The mind of a Congressman.
Nine term U.S. Democratic Rep Rubén Hinojosa was asked about the Second Amendment at a political debate this week with his opponent, Republican businessman Dale Brueggemann. His response:
“There are so many people in Washington who come and talk to us about the Constitution and the rights that they want kept sacred and that not do anything about them. That we not change them. That we not amend them. And I can tell you that — I’m drawing a blank on the Second Amendment, but I think it’s the weapons, isn’t it? The NRA?”
He thinks it’s “the weapons”?
Yikes!
Congressmen must swear to “support and defend the U.S. Constitution, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Hinsojosa has taken that oath nine times, and he “blanks” on one of the most discussed sections of the Bill of Rights? What are the odds that he would “blank” on the 6th Amendment? The Fourth? How well does he even know the First? Naturally, the embarrassed Congressman was out with a quick explanation, saying, ”I simply paused for a second to collect my thoughts. I’m not the first person to ever do that nor will I be the last. I think we should continue talking about the issues that are important to my district and not spend any more time discussing someone collecting their thoughts during a debate.”
Ah, yes, the old “let’s talk about the issues and ignore whether the candidates seeking election to address those issues have the education, wit and knowledge of a vegetable brush” refrain! If a Congressman doesn’t have the key provisions of the Constitution committed to memory as indelibly as his first name after 18 years in Washington, either he is—
1. Going senile.
2. Unqualified to serve.
3. Inexcusably lazy, or
4. An idiot.
Knowing the Constitution is the man’s job. He is lawmaker, and it is the context of all laws. “I’m drawing a blank” is unacceptable for that topic, any day, any time. If you can’t wake a member of Congress up at 3 AM, and get the right answer in a millisecond to the question: “What does the Second Amendment guarantee?” then you might as well suffocate him with his pillow, for he useless. If a brain surgeon “draws a blank” as to where the brain is located, it is time for him to start consulting. If a chess master “draws a blank” regarding how a “that horsey thingey” moves, it’s back to checkers. If an astronomer asks, “What’s the big yellow thing, again? I’m drawing a blank,” it’s time to take away his telescope. If your English Lit professor says, “Damn! That guy who wrote “Hamlet”—what’s his name again?,” it’s time to find a different course.
Members of Congress not knowing (and respecting) the words of the Constitution are not the cause of the problems in Washington, but it sure isn’t helping the situation. Ethics Alarms offers a word of advice to the 72-year-old politician.
Retire.
________
Facts: Dallas News
Ethics Alarms attempts to give proper attribution and credit to all sources of facts, analysis and other assistance that go into its blog posts. If you are aware of one I missed, or believe your own work was used in any way without proper attribution, please contact me, Jack Marshall, at jamproethics@verizon.net.
Ethics Alarms 
Your examples are all over the place. Not tying the name of something to the right itself isn’t a big deal. I don’t care if you know that the second amendment is gun one and the third amendment involves quartering troops. I care that you know that the right to bear arms is protected and that the government can’t force citizens into taking in troops.
As such, this is more like asking the brain surgeon about a specific HIPAA form, and the surgeon not being positive which of the forms that is. it’s a chess master messing up the term knight, but knowing how a knight moves. It’s an astronomer who doesn’t know all the dwarf planets by name, but does know their orbits, composition, etc. The English Lit one would be more like the English professor who gets Volpone confused with Taming of the Shrew, but knows all about each.
I’m probably understating the badness a bit there. I’d expect the name should be known, especially for something that common, but tying the name to the issue isn’t necessarily a big deal. Knowing the issue right is what’s actually important.
Safe to assume “it’s that weapons one, isn’t it? The NRA?” comment implies he’s not all that familiar with the right either. So nice try, but no.
Nope. I’ve got a large understanding of logical fallacies, but I could hear myself saying something like that at the mention of a specific fallacy.
Logical fallacies are your specialty, Tiggy!
