By All Means, Take Your Ball And Go Home

When you can't explain what you're saying, and you're too good to defend it, don't get butthurt for having your nose rubbed in it by Reality.

I mention that, because yesterday, Angus floated this air biscuit on his blog:

"The Second Amendment didn't protect your right to own a gun until 2008.

The idea that it only protected the militia's right to guns originates in 1939 with the Miller v US ruling. (True -A.)

Prior to Miller, the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd's meaning was self evident and its meaning was the same as what is known today in Constitutional Scholarship as the "standard model". (Utter Bullshit, Historically and Demonstrably -A.)

So really, 2nd Amendment didn't protect an individual right to own a firearm from 1939 to 2008. Sixty-nine years out of 230." (Try 133 out of 239, from at least  1875-2008, according to SCOTUS. -A.)

My response to that was as follows:

"The Second Amendment never protected the individual right to own a firearm, and does not do so now. Nor was it intended to do so. 

The 38 signers of the US Constitution never possessed the raw power to add nor detract from natural law, and they knew that.  

The right existed long before it was set to paper, and would continue to exist as a right even if the 2nd amendment were repealed tomorrow by a unanimous vote. 

The 2nd Amendment merely codifies that reality, and what is true about it is that for sixty-nine years, SCOTUS chose to pretend otherwise, just as most of the congress and many states and cities do, to the present day."

If you can find fault with anything I said there, on the merits, have at it.

What I wrote are the simple facts of the matter, searchable in about 0.2 seconds. But I forgot, this is Angus we're talking to.

Bear well in mind my reply didn't start with, "Angus, you ignorant slut..."

Nor did I trouble to task Angus by pointing out that, prior to Miller, SCOTUS hadn't ruled any such thing on the 2nd Amendment. In fact, the dearth of rulings on the topic is more correctly characterized as The Great Silence, because SCOTUS never issued a single ruling on the Second Amendment whatsoever until United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), which was the only time SCOTUS had addressed the 2nd Amendment in the nearly 100 years since the founding of the republic, and in it, ratified the right of states to circumscribe any individual right to firearms (by what were manifestly Jim Crow laws), specifically because the states were not hindered in any way by the expression of a limitation solely upon Congress (per SCOTUS) mentioned in the BoR. In plain terms, 10 years after the Civil War, SCOTUS ruled that blacks could be restricted from possessing weapons, because state law was none of their business, despite the 14th Amendment.

SCOTUS reaffirmed that ruling in Presser v. Illinois,  116 U.S. 252 (1886), which, exactly contrary to Angus' assertions, upheld no such individual right to firearms, affirmed the right of states to limit possession of same as beyond the purview of the federal government, and furthermore stated flatly that citizens had no right to own weapons for semi-military purposes. This is not a very ringing endorsement of the ideas Angus described as the "standard model". The only thing positive they said in Presser was that while states could limit firearms possession as they pleased, they couldn't go so far as to prevent there being any body of militia by banning everything, nor nearly everything. It's really not looking good for the "standard model", at this point.

In rulings in Miller v. Texas 153 U.S. 535 (1894), Robertson v. Baldwin 165 U.S. 275 (1897), and United States v. Schwimmer 279 U.S. 644 (1929), the only other rulings pertaining to the 2nd Amendment prior to Miller, SCOTUS similarly upholds the rights of states to limit concealed carry against individuals, and to deny citizenship for those unwilling to bear arms, without ever once expressing any "standard model" individual right to arms enforceable by the federal government. They ran completely the other way, threw up their hands, and limited their opinon to federal law, while letting the states run wild, as they saw fit. "Unassailable individual right" was nowhere in their vocabulary.

But we figured Angus could Google that information himself if he'd a mind to know what he was talking about, so we let it lay where we found it.

And if the 2nd A. is so protective, feel free to explain NYFC's Sullivan Law, Chicongo's no-gun policy, the firearms laws in Califrutopia, NJ, CT, etc., and in fact, 30,000 firearms laws coast to coast, not to mention the fact that 13 years after Heller, the plaintiffs still can't get a gorram permit to purchase a weapon in D.C. Waitaminute; "permit? I thought the 2nd Amendment was protecting that exact individual right??? "You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means." - Inigo Montoya

Angus, however, was not to be crossed, and fired back this erudite and scholarly response to our reply:

"Is English a second language for you? 

