Osler's Razor

The lights of the Goodyear Blimp?
Sayin' "Osler's da pimp."
 

Questions Presented for Reargument:

I. How much do you think I can bench press?

II. Do you remember that one scene from the Matrix where Neo is shooting all those dudes and he totally does a flip while still shooting? That was wicked awesome.

III. What are you looking at, punk? Yeah, you. Don't act like you didn't hear me.

Oral argument set for March 5.
 

Are you crazy? No one needs a machine gun for any legitimate purpose.
 

You haven't lost your saltiness.

On machine guns: I suppose they could be very helpful for home protection. why not have law-abiding citizens have them?
 

I "heart" Scalia. He completes me. See MARYLAND v. MICHAEL BLAINE SHATZER, Sr.

As for Osler's question please see the second amendment. I don't believe it limits the "type" of arms.

As for reargument, I like it on principle in almost any debate, if only because I get to prove you wrong twice!

by the way, Good game Bears. Series tied up, see you in the tourney (Both the Big XII and the NCAAs...finally) and I still like Little Ceasar's (crazy bread is my crack)
 

Starting here, starting now,
honey, everything's coming up Osler!
 

"Crazy bread is my crack."

And, I hear, one gram of crazy bread is as unhealthy as 100 grams of regular pizza...
 

Geez, Breyer just sort of had a stream of conciousness moment there, didn't he? Maybe next time he could formulate a question. No wonder the Asst SG just sort of ignored him
 

Dallas_ADA, possibly the 2A doesn't limit the type of arms mentioned because the "arms" available in the 18th century did not include machine guns. Nor was the average citizen able to afford a cannon. I think that, like other rights, reasonable and narrowly tailored restrictions are permissible. Automatic weapons fall within the "should be regulated" category due to their nature.
 

"When I was a kid we played guns in our neighborhood and I ran all over our street w/a toy machine gun. Shortly after I learned how to play the clarinet and to my knowledge do not recall every picking the machine gun up again. I think the clarinet was a better use of my time. The thing about allowing citizens to possess machine guns is that just as there is one bad apple there will be at least one bad crack head Johnny who miss uses the thing. Now give that guy a clarinet and really what damage can he do ? So a few dogs howl; no lives are lost. You just can't keep the knife drawer open if you've got a toddler in the house, but then the problem is some other moron down the street will and now you've got toddlers yielding knives....and what was your question again ?"
 

I've always wondered why crazy bread cost roughly 100 times more than regular pizza.
 

"No one needs a machine gun for any legitimate purpose."

Where exactly in the Constitution does it say that you can only have guns if you need them?
 

Justin, the 2nd Amendment is actually narrower than that. It says that arms may be kept only for the purposes of a well-regulated militia.
 

Lane,

I don't disagree with the idea that the 2nd amendment comes with strings attached. I just hear the line "well nobody needs a [machine gun]/[pistol]/[assault rifle]/[etc.] these days so why have them?" It's faulty logic, because the 2nd amendment is not predicated on need, and even if it was, what exactly that need covers isn't specifically enumerated in the Constitution. In short, one person's idea of what a well-regulated militia "needs" may differ from mine, and neither is necessarily right or wrong (although I can guarantee you that if the need for a militia ever arises, I'm sure as hell going to want a machine gun).
 

His answer to your brief being:
"Hey guys, look! I can bend my ring finger backwards! Yes, it's backwards! Look, you're my assistant! Your job is to back me up and to write stuff! Yes, it is at a 90 degree angle! Jeez. Now what was the question again?"
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Congrats Prof - at the very least your amicus brief got the attention of Breyer's clerks who felt it was an important point to make him aware of and possibly re-address.


Justin - for me the key term is 'well regulated' militia. It implies 'to me' some type of government sanctioning / authorization ~ to act on behalf of our citizenry.

Please don't waste your time arguing this with me. I am not a lawyer; well versed in any legal cases, etc... That is the business of all you Baylor Law students and Law graduates.

I don't wish to own a gun (my right), just as you have the right to own one (at least or many with proper legal documentation). I will tell you that my personal opinion on guns has gotten me out of jury duty.

Oh, and as much as I don't 'get' the Matrix; that is a pretty cool scene.
 

I would argue militias were only quasi-governmental things. Colonies said, "oh crap, we need people with guns, send the word we need some volunteers" and private citizens who owned guns showed up. Hence I assume the framers thought that two things were good: 1) militias and 2) citizens having guns. Had the citizenry had machine guns, the war would have probably ended sooner.

