seanbonner: Gun Confiscation in New Orleans

September 09, 2005

Gun Confiscation in New Orleans

Well, it's been confirmed, and while I wasn't expecting to quote The Interdictor on the subject, this is about as spot on as it gets:

"As per my question about the forcible confiscation of guns, several of you posted video from ABC news verifying this. So there you go, go ahead and grab your pocket-sized copy of the constitution and tear out Amendment II. It should be the first one on the page, because if you've been keeping track, Amendment I should have been torn out years ago. I don't mean to make this a debate about guns, but what I want is for the law to be the law, and that means if the we don't like Amendment II anymore, we need to just go ahead and repeal it, not ignore it. If we just start ignoring the Amendments, we never know what rights we're entitled to and when. That complicates things. Just go ahead and repeal them if we're not gonna use them. So there's that."

That's exactly that kids. Either they are all unbreachable, or they are all worthless - you can't pick and choose, I'm sorry but you just can't. In case you haven't looked over them recently, now might not be a bad time. Here's another take.

Posted by sean on September 9, 2005 07:37 AM | View blog reactions
Previous Entry: links for 2005-09-09
Next Entry: links for 2005-09-10

Comments

The second amendment refers to the necessity of maintaining well-regulated militias as justification for an armed populace. So let's follow your train of thought: if we're not going to maintain well-regulated militias, we might as well kill the entire second amendment. BRILLIANT!!!

No, you know as well as I do that most gun owners are not exactly the kind to drill with a militia, were one to be maintained in the first place. Most gun owners aren't interested in being well-regulated, either. And if you're in a well-regulated militia, you don't want many of our current crop of gun owners to drill with you, because they'll probably shoot your ass off in a drunken stupor.

What's really needed is for the second amendment to be updated to reflect current reality. Gun ownership, like breeding, should be limited to those who haven't repeatedly proven to be drooling, knuckle-dragging ignoramuses. And the part about a well-regulated militia should be tossed.

Having said that, I thought the issue of gun confiscation in New Orleans was that the gun shops had all been ransacked, and the guns being confiscated were stolen or unregistered.

Posted by: Bill on September 9, 2005 07:04 PM

Um, yeah except not. Have you read the bill of rights? Each ammendment contains several pricinipals that are related but not based on each other. For instance in I the freedom on speech is not contingent on the freedom of religion. But they are similar enough that they don't need two ammendments to cover them, II us the same:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The right to keep and bear arms is related to, but not contingent on the well regulated militia. And smart guy, keep in mind the people who wrote that just won a successful revolution against their previous government, so it's fairly obvious they weren't talking about a government controlled militia, but something controled by the people to keep the government in check.

And thanks for all the generallizations.

Posted by: sean bonner on September 10, 2005 09:49 AM

I didn't say the regulated militia had to be government-run. But point to the well-regulated non-governmental militia in America, that isn't some white supremacist wack-job in Montana. OK, maybe the guys who tried to do the border patrol. But it's damned rare. And the question of contingency is one of ongoing debate. I think the right to bear arms is contingent on the well-regulated militia, but I think we need the right to bear arms anyway, hence my call for a rewritten amendment. Generalizations? If you feel slighted because you're a gun-toting boozehound, sorry dude. You know they're out there and they give the responsible gun owners a bad rep, hence the need for the NRA, which you undoubtedly fall for like ditto-heads fall for Rush. Good luck.

Posted by: Bill on September 10, 2005 12:41 PM

Man, this sure has been an interesting week. 3 days ago I was getting called a left wing liberal commie and now you are calling me a boozehound Rush supporter. Whatever man, you so have no idea. No, you aren't making generalizations at all.. let's check...

boozhound - um, nope. Don't drink.
NRA - um, nope. Think they are a Republican front that preys on people who like guns.
Gun Toting - um, nope. Supporting and toting are quite different things, but regardless this discussion was about the Bill of Rights and the fact that you can't ignore one Ammendment and expect the others to hold any water.
Rush - um, nope.

Damn, wrong on all counts. But thanks for playing!

Posted by: sean bonner on September 10, 2005 12:51 PM

"gun-toting boozehound"

Hahaha, Sean is about the most Str8-Edge dude I've met in my life. Plus he can whack a mean foot, so guns don't come into play as touting devices, either. Booze and Guns don't mix, never have, never will. Sean seems to understand that. What you need to learn, now, is that typing and uninformed prejudice don't mix.

Posted by: Jonas M Luster on September 10, 2005 01:03 PM

Hey Bill.. Are there any other amendments that need to be updated to reflect current reality ?
Just curious... And drooling, knuckle-dragging
ignoramus's ? You must be refering to your own circle of friends... The gun owners that I know fall into the responsible, law-abiding citizen catagory.

Posted by: Skeet on September 18, 2005 03:34 PM

At the time the constitution was ratified the general militia was the body of people who could be called upon to fight a war. Every able-bodied man between the ages of 16 and 50, depending on state law. Basically, according to the "well-regulated militia" standard, If I am registered for Selective Service, I have the right to keep and bear arms. And I do that, even though I don't drink, and my knuckles don't quite reach the ground.

You want to bring back the militia the way the states practiced it in those days? The Swiss follow a model very close to what the states had in the early years of our country. All men of age are required to keep standard modern military small arms, and 500 rounds of ammunition and to train periodically. Our modern military requires qualification once a year. The states used to do it more often than that.

You want to adhere strictly to the well-regulated militia clause? Great. You'll have to repeal the NFA of 1935, and reverse the closing of the machine gun registry in 1986,effectively lifting the ban on automatic weapons. Every man will be required to own a modern automatic rifle (a real assault weapon not a semi auto look-alike they banned in '94) I'll have to buy an M-16 (nowadays $15,000, after ban is lifted as low as $600) or M-14 and keep several hundred rounds of ammo, and will have to train with it at least once a year.

Oh, darn.

O.K., stop twisting my arm, I'll do it. If you insist. I'll go with the M-14.

Posted by: Wayne on September 24, 2005 08:01 AM