About Me

Name: BrianR
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Dispelling Second Amendment Fears

Posted by BrianR on Friday, May 29, 2009 12:39:01 AM
 
An Examination of Where We Currently Stand On Gun Rights
 
 
Since Obama’s election, fears of Draconian infringements of gun rights have run rampant, up to and including hysteria about massive confiscation efforts. Prices of ammunition have soared as availability has plummeted, an inversely proportional relationship; people are stockpiling as military requirements have also increased, further shortening supply.
This hysteria has been fanned by hyperbolic pronouncements by the NRA as it exploits the current political climate to expand its membership rolls. I’ve heard everything from Obama somehow banning and confiscating guns, to UN treaties that will void the Second Amendment, to ammo rationing, to exorbitant taxes that will make the purchase of guns and ammo impossible, to legal requirements for incorporation of technology into finished products that will make them impossible to manufacture.
 
In my opinion these fears are ungrounded, and I’d like to address a couple of issues to explain why.
 
The first thing we have to look to is the recent Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decision in the Heller case. In his opinion for the majority – which is the operative and ruling aspect of the decision – Justice Antonin Scalia goes to great lengths to dissect every word of the Second Amendment and couch it in historical context, then applies that context and meaning to our modern world. Though the ruling itself is in response to a District of Columbia case, he also generalizes the ruling, stating many times that the issues involved and being resolved apply to ALL lesser jurisdictions and states. In other words, he incorporates the decision to the states. Heller is a very strong pro-gun ruling, confirming that gun ownership is, indeed, an individual – not collective – right, and that right is only subject to some moderate regulation.
 
The key element in this is that Heller incorporates the Second Amendment to the states. One of the scare-mongering approaches I’ve seen is that the ruling in Heller only applies to the District, and therefore the individual states can still be as rabidly anti-gun as they wish. Not so. As a matter of fact, in the recent decision in the Nordyke case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals – the most liberal Circuit in the country – explicitly stated its acknowledgement that Heller incorporates its ruling to the states. Therefore, the strictures and guidelines in Heller do in fact apply to each individual state and lesser jurisdiction (cities, counties, etc.), and as the Heller ruling is advanced through further litigation efforts at those levels – already in progress – I predict we’ll actually see the situation for private gun ownership improve, in some cases dramatically.
 
Let’s take a quick look at efforts in the United Nations (UN) to promote treaties that would, in effect, ban private gun ownership on an international level to include this country. It’s absolutely true that there have been several efforts in the UN to get such a treaty passed – the latest effort being the “The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child”, one such “right” being that the child shall grow up in a “gun-free” home – but the United States has refused to endorse or even try to ratify such treaties.

Further, though it’s true that under our Constitution treaties have the same authority as the Constitution as being the "supreme Law of the Land" (Article VI), the Constitution ALSO makes all treaties subject to judicial review by SCOTUS (Article III, Section 2): “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;… and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.”

Such a treaty, on first examination, seems to set up an instant conflict between two laws of equal stature as being “supreme”: the UN treaty and the part of the Constitution itself that is the Second Amendment, which would still be in force because an amendment can only be repealed by a further constitutional amendment. But a treaty doesn’t meet this standard, as the process involved in entering into a treaty does not meet the qualifications as a constitutional amendment as defined in the Constitution itself. This conflict would easily be resolved by SCOTUS under its delineated powers, and the resolution would be clear, even if you don’t factor Heller into the equation: the law that has precedence by reason of originality and seniority would prevail. That would be the Second Amendment itself. The treaty would be void and moot as long as the Second Amendment isn’t repealed first.
 
Now let’s turn our attention to political pragmatism. Neither the Congressional Democrats – other than a few zealous anti-gunners – nor Obama are at all eager to stir up the hornet’s nest of gun control. Frankly, I’m of the opinion they wish the whole issue would just evaporate. Every time they do kick that hive, they suffer dramatic losses at the ballot box, and they know it. Gore and Kerry lost presidential bids due to the gun debate more than any other single issue; even Bill Clinton acknowledged that. Remember the staged pictures of them in brand new cammies holding borrowed shotguns, grinning goofily into the camera?
 
Further, Blue Dog southern Democrats ran on their support for the Second Amendment, crippling House Democrat leadership in trying to get enough votes to pass such legislation. Add to the calculus the fact that neither Pelosi nor any other House Democrat leader wants their party to again have the “anti-gun” stigma attached, the only way they’d try to get anti-gun legislation passed is if they could do it as a bipartisan effort, dragging the GOP into the mess with them. For all its recent failings, credit the GOP with refusing to go along with that one.
 
Bottom line: I don’t see any concerted effort at gun legislation looming on the DC horizon in the foreseeable future.
 
A quick word about the NRA. They’re very exploitative, playing the panic game to try to pump up their membership numbers and dues income. There’s nothing I’ve written here that would be news to them, I’d have to assume. Granted, they occasionally use their power as a lobby to achieve some good.
 