Additionally, all your analogous “flubs” of professional knowledge are flawed.
An astronomer may not know all the planets in the galaxy by name. Ok. He ought to know the names of 8 planets in our solar system by name.
The English Lit professor is allowed more flubs in society because his mistakes don’t have lasting impact on your rights as a citizen.
The fact that the bill of rights is not immutably burned into his soul to the point that he can immediately discuss them individually and in depth, shows that he does not consider them important, and betrays that they are not subconsious checks on his thoughts as a legislator.
Additionally, all your analogous “flubs” of professional knowledge are flawed.
Let’s see these flaws:
An astronomer may not know all the planets in the galaxy by name. Ok. He ought to know the names of 8 planets in our solar system by name.
I didn’t talk about the galaxy or planets.
The English Lit professor is allowed more flubs in society because his mistakes don’t have lasting impact on your rights as a citizen.
I was working off Jack’s statements. Take it up with him.
That was 2 of 4 that you failed on, and the other 2 you didn’t even comment on. Nice!
The fact that the bill of rights is not immutably burned into his soul to the point that he can immediately discuss them individually and in depth, shows that he does not consider them important, and betrays that they are not subconsious checks on his thoughts as a legislator.
Can you name the 8th amendment off the top of your head? The 7th? I know what all the rights are, but past the sixth, I couldn’t tell you which is which. That doesn’t mean I don’t find the rights important. That doesn’t mean I don’t know them and reference them.
But you’re not in Congress, and didn’t take an oath to uphold something you don’t know enough about. By the way, I’m sure about 80% of Congress doesn’t have 7and 8 (Cruel and Unusual Punishment) , much less 3, on the tips of their tongues either. They should, but those don’t come up that often. # 1, 2, 4,5, and 6, plus 9 and 10, are essential.
But you’re not in Congress, and didn’t take an oath to uphold something you don’t know enough about.
I can talk about the bill of rights quite nicely. You’re begging the question here. Just because one can’t name all the rights doesn’t mean they don’t understand them thoroughly.
They should, but those don’t come up that often. # 1, 2, 4,5, and 6, plus 9 and 10, are essential.
I just had to look up which ones were 9 and 10, but I knew the principles 100%. When was the last time 9 or 10 was brought up by number?
All literate discussion of Roe V. Wade.
No true scotsman. (You’re welcome.)
AQRRRRGH!!!!
But it isn’t really. Roe depends on an un-“enumerated” right, which is the 9th Amendment. The opinion makes no sense without it, and the 9th is the authority. Saying “abortion is a right” without saying “under the 9th Amendment as interpreted by this Court in Griswold (Privacy)’ is useless.
My point was that people normally don’t call that one out by name when discussing it. They just say that it’s an unenumerated right. You don’t have to say 9th amendment for the discussion to be literate. Literate people should already know about the unenumerated rights.
I’d give full credit for either “unenumerated rights” or “9th Amendment.” I’d give full credit to a Congressman for “2nd Amendment” or “right to bear arms.” “Weapons” and “NRA”—no. What is this, Password? $100,000 Pyramid?
I’d give full credit for either “unenumerated rights” or “9th Amendment.” I’d give full credit to a Congressman for “2nd Amendment” or “right to bear arms.” “Weapons” and “NRA”—no. What is this, Password? $100,000 Pyramid?
All judgement calls. Would “unlisted rights” fail? Unmentioned rights? Unwritten freedoms and protections? Isn’t communicating at the level of your audience important?
Ok, sorry I didn’t address your analogies’ failures in detail. And forgive me if I mis-worded one of them. Now you are just using diversion.
Since it’s confusing to you how your analogies fail, allow me to abstract it a little bit.
“Professional Z” works in his profession, and is expected to to have a knowledge set we’ll call Set A. Knowledge Set A contains all knowledge pertaining to his profession, from daily items with which “Z” works to items Z works with maybe once a year.
