On the Abrams report at 5:00 today CST there was a debate. I missed all except where Arams was apoligizing to his next guest for not leaving him much time because he was discussing a 2nd amendment issue which he is "so passionate about". They were discussing the DOJ report. Abrams is an anti. I understand from another who saw the whole thing that Abrams got very mad and Volokh did very good. It will be reshown at midnight CST tonight. I suspect something will be written at Volokh Conspiracy Professor Volokhs' blog sometime. I will comment again after I watch it tonight. Oh Abrams Report is on MSNBC. Thought some of you might want to watch. I think the transcript will be on the MSNBCs' web page sometime.
Eugene Volokh on MSNBC
- Thread starter Kim
- Start date
- Status
mbs357
Member
If I ever find out what time CST is in EST then I'll see about watching it. Always love to see an anti lose.
beerslurpy
member
Post tivo rip of the show or mayhaps a transcript?
There was also a Professor Bennet(retired from Northwestern Law School) on so it was 2 aganist 1. Abrams just could not believe anyone would think the 2nd amendment gives an individual right. Apparently in the past when he was in Law School at Yale he published a law review article with his views. He tried to say no Federal Court or the USSC (except the recent 5th ) had ever said their was a individual right. He read a few quotes from 2 cases prior to the 14th amendment. Of coarse he quoted Miller. He said no Attorney General had stated it was an individual right. Volokh had to talk fast. He pointed out the FDR DOJ and Lincolin said it was an individual right. Abrams even brought up the Dick Act. Abrams does not believe it is a State right to keep and bear arms but it is an individual right of those only in militia service ie the national guard. Volokh said just because the Congress divided the militia into a National Guard an an unorganized militia that did change the 2nd amendment. Congress can no pass a law that changes the constitution. Abrams said Oh Well and keep yacking. The other Professor said he felt that the DOG memo is a ppolitical ploy and is really laughable and does not mean much. Of coarse he brought up that the 2nd amendment does not mention guns but arms and does that mean individuals can own nuclear bombs. Volokh however seems to believe not in strict scrutiny but a reasonabless test for the 2nd amendment. He said he thought registration would be constitutional but gun bans would not be. Oh well the story goes on. The usual living constitution from Abrams and the other professor is what they were finally left with. 
:banghead:
:banghead:mbs357
Member
Dang, I ended up forgetting about it as soon as I posted the above and went to bed...
Sounds good though, hopefully that transcript will come along soon?
Sounds good though, hopefully that transcript will come along soon?
Cyanide_357
Member
- Joined
- May 31, 2004
- Messages
- 153
Abrams is really anoying... just like most (if not all anti's), he would not shutup and let Volokh speak. :banghead: ...
I don't watch MSNBC anyway.. but I'm definatly not going to watch it now.. especially not Abrams.
Cyanide
:banghead: ...I don't watch MSNBC anyway.. but I'm definatly not going to watch it now.. especially not Abrams.
Cyanide
One good thing------I hope to see more discussion of the 2nd amendment like this was instead of just a discussion of a gun control law. The first thing that has to be settled is the 2nd amendment then one can start to discuss what gun control laws are constitutional or not.
general
Member
I saw that, he was salivating all over himself trying to insinuate anyone who believes in the 2ndis a rascist. "So you believe balcks shouldn't have guns, huh, huh, WELL?!?!?" He is an emotional anti. Figured I'd send him a letter - want to make sure I don't sound like an idiot myself first tho...
Let me know if changes are needed....
Mr. Dan Abrams
C/o MSNBC and NBC News
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, N.Y. 10112
Dear Mr. Abrams:
I was watching your show last night, as I occasionally do and was surprised to see the emotion with which you derided those that would have the framers vision of the Second Amendment and its original intent.
