Comments on: Analysis: History’s lessons on gun rights

By: Dean Camp.

Dean Camp. — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 22:03:13 +0000

The informational dialog on ballistics between Gibson, Friedman, and Canales reinforces my belief that there are a lot of smart people who know a lot of stuff and that eventually, through banter, the truth will come out. However, in the hypothetical case where the supreme court found a legal reasoning allowing the government, (Fed, State, or Local), to completely ban arms, (firearms, guns, pistols, assault rifles, cannons, whatever.), then what? Even if the court found that freedom of speech did not cover hateful and profane speech, did not cover critical speech about governmental policies and public figures, or even informative historical speech relating to any given topic, then what?
Laws are ultimately derived upon force directed from some person (X), whether that person is in an institution such as a government or a gang is irrelevant, against another person (Y), whether that person is a criminal or a candle maker is likewise irrelevant. So what would really happen if the Supreme Court eviscerated the Bill of Rights? Would people in contemporary society band together and forcefully throw off the yoke even if they legally could own a model 1911 .45, revolutionary era cannon, 9mm Uzi, and .458 elephant gun. Seems doubtful. No, I speculate that smart people would probably just talk about it, discuss the “historical, textual, logical and legal basis” of such an event, if they could, and then go watch television (a previous comment by Rufus Peckham, March 16, 2008). Maybe they would watch the history channel, discovery channel, or NOVA even as their rights evolved into privileges under various rationals and good intentions, such as, “For the sake of the children!”, or, “We don’t need to live in fear.”, or, “The professionals know best.” But such an event would not transpire all at once for that would cause a big stink. It would be incrementally done over decades of precedent establishing cases acclimating people to their newly won privileges.

By: Craig Canales

Craig Canales — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:52:56 +0000

Very true James. I’m a devotee of the ” Pondoro ” Taylor school.

By: James N. Gibson

James N. Gibson — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 00:23:20 +0000

Mr. Friedman, you gave up before I was able to correct both of you. Unfortunately for Mr. Canales he was using the formula for Momentum where the formula for kinetic energy if KE = 1/2M times Velocity squared. Of course the end result still isn’t in your favor. The 6lb cannon ball comes out at 182 Kilo joules while the rifle comes out at 6KJ. A 50 caliber BMG comes out at between 20KJ and 18.5KJ. Unfortunately, the old cannon still wins.

By: James N. Markels

James N. Markels — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 21:26:38 +0000

Parker’s petition is still pending with SCOTUS. They haven’t decided whether they will take it or not, and likely won’t until the opinion in Heller is handed down.

By: Andrejs Vanags

Andrejs Vanags — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 20:50:33 +0000

What happened to Shelly Parker et al’s petition to have their standing question reviewed? It was just a quirk of fate that D. Heller had the opportunity to do a pre-enforecement constitutional challenge. Other issues (like contesting an assault weaposn ban etc) would require risking a felony just for the chance to bring the appeal to court. In other words, are pre-enforcement constitutional challenges allowed or did they die out with Parker’s petition?

By: Craig Canales

Craig Canales — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 20:33:41 +0000

Pity the poor elephant Roger if the Supremes take away our elephant rifles. Believe it or not the muzzle loading 6 pdr is pretty much unrestricted. Jumbo would really have a bad day.

By: Roger Friedman

Roger Friedman — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 19:48:18 +0000

OK, I yield on the relative force of revolutionary cannon and modern rifles. I figured 1/100 the mass at 10x the velocity = equal energy.

By: Andrejs Vanags

Andrejs Vanags — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:06:12 +0000

The 2nd amendment goes to the core of the right of self-defense, and of recourse against a police state with potential genocidal tendencies. (I could envision an ‘enlightened society’ going ahead with ‘euthanasia’ of entire groups, maybe those infected by a virus, etc. It could easily happen in this century). It also goes to the core of our survival as a nation. What is the total number of our armed forces? 1.4 million? We could easily be overrun by China or India or some other populous state IF we did not have an armed population with a tradition of civic duty to the defense of the nation. The purpose of the judiciary os to act as a safety valve and say ’stop!’ when the executive and legislative branches get too far out of step of the rights and vision provided by our constitution.

By: Craig Canales

Craig Canales — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 12:17:07 +0000

Momentum of projectile. Weight of projectile in grains x velocity divided by 7000 { the number of grains per pound }

.458 Winchester magnum. Elephant cartridge.
500 grain bullet at 2100 feet per second = a factor of 150

6 pdr. artillery piece.
42000 grain projectile at 1200 feet per second = a factor of 7200

By: Roger Friedman

Roger Friedman — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 10:24:13 +0000

Compare the energy delivered by a 6-pound cannon to that of a modern high-velocity hunting rifle.
Let me add that the construction of the 2A I propose makes its purpose and function much like the 10A.
With or without originalism, all we have is nine elders making all the rules. Originalism is just the current way of making it seem otherwise.

By: Joseph Campbell

Joseph Campbell — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 00:31:40 +0000

The militia-only reading of 2A runs counter to two very fundamental principles – one of which is fundamental to our founding fathers’ beliefs, and the other is fundamental to life itself.

The fundamental principle this nation was founded on is that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. Without arms, there is no means by which that consent can be withdrawn in a worst-case scenario.

The other principle is as fundamental as and is a direct corollary to the right to life itself – the right of self-defense. It is more fundamental than the rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Reasonable restrictions can always be discussed and legislated, but mess with those fundamentals at the country’s peril. Cross the line and a great many people will begin withdrawing their consent.

Let’s put it this way, as I did on a forum several years back: You are not entitle to maintain a delusional sense of security at the expense of my right of self-defense.

By: Bob J Ross

Bob J Ross — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 23:46:27 +0000

The Sovereign Power resides within the people as a whole, not fleshing out the equel sharing of power between the Federal and State entities. We the people have the right to refresh the Tree of Liberity from time to time with blood of Tyrants and Patiriots alike. Whether they be Federal or State.

By: Munango-Keewati

Munango-Keewati — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 21:08:03 +0000

Roger Friedman: “…a frontier society whose technology admitted of no cannon with as much force as a modern-day rifle…”

Huh? Perhaps you could name the rifle that has the power of a Revolutionary era cannon.

Without “originalism,” all we have is nine elders making all the rules. The Constitution was written down for a purpose.

By: George Young

George Young — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 17:32:35 +0000

It is abundantly clear that in a Republican form of government, ultimate Sovereign power and authority resides in the hands of the people, who exercise their individual sovereign authority through the exercise of their vote to elect a representative form of government with delegated powers. The ultimate responsibility to preserve, protect and defend freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happines rests in the hands of the citizens of the the nation, who have realized that in the final analysis liberty and freedom can only be preserved through three boxes: the ballot box; the jury box; and the cartridge box. As an unorganized militia cannot be ordered to lay down their arms; they cannot be ordered to retreat; and they certainly cannot be ordered to surrender. However, under a commander-in-chief in an organized militia, they can be ordered to lay down arms, surrender and retreat, in light of a court martial and death penalty for disobedience of orders and treason.

By: Barry J. Baker Sipe

Barry J. Baker Sipe — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 17:03:16 +0000

AMENDMENT II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

1) A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, … shall not be infringed.

and

2) . . . the right of the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, being necessary to the security of a free state, shall not be infringed.

The common denominator is both are necessary to a free state of man.

Barry