Depending on which version of punctuation you go with (there are two) one could argue that the ideas were separate (what I believe) or that we allow guns because the "purpose" of militias (as Lane suggests)

Now as for the real issue, I believe that my intake of Crazy Bread should be punished more severely by my trainer at the gym because of the damaging qualities that Crazy Bread possesses over just regular pizza.
Osler would have you think that's unfair.
 

Just what is the "nature" of a machine gun by the way?

So if I can unload my handgun really really fast and 10x as fast as you, I shouldn't be permitted to have one because it shoots quickly and I can kill many more people?
 

Lest I be misunderstood, I'm fine with personal ownership of guns.

I think handguns, shotguns, hunting rifles, etc., are constitutionally-protected items that people can hold. But obviously there is a legitimate government interest in regulating them (to protect the general public) and restrictions on who can own them are the least onerous-yet-constitutional way of doing so. For the purposes of the militia, I think having armories accessible to trained and regulated citizen militia with such prohibited weapons are obviously within the ambit of what the 2nd Amendment is intended to address.
 

Maybe Scalia had just finished some target practice and was feeling really good. Whatever works . . but it sounds like they did read the brief!
 

Also, I think we should bear more arms than guns. I think we should bring back the practice of gentlemanly dueling with the sword. I'm a better swordsman than shot.
 

I am jumping in on this late, but all of the militia talk kind of compelled me to get in on the discussion. 5-4. The issue is settled. Scalia crafted an opinion (D.C. v. Heller), whether you agree with it or not, that established that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was NOT limited to use in a militia; rather, there is an individual right to keep and bear arms for personal protection in the home. Scalia readily conceded that this would be an area subject to limitation, but did not go so far as to say it would require strict scrutiny. Scalia never called the right "fundamental," but he did engage in the proper anaylsis to support that conclusion. I think McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Second Amendment incorporation argument, is quickly approaching. If incorporated, we are certain to see a development in the regulation of firearms debate. I would suspect that, if incorporated, the Second Amendment will be making a regular appearance in front of the SCOTUS for years to come. I guess it's never to late to show up for the dance.

I think we all agree that regulation is necessary, but why not focus on the persons authorized to own the gun, rather than focusing on the type of guns?
 

Good point, Brian.
 

Machine guns and/or automatic weapons? No freakin' way!!!

As for other types of firearms, if you want 'em, you should have to agree to 1) heavy-duty background checks, 2) firearms safety courses, and 3) registration, with criminal penalties to *YOU* if your weapon is used in a crime.

Oh, and heavy criminal penalties to you, too, if you *USE* a firearm in the commission of a crime.

I think these satisfy both the 2nd Amendment and public safety.
 

I'm confused.

Seems most of the people on here claim that having guns is legal and they support it. They even list out any number of types of guns they support.

Just what is it about machine guns that makes them ripe for control?

There are many more rifles more powerful than the bullet from many automatic weapons. Shotguns can cause much collateral damage. Handguns can be fired at a near automatic rate.

What is it about the automatic weapons that make them so bad?? If that is, we regulate them only to law abiding, background checked, trained, registered citizens??
 

Dallas_ADA,

I think there's a scare-factor involved here. If anyone remembers the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, you might also remember that the restrictions were based entirely on cosmetic features of the weapons. There was nothing about the lethality or inherent danger of the weapon involved.

It basically put scary-looking black rifles in a more restricted category.

I think there's quite a bit of that at work here. Machine gun just sounds so scary. Who could possibly need one?

As mentioned above by several of you. Rights aren't based on needs. Who needs to say things critical of the government? You could just go about your business and vote when the time comes?

Or maybe you can say what you want in your own home, but who really needs to talk about politics in public?

Just shut up and vote.

Who really needs to carry around leaflets and flyers talking about some really scummy stuff happening in Congress?

You have a right to vote. Use it. You don't need to talk about it. Besides, most people have already made up their minds, so what use could it be to call X or Y politician a scum-bag?

Who needs to be able to send millions of emails explaining how badly we're getting robbed by X or getting lied to by Y? (That's the machine gun equivalent of free speech, except that machine guns are FAR less effective and a lot more expensive.)

Or perhaps it goes thus:

You don't need a grand jury for indictment if you didn't commit a crime. I haven't committed any crimes; therefore I see no need for a grand jury. (which I guess is the opinion of a lot of states. So perhaps substitute "fair trial" for "grand jury.")

In any case, the need for a right shouldn't be considered a justification for it. And the lack of a need shouldn't be justification for abridging it.

