« AZ bill to create a militia | Main | Reasons for slow blogging »
Don Kates' take on Guiliani
An email from Don Kates:
Throughout his political career Bill Clinton’s "position on the Second
Amendment" was a bald-faced lie. Every time the subject arose he falsely
proclaimed his "belief in the Second Amendment." Insofar as there was
any truth in this scam, what Clinton meant was that he believed that the
Second Amendment does not mean anything.
Rudy Giuliani employs the exact same scam in the exact same way by
proclaiming that he believes in the Second Amendment. By carefully
reviewing his assertions in the context of his record it is possible to
ferret out his real beliefs and intended program. He believes that
people living in low crime areas may be allowed (as a privilege, not a
right) to have guns for sport. But no one other than public employees
and the politically powerful has a right to possess firearms for
self-defense. Worse yet, he believes the key to reducing crime consists
of disarming everyone who believes in a right to possess arms for
self-defense and who lives in an area where the incidence of crime is
such that they have some likelihood of using arms for self-defense.
Giuliani is, in short, a paradigm Republican, i.e., someone who is
dedicated to the interests of Big Business and for whom the rights of
little people are, at best, easily dispensable in the interest of public
safety (read Big Business).
If I were Sarah Brady faced with a contest between Hillary and Rudy I
would vote for Rudy. Each wants to ban and confiscate guns. But it is
far less likely that a Democrat could get away with trying to outlaw gun
ownership than that Rudy could do so. Remember that Harry Truman could
not end the Korean War, but Eisenhower could. And that no Democratic
president could come to detente with Russia or China but Nixon could.
· Politics
8 Comments | Leave a comment
I don't believe Fred Thompson is running. As far as 2nd Amendment supporters running, I agree with Richardson for the Dems. Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter & Paul Tancredo I believe are the only Repubs who have good records on gun rights support.
You are correct in that FT has not announced. There is a "draft Fred Thompson" movement, though.
I could not support McCain, even if he had good 2A credentials (and he most certainly does not), because of his disrespect for the 1A.
IN BRIEF
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.
Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.
The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.
ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47
Yeah, well the ACLU is full of the same stuff my septic tank is.
You call that a neutral position, ACLU?
The mind boggles.
Apperently the ACLU needs to reread US v. Miller.
The Court did not hold that the 2nd Amendment was a collective right. The court held that the 2nd Amendment only protected military arms, and they could not find evidence that a short barreled shotgun was in common use as a military arm. Since Miller did not argue in the case, the court had very little material to work with. Because the court did not find that the short barreled shotgun was a legitimate military arm, the 2nd Amendment defense was denied and the conviction of Miller for possesing a short barreled shotgun without the required (NFA) tax stamp was upheld.
US v. Miller can plainly be interpreted to mean that only military arms (handguns, machine guns, real assault rifles) are protected by the second amendment, not "sporting arms" or "cosmetic assault rifles", quite the opposite of what most collective interpreters would prefer.
Even with "Miller," the 2nd Amendment can't possibly refer to the Government's right to arm itself - that sort of tautological argument is nowhere in the Constitution.
Rudy is bad news. As is McCain. For the Dems, my pick is Richardson. For the GOP, Fred Thompson.
I am aware of no others that I could support.