To see you attempt to shame and bully others by declaring that if the Second Amendment were now followed as in the late 1800's, then blacks or the elderly should not be allowed Arms was ridiculous. You want to cast gun owners as insane and if not insane, then racist. That was the real giveaway. I still believe you to be an intelligent person, but you clearly demonstrated that you are also an anti-gun bigot. Your bias is showing. I am not a lawyer, nor have I ever studied law or had the benefit of any higher education for that matter, yet even I know that all civil liberty protections of the original Bill of Rights were not granted to blacks until the ratification of the 14th Amendment on July 9, 1868. I looked that up in case you were wondering, you should try it sometime.
If I may, I would like to give you a short education in common sense that neither Duke nor Columbia Universities seem to have been able to.
Let me start with this:
To assume all articles of the Bill of Rights grant personal rights to the individual with the exception of the Second Amendment is quite hard to believe. It is as if you are saying that the numbers one through nine are all numbers except number two, which is a letter. Do you also propose to alter that saying that all men are created equal, provided they can purchase and produce a government issued permit to prove that are, in fact part of the larger group we now have redefined as men as a whole.
Now, we shall divide, define and clarify it for you.
"A well-regulatedâ€:
The following were taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the Second Amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
"The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it." © Jacques C. Tucker. It can, does and has been used to indicate something "of appropriate caliber†or "to be sufficiently armed".
Now let us move on to:
"Militia": mi·li·tia (m-lsh)
n.
An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
Courtesy: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Well now, how do you define “ordinary citizens†or “not part of a regular army†perhaps “civilians†is the best term. There you have it, the term Militia does not refer to the National Guard, and the National Guard was not established until The National Defense Act of 1916. Just so we are on the same page here, The National Guard serves both the state and nation in times of need, and soldiers and airmen in the Guard swear an oath to protect and defend not just the Constitution of the United States, but also of the State in which they serve. Remember the Constitution, you know, the one that has that pesky Bill of Rights? Let us not forget that most State Constitutions also guarantee a right to arms. Perhaps we should redefine what the term militia means? Alternatively, maybe define what "is" is.
And then:
"being necessary to the security of a free State":
I do not think even you can twist this to mean anything else other than what it plainly says. Only properly armed men are able defend the State.
And of course:
“the right of the people to keep and bear Armsâ€:
This clearly signifies that the people should have access to the same common "Arms" as the organized military. In fact, the security of a free State requires it must be the same “Arms†as the common military arm, by which I mean up to and including the most common of military arm used by the U.S. armed forces; the M16A2 5.56mm rifle or the M4 5.56mm carbine. You must make available the same Arms as the military to truly guarantee a free State.
And finally:
“shall not be infringedâ€:
No authority can redefine or invalidate that which is reserved to be a right of the people. It is what you and many others are attempting to do. Will you next attack Americans freedom of religion?
In closing, let me say that as an ordinary, uneducated citizen, I believe I have a far firmer grasp of what the realties of this issue are than you ever will. Do you deign to declare the rules as you see fit from your Ivory Tower? You’ve probably never had to walk home from your night job, through the bad part of town because even though you do have a car, you don’t drive much because you are trying to save for a house and gas is just a luxury item really. Or maybe you have had to defend yourself from an armed attacker who would take your paycheck your life and surely your dignity by making you unable to provide for your family’s meager needs. I for one am sure glad my future does not reside in your hands. I am very happy however, that you have the individual right to voice any opinion you wish. Please do not forget that if a fledgling nation were to have been deprived the use of Arms, you would not.
sources:
http://www.ngb.army.mil/downloads/fact_sheets/guard.asp
http://chezjacq.com/well.htm
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
http://www.hoboes.com/html/FireBlade/Editorials/Mimsy/?ART=21
http://www.ccrkba.org/
http://rkba.org/
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/
Let me know if changes are needed....
Mr. Dan Abrams
C/o MSNBC and NBC News
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, N.Y. 10112
Dear Mr. Abrams:
I was watching your show last night, as I occasionally do and was surprised to see the emotion with which you derided those that would have the framers vision of the Second Amendment and its original intent.