But they ALSO tried to talk the Heller team out of taking the case to SCOTUS, claiming it “wasn’t the right case” for the issue, when in fact it was as close to being perfect as a case could get. This has been the constant modus operandi of the NRA; refusing to back legal efforts to bring Second Amendment cases to SCOTUS, which tactic failed in the Heller case because those Plaintiffs didn’t need NRA’s financial backing. Why would they do that? Because the constant assault on gun rights afforded them the opportunity to use the fear factor to pump up their membership numbers. If gun rights aren’t in jeopardy… who needs the NRA?
 
And all the constant crying of “wolf!” seriously undermines their credibility.
 
That, then, is my assessment of the current state of affairs regarding our Second Amendment right to private gun ownership. At least for now, there’s no reason for fear.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (139) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why the GOP Will Continue To Lose, At Least For Now

Posted by BrianR on Thursday, May 14, 2009 1:26:34 AM
 
A week or so ago the GOP/RNC, in its infinite and unfathomable stupidity, launched a “listening tour” of “townhall meetings” to find out what “the people” thought they needed to do to start winning elections. This was justifiably met with instant derision, so they “redefined” the events as an opportunity to “clarify” what the GOP actually stood for. The “listening tour” apparently transformed itself into a “preaching tour”.

Is Michael Steele REALLY this incompetent? But I digress.

I’m going to save them a lot of time and gasoline.

What we're seeing is the transformation of the GOP from a party of small government principles to one simply concerned with garnering power to itself. By definition, "small government" has little power. The GOP is now more concerned with using the cudgel of government to advance its own agenda -- much of it in the social arena -- and is thus willing to throw its "avowed" principles to the wind.

Further, it's ALSO transforming and redefining those so-called "principles".

Why is gay marriage a national issue? Why was Terri Schaivo a national issue? Why is the fight against abortion a national issue? Those are rightfully state issues. Why did virtually all of the GOPer congresscritters vote for the original "bailout"? Why did Bush impose NCLB and Scrips for Seniors? Why is a FISA court even possible in a free country? Why do we have a Patriot Act? Why did the GOP go along with "affordable housing for minorities"? Why did the GOP back amnesty twice? Why does the GOP concede any credence at all to the Altar Of Gore?

I can go on like that all day.

So, instead of having one statist party and one small government party, we have two statist parties intent on imposing their conflicting views of social issues on the country at large, and jockeying for the power platform from which to do it.

Let’s take a look at some history, which speaks VERY clearly on the subject. 1980, 1984, 1988, 1994: campaigns based on strong traditional conservative principals, in clear contrast to “modern” GOP “planks”, and landslide wins.

1992, 1996, 2006, 2008: campaigns built on squishy "moderate" offerings, and the GOP gets its butt kicked.

2000 and 2004: a candidate hiding his essential "moderate" nature eking out squeaker wins against arguably THE most incompetent opponents since Dukakis, in which the gun issue played big both times.

Which is exactly why the Dems are avoiding that issue like the plague nowadays.

More facts: the percentage of the electorate that is registered as Democrat has been pretty stable for a while at about 35%. The percentage registered as Republican – which used to be about equivalent – has fallen dramatically, to the point where right now it’s at about 23%. Meanwhile, the percentage of “Decline To State” and “Independent” has risen by about the same amount the Republicans have lost. Coooooo-INCIDENCE? I don’t think so.

More numbers: In the 2008 election a bit less than 120 million people cast votes. According to the 2000 census (the latest data available) there were 193,376,375 citizens of voting age in the population (an obviously low number currently, as it’s a sure bet the population has increased). That obviously excludes illegal aliens and others not eligible for the franchise. Let’s eliminate another TEN million – being generous – disqualified for other reasons, such as being felons. That still leaves about 183 million eligible voters. Here’s a link to the census data: here

The last link in this chain of logic is that all of the reliable polling data I’ve seen clearly shows that over 60% of those in the populace who have been polled self-describe themselves as “conservative”.

So, based on the data, 63 MILLION voters sat it out. Given that the GOP percentage of eligible voters has fallen while the Democrats’ percentage is stable – and that so many self-identify as “conservative” – logic dictates that the majority of those 63 million voters who could have been motivated to vote at all would have voted GOP… IF there’d been a traditionally conservative truly Reaganesque candidate to vote for.

What does all this mean?

It’s patently obvious that as the GOP has abandoned Reaganism/Goldwaterism and tracked Left in accord with the “California Strategy” of seeking the mythical and non-existent “uncommitted” independent demographic, by abandoning their core professed principles while being driven by an agenda set by their supposed opponents, they are concurrently giving up hope of winning elections in any meaningful fashion. As Truman noted: “Give the people a choice between a Democrat and a Democrat, and they’ll choose the Democrat every time”. Why vote for The Pale Imitation when you can have The Real Thing?

