Mediaboss Marketing

In November 2007, the novelist David Foster Wallace wrote a short essay for a special edition of The Atlantic on The American Idea. Writing about 9/11 and all that came after, Wallace proposed what some might consider a monstrous thought experiment:

Are some things still worth dying for? Is the American idea one such thing? Are you up for a thought experiment? What if we chose to regard the 2,973 innocents killed in the atrocities of 9/11 not as victims but as democratic martyrs, sacrifices on the altar of freedom? In other words, what if we decided that a certain baseline vulnerability to terrorism is part of the price of the American idea? And, thus, that ours is a generation of Americans called to make great sacrifices in order to preserve our democratic way of lifesacrifices not just of our soldiers and money but of our personal safety and comfort?

In still other words, what if we chose to accept the fact that every few years, despite all reasonable precautions, some hundreds or thousands of us may die in the sort of ghastly terrorist attack that a democratic republic cannot 100-percent protect itself from without subverting the very principles that make it worth protecting?

Wallaces point was that, in the wake of 9/11, a host of policies had been put in placethe Patriot Act, warrantless surveillance, private contractors performing military dutieswithout a substantive public debate about the trade-offs they represented and whether they were worth it. Wallace wanted to know what it said about us as a people that we were unable or unwilling even to consider whether some things might be more important than safety.

Why now can we not have a serious national conversation about sacrifice, the inevitability of sacrificeeither of (a) some portion of safety or (b) some portion of the rights and protections that make the American idea so incalculably precious? he asked. And if we would not have such a conversation, What kind of future does that augur?

More than a decade later, we are still incapable of serious discussion of the trade-offs between safety and freedom. For the most part, were not even able to admit that such trade-offs exist.

Are you ready for another monstrous thought experiment? What if we decided that a certain baseline vulnerability to mass shootings is part of the price of the American idea? In some ways, mass shootings are a more apt example of what Wallace was talking about than terrorism. After all, we can arguably do something about a worldwide ideological and religious movement that uses violence as a political weaponand we have. Whether the aggregate cost in American blood and treasure has been worth it is another question, but it suffices to say that we can do much less about a random madman intent on killing innocents than we can about ISIS and al-Qaeda.

Set aside, for now, the facile arguments for gun control half-measures that wouldnt have stopped the Parkland shootingor Las Vegas, Virginia Tech, Newtown, or the others. Consider instead what the Left thinks it would really take to stop these kinds of shootings: a repeal of the Second Amendment, followed by mass confiscation of firearms and subsequent heavy regulation of private gun ownership, along the lines of policies in many European countries.

Im not trying to be provocative. Thats really what it would take. Are we willing to consider it? Should we? What does it say about us that we cant even acknowledge the trade-offs involved in keeping U.S. school children safe? The best we could manage last week were the worn-out, ritualized responses: outraged calls for anemic gun control measures from the Left and a naive insistence from the Right that tackling mental health issues will somehow solve the problem.

The New York Times Bret Stephens, for one, is at least willing to be honest about the thing. Back in October, he wrote a column calling for repealing the Second Amendment. Theres of course much to criticize in Stephens argument, beginning with his cherry-picked statistics that fail to explain how, despite a recent surge, the murder rate, and violent crime in general, has been plummeting since the 1990s even as gun ownership has steadily increased.

Im not going to pick apart Stephens piece (my colleague David Harsanyi did a fine job of that shortly after it ran). The point is that Stephens plainly states what most liberals are unwilling to admit: if we really want to stop gun violence in America, were going to have to make fundamental changes to our constitutional order so that the government can wrest guns out of the hands of Americans.

To suggest anything less is intellectually dishonest because anything less simply wont work. Its no surprise, then, that Joe Scarborough took to The Washington Post on Friday to argue for stronger background checks, a ban on bump stocks, and assurances that military-style weaponswhatever that meanswill stop finding their way into the hands of terrorists, domestic abusers and the mentally ill. He puts these forward as substantive policies that will not only make a difference but wont require rewriting the Bill of Rights, neither of which are true.

Or consider the refrain that immediately popped up on social media after the shooting: that guns should be regulated like automobiles. Sure, there are myriad ways we could do that, from requiring things like insurance and a license, to heavy restrictions on what sort of guns manufacturers are allowed to sell to the public.

But of course owning and driving a car is not a constitutionally protected right, its a privilege that comes with certain duties and costs. If were going to regulate firearms like cars, were going to have to decide that owning a gun will no longer be a constitutional right but a heavily regulated privilege. If we do that, were going to have to be honest about what that means: changing the very nature of the constitutional system Americas Founders designed.

