I haven't really been following case of Kenneth Webster, who was arrested in Massachusetts with what the media is (predictably) describing as an "arsenal," or "massive cache" of weapons, in defiance of Massachusetts law. One article breathlessly describes his "massive cache" as including "more than 1,000 live rounds" (should he have stocked up on dud rounds, instead?).
As stated, I haven't really been following the story, but according to the above-linked article, he doesn't sound like any kind of terrorist or mass shooter I've ever heard about. That's not really what I'm writing about today. Instead, I want to look at this column:
When he was arrested on July 1 Webster reportedly told police that he had a constitutional right to own those guns. If that sounds scary, here's something scarier. There are a lot of people out there who agree with him.I think columnist Joe Burns is talking about "extremists" like me, here. But wait! It gets even better.
Second Amendment literalists have long held that the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" means just that.Imagine! People thinking that the Constitution means what it says, rather than what Joe Burns and Sarah Brady tell us it means--simply terrifying, isn't it?
"Second Amendment literalist"--I kind of like that term, but I don't want to give up my "extremist" creds--"Second Amendment extreme literalist," maybe? Kinda awkward, I guess. I'll keep working on it. I wonder if Burns is a "First Amendment literalist." That, of course, would be perfectly alright--thinking that the First Amendment is just a figure of speech is plainly ridiculous.
I have to wonder--would those who oppose publicly speaking about the purpose of the Second Amendment prefer to be called "Second Amendment figurativists"?
Stumble it!
18 comments:
Damn ... they haven't met Mike V. have they?
Really, has anyone else noticed that since Heller there has been more of this kind of righteous indignation from the gungrabbers then normal.
"Oh these people think that the 2nd Am. means they should be allowed to HAVE guns. This is of course preposterous."
Maybe I'm just reading more and seeing more of it. But that sort of indignation seems to be more wide spread now than it was.
Yeah, I don't think there can be much doubt that Heller brought more of these sorts out of the woodwork.
Exposing them might be one of the bright spots of the decision, actually.
Perhaps...
What is going to be interesting is that the USSC didn't draw a line on regulation of firearms with regards to operational mechanics or manufacture. That is where this is going, and that is where the battle is going to be won or lost.
I think most of the RKBA crowd saw Heller as a victory, it wasn't. It was a reprieve, nothing more. So we're back to a holding action until Heller's new suit comes to the USSC or the suits in Chicago bear some fruit.
I suspect the USSC will pull a Federally recognized RKBA, but at the same time allow for some type of local/state regulation.
Early on, I was a probably part of the RKBA crowd who saw Heller as a victory. I fairly quickly came down from that happy fiction (although I still enjoy the hand-wringing from the statist advocates of forcible citizen disarmament). By now, I see Heller as a reprieve at best.
The danger that it will be used as justification for every restriction short of outright bans (and even allow those, of some "scary"--there's that word again--firearms).
There is real danger here, and gun rights advocates who think that all that's left now is to roll back old restrictions, without worry about new ones, are setting themselves up for a great deal of disappointment.
What is scary is that disarmament is becoming the catch-all for a justice system in need of adjustment.
The guy is a wife-beater. Yet his guns are being arrested.
The guy is a wife-beater. Yet his guns are being arrested.
They had to have made him do it.
I guess we're SNBI's then since we believe the second amendment means what it says. I've yet to see a version where the word "Psych!" is attached.
The question is a valid one though isn't it?
Should citizens who have a history of peaceable behavior be allowed to possess any weaponry?
I'm not sure if there were examples of privately held cannon during the Am. Revolution, but if there were it would provide some historical evidence that could lead to some ...intersting outcomes (citizens with RPGs or Claymores etc.).
Personally I think that citizens should be allowed small arms equivalent to those possessed by the US armed forces. Excluding things like Stingers/LAWs/RPGs.
This would mean legal ownership of an M249 and things like the RPD. The cops will freak out, but I honestly don't care.
"Early on, I was a probably part of the RKBA crowd who saw Heller as a victory. I fairly quickly came down from that happy fiction..."
I tried to warn you. :)
I tried to warn you. :)
Yeah--you're one the reasons my illusions were shattered. You old stick-in-the-mud ;-).
My question still stands ... where is the line?
Keep in mind I'm just tossing this out there as a conceptual problem/issue.
It's not an easy question, Chef, and it's one on which it will be especially difficult to get a wide consensus.
I'm definitely opposed to bore limits (.50 caliber, except for "sporting purposes") and full-auto bans. I'm still working on a position with regard to explosives, rockets, etc.
For the moment, though, I'd be happy with lifting the full-auto and bore size restrictions--happiness that I don't expect to ever realize.
Yeah ...
20mm Antimaterial
Don't leave home without it!
:D
Sorry to inject some levity into the situation, but I'm surprised that I'm the only one to mention this yet
"Second Amendment extreme literalist,"
Would that make you a S.E.A.L. ?
You old stick-in-the-mud ;-).
That's the best you could do? Hell, my wife does better than that. And the prags get downright insulting
The real fight is just beginning. Our enemies are a ruthless bunch of SOBs who couldn’t care less about your rights. They will twist the SCOTUS’s words to suit themselves. They’ve already twisted the Constitution’s words “shall not be infringed”. DC has already redefined “machinegun”. BATFE has recently convinced a federal judge if your semi-auto firearm malfunctions you are in possession of a “machinegun”. Somebody, somewhere has already decided the possession of a machine gun by a citizen of the U.S. is verboten.
I’m wondering if BATFE will convince a federal judge that installing a rifled barrel (for home defense, to improve the accuracy for slugs) on a 12 ga. shotgun will convert the shotgun to a .58 caliber rifle? (See the Aug 08 issue of the American Rifleman) I have been advised that the “industry” says the firearm is still a shotgun. Once the BATFE decides the altered firearm is now a .58 caliber rifle will they be able to convince a federal judge they’re right?
I’d like to hear some input on this question - please.
The chef said; “My question still stands ... where is the line?”
45 superman said; “I'm definitely opposed to bore limits (.50 caliber, except for "sporting purposes")”
straightarrow said, “I tried to warn you. :)”
Yeah, straightarrow, me too.
In response to woodward:
It wouldn't be a stretch not after Olofson or Savage.
And the fucking judges go right along with it denying people the ability to defend themselves from fascist allegations.
It wouldn't be a stretch not after Olofson or Savage.
Or Akins, or Celata . . .
Post a Comment