Blacks, women, lower classes, pfft. They don't need a say in government!
Umm, Gandalf, when the Constitution was rendered, women did not have rights and blacks were slaves. In fact, most of the founding fathers owned slaves
(some even had "lower class" white slaves, otherwise referred to as indentured servants). For women, it was not until 1920 they received the right to vote
(and equality has still not been rendered). For blacks, it was 1870
(although not ensured until 1965). As to slavery, it was actually protected by the Constitution, in Article I, IV, and V. It wasn't until the enforcement of the Emancipation Proclamation in 1865 that the United States saw an end to "public" slavery. However, many businesses merely exported their slave exploitation, into other lands
(West Africa, India, etc), and I did not even touch upon the continued U.S. sponsored sex trade.
Perhaps you need to rethink your sarcasm.
Really? You can't put it any better than that? Wow, okay... well I bothered to listen to this guy's (Keith Morgan) weak arguments and here's my rebuttal:
Bear Arms
Arms does not translate to guns, or even firearms. It translates to weapons. So, the right to bear arms can be interpreted to include the right to bear howitzers, ICBMs, nuclear weapons, biological weapons, and chemical weapons. Clearly that is not reasonable, even in today's messed up standards and in this regard, Keith Morgan is correct that such an argument is invalid. But how about if we just stick to the context of firearms?
The 2nd Amendment was created at a time in which "firearms" consisted of rudimentary rifling, single-shot, muzzle-loading flintlocks. As previously pointed out, it is quite reasonable to concede the point that "arms" is interpretative. Indeed, "arms" in 1791 did not constitute ANY of the firearms we have now.
A nation's laws not only interpret the definition of "arms," but the context of right, and finally the intent of the forefathers when they instituted the 2nd Amendment. Obviously the intent of the forefathers was not for every American to have the right to bear biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons. It is also quite obvious their intent was not to include ICBMs or howitzers. I state it is also obvious our forefathers did not intend for "the right to bear arms" to include semi-automatic weapons, large capacity clips, and quick fire trigger systems, all of which contribute to the ability to kill en masse. Indeed, if they could step into our day and age, review the firearms presently being sold on the market, they would surely have edited the 2nd Amendment to state, "the right to bear flintlocks."
Supreme Court
In 1791, when the 2nd Amendment was written, the most advanced firearm was a flintlock, capable of firing 4 rounds a minute. Compare this to the still-legal AR15s with a bump-fire rate of 900 rounds per minute. In both the
DC vs Heller and the
McDonald vs Chicago cases, it was made clear that handguns are defined as "arms" and thus are protected by the Constitution. However, the courts made it abundantly clear that no decision was made on any other type of firearm. In fact, they specifically stated that the Second Amendment rights are subject to reasonable restrictions.
It is then clear that what we have here is a battle
not for the right to bear arms, but for certain firearms to be defined, by the courts, as arms. Getting certain firearms defined as arms would allow those firearms to be protected by the Constitution, i.e., the right to bear arms. This entire scene makes it abundantly clear that there is indeed a battle for Constitutional clarification. In other words, it is not even remotely reasonable to assume that the 2nd Amendment protects your right to bear any friggin' weapon you want.
One of the defining moments in the DC vs Heller case was in indicating that the 2nd Amendment, which states,
"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" does not limit the right to bear arms to only those who are in a regulated militia, but instead to any citizen's right to bear arms. It also indicated that handguns are "arms." But, one facet that is conveniently overlooked are the statements made that specifically exempted any other type of firearm from these rulings, essentially stating that other types of firearms are not part of this ruling and that this court was not ruling on whether any other types of firearms are "arms."
These points are critical to these 40 page arguments precisely because much of the pro-gun arguments presented here have erroneously
assumed the Constitution supports their assertions, when in fact it does not. Such is the same mistake in Keith Morgan's assumptions.
No Duty to Defend
In this particular argument posed by the abrasive guest, was that the Supreme Court held that police do not have a duty to protect. This refers to a 1989 ruling and is conveniently taken out of context. In fact, there are two cases where this is clearly not valid:
special relationship & state-created danger. Even dismissing these wide positions, the police do have a responsibility to protect the citizenry. The ruling is taken out of context because it refers to being "sued" for failing to protect, which is not even remotely the same as responsibility to protect. They are paid for and hired by the citizens to act in the best interest of citizens to protect, but the Supreme Court ruled that they cannot be sued if they fail in their efforts to do just that.
In other words, this show's guest was being opportunistic in presenting this information, precisely because he was switching the intent posed by the Supreme Court, from
"right to suit" to
"right to shoot." Clearly disingenuous and distortionist.
Same Threats
Another argument posed by this guest is that police and military are dealing with the same threats as citizens. This is just plain hogwash. The military clearly does not encounter the same degree of threat that citizens encounter, so that comparison is an absolute joke. As to the police, every single day they are called to address incidents far beyond what the average citizen would encounter even once in his lifetime and the severity of such encounters is likewise much higher. It is a false argument to claim that citizens encounter the same threat as police. Police are specifically directed to place themselves in harm's way. Citizens are not. They are, in fact, encouraged to do the exact opposite. Finally, it is true that police are trained, whilst the average citizen is not. Push it further, police both train and work in this field every day, 12 hours a day, 6 days a week and are considered on the job even when out of uniform. Compare this to the armed citizen whose extent of experience and training consists of shooting at stationary targets every other weekend.
Once again the show's guest, Keith Morgan, was being disingenous and distortionist.
Suggesting I WANT when I say that the officials should not be more "equal" than others? I am suggesting they kinda are when they shouldn't be.
And yet another ridiculous argument. The President, and other officials we voted into office, are taking great risks to their life to serve us. It is estimated the President (and his family) receive over 30 threats to life every single day. Very few of us can claim to have received even one threat to life, let alone one a day. And the threats to our lives pales in comparison to the threats posed to elected government officials. One other point is that these representatives sacrificed a lot to serve us. What exactly did
you sacrifice to serve yourself?
A clear cut example is the ObamaCare. They passed it with the condition that they will be exempt from it. Now how fair and democratic is that?
Geez, biggest lie you could have posed. You are referring to the penalty imposed for not having medical coverage. Government officials are not exempt, anymore than anyone else. Those who have medical coverage, whether government officials or corporate employees, are not subject to a penalty precisely because they have medical coverage. In fact, anyone with medical coverage, be they full time government employees, business employees, private persons, Medicare recipients, CMS recipients, or anyone else with medical coverage, are in fact not subject to penalties.
It seems you really don't have an issue with the penalties, as you have an issue with full-time government employees that have medical coverage. Not much logic in your argument there.
What I am suggesting is that the president should impose on himself the same defense methods he is offering the population. Civilians were hit at 9/11 not the White House.
And here you ignore the plane that crashed into the Pentagon
(125 people died there) and the plane that was downed, which was intended to strike the White House. Indeed, you even ignored the government personnel that lost their lives in the Twin Tower
s (over 500) and the thousands that died in the subsequent wars overseas. But worse, you have the audacity to compare 9/11 to gun control.
Please, explain to me how your assault rifle would have defended you against two Boeing 757 and two Boeing 767 airplanes. Right, a pathetic and insulting argument.