Now, within Set A, there is a knowledge Subset, we’ll call it Set B. B contains all the knowledge Z must know INTIMATELY on a daily basis, because this knowledge governs his professional conduct, the paradigms within which his profession expects him to think, and specific and common facts which must be used to communicate intelligently on a regular basis. Z can discuss items from set B with little hesitation and with great clarity, and although not word for word, certainly does not muddle or hesitate. Z may need to return to professional references to discuss the larger Set A.
Now back to the situation. A Congressman (Professional Z) ought to be held accountable if he does not consider the Constitution and Bill of Rights as part of the Subset B in the model above. The subset of which he must be able to discuss with CLARITY and no hesitation. I can understand if the cumbersome US Code is part of Set A, for which Z may have to reference from time to time. But the founding documents? Definitely CORE KNOWLEDGE.
Hinajosa’s comment “I’m drawing a blank on the Second Amendment, but I think it’s the weapons, isn’t it? The NRA?” betrays hesitation and a lack of clarity, and certainly betrays that the Bill of Rights is not so deeply seared in his mind that it acts as a check on his legislative objectives.
His quote may well have read, “I’m stupid because I don’t know one of the key political arguments of our era, but isn’t it related to that pesky lobbying group that tells me I’m on the wrong side of the Constitution in relation to it?…”
All of your analogies fail because they elevate mundane details to the importance of the CORE KNOWLEDGE and devalue the core knowledge to the level of mundane details.
And no, I don’t have to know them perfectly…I’m not in public office.
So again:
The fact that the bill of rights is not immutably burned into his soul to the point that he can immediately discuss them individually and in depth, shows that he does not consider them important, and betrays that they are not subconscious checks on his thoughts as a legislator.
I agree. A competent legislature knows the Constitution well enough to quote the most important parts, and to know the name of the key clauses (Establishment Clause, Due Process Clause, etc.) and the Amendments. A conscientious legislator knows the Constitution well, because you can’t honestly pledge to protect a document that you don’t know.
When I was in the Army, I was appalled by soldier’s lack of knowledge of the Constitution. Even more appalled by the Officer’s lack of knowledge.
Both tiers of service members have Oaths, in which the very 1st item to which duty is sworn is “to support and defend the Constitution of the United States” and the item immediately following is “to bear true faith and allegiance to the same”
That’s all true, Michael. I think it reflects to a large degree the failures of modern education. When I was in the regulars, there were classes on military law and, of course, customs & courtesies. But there was little on civics. I suppose that in my time (the 1970’s) it was still assumed that we had learned that in high school. That certainly cannot be assumed now! If a soldier is to take an oath to defend something with his life, he ought to know something about what he may end up dying for. They DO still go over this for the commissioned ranks, don’t they? Officers should not only know this forward and back, but should take the time to present this to their men when on garrison duty.
One other point, though. A legislator- whose job it is to make laws- ought to know the Constitution forward, backward and sideways, as that knowledge is an indispensable guide for him in doing his job properly. If such a person doesn’t know the Constitution- and doesn’t even bother to carry a pocket guide for reference- it indicates to me that he holds that document in low esteem. Such a one has no business being in government, much less being an elected official with authority.
You’re going to be shocked. More agreement. I’d throw in police officers as well.
Now you’re going to be shocked. I’d throw in a number of policemen as well. Particularly those municiple cops in higher authority. The paramilitarization of some of these big departments and the occasionally careless manner in which they use such assets (like breaking into homes and terrorizing innocent people without a warrant) is a disturbing trend. Sheriff’s departments aren’t immune from this, either. But you elect sheriffs. Big city chiefs of police tend to be appointed political hacks… like Leon Panetta!
Yes, and yes. Though I think occasional careless manner probably understates the issue.
