries as Joe the plumber who not long ago shared the stage with the Republican nominees for president and vice president, said explicitly: 

 “Your dead kids don’t trump my constitutional rights.” 

And what's wrong with that?  He has the right to speak his mind, under the First Amendment, doesn't he?  The First Amendment was specifically included in the Constitution to acknowledge the RIGHT of every American to speak on "unpopular thoughts".

 Iowa Republican Senate candidate Jodi Ernst, known for her violent campaign ads in which she is seen shooting guns and promising to “unload” on Obamacare, had this to say when asked about Isla Vista:
 “This unfortunate accident happened after the ad, but it does highlight that I want to get rid of, repeal, and replace [opponent] Bruce Braley’s Obamacare. And it also shows that I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. That is a fundamental right.”

You say that like it's "A Bad Thing".  And perhaps it is, by your standards.  But by the standards of millions of Americans ... and perhaps by your standards, Ms Parton ... you have the right to denigrate the opinion of Joe The Plumber (and others), but that doesn't mean that they are wrong.

Or incorrect.

Perhaps the emotional reaction to the Isla Vista shootings causes Joe The Plumber to consider that this is an issue which the Emotional Left will use to further their own agenda.

If so, who's The Bad Guy in this debate?  The man who has an opinion and sticks to it, or the lady who uses a tragedy to further her own political agenda?

It's all about "Perception", isn't it?

But let's read on:

 This argument is set forth by gun proliferation advocates as if it has been understood this way from the beginning of the republic. Indeed, “fundamental right to bear arms” is often spat at gun regulation advocates as if they have heard it from the mouths of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson themselves.....

Um .. well ... yes.  We have.

Thomas Jefferson labored long to frame the Constitution, and in fact the Second Amendment was one of those which caused the most contention.  John Adams was a powerful voice during this period, and he could have killed the amendment;  Jefferson proposed several versions, until the Constitutional Committee accepted a version which they could all live with.  They were not ignorant men.  They knew that technology would advance, and they wanted a statement which would be applicable throughout all time:

"... Shall Not Be Infringed."

There were Idiots and Madmen in the 18th Century, Ms Parton, and the Constitutional Committee were not dreamers.   They were pragmatists, and they recognized that in affixing their affirmation to this document, they were pledging (among other things) their lives, their fortunes, and their "Sacred honor".  Perhaps that's one standard which has not stood the test of time.

 Politics has changed in the past 200+ years.  Or perhaps it's Politicians who have changed.  Their lives are not at stake in stating their political views.  Their fortunes have probably been enhanced.  But "Honor"?  More ... "SACRED Honor"?  Today the issue is not "Honor" as much as public approbation.

  What they were after was a measure which would affirm that the right to defend your home, your self, your possessions, your country .. would not be abrogated by subsequent generations generations.

Because, you see, they had "liberals" even then; although perhaps not by the same name, at least there were people with the same philosophy which did not recognize that even flawed persons had rights.

 But what none of them seem to acknowledge (or, more likely, know) is that this particular legal interpretation of the Second Amendment was validated by the Supreme Court all the way back in …2008.That’s right. It was only six years ago that the Supreme Court ruled (in a 5-4 decision with the conservatives in the majority, naturally) that there was a “right to bear arms” as these people insist has been true for over two centuries. And even then it isn’t nearly as expansive as these folks like to pretend.

Well ... no. They were not omniscient.

It may seem disingenuous for you to suggest that the Founding fathers were Dreamers (remember the John Lennon song?  It works both ways) ... but nobody here is questioning your sincerity.

Only your pragmatism.

The results are clear to see. Mass shootings are just the tip of the iceberg. Today we have people brandishing guns in public, daring people to try to stop them in the wake of new laws legalizing open carry law even in churches, bars and schools. People “bearing arms” show up at political events, silently intimidating their opponents, making it a physical risk to express one’s opinion in public. They are shooting people with impunity under loose “stand your ground” and “castle doctrine” legal theories, which essentially allow gun owners to kill people solely on the ground that they “felt threatened.” Gun accidents are epidemic. And this, the gun proliferation activists insist, is “liberty.”

Oh, wait! You say ...

People “bearing arms” show up at political events, silently intimidating their opponents, making it a physical risk to express one’s opinion in public. 

and in the same paragraph:

They are shooting people with impunity under loose “stand your ground” and “castle doctrine” legal theories, which essentially allow gun owners to kill people solely on the ground that they “felt threatened.” 

It appears that you are attributing several phenomena under the same umbrella.  Was this your intent, or was it all mere rhetoric?


Let's look at "intimidating their opponents":
Do you think that "No Taxation without Representation" was intimidating?

Of course it was, and deliberately so!   And for a purpose, which remains as legitimate today as it was in the 18th century.  Consider it co-equivalent to dumping a shipload of tea into the Boston harbor, while the perpetrators were comically dressed as American Indians.

Civilized?  No.  But .. funny?

However, "... shooting people with impunity ... " is surely a moral low blow.

It's obvious to many of us, Ms. Parton, that you lead a sheltered life.  You have never had your life, your home, your personal safety, threatened by gun-bearing aggressive bulky men who have invaded your personal privacy.  Hence your cultural viewpoint is skewed toward the opinion that 'there is no need for anyone to have a gun'.

There's an old saying to the effect that:

"A Liberal is someone who has never been mugged; 

a Conservative is someone who has never been arrested."

I assure you, Ms, Parton,  that the individual Point Of View is radically skewed when your personal experiences includes such thoughts as "Oh, I Wish I Had A Gun!"


You are a Liberal for your own reasons; I am a Conservative for my reasons.

I sincerely hope that your political opinion can be swayed by logic, other than by personal experience.

Not all of us enjoy the cognitive dissonance which supports your personal viewpoint.