You don't seem to understand basic concepts expressed in English. 

Or are you really this dense and ignorant? 

I will explain just in case anyone buys into your lack of understanding. 

The Bill of Rights was most certainly a protection of the rights mentioned there. Protecting them from incursions by the Federal Gubmint. An excellent case can be made that the 14th Amendment bars the states from intruding on these rights as well. 

That the rights were considered by all of the founders as pre-existing doesn't change what the BoR was supposed to be doing. 

There are literally books written on the topic, and it is very clear you've never read them."

We'll let that sit where it is for the moment, but rest assured we'll be getting back to it in due course. Our reply, however, was exactly as follows:

So when you wrote this "The Second Amendment didn't protect your right to own  a gun until 2008." you're saying you didn't mean that, because it really did protect that all along? I'm trying to understand you, but it sounds like you just contradicted yourself. 

And I'd sincerely like to know how it protects any such thing, in, say, NYFC, Chicongo, or Washington D.C., just for three examples. 

Pardon me for noticing that thereabouts, It appears that it "protects" the individual's rights to own a firearm about as well as a COVID shot protects one from that virus. 

"Tells the government that it shouldn't ... _______." Okay, I'll sign off on that. Government isn't listening. 

Might as well say "Wishes on a star that bad people wouldn't be mean." 

But "protects" ? I think that's laying it on a bit thick. 

Edward G. Robinson in the Ten Commandments asking "Where's your god now, Moses?" comes to mind. 

What the BoR set out to do is one thing. 

What it has accomplished is quite another. 

Pick any of the amendments therein (except maybe the third), and there doesn't seem to be a lot of protection going on. 

Intent isn't accomplishment, no matter how laudable the former may be. 

And I can't be the first one to notice, or to have expressed to you, the idea that the government being charged with protecting the people from the government seems an awful lot like the fox guarding the henhouse.

You never saw that one, and never would, because woe unto any that dispute The Great And Powerful by bringing facts into a discussion. Pray, pause for a moment and nota bene:

Despite being called outright illiterate, stupid, dense, ignorant, stupid, and uninformed, I let Angus rant on, and merely requested illumination from, obviously, the World's Foremost Expert on Constitutional Law, Professer McThag.

Including, specifically, clarification in case I had misunderstood his original posting, the factual contradiction of the points of which seemed to chap his ass most sorely. I then gave further specific examples of why what he clearly thinks is so, clearly isn't.

It was apparently egregious enough to dispute Professor McFeatherhead the first time, and after raising his ire already, all he had left in his golf bag was the ban hammer. Like his site is the be-all end-all of expression. But that's nowhere near the end of the story, despite his fervent wishes.

The fact of the matter is that SCOTUS looked at the 14th Amendment and rejected it specifically as granting them leave to interfere in state laws infringing on the exact rights under discussion, contrary to all Angus' contra-factual assertions. You could look it up.

Don't believe me. Go to a gun shop in NYC or Chicongo or DC or San Franshitco or Los Angeles (Good luck finding many - or any - in most of those places.) Buy an "assault weapon" or larger-than-10-round-capacity magazine in New Jersey or Califrutopia (Oh, wait, you can't do that either.). Then tell me, again, what it is the 2nd amendment "protects".

But again, alas, I forgot, we're talking to Angus.

So rather than typing back, "Hey, maybe I wasn't clear, but that first sentence was part of the headline from the link, but not my personal position. And here's where you got it wrong about the rest..." and then provided counter-points to underline why he has this correct, (and my suspicions that the 2nd Amendment protects nothing, and is frankly nothing but a nice Sampler sentiment suitable for wall-faming, but functionally possessing fewer teeth than a secondhand lion, and thus about the equivalent NIJ protection rating of the right to keep and bear arms as about 5 layers of wet Charmin are to a tank sabot round exiting the cannon at muzzle velocity after firing, are just so much hyperbole), because the right, thanks to the blessed holy 2nd A., is as safe as the gold in Scrooge McDuck's swimming vault.

Good luck on that errand.

That, at least, would've been engaging the discussion on the merits, rather than jumping up and down and saying "Stupid! Stupid! Stupid!" as though by such gainsaying one could grant themselves a Ph.D.

