Patterico's Pontifications

8/21/2019

Trump: “We [Republicans] are very strong on our Second Amendment,”

Filed under: Politics,Second Amendment — DRJ @ 2:56 am



[Headline from DRJ]

The Hill:

Trump seems to backtrack on gun control, warns of ‘slippery slope’

President Trump said Tuesday that the United States already has “very strong background checks” for gun purchasers and that officials need to be wary of the prospect of a “slippery slope” where “everything gets taken away.”

Trump’s comments to reporters in the Oval Office provided more evidence that he is backtracking after initially expressing support for enhanced background checks following a pair of mass shootings that killed 31 people earlier this month.

His comments foretelling a “slippery slope” also closely mirrored the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) long-held argument that even modest gun control regulations would inevitably lead to more stringent ones.

Trump also repeated earlier comments that shooters have “mental problems” and he is having “meaningful” talks with Democrats on possible gun regulations.

Politics: The art of being all things to all people.

— DRJ

29 Responses to “Trump: “We [Republicans] are very strong on our Second Amendment,””

  1. The problem is not background checks, It is that there is no reliable source of background information available to make background checks 100% accurate. GIGO is working with the sources of background check information.

    Michael Keohane (947544)

  2. Shall. Not. Be. Infringed. I need not say more.

    Gryph (08c844)

  3. Shall. Not. Be. Infringed. I need not say more.

    Is it your position, then, that the Second Amendment unconditionally rules out any restrictions on possession of firearms:

    1) By the mentally ill?
    2) On airliners?
    3) Within line of sight of the President?

    Dave (1bb933)

  4. One more time I approve of Trump dancing with the one who brung ‘im. Hope he keeps it up.

    nk (dbc370)

  5. 1) By the mentally ill?
    The only mental illness, comrade, is denial of our glorious socialist revolution and those sufferers will be professionally diagnosed and treated and when possible reintegrated into society. Comrade President Obama had placed all persons who received Social Security Disability on the prohibited persons list and the Central Committee found it necessary to chide him for overzealousness.

    2) On airliners?
    3) Within line of sight of the President?

    Time, place and manner. We already have those for the closest thing we have to an absolute right, freedom of expression.

    nk (dbc370)

  6. 3. If we weren’t dealing with the incorporation bulls**t inflicted on us by the Supreme Court, we’d be free (as our founders intended) to allow the states to deal with these questions.

    As for my personal opinion on “within line of sight of the president,” the idea of citizen-representatives is laughable when we allow our politicians to be better-armed (or armed by-proxy with bodyguards) than they wish the plebes to be. I dunno about you, but that looks like an elitist oligarchy to me.

    Gryph (08c844)

  7. If we weren’t dealing with the incorporation bulls**t inflicted on us by the Supreme Court, we’d be free (as our founders intended) to allow the states to deal with these questions.

    Good grief, Gryph! Federal gub (sic) control is based on the Congress’s tax and commerce powers. Incorporation is making the states observe the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment. Without incorporation, the Second Amendment would not exist as far as state gun laws were concerned.

    nk (dbc370)

  8. 7. Take that up with the founding fathers. “Incorporation” is based on a court opinion. There’s absolutely no basis for it in the constitution or statutory law and it has led to more than one disastrous consequence (anchor babies, for one).

    Gryph (08c844)

  9. “Shall. Not. Be. Infringed. I need not say more.

    Is it your position, then, that the Second Amendment unconditionally rules out any restrictions on possession of firearms:

    1) By the mentally ill?
    2) On airliners?
    3) Within line of sight of the President?

    All citizens, possessed of the franchise, should have the right to own and carry firearms. Private property might be designated ‘gun free’ with the proviso that the owner is accepting responsibility for protecting those persons own the property. Most ‘mass shooting events’ have taken place in ‘gun free’ zones. (Actually, I know of ONE that didn’t, but there might be a couple more by now).

    Airliners would probably be SAFER.

    As for the President…I’ve often thought that shooting a politician should be treated as Misdemeanor Littering.

    Face it, in all the attempts on Presidents’ lives, we have lost ONE who was worth a bucket of warm spit; Lincoln.

    C. S. P. Schofield (9eb8bc)

  10. Just so you know, the second amendment has other words too.

    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.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c)

  11. Time, place and manner. We already have those for the closest thing we have to an absolute right, freedom of expression.

    I agree, Comrade nk, but I don’t think Comrade Gryph (who has obvious right-deviationist tendencies) accepts time, place and manner restrictions on firearm possession.

    Dave (1bb933)

  12. Ha, ha, ha! I also took Gryph seriously for a minute, but then I realized that he is trying to upstage my socialist parody with a Trump supporter parody.

    nk (dbc370)

  13. ‘Well regulated’ doesn’t mean what many think it means.

    “The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.”

    https://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
    _

    harkin (d17996)

  14. I fully believe in a person’s right to keep and bear arms, but as has been ruled by the SCOTUS, Congress, and states, many times, this does not allow you to own and bear unlimited arms, without rules for acquiring them. The Articles of Confederation, when speaking on the same subject.

    No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the united States in congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the united States, in congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

    Prior to drafting the final version of the Constitution the drafts, James Madison, the principle author of the Constitution proposed:

    The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

    He changed that in a later draft to:

    A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

    Before the final, shortened version.

    To further understand the intended meaning, you need to read Federalist 46.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c)

  15. As predicted and expected.

    No surprise.