I don't think "protecting the public" is a good argument either. It amounts to a statistical argument that says more guns = more harm. Or in the face of Ossler's question, more automatic guns = more public danger.

Just today, in the McDonald oral argument, Scalia rejected the idea that statistics should decide issues of constitutional law. To be fair, Breyer still differs from that opinion, and presumably this will be a narrowly decided case, just as Heller was.

But let's take the idea for a second. That the government has a compelling interest in protecting people. And that interest gives them the power to restrict rights.

Do you really want to start with guns? I don't really want to get into a data war with anyone. But can we all agree that an order-of-magnitude larger number of people die every year as a result of car crashes than gunshot wounds. I'll even let you include criminal acts in the number, as opposed to accidental deaths only.
 

One issue that almost never comes up in these 2A discussions is a point I'm hesitant to make lest I be understood and turned into the feds.

But it goes like this. If I remember correctly, there was a certain revolutionary war at the top of everyone's mind when the constitution was drafted, and probably still fairly recent when the BoR was adopted.

And some of the framers were concerned that such a revolution might need to take place in the future. Even given the excellent system they were crafting.

But such a revolution would be difficult if the citizens had no teeth to bite the government with if it should come to that.

In my view, I think this was the intent of the 2nd Amendment. I think they wanted to secure the ability of the people to fight against a sovereign government if it ever became necessary.

I'm not--just to make this clear--suggesting that we need to do so now.

But I think that's what it means. It would be difficult to make a legal argument. Such a view precludes legal reasoning because it is predicated on the idea that something quite illegal may be desirable or necessary (i.e. sedition, treason, revolution, or in modern terms, terrorism).

So I won't try to do that. But given that as my interpretation of the 2A, I think that we should have unrestricted access to weapons of any class.

When I have discussed this with people, a couple of things come up:

1) The government is so far ahead of us in terms of arms technology, there is no possible way for an effective rebellion to catch up. There's certainly no possible way such a revolution could succeed.

My first response to that is that this argument was heard often during the revolutionary war, and was largely accepted as true. What can a flintlocks do against cannons? But that's probably an order of magnitude different from modern warfare.

My second response is, ahem, North Viet Nam, to a certain extent, North Korea, Panama, actually much of South America, Afghanistan in the 80s, Afghanistan now . . . there are a lot of small, well-funded groups that have beaten larger, better-equipped groups.

They have nothing that can compete with us in terms of arms technology. Yet we're not exactly winning. And we're sitting around scratching our heads wondering why. They have Kalashinikovs and homemade bombs. We have all this stuff. Why aren't we winning?


2) Are you insane? Unrestricted access to any weapons? Bombs? Missiles? Nukes!!!?

Well, no. I'm not insane. For the same reason that regulations don't apply to people who don't subscribe to them, I see no reason that nukes should be subject to regulation.

Where has that regulation gotten us? Has regulation by the IAEA stopped anyone from getting nukes?

Not yet. People who want nukes get them regardless of regulation.

Why bother to regulate them? Because it sounds really nice. It sounds like we're doing something important.

The real situation is that certain levels of arms are cost-prohibitave.

Most people can't afford them. But anyone with enough money can find a way to buy pretty much whatever they want.

I personally don't want a nuke. But let's say that Bill Gates wanted a nuke.

Who is going to stop him? Who do you think would be able to tell him not to buy it?

This is the top-down argument. The fact is, anyone who wants a weapon of whatever sort can get it regardless of the restrictions.

Why bother restricting the only people who actually have a respect for the rule of law?
 

If the government has the responsibility to protect us from things that are dangerous to us and to others, we shouldn't be allowed to drive. Or smoke. Or eat. Or have sex.

If you want the government to start cracking down on stuff that's dangerous, guns are pretty low on the list.

Now take it the other way. What is it about currently illegal drugs that shows so much statistical danger? Where is the government's right to infringe on a person's right to get high?

It starts again where the gun argument starts: scary. Drugs are scary. At least some of them. And that's where all the restriction starts. Fear. Maybe religion too, but mostly fear.

And then you have the "need" arguments, and you have the "danger" arguments. They are all the same kind of thing.

Namely, they are restrictions that only law-abiding citizens pay attention too. They are feel-good attempts to distract the populace from the fact that they are being robbed of their rights.

But it goes back to the same idea. If the government
has an interest in keeping you safe that's so powerful it can restrict your rights to whatever extent it wants because of statistical evidence of danger,

You have no rights.