This despite that I think the police were absolutely justified when their sniper and SWAT team broke into my house. (There was a barricade situation in the house directly across the street, my house had direct sight into the second floor and cover that all the yards lack, and I wasn’t home. They were nice about it. They broke the door that had the least number of locks locked to cause the least amount of damage, documented the damage that they caused, and waited around for me so I didn’t completely freak out.)
That’ll freak anyone! But it sounds like those police acted out of necessity and in a thoroughly professional manner. Certainly, given that situation, I wouldn’t think of denying them entry were I at home, or blame them for their actions were I not. It was a matter of life or death. Unfortunately, not all police these days are that professional. Too many have become arrogant in their perceived power, having become endowed with an “us vs. them” attitude toward those they are (in theory) hired to guard and are responsible to. When you hear policemen talking about citizens as “civilians”, you know that a problem exists… even before they do something like terrorizing a family in the wrong house, killing a family pet and then walking away with a “sorry” thrown over their shoulder. This upsurge of such cases is fueling what is shaping up to be a major area of debate.
SMP,
Yes and yes.
And now nearly the entire legislature is neither competent nor conscientious. sadly, I don’t disagree with this statement.
A chess grandmaster talks about rooks likely all the time. The proper name is necessary to communicate intelligently on a regular basis. Same goes for the dwarf planets.
I will grant that the teacher and surgeon examples fail by your standard. Jack’s examples still all fail as well though.
My key is that names are not nearly as important as information. I agrree that it’s bad not to know the amendments by name for a congressmen, but it isn’t nearly as serious as Jack was making it out to be.
I’d agree that the names are not as important as the information—never said they were. You do fail, I think, to take sufficient notice of what a lack of mastery of a topic—including names, labels and terminology— generally conveys, both in appearance and substance. Lionel Hutz, the sleazy lawyer on the Simpsons (until his voice died), used to say things in court like, “Judge, I want to make one of those objection thingies.” Now, you can say that doesn’t raise a prima facie case that he’s an incompetent boob—maybe he’s a whiz who just has a problem with names. But he certianly doesn’t engender trust that way, and as with all professionals, trust is the foundation of the relationship with those you serve. Part of your duty is not to look and sound like a boob, whether you are one or not.
I’ll agree to the appearance, but I’ve always considered appearance to be much less important than substance for legislators. For trial lawyers, I think appearance directly affects their ability to perform the substance. I see appearance directly affecting the ability to get elected, but not necessarily their ability to write bills, network, and make informed votes.
I would say that the inability to know the terminology puts Hinojosa on a watch list for incompetence. Likely. Not definite.
I could not disagree more. Again, it’s signature significance. For a judge or a legislator, knowing the basics sufficiently doesn’t mean “generally.” Comparing not knowing HIPPA regulations with a Congressman not knowing basic Bill of Rights 101, something that my son was taught in the 7th grade? I’ll stick with not knowing the brain is in the skull.
And the and Amendment isn’t about “weapons”, its about “arms” as in “firearms.” Big difference, not that he knows it. The guy is obviously ignorant—you’re being a kamikaze devil’s advocate to defend him. If he doesn’t have the precision of the terms used in the amendment, how can he know the issue?
I could not disagree more. Again, it’s signature significance.
I agree with signature significance to some degree. What I think is that you went too far with it, and used bad examples to back your overreaction.
For a judge or a legislator, knowing the basics sufficiently doesn’t mean “generally.”
I didn’t suggest such.
Comparing not knowing HIPPA regulations with a Congressman not knowing basic Bill of Rights 101, something that my son was taught in the 7th grade?
I didn’t do that at all. I had the surgeon knowing the regulations, just not being surch which form is called HR 1.2.
My difficulty is that you’re caring about matching things up, not meaning. I knew all the amendments by number in middle school as well, but the actual numbers aren’t important, it’s the information that’s important.
I’ll stick with not knowing the brain is in the skull.
Did Rep Hinojosa didn’t understand there was a right to bear arms, that’d be valid, but that’s not what your evidence was.
