Category: Uncategorized

The Lying “News” Media Part II

KevinLeave a comment

 (Edited for better readability.)

This is a transcript of a slickly produced NRA “news report” covering CNN’s, shall we say, deliberate misrepresentation of fact.

The piece opens with the NRA’s talking head who fails to introduce herself. Transcript begins:

NRA: “Welcome back to NRA Live. You’ve heard all about media bias. Well, what we’re about to show you is clearly media manipulation of the truth.

“On CNN Thursday night, Miami bureau cheif John Zarella did a story on the controversy brewing over the renewal of the assault weapons ban.”

The picture then switches to the CNN story. At the bottom of the screen the story title bar reads in large letters:

Assault Weapons Ban

and beneath that in smaller text:

LAW BANS 19 TYPES OF SEMI-AUTOMATIC WEAPONS.

Remember that. SEMI-automatic weapons. Narration continues while we see some men on what is clearly a firing range.

NRA: “On a live shot of the Broward County Sheriff’s office firearms training range, he and Sheriff Ken Jenne did a demonstration first with a semiautomatic firearm that is on the banned list and it had 30 rounds in the magazine. And here’s what they showed:”

During the introduction, someone, presumably an officer, is seen handling an AK-47 type weapon. When the demonstration begins, two men are standing on the range, seen from behind, with a human silhouette shown down range past them. The CNN report is now heard in a voice-over by Sheriff Jenne.

Jenne: “First the Deputy is going to demonstrate a AK-47, uh, the Chinese version which is the pre-ban version”

Zarella: “It’s currently banned…”

Jenne: (talking over Zarella) “It’s currently banned, absolutely.”

Zarella: “OK. OK, well let the detective show us.”

The Deputy shoulders the AK-47 and aims it downrange. The 30-round magazine is clearly visible. He begins shooting. After the first or second round, the image shifts to a stack of cinderblocks set up like a small wall, showing clearly the impacts of the rounds. The deputy fires FOUR (4) rounds, doing obvious damage to the blocks. The fire is two rounds fairly quickly, followed two rounds, fired more carefully. All four rounds are fired in about 3 seconds. Flying dust and one cinderblock is holed.

Zarella: “That’s into a cinderblock.”

Jenne: “That’s into a cinderblock.”

Zarella: “And now into a bullet-proof vest.”

Jenne: “And this is a vest similar to the ones that, uh, our deputies have worn. It’s a used one but one that’s similar.”

The image switches to a torso mannequin wearing a bullet resistant vest. Here’s the first misrepresentation. There’s no such thing as a “bullet-proof” vest. They are designed with certain “threat levels” for different useages. The threat levels are established by the National Institute of Justice The vests commonly worn by police officers are Threat Level II (capable of stopping up to a .357 Magnum handgun round) or Threat Level IIIA (capable of stopping up to a .44 Magnum handgun round). Neither of these vests is capable of stopping ANY centerfire rifle round, whether it’s fired from an “assault weapon” or a deer rifle. There are Threat Levels III and IV that are designed to stop a .308 (7.62NATO) rifle bullet and an armor piercing .308 respectively, but no cop on the beat would wear one because they have heavy steel or ceramic plates in them. Level IIIA and lower vests are at least a little flexible, lighter, and can be worn under a duty blouse. Level III and IV vests are the type you saw embedded reporters wearing during the war in Iraq. Remember the funky looking semicircular chest shields there to protect their faces from bullet spatter? But you’re not supposed to know that. You’re supposed to think a “bullet-proof vest” will stop ANY bullet. Right?

And remember this: Even a Level IV vest won’t stop more than one round in the same spot. The second one will probably get through.

The deputy fires THREE (3) carefully aimed rounds to the center of the mannequin’s chest.

Zarella: “Now that bullet’s clearly fired right through there…”

Jenne: “Right through, and there’s panelling on the front and on the back.”

The NRA’s talking head reappears.

NRA: “Then, CNN showed Deputy Chris Worth (sp?) shooting the very same cinderblocks with a semiautomatic that had not been banned.”

The scene switches back to the CNN story, with Jenne trading weapons with Deputy Worth.

NRA: “Only this time, as the Sheriff pointed out, there were only ten rounds in the magazine.”

Zarella: “Now this weapon, now, is legal under the current law.”

Jenne: “A -absolutely. This is an AK-47 also, but it’s a civilian model. It has some differences, and right now this only has a clip of ten, uh, in the magazine er, magazin..uh ten round in the magazine. So this is is a big difference than the thirty rounds in the previous magazine.”

