U.S. Rep. Steve Scalise, himself the victim of an unhinged would-be mass killer, says the Second Amendment means the rights to bear arms is “unlimited.”
I respectfully disagree. (Full disclosure: I own a lever-action .22 rifle I inherited from my grandfather and two handguns. I don’t hunt and I fervently hope I never have occasion to use those weapons. And I don’t harbor irrational fears that someone is coming to take them from me.)
Whenever there is a mass shooting like the one in Las Vegas, there are three things of which we can be certain:
- There will be renewed calls to address the problem of the easy accessibility to guns, especially automatic and semi-automatic weapons.
- There will be those members of Congress (and the occasional POTUS), the beneficiaries of large campaign contributions by the NRA who will say, “Now is not the time for that discussion.”
- There will be those, mainly gun owners steeped in the indoctrination that people will be coming for their guns, who will pose the not-so-rhetorical question, “Why is it when a horrible incident like Las Vegas, certain people start hammering gun control?” (That was a question actually asked in the comment section of a recent LouisianaVoice post.)
Taking the reader’s question first, my response would be because that’s when the image of the carnage brought by these weapons is the freshest on our minds. It’s because politicians are obligated to regurgitate the cliche that they are “praying for the victims” (when most of them haven’t bother to pray in years, if ever, and, truth be known, won’t now) and we are obligated to sigh and shake our heads and ask why this keeps happening and why isn’t something done to keep guns away from these people before our attention is again diverted to LSU and Saints football.
As for that second certainty, I would pose my own question: When the hell is “the right time,” you imbecile? What is your idea of a “right time”—when the outrage has subsided and we return to our daily routines like so many sheep while you continue taking campaign cash from the NRA?
If that is what you consider the “right time,” then I suggest the “right time” has come for you to resign from Congress and enlist in the military so that you can deploy to some hot spot on the planet that you, as a member of Congress, have deemed important to U.S. interests so you can get your ass shot off defending some vague concept of Liberty and the American Way which I suspect is little more than protecting the financial well-being of war profiteers—big oil, weapons and military aircraft manufacturers, and those companies who move in afterwards to “rebuild” with their contract cost overruns of $100,000 a week like a certain Baton Rouge firm with a contract to help rebuild Iraq.
Speaking of defending America from aggression, has it occurred to anyone else that we didn’t really have much of a terrorist threat in this country until we started sticking our collective noses into the affairs of other countries? Have we, in our indignation of Russia’s interference in our election, ever tallied up the number of elections in other countries that we have interfered in? A hint: the number is more than 80, including places like Central America, South America, Africa, Iraq, Iran, France, Italy and even Israel. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-elections-20161213-story.html
Try defending America’s honor with statistics like that. Try coming to terms with those facts while popping a blood vessel over some jock kneeling during the National Anthem.
That’s why I was just a little astonished at Scalise’s erroneous interpretation of the Second Amendment. But it is consistent with his political viewpoint and those of his constituents who, incidentally, are the same ones who once elected white supremacist David Duke to the Louisiana Legislature and who elected Bobby Jindal to Congress from the same First Congressional District that Scalise now represents.
Scalise was on Meet the Press Sunday morning when host Chuck Todd asked him about his view on gun laws after the Las Vegas shootings. Instead of answering Todd’s question, Scalise gave the usual B.S. political two-step, saying the focus should be on “the amount of people across the country who over the course of a day or week or month use guns to protect themselves against criminals.”
Huh? But…but, Congressman, did those people at that concert in Las Vegas have an opportunity to defend themselves against the assailant’s automatic weapons? A handgun wouldn’t have been much help in that situation, now would it?
Todd then asked, “Is the right to bear arms unlimited or is there a limit?”
“The Second Amendment really predates the Bill of Rights,” Scalise responded, as if that was an answer to the question. A do-si-do to go with the two-step.
Todd pressed on. “But is it unlimited?”
Incredulously, Scalise finally said, “It is.” (Click HERE to see the interview.)
Okay, I’ll give him that the U.S. Supreme Court said in 2008 in the District of Columbia v. Heller ruling that the Second Amendment “codified a pre-existing right” and that it “protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with the service in a militia.”
That was Scalise’s apparent reference to the right to bear arms predating the Bill of Rights. But Scalise did not quote the rest of that opinion, which said:
- “The right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
Bingo. Or should that be touché?