Here it must be said that the Second Amendment was not meant to safeguard the right to hunt deer or shoot clay pigeons, or even protect your home and family from an intruder. The right to bear arms stems from the right of revolution, which is asserted in the Declaration of Independence and forms the basis of Americas social compact. Our republic was forged in revolution, and the American people have always retained the right to overthrow their government if it becomes tyrannical. That doesnt mean that private militias should have tanks and missile launchers, but it does mean that revolutionthe right of first principlesundergirds our entire political system.

That might sound academic or outlandish next to the real-life horror of a school shooting, but the fact remains that we cant simply wave off the Second Amendment any more than we can wave off the First, or the Fourth, or any of them. They are constitutive elements of the American idea, without which the entire constitutional system would eventually collapse.

In this, America is unlike the European nations that gun control advocates like to compare it with. Germany can restrict the right to bear arms as easily as it canand doesrestrict free speech. Not so in America. If we want to change that, it will involve a substantial diminishment of our constitutional rights as we have known them up until now. After last weeks school shooting, some Americans are okay with that, especially those families who are grieving. But I suspect most Americans are not willing to make that trade-off, and might never beunless they suffer the same of kind personal loss.

Returning to Wallaces thought experiment, we might rephrase it like this: is the Second Amendment worth dying for? Thats another way of asking what the American idea is worth. Its not an easy question, and I dont pose it lightly, as Im sure Wallace didnt.

But its one we need to ask, even in the face of heartbreaking and devastating loss. Is ours a generation of Americans called to make great sacrifices of our personal safety in order to preserve our democratic way of life? If we will not sacrifice some measure our personal safety, are we willing to sacrifice something like the Second Amendment? If so, what else are we willing to sacrifice?

See the rest here:
Is The Second Amendment Worth Dying For?

Weve seen some clarifying moments in the media since the Florida school shooting. If nothing else, the secret desires of the gun-grabbing crowd have been exposed as they feel more emboldened by a tide of national outrage. Rather than the usual calls for sensible gun laws or more background checks, some have simply come right out and called for the repeal of the Second Amendment. (Which is what a lot of them wanted all along, but were too timid to say it in polite company.) There are petitions popping up online all over the left, including places like MoveOn and Change.org.

Luckily for them, theyre getting some celebrity endorsements for the idea. I noticed one on Twitter last night from none other than singer and actress Alyssa Milano. She was blasting out a virtual poster explaining that the Second Amendment was a dumb idea because of all the other things which were popular in the same year that it was adopted.

This is apparently the sort of thinking which infects the minds of those who want to end gun rights. Take a look at that list. Certainly there were some ideas baked into the cake of 18th-century society which are abhorrent when viewed in the modern day. Slavery and gender inequality could be considered popular ideas for many living in that era. But lead paint? I dont know if that was popular so much as simply being the accepted industry standard before anyone had any idea how bad lead is for human beings.

Cholera, smallpox and typhus? Does anyone honestly think those were popular in the colonies? Oh boy, honey. I hear theres another outbreak of smallpox. I sure hope we get some of that here!

Dying during childbirth? I hate to disillusion Ms. Milano, but that was as much of a tragedy then as it is now. The same goes for unsanitary surgical procedures. Medical science simply hadnt advanced enough at that point. Nobody was praying for infections and amputations after surgery. And dont even get me started on chamber pots. If youd shown any of the colonists an actual modern toilet they would have sold like hotcakes.

Were traveling on foot or on horseback popular at that time? Does the former star of Charmed think that the rest of the world was driving cars at that point, but the idiotic settlers in the new world were opposed to them? People walked to get around or, if they were fortunate enough, might have been able to afford a horse.

Milano is supposedly taking some time off from acting so she can travel around the country and lead the way in various activist morangings, raning from #MeToo to repealing the Second Amendment. Shes going to be spending some time in Houston this month doing precisely that. But if this is the leadership that activists settle on, theyve got a long, uncomfortable slog ahead of them.

See more here:
Alyssa Milano explains why the Second Amendment is horrible

A Guide to the Second Amendment

The Second Amendment, or Amendment II, of the United States Constitution is the amendment and the section of the Bill of Rights that says that people have the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment was adopted into the United States Constitution on December 15, 1791, along with the other amendments in the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights were introduced into the United States Constitution by James Madison.