And the and Amendment isn’t about “weapons”, its about “arms” as in “firearms.” Big difference, not that he knows it.
That’s not wholly agreed upon. I, along with most people that aren’t strict constructionists, think knives are included with the general right.
The guy is obviously ignorant—you’re being a kamikaze devil’s advocate to defend him. If he doesn’t have the precision of the terms used in the amendment, how can he know the issue?
I agree this should be known, but I don’t believe that a congressman must use the exact terms off the top of his head for him to understand precisely what is meant in a right.
I wouldn’t doubt that Rep Hinojoa is an idiot (I just assume congressmen are at this point), but I don’t think this shows it as convincingly as you seem to.
I’m a legal ethics trainer. Rule 1.6 is Confidentiality. 1.7 is Conflicts of Interest. 8.4 is misconduct. Yes, I still get 4.2 and 4.3 mixed up (one involves lawyers meeting with represented parties; the other with unrepresented individuals) now and then, but if I or any ethicist said, “I can’t place what 1.6 is at the moment…”, that’s a very red flag that the trainer is a fraud, or losing his marbles. I regard the 2nd Amendment the same for a Congressman. It is like forgetting how the chess piece moves.
Note that the rep actually did know which amendment it was, he just wasn’t confident.
Also, a legal ethics trainer is more akin to a constitutional law professor than a congressman. You’d need to be an average lawyer for the comparison to hold.
Actually, that’s pretty funny, if sad. Lawyers generally don’t know the numbers at all. Any of them. Zippo.
Sad, yes. Should be disqualifying in a perfect world, yes. In our world though, it’s not a big deal to not know the exact numbers, so long as the information is there. I’d say the lawyer likely needs to know the numbers even more than the congressmen due to the rules and general customs in front of judges. Caselaw, specific statutes, and specific rules reign. Not the ideas behind them.
I’m a legal ethics trainer. Rule 1.6 is Confidentiality. 1.7 is Conflicts of Interest. 8.4 is misconduct. Yes, I still get 4.2 and 4.3 mixed up (one involves lawyers meeting with represented parties; the other with unrepresented individuals) now and then, but if I or any ethicist said, “I can’t place what 1.6 is at the moment…”, that’s a very red flag that the trainer is a fraud, or losing his marbles. I regard the 2nd Amendment the same for a Congressman. It is like forgetting how the chess piece moves.
No, just typical. A great many legislators have no more concept of the content and meaning of the Constitution than the average college student does… which is nil. Nor do they care. All they need to know is that it’s a restrictive document by nature and that it often requires subversion if an official is to achieve his ambitions.
Once again, dialog from “Finian’s Rainbow”:
SENATOR: Where do you git all these radical ideas?
SHARON: From the United States Constitution. Have you ever read it?
SENATOR: Hain’t had time to read it — too busy defendin’ it.
tgt: Yes, it’s important. And I’d give credit to all of the equivalents you mentioned. But the Congressman wasn’t even that close. “NRA” isn’t teh same as 2nd Amendment, and weapons aren’t “arms”. He’s passing misinformation, if intentional, and is faking if not.
As I noted, there’s a large segment of the population that believes that arms covers weapons in general. While NRA isn’t th same as 2nd amendment, naming the main group associated with the amendment doesn’t exactly show that the person doesn’t know what’s going on.
TGT is right when he says that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t specify firearms. However, look to the first part of the sentence for a clue. The prime weapon of the popular militia was the musket. It was not the only weapon, of course. Edged weapons- to include bayonets- were also important. But the prime offensive weapon was the firearm. As the technology progressed, this became evermore the case. This was reflected by the founding of the NRA not long after the conclusion of the War Between the States. Knives and bayonets still remain part of the modern armory, though, and were likewise considered “arms” by Mr. Madison.