Let’s return to Scalise’s contention that the Second Amendment gives unlimited rights to bear arms.
First of all, I thought Scalise was a conservative but that’s a pretty damned liberal interpretation of the Second Amendment.
But let’s assume for a moment that he’s correct.
Carrying that logic to its natural conclusion, a most liberal interpretation would have to be applied to all the other amendments. Thus, we would have an “unlimited” right to say and write anything we want about anyone at any time simply because the First Amendment gives us unlimited rights to speech and press.
I could, for example, write that Scalise once had a romantic relationship with a nanny goat but had to break it off when his donkey got jealous. Now, is that true? Probably not. I don’t think he owns a donkey. But the by God First Amendment gives me unlimited rights to say and write that.
And if someone wanted to practice a religion that called for its adherents to slaughter all red-haired, left-handed men with big feet by beating them to death with a badminton racket, then the First Amendment gives me unlimited religious freedom so there’s not a thing anyone can do about it.
And if that same religious leader and all his followers wished to hold a parade through downtown Baton Rouge to display the racket-mutilated carcass, then hey, no parade permits need be obtained because the First Amendment gives them the unlimited right to free assembly.
No, Congressman, the Second Amendment does not give unlimited rights. But I know you, like most of your contemporaries in both the House and Senate long ago sold your souls to the NRA, so you are obligated to stick to the game plan despite your own tragic near-death experience with a deranged sociopath who happened to get his hands on a semi-automatic weapon.
And I understand your reluctance to talk about legislation making it more difficult for these people to obtain weapons.
Now is just not the time to discuss it.
One might wonder why those consumed with fear of a potential government takeover don’t demand dramatic reductions in defense spending. After all, what other federal government agency has the wherewithal to take over? And should that day come, how will individual gun owners fare against the U.S. military?
Excellent article Mr Aswell. I would think it is incredulous that Scalise could hold such as misguided view of our constitution but hey, this is Louisiana.
Your descriptions of just how foolish it is to say that any of the Bill of Rights topics is unlimited might be the best I’ve ever read. Thanks for the debate fodder.
And continuing to speak of Scalise, his life was saved by Crystal Griner, a lesbian, and yet he continues to voice opposition to LGBTQ rights. Scalise is either an ingrate or a fool. On second thought, he’s both.
Aswell vs. Graves 2018!
I guess I’m pretty dense, but I am trying to figure out how an article of the Bill of Rights can have preceded the Bill of Rights of which it is an article. One of life’s many legal conundrums, I guess, or a carry over from the Continental Congress or something. But, then again, neither I nor Rep. Scalise are attorneys – if that would help make this a credible statement of his.
There was an interesting discussion of the second amendment on GPS yesterday morning featuring a Harvard law professor. He pointed out he 2nd amendment has been interpreted in varying ways over time. I found myself wondering why simple common sense could not prevail in its application today. A strict construction would be that we all need to bear arms for when an invading horde of imperialists or insurrectionists spread out across the countryside with the intent of conquering our country. Does that seem likely to happen?
Shouldn’t it be okay for Tom to have his squirrel rifle and even his hand guns? Is he likely to get on top of the state capitol and start picking people off with them even if he loses his mind? On the other hand, why should it be okay for him to have a semi-automatic assault rifle and any kind of ammo he can get his hands on, much less a device that makes his semi-automatic weapon automatic? Even the NRA acknowledges the latter should be regulated in some way. That fact should somewhat diffuse the “slippery slope” argument that if they take my bump stock away the next thing you know they will be prying my pellet gun from my cold dead fingers.
I guess money now rules everything and plain old common sense is what’s dead.
Thank you, Tom, for giving credibility to this serious debate. As I listen to the NRA, Republicans (especially Scalise), my friends, family & neighbors that now own military arsenals, I wonder at how easy and effective it has been to brainwash a huge segment of our population. This is what we need to examine. How do special interest, bigly rich Republican groups manage to take over the thoughts and actions of so many of their followers? I seem to be immune to their propaganda…but, I am almost a sole minority in my little neck of the Louisiana woods.