To see you attempt to shame and bully others by declaring that if the Second Amendment were now followed as in the late 1800's, then blacks or the elderly should not be allowed Arms was ridiculous. You want to cast gun owners as insane and if not insane, then racist. That was the real giveaway. I still believe you to be an intelligent person, but you clearly demonstrated that you are also an anti-gun bigot. Your bias is showing. I am not a lawyer, nor have I ever studied law or had the benefit of any higher education for that matter, yet even I know that all civil liberty protections of the original Bill of Rights were not granted to blacks until the ratification of the 14th Amendment on July 9, 1868. I looked that up in case you were wondering, you should try it sometime.
If I may, I would like to give you a short education in common sense that neither Duke nor Columbia Universities seem to have been able to.
Let me start with this:
To assume all articles of the Bill of Rights grant personal rights to the individual with the exception of the Second Amendment is quite hard to believe. It is as if you are saying that the numbers one through nine are all numbers except number two, which is a letter. Do you also propose to alter that saying that all men are created equal, provided they can purchase and produce a government issued permit to prove that are, in fact part of the larger group we now have redefined as men as a whole.
Now, we shall divide, define and clarify it for you.
"A well-regulatedâ€:
The following were taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the Second Amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
"The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it." © Jacques C. Tucker. It can, does and has been used to indicate something "of appropriate caliber†or "to be sufficiently armed".
Now let us move on to:
"Militia": mi·li·tia (m-lsh)
n.
An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
Courtesy: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Well now, how do you define “ordinary citizens†or “not part of a regular army†perhaps “civilians†is the best term. There you have it, the term Militia does not refer to the National Guard, and the National Guard was not established until The National Defense Act of 1916. Just so we are on the same page here, The National Guard serves both the state and nation in times of need, and soldiers and airmen in the Guard swear an oath to protect and defend not just the Constitution of the United States, but also of the State in which they serve. Remember the Constitution, you know, the one that has that pesky Bill of Rights? Let us not forget that most State Constitutions also guarantee a right to arms. Perhaps we should redefine what the term militia means? Alternatively, maybe define what "is" is.
And then:
"being necessary to the security of a free State":
I do not think even you can twist this to mean anything else other than what it plainly says. Only properly armed men are able defend the State.
And of course:
“the right of the people to keep and bear Armsâ€:
This clearly signifies that the people should have access to the same common "Arms" as the organized military. In fact, the security of a free State requires it must be the same “Arms†as the common military arm, by which I mean up to and including the most common of military arm used by the U.S. armed forces; the M16A2 5.56mm rifle or the M4 5.56mm carbine. You must make available the same Arms as the military to truly guarantee a free State.
And finally:
“shall not be infringedâ€:
No authority can redefine or invalidate that which is reserved to be a right of the people. It is what you and many others are attempting to do. Will you next attack Americans freedom of religion?
In closing, let me say that as an ordinary, uneducated citizen, I believe I have a far firmer grasp of what the realties of this issue are than you ever will. Do you deign to declare the rules as you see fit from your Ivory Tower? You’ve probably never had to walk home from your night job, through the bad part of town because even though you do have a car, you don’t drive much because you are trying to save for a house and gas is just a luxury item really. Or maybe you have had to defend yourself from an armed attacker who would take your paycheck your life and surely your dignity by making you unable to provide for your family’s meager needs. I for one am sure glad my future does not reside in your hands. I am very happy however, that you have the individual right to voice any opinion you wish. Please do not forget that if a fledgling nation were to have been deprived the use of Arms, you would not.
sources:
http://www.ngb.army.mil/downloads/fact_sheets/guard.asp
http://chezjacq.com/well.htm
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
http://www.hoboes.com/html/FireBlade/Editorials/Mimsy/?ART=21
http://www.ccrkba.org/
http://rkba.org/
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/
- Status