    He hosted The Apprentice for 14 seasons following the same basic script.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  16. 11. Such restrictions should be determined by state legislatures — NOT the federal government. If you have all but stated your intent to commit a mass shooting, that’s one thing. But that’s not what’s being argued here. What’s being argued here is the role that Federal Government should play — which I’d simply argue is NONE. And our constitution makes that pretty clear irrespective of whatever some black-robed oligarch has to say about it.

    Gryph (08c844)

  17. And our constitution makes that pretty clear irrespective of whatever some black-robed oligarch has to say about it.

    You should really read more of the Constitution.

    Article I, Section 8:
    The Congress shall have Power
    […]
    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    Dave (1bb933)

  18. 17. What does that have to do with the 2nd amendment? Look, I know that this is tough after generations of the destruction of the constitution by lawyers and judges. There is no qualification in the 2nd amendment. None. It’s not, “…shall not be infringed, except…” or “…shall not be infringed, unless…” It’s “…shall not be infringed.” Full stop. Our founding fathers used that language for a reason.

    Gryph (08c844)

  19. It’s “…shall not be infringed.” Full stop.

    But that absolutist interpretation is untenable, just as absolutist interpretations of the First Amendment are likewise untenable.

    Congress can, in fact, abridge your freedom of speech by making it a crime to phone bomb threats into schools, lie under oath, etc.

    And Congress can, in fact, abridge your right to bear arms by making it a crime to carry them onto an airliner, possess them if you are mentally ill, etc.

    The courts have developed a procedure for weighing legitimate government aims and any limitations on fundamental rights needed to accomplish them.

    Dave (1bb933)

  20. What does that have to do with the 2nd amendment?

    Your previous post claimed there was no support in the constitution for any federal regulation of firearms.

    But that power is, in fact, explicitly granted by Article I, Section 8. Not by any “black-robed oligarchs” but by the original text of the constitution itself.

    Dave (1bb933)

  21. 20. Establishing a militia != regulation of firearms. I do not surrender my ability and right to defend myself in a manner of my choosing because of the existence of a militia.

    Gryph (08c844)

  22. 19. Shall. Not. Be. Infringed. Sorry, Dave. You lose me at “The courts…”

    Gryph (08c844)

  23. Establishing a militia != regulation of firearms.

    No, “arming, and disciplining, the militia” = regulation of firearms.

    I do not surrender my ability and right to defend myself in a manner of my choosing because of the existence of a militia.

    You can’t possibly mean to suggest that the “militia” referred to in Article I, Section 8 is unrelated to the “militia” referred to in Amendment II…

    Dave (1bb933)

  24. I think it’s clear enough that the citizens having the right to bear arms is a necessary condition of having a well regulated (equipped) militia in the first place… for congress to discipline.

    Unfortunately, God bless America notwithstanding, a lot of our founding documents are very, very poorly written even if you account for changes in our language. They were weaseling out deals between people as political and angry as we are today, in a period of revolution that didn’t really end till the war of 1812 (maybe not until the Civil War, and maybe not even today, depending on how to look at it).

    The reason you can interpret this as an absolute right, yet a thing congress can screw around with, is because these politicians wanted this to be all things to all people. Sounds familiar.

    We, as human beings, have a God given right to protect ourselves, and a God given right to resist actual tyranny (and I don’t mean anything like the political problems we experience today). If the Constitution said something stupid, like slaves being 3/5ths a person, that wouldn’t make it so.

    Dustin (6d7686)

  25. Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.

    Try putting a loaded AR-15 in your carry-on luggage next time you fly, and let us know whether any of your rights are infringed.

    Dave (1bb933)

  26. 25. Airlines are private companies. If I don’t wish to be in a gun-free zone, I can choose not to be. The 2nd amendment is a restriction on government’s ability to infringe on my right to keep and bear arms — as in, they shall not. Private individuals and corporations are not bound by that restriction.

    And so, I will say it again: If there is a time, place, and manner in which my ability to keep and bear arms should be restricted, it is not the Federal Government’s job to do so.

    Gryph (08c844)

  27. No airline can allow you carry an AR-15 on board. It is not the airline’s rules that prevent you from doing so, it is the law, and your rights are “infringed” not only aboard the plane, but within the public space of the airport terminal as well.

    Airliners also have a habit of crossing state lines, which implicates another explicitly granted regulatory authority of the federal government.

    Dave (1bb933)

  28. 27. I know that. So that is an unconstitutional infringement of my right to keep and bear arms by the federal government. I could go on and on talking about all the crap the federal government does that’s unconstitutional (which is to say most of what it does period).

    And again, I would point out to you that the 2nd amendment does not say “…shall not be infringed unless you cross state lines.” It says, “…shall not be infringed.” Jesus H. Tap-dancing Christ, we really are a nation of sheep, aren’t we?

    Gryph (08c844)

  29. I know that. So that is an unconstitutional infringement of my right to keep and bear arms by the federal government.

    So your position is that no prohibition on carrying weapons aboard airliners is constitutional.

    No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the rights of citizens of the United States (Amendment 14), so your contention that what is forbidden to the federal government in this regard is somehow allowed to the states is (again) directly at odds with the explicit text of the Constitution.

    The First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech”. By your absolutist interpretation, that would make laws against bomb threats, perjury and communicating military secrets to foreign spies unconstitutional, would it not?

    Dave (1bb933)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2859 secs.