We’ve found a small area of common agreement… which likely ends in that I’m for a constitutional amendment that would put some limitations on gun ownership (Mainly in the total firepower range. You want an assault rifle, 2 pistols, and a few high powered hunting rifles? Cool. 50 assault rifles? Not cool. Also, I’d like some mental health checks across the board.)
There is a constitutional amendment that puts limits on gun ownership:
“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.”
It’s that NRA one…
I don’t see that putting limits on gun ownership. Sounds to me like it’s protecting complete access to guns and giving a reason for it.
Ding Ding.
So your previous comment was a random sarcastic flyby to attack a belief I (clearly from this thread) don’t hold? I can’t figure out any other basis for it.
Or, the government shouldn’t put limits on the ownership of arms.
Who would administer these ‘mental health checks’? Government?
How is owning 50 assault rifles more dangerous than owning 6? Hm?
Last I checked, a person can’t bear 50. They may be able to keep 50, but they can’t bear 50.
I will clarify that. I think implied in the Amendment is a limit on what a person can “bear”.
Additionally, understanding the Federal design of the constitution, the most powerful check and balance on the Federal level of government was not the 3 inter-branch checks/balances system. But the great amount of power given the States.
Before the early 1900s (I forget which law essentially co-opted the militia to Federal control under the name National Guard and Army Reserve), the militia was a state asset and represented the immediate check of force against the Federal level. The reason the states had control over their state militia’s arsenals (ie, the arms that were too large to “bear” by an individual) was because the Founders did not want all the heavy arms in the nation in the hands of the Federal government, nor did they want all the heavy arms in the hands of individuals, because an individual could not bear them themselves.
As far as I understand, if the common US Infantryman carried a firearm, it was the right of a citizen to have access to that same level of weapon.
Bigger stuff? Crew stuff? State level control.
I stand by my statement, Your random sarcastic flyby doesn’t make a case.
What ‘random, sarcastic flyby’?
Michael, see https://ethicsalarms.com/2012/10/26/incompetent-elected-official-of-the-week-u-s-rep-ruben-hinojosa-d-texas/comment-page-1/#comment-52645
The later comment was relevant. That one wasn’t.
It is relevant if you believe the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted as having implied limits on firearms.
It is relevant if you believe the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted as having implied limits on firearms.
So it’s clearly irrelevant.
The term “assault rifle” properly applies to a light rifle that fires standard military ammunition with an automatic option. Civilian armaments may have a lot in common with these weapons, but they lack the automatic select. To my knowledge, there’s no such thing as a .50 assault rifle. There are, of course, sniper rifles that utilize that ammunition. Those weapons, along with fully automatic small arms, are built under military contract which restricts them from civilian use. However, passing laws or (God help us) an amendment placing restrictions such as you suggest would effectively negate the 2nd Amendment over time. The importance of that amendment in a free society cannot be overemphasized.
Thanks for correcting me. I am not a big gun person, and I used the term colloquially. It was inappropriate. Also, I didn’t talk about 50 caliber assault rifles, I was trying to talk about owning 50 of the same type of gun.
How would fixed limits effectively negate the 2nd amendment over time? I’m not asking for laws. I’m asking for a smart amendment so we can throw out the dumb and unconstitutional restriction laws.
I don’t think it’s wise to fool around with the wording of the Bill of Rights, TGT. The problems start when you have judges and legislators who either don’t understand what the framers had in mind (although their own words are readily available) or simply don’t care. Those people are the major threats to the Constitution. It’s what I call amendment by neglect or redefinition. And, as I’ve endlessly said; the law is only as good as the willingness of legal authority to enforce it. That goes for the Constitution as well. The way to preserve it as it was meant to be is to hire or elect people who take their oaths to defend it seriously.