The Text of the Second Amendment

There are two important versions of the text found in the Second Amendment, but the only differences are due to punctuation and capitalization. The text of the Second Amendment which is found in the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights is the following:

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.

What Does the Second Amendment Mean?

The Second Amendment is only a sentence long. However, there are some very important phrases that need to be carefully looked at. Here are some explanations for key phrases in the Second Amendment.

Militia: During early American history, all males who were between the ages of sixteen to sixty were required to be a part of the local militia in their towns and communities. Almost everyone during this time used and owned guns. The few men who did not use or own a gun were required by law to pay a small fee instead of participating in the military services of their communities. These militias defended the communities against Indian raids and revolved, acted as a police force when it was needed, and was also available to be called upon to defense either the State or of the United States of America if it was needed.

Bear arms: When the Second Amendment was written, arms meant weapons. The word arms did not necessarily only mean guns, but it definitely included guns. The Second Amendment did not specifically explain what categories or types of arms nor did it list what weapons were considered arms. When you bear arms, this means you physically carry weapon. You may have arms in your home as well as on your person.

Shall not be infringed: The Second Amendment does not grant any right to bear arms. Furthermore, the rest of the Bill of Rights does not describe any right to do so. These rights are thought of as natural rights or God-given rights. In the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment is just a reminder to the government that they should not try to stop people from having this right.

comments

See original here:
Second Amendment - Kids | Laws.com

A fraud on the American public. Thats how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum.

Twenty-five years later, Burgers view seems as quaint as a powdered wig. Not only is an individual right to a firearm widely accepted, but increasingly states are also passing laws to legalize carrying weapons on streets, in parks, in barseven in churches.

Story Continued Below

Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didnt rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individuals right to own a gun until 2008, when District of Columbia v. Heller struck down the capitals law effectively banning handguns in the home. In fact, every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise. Why such a head-snapping turnaround? Dont look for answers in dusty law books or the arcane reaches of theory.

So how does legal change happen in America? Weve seen some remarkably successful drives in recent yearsthink of the push for marriage equality, or to undo campaign finance laws. Law students might be taught that the court is moved by powerhouse legal arguments or subtle shifts in doctrine. The National Rifle Associations long crusade to bring its interpretation of the Constitution into the mainstream teaches a different lesson: Constitutional change is the product of public argument and political maneuvering. The pro-gun movement may have started with scholarship, but then it targeted public opinion and shifted the organs of government. By the time the issue reached the Supreme Court, the desired new doctrine fell like a ripe apple from a tree.

***

The Second Amendment consists of just one sentence: A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Today, scholars debate its bizarre comma placement, trying to make sense of the various clauses, and politicians routinely declare themselves to be its strong supporters. But in the grand sweep of American history, this sentence has never been among the most prominent constitutional provisions. In fact, for two centuries it was largely ignored.

The amendment grew out of the political tumult surrounding the drafting of the Constitution, which was done in secret by a group of mostly young men, many of whom had served together in the Continental Army. Having seen the chaos and mob violence that followed the Revolution, these Federalists feared the consequences of a weak central authority. They produced a charter that shifted powerat the time in the hands of the statesto a new national government.

Anti-Federalists opposed this new Constitution. The foes worried, among other things, that the new government would establish a standing army of professional soldiers and would disarm the 13 state militias, made up of part-time citizen-soldiers and revered as bulwarks against tyranny. These militias were the product of a world of civic duty and governmental compulsion utterly alien to us today. Every white man age 16 to 60 was enrolled. He was actually required to ownand bringa musket or other military weapon.

On June 8, 1789, James Madisonan ardent Federalist who had won election to Congress only after agreeing to push for changes to the newly ratified Constitutionproposed 17 amendments on topics ranging from the size of congressional districts to legislative pay to the right to religious freedom. One addressed the well regulated militia and the right to keep and bear arms. We dont really know what he meant by it. At the time, Americans expected to be able to own guns, a legacy of English common law and rights. But the overwhelming use of the phrase bear arms in those days referred to military activities.

There is not a single word about an individuals right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madisons notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned, with a few scattered exceptions, in the records of the ratification debates in the states. Nor did the U.S. House of Representatives discuss the topic as it marked up the Bill of Rights. In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision. A well regulated militia, it explained, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Though state militias eventually dissolved, for two centuries we had guns (plenty!) and we had gun laws in towns and states, governing everything from where gunpowder could be stored to who could carry a weaponand courts overwhelmingly upheld these restrictions. Gun rights and gun control were seen as going hand in hand. Four times between 1876 and 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule that the Second Amendment protected individual gun ownership outside the context of a militia. As the Tennessee Supreme Court put it in 1840, A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.