The more the GOP tracks Left accommodating the agenda-setting of the radical leftists, the less relevant to the debate the GOP becomes, until it ultimately and deservedly -- and perhaps quickly now -- goes the way of the WHIGs.

Long overdue, in my opinion.

Last night I watched a 20-year-old flick named “Escape From Sobibor”, Sobibor being one of the Nazi death camps, and the flick being based on actual events. I couldn’t help but wonder – as I watched people being off-loaded from the trains family by family – how things could get to the point that people would allow their entire families to be rounded up by the Nazis.

But then, I recalled my history. Germany wasn’t always a tyranny. But post-WW1, inflation and taxation rose to such dramatic levels that unemployment was the order of the day. A barrelful of Deutschmarks to buy a loaf of bread. People were desperate. So… they ignored the Weimar Republic and its Constitution, incrementally and ultimately leading the entire country into the morass we know so well.

Further, it even reached the point where discipline within the death camps was imposed by the “kapos”, Jews who enforced Nazi discipline simply out of sheer self-interest.

I think this is the truly salient point about the Founders’ phrase that our government operates with “the consent of the governed”. The WW2 Germans allowed the Holocaust to develop, but it wouldn’t have been successful without the tacit and unwitting cooperation of its victims, through a deluded and ultimately misplaced faith in a political system that was obviously failing. Had those Jews and other persecuted minorities simply had the guts to take one German soldier each with them, killing that soldier by whatever means necessary, the Holocaust would have stopped by attrition alone of German soldiers, if nothing else.

Wouldn’t YOU have pulled the trigger rather than watch your innocent family marched off to the death camps?

For those who say, “It can’t happen here”: It already has! Native-born Americans of Japanese ancestry were marched off to concentration camps during WW2 for nothing more than being born of Japanese ancestry. They were deprived of their goods, their property, their liberty, and their rights. Look at Wounded Knee. Point out to me one example – just ONE – in human history where it hasn’t happened, either imposed internally or externally. There are NO such examples.

The simple fact is that no government is eternal. They ALL ultimately are replaced. All we can do is try to stave off the inevitable for as long as possible.

The American People recognize these simple facts instinctively, and that’s why as long as the GOP stays its current course, it’s doomed to continual failure. Hopefully, it doesn’t drag the entire country down with it.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (263) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Specter’s “Defection” and the “Big Tent”

Posted by BrianR on Saturday, May 02, 2009 3:41:04 PM

In light of Arlen Specter’s “defection” to the Democrat Party the other day (in my opinion, good riddance!), there’s been a lot of discussion lately – reflecting the debate on ideology during the last two elections – about conservative doctrine, it’s applicability in today’s world of realpolitick, whether or not the GOP is relevant if it adheres to the principles of Reaganism, and the “expansion” of the “Big Tent” to encompass a broader spectrum of the electorate.

The GOP is currently following what I call the “California Strategy” of meandering Leftward in pursuit of some undefined, mythical, and frankly non-existent “uncommitted moderate” demographic. The ultimate destination of that road – as we can clearly see here in Commiefornia – is a place where the term “Republican” doesn’t mean a single thing that’s different from the term “Democrat”. The political hacks from both parties are simply seeking a sinecure at the public trough, the state’s bankrupt due to confiscatory taxes and social engineering government programs in which BOTH parties are complicit, we have a Governator who – in most states – would be considered a liberal Democrat, and the state’s going to Hell in a handbasket.

Yet the GOP in this state advocates open primaries in an effort, as they cheerily admit, to “broaden their appeal” and “lessen the influence of ideologues”… meaning conservatives, of course.

The same discussion is taking place now at the national level, and if you’re happy that the entire country will end up as Commiefornia as a result of this delusional strategy, then don’t bother reading on. We’ve seen how well this “plan” works, both in the quality of the candidates and other hacks the GOP is fielding – McCain, Steele, Snowe, Collins, Specter, Giuliani, etc. – and in how successful they’ve been lately, as evidenced by the results of the 2006 and 2008 elections. This is still a right-of-center country, as the polling constantly affirms with over 60% of those polled classifying themselves as “conservative”, yet the GOP blindly staggers along denying that reality as they chase “moderates” in hope of stealing them away from the Democrat party. It makes absolutely no sense at all to me. There’s a whole pizza sitting on the table, but they’re completely obsessed with stealing the one slice the Democrats are already scarfing down.

The bottom line is that the GOP keeps talking about Reagan's "Big Tent" (he coined the term) then use it wrongly.

They're like a bunch of idiots running around in the rain trying to keep an umbrella over a herd of cats. It's a complete waste of time.

What you do is set up a big umbrella (or tent) firmly anchored in your core principles and beliefs, and let the cats come to you to get out of the rain.

THAT'S how the "Big Tent" works!
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (222) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »