Two by Two Schools of Thought
The Democrats continue to change their tune on gun control:
This time, those vying to challenge George W. Bush in November have at least paid heed to public opinion — not to mention the Constitution — and eased their zeal to violate the rights of gun owners. The advocacy group Americans for Gun Safety surveyed the presidential hopefuls on a range of firearms-related issues, including their views on the Second Amendment. With the exception of the Rev. Al Sharpton, every Democrat responded; President Bush said he would provide his answers during the general campaign.
All the Democrats cited various measures they’d take to restrict the rights of innocent Americans. But what’s interesting here is the Democrats’ unanimity when they were asked whether the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own guns … or whether it simply states the “collective” right of state militias to be armed. All of them said the Second Amendment — within limits they’d never allow to be placed on other freedoms within the Bill of Rights, to be sure — protects the rights of individuals to possess firearms.
The two schools of thought are, of course, that (1) the Democrats have learned their lesson; or (2) they’re just liars. Each is believable.
Bush, who I don’t think is really a friend of gun owners, has stated he would sign the assault weapons ban. As Jeff pointed out in comments earlier, Bush will sign anything and Bush has not actively pressed the issue of renewing the ban. Also, the Bush administration did file papers stating that the Justice Department takes the philosophy that the Second Amendment does secure an individual right to arms.
There are two schools of thought on Bush’s position on the Assault Weapons ban as well: 1) he’s no friend to gun owners; or 2) he’s saying that to appear moderate because he knows the renewal won’t make it to his desk and he feels he’d get more votes showing support for it. Regardless, he has let down millions of gun owners who voted for him.
January 14th, 2004 at 3:07 pm
It certainly will get interesting since AWB expires right before the election. Both the Republican and Democrat candidate will have to answer whether they want the ban to continue and if they will fight to have it continue if elected. The verbal mumbo-jumbo will probably be quite interesting to say the least.
January 14th, 2004 at 7:43 pm
Uncle,
Why does everyone leave off Bush’s qualifier?
He didn’t say it was an individual Right, he said it was an individual right subject to reasonable government restrictions.
You know…like AGS & VPC & Sarah Brady type reasonable.
The qualifier Bush uses is more important than the statement, because it limits the statement & leaving off the qualifier renders an entirely different meaning to his words.
January 14th, 2004 at 9:26 pm
True enough publicola but it did reverse 40 years of a worse policy.
January 15th, 2004 at 1:47 am
Uncle,
What has it reversed?
Is it any different to enforce laws that infringe on the 2nd amendment because it’s a collective right than it is to infringe them because it’s an individual right subject to government regulation? Is one worse than the other when they both achieve the same ends?
As far as I can see, Ashcroft is acting little different than Reno. He says it’s an individual Right, but that hasn’t made him pull back a prosecutor from a gun law case. Only thing he did was argue with Congress about the time he may keep records. But that doesn’t nullify his culpability in keeping those records or forcing people to go through the Brady system or any of a 100 other federal firearms laws that he is actively enforcing a spart of Bush’s Project Exile/Safestreets/SafeNeighborhoods/Secure Gulags.
& don’t take it as me jumping down your throat – I just hate to see people thinking that Bush did something with that statement when all it was for was gaining some mileage with us gunfolk.
I mean, did it accomplish anything?
January 15th, 2004 at 8:52 am
I don’t think it’s accomplished anything but it is about the only public display for gun owners by this administration. I’m not saying it makes them right but they did do it.
January 15th, 2004 at 9:37 pm
Uncle, the tune hasn’t changed.
It’s just in a lower key.
January 16th, 2004 at 1:31 pm
Publicola: the difference between a “collective” (read: nonexistent) right and an individual right subject to reasonable regulation (read: not subject to unreasonable regulation) is huge. It may not be in line with a Second Amendment purist’s pipe dreams, but it is the best gun owners can realistically hope for. All rights are subject to “reasonable” (according to the courts) regulation, but if courts struck down all gun control laws that could not be demonstrated to be reasonable, that would easily get rid of at least 90% of the gun laws on the books.
January 17th, 2004 at 11:22 am
Xrlq,
There is a huge difference, but that difference hinges on one thing: who defines “reasonable”?
Given the policies of the current administration, too many justices & Congress I’m pretty sure “reasonable” would be closer to Sarah Brady’s definition than yours or mine.
So in effect, the collective rights interpretation would achieve the same ends as the “individual Right subject to reasonable restrictions” interpretation. At least according to the current definition of “reasonable” as our government now understands it.
Remember, that 90% of gun laws that should be stricten under your definition of “reasonable” is currently being supported & endorsed whole-heartedly by the government.
So while you’re correct that there should be a difference, in application there’s not much of one at all. That’s my beef: I don’t trust them to define “resonable”. Given the government’s track record I don’t think anyone should.
January 14th, 2004 at 11:27 pm
Sayin’ It!
Let’s go for a spin and see who’s sayin’ what: “While “poor” Americans don’t live in opulence, they are surely not poor either by international or historical standards in our own country. I’m betting if God condemned an unborn spirit…