Did you really think Scalise was going to change from his rigid ideology? The man survived an attempt on his life, and, ironically was saved by a lesbian, yet he endorses “unlimited” gun ownership and opposes LBGT rights. One of his proudest achievements while a legislator in BR was the authoring of an amendment to the Louisiana Constitution banning same sex marriage (passed with 70% support of LA voters). Make no mistake, Scalise has his eyes set on higher office and he will milk his shooting to the the utmost..watch out, Paul Ryan, he may eat you for breakfast. People like Scalise et al (Judge Moore from AL) will put their own ideology before family and country.
The right to bear arms absolutely preceded the Bill of Rights. The Constitution doesn’t give us rights. Read it. It protects our rights given from God and allows no man to take those rights away.
If the past year has taught me anything, it’s that both political parties are embedded in corruption and are plotting for more control and power. For them to usurp power means we the people must first concede it. The right to bear arms was implemented as a safe guard to prevent from that happening.
As another reader commented earlier, good luck to you in defending your right to bear arms against military armaments that now are a part of police departments’ inventory and good luck defending yourself against a military controlled by those in power.
But to be completely accurate, I believe the argument advanced in this post was about the right to stockpile semi-automatic and automatic weapons and ammunition for God knows what purpose—certainly not for squirrel hunting.
The post also noted that the right to bear arms is not “unlimited,” as Mr. Scalise claims.
Please stick to the subject matter when adding to the dialogue.
Buck,
Why don’t you not worry about my comments on subject manner. I post what I believe is relevant and certainly don’t answer to you. I’m not overly impressed with your subject matter either. Thanks.
You do have the right to write a false article about a donkey affair and he could sue you for slander. If you beat someone to death with a racket you commit murder and you go to jail, maybe you could start a religious racket prayer group in prison. You can assemble as long as it’s done “peaceably.” We have gun laws, lots of them. Chicago has quite a few and they still have way too many people being murdered daily. During Obama’s time in office, the “bump stock” was approved for sale to the general public. I never knew what a bump stock was until this tragedy. Seems to me that this is modifying a gun to give it more automatic capabilities and that should be against the law in my humble opinion. Now is not the time to make a decision, now is the time to let cooler heads prevail and initiate emotional knee jerk legislation. The bump stock regulation can easily be fixed, I would think.
So, we’re back to blaming Obama for this, are we? Did he pass that legislation or did Congress? Please clarify. You cannot blame everything under the sun on Obama so please, stick to the topic.
Of course one can be sued for writing a false article about a donkey and you can be arrested for beating someone to death with a racket. I believe that was precisely what the post was saying—that no rights are “unlimited,” as Scalise would have us believe. You do NOT have the right to write those things. Libel laws were put into place for that very reason. That was pretty obvious to me. And by the way, just for clarification, slander is spoken defamation. I think you meant libel.
Funny has this “now is not the time” theme works. When those “cooler heads” do prevail, the topic seems to quietly fade away—until the next massacre. Again, I believe that was what the post was trying to convey but you seemed to somehow miss all Tom’s points in your haste to post a rebuttal.
So, I ask you, when is the time to make a decision?
Sorry, but I’m not blaming Obama. I merely pointed out that the bump stock was okayed during his regime, which was not a very friendly gun rights administration unless you include selling guns to criminals/drug lords south of the border. I believe it was the ATF possibly that allowed for the sale. The 2nd amendment does state that “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” That sounds pretty definite. But that doesn’t give us the right to own an automatic weapon, etc. Scalise doesn’t believe we have unlimited rights. Shall we jump to conclusions and ban guns? That doesn’t seem to work in Chicago and other US cities that have very tough gun laws. Who do put in charge of deciding who is not mentally competent to own a gun? What criteria do you use to determine who can own a gun? Are certain prescribed drugs enough to put you on the bad list? If you belong to a church that beats people with badminton rackets, are you on the bad list? Does the government have autonomy to determine who can or cannot own a gun. Tell me how you are going to legislate this fairly?
“The 2nd amendment does state that “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.””. Sidwit, you have to read the 2nd Amendment in its entirety. But, I do agree with you about how can this problem be fairly legislated.
Thank you.
Mr. Aswell in advocating more laws should be enacted regarding gun ownership by law abiding citizens (vs. criminals don’t care about laws) spent alot of derogatory words on Mr. Scalise, but he does not take a position on exactly what new laws should be enacted that will ensure this never or possible never happens again. Carrying this to its natural conclusion, there are plenty of laws at the local, state and federal level against murder, but in spite of these laws Baton Rouge seems to have its fair share anyway. Just curious in advocating more laws just what new laws are needed that will actual work. (excuse grammar as I had to write quickly on lunch break).
