Why Americans Should Not Be Restricted From Owning Fully Automatic Weapons.. Part I
As I often note, the problem with many “obvious” solutions as understood and supported by those on the left has to do with the acceptance of a false premise. Such is the case with the ongoing discussion regarding gun control. Constitutional questions always represent a power struggle between those who would take away our freedoms on the one hand and those who wish to protect them on the other.
Although some have argued that Newt Gingrich got the better of Piers Morgan when they faced off on the subject several days ago I’m afraid that I see things a bit differently. As pointed out by Mr. Morgan, and not for the first time, many individuals who claim to support the right to bear arms as expressed in the second amendment don’t really disagree with the basic liberal premise that restrictions on the ownership and possession of firearms restrictions are necessary and proper and thus apparently constitutional. Unfortunately Mr. Gingrich was unable to come up with an adequate response as to why his stand was any more principled or constitutional than the one which Mr. Morgan was espousing.
The fundamental problem is that when rights become subject to interpretation they end up losing much of their power in the translation. As was exemplified by Mr Gingrich, once the slippery slope is embarked upon these self-proclaimed second amendment supporters completely negate their own argument by accepting the fact that the right to bear arms can in fact be infringed upon. The obvious consequence of throwing the second amendment under the bus is that the entire nature of the discussion changes from one addressing the question of whether restrictions are constitutional in the first place to a completely different discussion which assumes that infringing on the right to bear arms is suddenly constitutional leaving only the question of what kind of restrictions are to be enacted to be answered. This was certainly the case in the referenced discussion between Mr Morgan and Mr. Gingrich.
In Part II I will address my remarks to those who are willing to think outside the box and thus allow themselves to see how the Second Amendment is a part of the whole and that the issues involved require a fundamental change in perspective. The question is not whether individual citizens have the right to bear arms, the real question is whether the individual citizen is a part of the government or whether the government is a separate and distinct entity.
Thank you.
AaronInvestigates 
When you look at it from the perspective of limiting the federal government to its “enumerated powers”, it all becomes very easy and clear.
Gingrich, of course, would not do this, b/c I expect he has no idea that our Constitution is one of “enumerated powers” only.
The Truth is, that when WE THE PEOPLE, “created” the federal government, we itemized (“enumerated”) in the Constitution all of the powers we were delegating to it.
We nowhere delegated to any branch of the federal government power to restrict, infringe, etc., guns, ammo, etc.
So any federal laws or rules for the Country at large which purport to restrict, infringe, etc., guns or ammo, are unconstitutional as outside the scope of the powers delegated to the federal government in Our Constitution.
THIS is what we need to get people to understand. Their misplaced focus on the 2nd amendment as being the “source” of our right to keep & bear arms, has been a disaster:
Art. III, Sec. 2, cl. 1, enumerates the powers of the federal courts – it lists the types of cases they may hear. One category of case they may hear is “all cases or controversies arising under this Constitution”. The 2nd Amendment is part of the Constitution. That is how they claimed judicial power to decide what federal restrictions on guns & ammo are “reasonable”.
And since people don’t know that the federal government has only “enumerated powers”, THEY DON’T KNOW that the federal government has no authority whatsoever to impose ANY restrictions on guns, ammo, etc.
And YES, private American citizens can have armed ships! Remember the Privateers who fought the British ships in the War of 1812? Remember Letters of Marque & Reprisal? Our Framers contemplated an American People who were so heavily armed that they could be Privateers and wreak vengeance on our enemies via letters of Marque & Reprisal.
So be a patriot and buy a tank!
And Gingrich’s intellect is highly overrated.
Thanks for your comment and analysis. I’m going to assume that you realize that we are essentially on the same page. As I mentioned in passing and you expanded upon, the real point is that the Second Amendment either says what it says…or it doesn’t. In Gingrich’s case, he loses all credibility when the question becomes where to draw the line as opposed to whether it is constitutional to draw the line at all. As I also mentioned, I plan on publishing a “Part II” in which I hope to address the issues you bring up more directly and in a more holistic manner.
Your “ship” example is a good one, but if you go back even further and consider the fact that under the feudal system it was not only allowed, but expected, that the knights of the realm provided their own weaponry.
Thanks again…I might mention that i find your blog to be extremely informative and appreciate your interest. I plan on taking a look at a number of related issues in the very near future.
Good finish. I had to add this one to my Timeline on Facebook.
Thank you. I hope to clarify my position in “Part II”. As per usual, the fundamental problem is that the statists continue to change the paradigm incrementally and than proceed to use the perverted paradigm to show how the constitution is now “out-dated”.
I read an interesting perspective by another blogger the other day, but failed to bookmark the article so it might be a while before I link what he had to say. Essentially he pointed out rather well how the statists make the changes first and than suggest that because the changes have already been made there is no way of turning back. Perhaps you read it?
Can’t recall. I’ve read and commented on part II. Short, and to the point.
Scalia is in hot water again for calling the Constitution dead (google “Scalia berates schoolchildren”). I think he’s intentionally using such language to provoke, and his true message is encoded. He’s trying to sell his book.
One can agree that the constitution is dead without being happy about it. I’ll have to take a look at the context.
I plan on writing an article which addresses a somewhat similar issue. Essentially, when the President acts in a manner obviously in conflict with the Constitution. When the Congress does little more than complain, if that. And when the Supreme Court condones illegal behavior by either refusing to hear a case or by handing down rulings which cannot be supported by the Constitution….. what exactly is the citizenry supposed to do? Seriously. Not only is the system of checks and balances broken at the Federal level, but the faith the founding fathers had in the self interest of those at the state level also providing a check has been proven to be without foundation as well.
Those in the government are out of control and yet it is now apparent that the American Citizenry either cannot or will not do anything about it. When was the last time you saw a large number of the political leadership arrested for taking a stand against the statists?
Re: “When was the last time you saw a large number of the political leadership arrested for taking a stand against the statists?” …
CC — May I ask, who are the “statists”? Liberals?
I thought they might be one and the same as the “political leadership?” ..Meaning that, generally, aren’t all politicians actually for the state [government] rather than for the people? (Not opposing, I’m truly just asking the question out of ignorance.)
Hi..and welcome..
For the moment I find that the term “statist” most accurately reflects what I see to be the true distinction between the various factions presently attempting to influence the political process. It avoids discussions over whether fascists are right or left, I contend they are from the left, but primarily due to their statist views.
It does seem that once in power those who only recently cried out against government tyranny seem to be perfectly happy to support it when it is they who are seated at the table. This is not necessarily inevitable as evidenced by G Washington’s leaving office voluntarily after only two terms as President. This also does not address the distinction between state, as in individual state, power and state, as in the central government, power.
Thanks again.
Hi, and thank you! I understand now how “statist” would be a way of linking to the left.
I’ve come to see how the Hierarchy dominates both Parties for state control, so I lost the context with the word, it seems.
I agree with your thoughts in linking Fascists to the Left (tho most say to the Right), simply because they promote a strong centralized power.
Nice article, too! Thank you, again..