Category Archives: 2nd Amendment
In the ongoing (with no end in sight) debate over exactly what to do about mass shootings, the doctrines have become entrenched. On the Left, all guns must be eliminated, because Australia did this and ended gun violence. On the Right, Switzerland and Israel have guns everywhere and they have no such shootings.
Guns *must* be taken away; guns are a Constitutional right and *cannot* be taken away.
Who is correct? What if both sides are to a degree? What if neither side is correct at all? Read the rest of this entry
SEGMENT – “WE MUST DO SOMETHING…”
In the aftermath of Vegas, et al, the call once again becomes “We must do something.” The problem is, what is something to one person may be nothing to another, and everything to yet another. It all comes down to an understanding of what “reasonable” is. Because what is reasonable to you, may not be to me, and vice versa.
In short, other nations have gone so far as to confiscate guns from citizens. But here in the United States, that would be… problematic at best. So. for the moment, let’s play the “What If?” game. If there were a law which banned all guns, how would those who pass such a law go about enforcing it?
Reference to Constitution Thursday The Saturday Podcast Episode “I Don’t Like Monday’s”
SEGMENT – GERRYMANDERING
In Wisconsin, the State Legislature stands accused of deciding to gerrymander the whole State to favor one Political Party. Now look, this is nothing new. But it is new to have the Supreme Court take up the case and look at whether or not Gerrymandering is in the “best interests of democracy.”
Putting aside the whole “we’re not a democracy” argument for the moment, there actually is a solution to the problem that would make it more challenging (not impossible) to gerrymander, but there is no way on this green planet that the Donkeys and Elephants will ever allow it to happen…
SEGMENT – FRIENDS
A voicemail reminds me of why I love doing these podcasts and shows so very much.
This week the 4th Circuit Court, ruling en banc, ruled that a Maryland State law banning “assault weapons” is Constitutional. The Court ruled that those weapons were “military” in nature and therefore they are not covered by the restrictions of the 2nd Amendment.
Conservatives are outraged. Progressives are ecstatic. Who is correct? Is it as simple as “I am conservative therefore the Court is wrong” or “I am progressive so the Court is right?” Did the 4th really ignore the precedents of Heller and other cases dealing with the 2nd Amendment?
In order to understand the issue, one has to consider two competing syllogism and their underlying axioms:
(A) All guns are military weapons.
Ownership of military guns should be restricted to the military.
Therefore the individual ownership of all guns should be restricted.
(B) All guns are military weapons.
The Militia is a military unit.
Individual ownership of all guns are protected by the 2nd Amendment.
Remember that in order to reach a valid conclusion, the basic assumptions of the axiom must be true. If the underlying presumption is false, the logic, regardless of how brilliant, will reach an invalid conclusion.
Did the Court base its ruling in a good axiom or upon a flawed presumption?