My contention is, and always has been, that we need some way to keep weapons away from the mentally ill. I don’t know the answer, but continually saying “Now is not the time” is a cop-out by those bought and packaged by the NRA. Let’s talk about it.
I cannot believe that you don’t see a problem with all these mass shootings and want things to go merrily along as they always have. Look at other civilized countries—Canada, Sweden, Denmark, etc. You don’t see nearly the murder rate we have in the U.S. and, as you correctly pointed out, Baton Rouge. There is no way to ensure it won’t happen again but we must do what we can to at least reduce the number of mass shootings. It’s become some sort of macabre sport, it seems.
And as for my “derogatory” comments about Scalise, the criticisms I mentioned were of his unique position that the 2nd Amendment gives “unlimited” rights with guns. I simply carried that absurd logic to its natural conclusion. If that’s derogatory, so be it.
Switzerland has very few gun related crimes and the majority of citizens own guns.
Mr. Aswell I did not say I don’t see that there is a problem in this country with the mass shootings that have occurred, I agree with you. I don’t know how congress can cure this problem and what specific legislation would do just that. If the shooter would have been using my old .22 cal. rifle with a scope he still could have killed people in this situation. This shooter violated a long list of laws. Further legislation may limit access to law abiding citizens, but it will not for people with money, planning and intent to harm others. I have kin who live in Canada and find Canadians are wonderful people and suppose people living in the other countries you pointed out are as well, but I have to believe they also have their share of nuts too. Thank you for your investigative articles in wrongdoing in government you do a very credible job with facts to back it up and we appreciate it very much.
Gary, I imagine Tom will answer, but I think there are some very basic common sense things we could enact that would help.
Unlike some other countries where few private citizens have ever owned guns, there are many guns of many kinds in the hands of people of all stripes in our country.
Relatively unrestricted gun ownership like we have was prevalent in Australia and it had some success with its laws enacted beginning in 1996 after a mass shooting in Tasmania:
http://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/
I think it goes without saying we will probably never enact such laws here, but we could take modest steps that make sense to everybody.
I agree with your point that laws will not solve the problem, but doing nothing isn’t working for sure.
I do not know Mr. Buck, but agree with his learned comments. The gun crap is a direct result of the NRA marketing plan playing to the fears, ignorance, and outright prejudices we all have, especially the SDS group, who refuse to join the military and are actually cowards who elect a f——-moron(s) to public office. Yeah I am mad but I will always ….love always ron thompson
I think that the Bump Stock will ultimately be banned by law. It is simply a nice toy for the gun enthusiast and with the NRA willing to cooperate, it’s demise seems a done deal. The following remark is not intended to diminish the horror and sadness of the LV ambush. As someone said, the Bump Stock is one of the fastest ways to turn cash into noise.
What will be more interesting is what, if anything, will be done to control similar mechanisms that are even less expensive then a bump stock.
http://www.rapidfiretriggers.net/
The LV killer had a clean record and lots of $$$. He could easily have become a federally licensed gun dealer allowing him to legally purchase full automatic weapons.
An interesting observation. Over a year ago Texas passed a law allowing open carry of handguns based on background checks and formal training for licensure. During this period, I have only seen a single person exercising his right to carry.
My prediction is that – with the exception of Bump Stocks – there will be lots of noisy dialog regarding gun control and no action will result…
Here’s another example of ATF approved mechanical magic. It allows weapon to fire when trigger is pulled and again when trigger is released.
http://realisticpreparedness.com/fostech-echo-ar-ii-trigger-review/
“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.”
Tom, I was not an English major, so maybe you can help me out with sentence construction. The phrase, “being necessary to the security of a free state” is referring back to “A well regulated militia”, is it not? Stephen, as you know, often times when the courts are not clear as to the intent behind a law, they will look to committee hearing testimony, floor debate on the proposed law, and constitutional convention transcripts. But, there are many judges who look straight to the letter of the law. A strict construction.
I think this may be the most powerful article I’ve ever read on this subject. Thank you!
FYI For those wondering about what militia the 2nd amendment refers to check out 10 U.S. Code § 246.
That section of the Code was not enacted until 1956, I think. The 2nd Amendment was adopted in 1791.