Naturally, the laws that restrict the numbers of firearms one may accrue are (in theory, at least) based on the fear that such weapons may fall into the “wrong hands”. Personally, I find this of dubious constitutionality at best. Especially after Fast & Furious! For example, a rancher out in the borderlands might well need to invest in a small armory for the sake of his family and employees. So might the manager of a major bank, etc. But even that begs the point. There is no such thing as a dangerous weapon. There are only dangerous people. The best safeguard against such people are armed citizens. Hence the 2nd Amendment.
BTW: You’ve probably noticed the banner often shown at Tea Party rallies? The one with the cannon and the words “Come And Take It”? That’s the Gonzales Flag. Early in the Texas War of Independence, the Mexican Army demanded that the citizens of Gonzales TX surrender a small cannon they had acquired as a guard against Indian excursions. When they refused, a column of soldiers was despatched to seize it. The citizens lined up with their muskets (the militia!) and met them with a volley and a blast from the cannon. That ended that! The flag they fought under is the same one you see today. It means something!
So, by your own words, the 2nd amendment is being subjugated by people who don’t understand the meanings and importance of the meanings. I agree with that, but I also think these people have good intentions. My thought is that we funnel these good intentions into a positive result so that they stop unintentionally crawling all over the constitution.
I don’t see weapons used by employees as an individual’s weapons, just like I don’t see a company as a person.
On the dangerous weapon/dangerous person idea -> I submit that due the amount of dangerous people in the U.S. (mostly people who would be idiotic with gun safety, not terrorists), it’s proper to call them dangerous. That said, I don’t think that should be a general limiting factor.
I’m not so sure on my off the cuff firepower limit idea anymore. I think Michael’s “How is owning 50 assault rifles more dangerous than owning 6? Hm? Last I checked, a person can’t bear 50. ” got to me. I ignored his comment, as it was unrelated to the subthread about whether his flyby made any sense, and I don’t like to reward bad behavior, but the idea expressed is very valid.
I’ll willingly cede that point, though I still think the mental capacity issue is important, and a valid check on gun ownership, just like it’s a valid check on a driver’s license.
I’d point out that mental capacity is an issue that is for the courts to decide. Likewise is the status of a convicted felon. Neither should be voting, much less being granted the citizens’ privilege of keeping and bearing arms! Also; if someone is noted as buying an unusually large number of firearms, police might suspect illegal activity and investigate. However, this in itself does not constitute a crime. When it comes to be automatically regarded as such, then the 2nd Amendment becomes seriously eroded.
I should have noted that .50 calibre ammunition was devised for the Browning M-2 “Ma Deuce” heavy machine gun that is still in front line service, despite being 100 years old this year. .50 calibre means that the base of the round is one half inch across. Today, they’re being used for sniper weapons as well. They’re very long ranged, have tremendous hitting power and are HUGE. Most assault weapons or civilian derivatives today fire the New NATO Standard .223 calibre round, such as the M-16 does.
It’s an important point that there more weapons than simply firearms- I think few judges would dispute my right to a crossbow, a taser, or a can of mace. Also, interpreting it as weapons in general allows it to remain flexible as technology progresses. I don’t think the Founders anticipated tasers, or energy weapons (sounds far-fetched, but it’s coming- as soon as we have sufficiently powerful capacitators, start keeping an eye out for non-lethal laser/sonic weapons being marketed to civilians).
To play devil’s advocate against myself though, this interpretation does raise questions of restrictions- it makes it much more messy as arms control becomes a question of the ever-unreliable “reasonable person” caveat.
The point, though, is that as the Constitution is currently interpreted, legislatures have a difficult and inexact balancing act between private freedom and public safety, and our congressmen need to be on the ball.
Jack: I’ve commented at two of your later articles. However, upon registering it with WordPress, I was denied. Have you or any posters been having this problem? It’s a new one on me.
What happened? WordPress has been a little hinky the last couple of days. I think they are playing with the software.
Shoulda known. It’s not the first time. I’ve commented on three of your later columns since and gotten my reply off, but have been denied notification. Oh, well.
Try the general subscription to the blog rather than the comment subscription.