But instead, this is how, in Angus' world, intelligent people handle any difference of opinion

"No Gotcha Today

While I know that sometimes I can be a little unclear, when it's the same person twisting what I've said and taking the wrong meaning over and over and over again... 

It's not me, it's them. 

They didn't take the hint. 

They didn't heed the warning. 

They are done trolling here. 

He's told his insulting fables, now he should continue to the same end as his namesake and jump."

Wow, Angus. Just, wow. You've really got quite the cacophony of voices in your head having a whole one-person play, don'cha?

I didn't "twist" any of your words. I pointed out that you got it wrong. How impertinent, right?

And the problem wasn't any lack of clarity on your part (except when you partially quoted the headline in your link, without making it clear that was their opinion, but not yours), it was that you were crystal clear, and absolutely and demonstrably wrong.

SCOTUS, prior to Heller, McDonald, and later, specifically rejected entirely the interpretations of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment Angus thinks were "standard model", which in fact, are anything but that. Using the 14th Amendment to defend gun rights was positively revolutionary, because prior to 2008, SCOTUS had repeatedly and painstakingly claimed the 14th Amendment prevented them from interfering with any states' laws, no matter how vilely they infringed the 2nd Amendment, and did so on multiple occasions, indeed, every time the question came up. Yes, they were wrong, but to pretend that never happened is to ignore 133 years of SCOTUS legal dicta on that exact point. If you can't read, or simply neglected all that history, don't blame me for having the impudence to point out your total ignorance.

In the words of our 40th president, "It's not what you know that's the problem; it's what you think you know that just ain't so."

I made it easy here, even for anyone, by providing direct links, for your general illumination, which apparently all those books you've supposedly read on this exact topic seem to have neglected to mention. Bummer, dude.

There were no hints; there was no "warning". You simply went from zero to asshole in one reply, and then doubled down. We wish we could say that was a first time, but we both know differently.

And what I didn't take, was the bait. I purposefully chose to ignore your deliberate and gratuitous derogatory ad hominems in response as just you being handicapped by nature with a decided lack of facility to deal with being questioned, and cutting you some slack for being knee-jerk defensive when you were walking around with your ass flapping in the breeze, and someone noticing it. It could happen to anyone, but I never imagined that it was because you're exactly the thick-headed jackass as which you chose to paint me. Ban everyone you like, but at the end of the day, you'll still be you.

I gave you the second chance after that first obnoxious reply, but I guess you're still bummed at being handed your ass the past week over the whole Baldwin thing, because yet again, what you imagine, versus the actual facts, are once again 180° out of phase with each other. I can't help you there. Get a better brain, I guess, or just use the one you've got with a bit more dexterity, and maybe less fingers-in-the-ears "La la la"ing, for openers.

I wasn't trolling you on this topic, nor that one, nor on any other, I was responding to what you posted sincerely, and I daresay my opinion is one helluva lot nearer the truth of the matter than yours is, but it wasn't something I was looking to carve you up over, until you decided to go all Asperger's jihad rude obnoxious asshole about it, but you're the one who's got to play the hand life's dealt you. Best wishes with the rest of your life, but maybe you ought to just eliminate all comments from your blog entirely, so you can just spew whatever springs into your head, with only your own inner voices to argue with. That way you can believe whatever you like, and no one else has to pretend there's any requisite underpinning for it except whatever wild hare you're chasing.

Putting stuff out into the blogosphere where actual people can respond to it isn't your forte, and you aren't adjusting to that world very well with this latest fumble, but at least we won't have to worry about each other or interact further, so you get your way at last. You be you.

Best wishes with that plan, and I hope it works out the way you want. Really I do. We wish you no ill, but would hope for you only that you someday find the capacity to entertain the idea that you may frequently be mistaken, and perhaps get that knee-jerk reflex looked at. If only for the novelty of the concept.

We only regret bothering to attempt to interact with you in the first place, a mistake we absolutely own all by ourselves. We're sure you and a select band of acolytes may talk smack about us behind our back, but only based on our long experience seeing that, so we hope it scratches the itch in you that direct communication evidently fails to do. "Rent free."

We leave you with our favorite parable, and suggest you take its multiple morals to heart: