US prosecution of arms dealers

[Rex Brynen]

jmm, plz not to bring facts into this argument, as the "US imports arms to Mexico" is pure and simple a 2nd Amendment to the Constitution Hater and gun grabber ploy to destroy the US Constitution.

As the long history of the second amendment makes clear, its meaning is far from unambiguous. Moreover, constitutional rights are invariably subject to interpretations that change with changing social times (a process which, in my own admittedly liberal view, has tended to extend the rights of citizens on balance, rather than restrict them).

Put simply, reasonable people can reasonably disagree on what the 2nd Amendment means. That doesn't make them Constitution-haters.

[Ken White]

As the long history of the second amendment makes clear, its meaning is far from unambiguous. Moreover, constitutional rights are invariably subject to interpretations that change with changing social times (a process which, in my own admittedly liberal view, has tended to extend the rights of citizens on balance, rather than restrict them).

True on the change. I believe that the net effect is as you state, extension -- but that there have been a number of restrictions imposed on that uniquely American shibboleth, individual liberty, many of them unnecessary and in some cases detrimental to society.

The erosion of personal liberty builds excessive reliance on the state -- which can never do all the things it's political leaders promise. Never.

Put simply, reasonable people can reasonably disagree on what the 2nd Amendment means. That doesn't make them Constitution-haters.

True but that does not excuse those on both sides of the argument who twist things and lie in an attempt to achieve their aims. My observation has been that while there are those on both sides who do that, the anti-gun crowd is much the worse of the two.

[jmm99]

I am a Life Member of the National Rifle Association (NRA); and have been so since the 1970s. I was a pro bono trial attorney (pro bono within reason, of course, and depending on the significance of the 2nd Amendment issue) for the Second Amendment Federation (SAF), as part of its Attorney Referral Service (see here), until I had to leave trial work.

My views on the 2nd Amendment are carved in stone. I, like you 120mm and many here, am sworn to support the Constitution (in fact, thrice oathed and still serving as an officer of three jurisdictions, SCOTUS, NY and MI). That oath carries the 2nd Amendment along with it.

But, that oath also carries along with it another amendment, the 1st. So, I am not bothered by those who make arguments contrary to my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. They are not going to change my beliefs anyway; and, when their arguments are "dumb", they can be easily refuted. When those whom I consider 2nd Amendment opponents move from argument and spin into legislative and judicial action, then we (those who think as I) fight them in those arenas without compromise.

My purpose in starting this thread was not to initiate a 2nd Amendment discussion - although I am not surprised that one has developed. My purpose was to expose the factual fallacy in the argument I paraphrased in the OP.

Nuff said by me on this, since I could go on about these issues for a long time.

[120mm]

I My purpose in starting this thread was not to initiate a 2nd Amendment discussion - although I am not surprised that one has developed. My purpose was to expose the factual fallacy in the argument I paraphrased in the OP.

Nuff said by me on this, since I could go on about these issues for a long time.

The problem with the above statement is, that this issue IS all about the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. Period. The "help the Mexican government control crime" legend is mere Trojan Horse-ism.

Of course, the most I can do is look down my nose at those who exercise their 1st Amendment Rights in the process of attacking the 2nd. But that'll teach 'em.

[jmm99]

from 120mm
The problem with the above statement is, that this issue IS all about the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. Period. The "help the Mexican government control crime" legend is mere Trojan Horse-ism.

Please explain more fully what you're getting at - step by step.

[Ron Humphrey]

Please explain more fully what you're getting at - step by step.

He's referring to the high probability that the "we are enabling them to get weapons" bit will be used by particular groups as the catalyst for stronger weapons control measures at home.

Thus the concern over one amendment is used to counter another.

Just a guess

[jmm99]

The reason I didn't get it is that in the OP, I was focused on the crowd who argue that "we shouldn't intervene in foreign nations" because we don't want them to intervene when ""we are enabling them to get weapons" (the fallacy).

Yup, agreed that a crowd (not necessarily the same as the non-interventionists) could very well argue that the solution to keep firearms out of Mexico is to disarm the US - and, of course, that as a part of disarming the World. That crowd has been quite successful in other countries and in the UN. I'm well aware of all that.

The fallacy in their argument is that international trade in firearms is almost all in military weapons and is already very illegal. So, let's have enforcement of existing laws - and perhaps making them less difficult to enforce (horrors of all horrors - bringing some logic into the picture ). And practically, confiscation of my puny little arsenal would mean zero to international arms trafficers - I'm not their source.

One of our earliest constitutional scholars, William Rawle, in discussing the 2nd Amendment in 1829, noted how laws impinging on the right to bear arms were justified by one reason, but with the real reason being unexpressed (italics added):

Blackstone, in whom we regret that we cannot always trace the expanded principles of rational liberty, observes however, on this subject, that the prevention of popular insurrections and resistance to government by disarming the people, is oftener meant than avowed, by the makers of forest and game laws.

So, the crowd who are afraid of armed and vigilent populace have been with us a long time - and then as now are not above subtrafuge to achieve their end goal.

BTW (IMO - so also the preceding paragraph): Rawle was a moderate urbanite with respect to the 2nd Amendment, as you can see by reading the rest of his discussion at the above link. His generally unfavorable view of Blackstone as a non-proponent of liberty is interesting in light of the overuse of Blackstone by some.