***

Cue the National Rifle Association. We all know of the organizations considerable power over the ballot box and legislation. Bill Clinton groused in 1994 after the Democrats lost their congressional majority, The NRA is the reason the Republicans control the House. Just last year, it managed to foster a successful filibuster of even a modest background-check proposal in the U.S. Senate, despite 90 percent public approval of the measure.

What is less knownand perhaps more significantis its rising sway over constitutional law.

The NRA was founded by a group of Union officers after the Civil War who, perturbed by their troops poor marksmanship, wanted a way to sponsor shooting training and competitions. The group testified in support of the first federal gun law in 1934, which cracked down on the machine guns beloved by Bonnie and Clyde and other bank robbers. When a lawmaker asked whether the proposal violated the Constitution, the NRA witness responded, I have not given it any study from that point of view. The group lobbied quietly against the most stringent regulations, but its principal focus was hunting and sportsmanship: bagging deer, not blocking laws. In the late 1950s, it opened a new headquarters to house its hundreds of employees. Metal letters on the facade spelled out its purpose: firearms safety education, marksmanship training, shooting for recreation.

Michael Waldman is president of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. He is the author of The Second Amendment: A Biography.

View post:
How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment - POLITICO Magazine

Chicagos attempt to squash a suit brought against the city by a gun shop has failed, after a federal judge said City Hall cant sidestep the lawsuit accusing the city of unconstitutionally barring the shop from opening.

Second Amendment Arms sued the city of Chicago, Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Superintendent of Police Eddie Johnson and City Clerk Anna Valencia for losses it alleges it suffered under the citys prohibition of gun sales within the city from 2010 and 2014.

Second Amendment, a gun shop owned by R. Joseph Franzese, applied for a business license to open a retail location at 415 W. Armitage Ave. on July 2, 2010, the same day the city enacted a new handgun ordinance that prohibited the sale of firearms in the city. The ordinance was repealed on June 25, 2014.

When the license application was denied, Second Amendment says it was told the denial was because of the city ordinance. The company claims it was not told that, even without the ordinance, the application would have failed because 415 W. Armitage Ave., though advertised as a commercial space for rent, was zoned for residential use. The city maintains the plaintiff was told the application failed on both counts. There is no written record of the denial to settle the dispute.

Because there is no question about the locations zoning, the city moved for summary judgment, arguing that Franzese did not lose sales due to the handgun ordinance even without the ordinance in place he would never have been allowed to open a retail store in that location.

Second Amendment argues that if the company had been told the location was an issue, it would have filed a new or amended application with a different address. The plaintiff argues that they did not do so because they didnt realize the Armitage address was a residential building, and because they thought the point was moot, as the gun ordinance prohibited the sale of guns in the first place.

The court sided with the plaintiff. In a decision issued Aug. 29, U.S. District Judge Robert M. Dow Jr. said the existence of a second, unchallenged ordinance blocking the application is not enough; the city must show the plaintiff was unable or unwilling to comply with the terms of that ordinance to prove the challenged ordinance was not the cause of the lost sales.

In his finding, the judge determined the citys argument relied too heavily on case law involving an advertising company which wanted to construct a billboard that violated a municipal sign ordinance regulating the size of off-site signage. In that case, there was no indication the company was interested in erecting anything smaller; in this case, Dow wrote, it is not only possible, but probable, that Second Amendment would have submitted an application for a different address if the only thing preventing it from opening a store was its locations zoning.

No one argues that there was anything special about operating a gun shop at 415 W. Armitage. Plaintiff simply picked a location advertised as a commercial space, Dow wrote. The fact that the particular address that Plaintiff listed on their gun store application was zoned for residential use even though it was advertised as commercial space is simply a fortuity.

The zoning cases presented as precedent were different, Dow wrote, because in some of these cases, the permit applications violated a host of unchallenged zoning prohibitions and there was no reasonable prospect that the plaintiff had any intention of rectifying these problems. A judgment that SAA was improperly precluded from opening a gun store at any commercial location in Chicago solely because of the gun store ban is substantially likely to redress its injuries whatever their size.

The case is set for a status hearing on Sept. 28.

Second Amendment Arms is represented in the action by attorneys David G. Sigale, of Glen Ellyn, and Walter Peter Maksym Jr., of Chicago.

More:
Federal judge says City Hall can't use zoning law 'fortuity' to sidestep shop's lawsuit over gun sale ban - Cook County Record