Really? Why? The deputy in the previous demonstration fired SEVEN ROUNDS, not 30. Is there something the NRA didn’t show us? The really interesting thing here, is that when the deputy shoulders the rifle, it doesn’t have a TEN ROUND magazine in it, it’s got a THIRTY ROUND magazine in it! That’s right, boys and girls! Thirty round magazines FIT IN POST BAN WEAPONS – and they’re NOT ILLEGAL! I’ve got several for my POST-BAN AR-15.

At any rate, the deputy shoulders the weapon and aims downrange. Remember now, the first gun was an AK-47 which chambers the 7.62×39 Russian cartridge, and the second gun is ALSO an AK-47 which chambers exactly the same round. The deputy begins firing. He fires SIX (6) shots. On the third shot the image switches to that same stack of cinderblocks. AND THERE ISN’T A SINGLE HIT. What, are the sights off? No dust flying, no concrete shattering, nada. The image switches back to the NRA talking head:

NRA: “Surprised? Not one shot went into the cinderblocks. No smoke, no dust, no bullet holes. Well, you’re probably asking the very same questions we are: How could that happen? Was the deputy firing blanks? Or was he just a bad shot? Either way, CNN’s John Zarella should have told the viewers, because we both know both guns were semi-automatics. And even though one had thirty rounds and the other one had ten, that makes no difference in the way they perform.”

Especially when you fire FOUR rounds out of the rifle with 30 and SIX rounds out of the one holding ten.

NRA: “A semi-auto is a semi-auto is a semi-auto. And they all fire the very same cartridge, and have the same firing power.”

Not exactly. An AK-47 is not an AR-15 is not an M1A. They don’t fire the same cartridge and have the same power, but that’s beside the point for this demonstration.

NRA: “Right? Well not according to CNN and the Sheriff. The whole message, in fact, behind their story was to drive home the point to viewers, whether by misfiring or staging it, that somehow the semi-automatics on the banned list have more firepower than those that are not banned.”

Seems pretty obvious to me. But then I’m a gun nut and know better already.

NRA: “Just listen to this conversation that CNN had with the Sheriff.”

The image switches back to the stack of cinderblocks.

Zarella: “So what makes the big difference here is the amount of, of firepower then.”

Jenne: “Absolutely. When, when deputies and people are on the street, or people are subjected to drive-by shootings, uh, these weapons are not that particularly, uh, accurate to begin with. When the more rounds you have, the more firepower you have…”

He’s interrupted by the NRA talking head. And remember – in the demonstration of the LEGAL AK-47, it had a 30 round magazine in it!

NRA: “But, as if that was not enough to mislead the public with absolute fabrication, CNN shows another demonstration on another show later that night. And although Sheriff Jenne claims his deputy is shooting with a semi-automatic firearm, that is banned, that’s not the case at all. The deputy is actually using a fully automatic firearm. Take a listen.”

The image switches back to the deputy on the firing range. The banner at the bottom of the screen now reads:

GUN BATTLE
BAN ON 19 ASSAULT WEAPONS
EXPIRES IN SEPTEMBER 2004

Jenne: “So you can see the destructive force. It’s got a thirty, uh, rounds in it’s magazine, uh, and it will be firing it now.”

(Hey, I just transcribe this stuff. It’s what I heard.)

Zarella: “OK.”

The deputy shoulders the weapon and aims it downrange. He fires three rounds at the stack of cinderblocks (apparently there was more than one take done, as this stack is shorter, and untouched.) He fires three more rounds. Dust & broken cinderblock, just as you’d expect.

Zarella: “Now that was semi-automatic…” (He’s a bit garbled as Jenne speaks) “Now your (garbled) switch’er to automatic…”

The deputy is seen manipulating the weapon as they speak, and as Jenne speaks,

Jenne: “This is automatic…”

The deputy begins firing FULLY AUTO, and the cinderblocks are, of course, busted all to hell.

Zarella: “Wow. That obliterated those blocks.”

Jenne: “Those blocks are gone.”

Zarella: “Absolutely obliterated them.”

Jenne: “And, and you can tell the difference.”

Zarella: “Clearly, Anderson (?), a-an example of the firepower that these weapons possess, and why, at least here in Broward County, the Broward Sheriff’s office and Sheriff Ken Jenne want to see that ban remain in place.”

Except the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban didn’t affect fully automatic weapons – those are regulated under the 1934 National Firearms Act. Remember the blurb?

The NRA talking head reappears.

NRA: “Again, what CNN and the Sheriff don’t tell you is that no guns on the banned list are fully automatic. Those guns were severely restricted in 1934. So why did they do this? Why did they concoct a story that the Sheriff should have known was not true? Well, I tried to call Sheriff Jenne to talk with him about the demonstration. He wasn’t available. But I did get to speak with the director of media relations.”

The image shifts to the talking head sitting at a microphone. A phone ring tone is heard. Someone picks up.

Cheryl Stopnick (how appropriate): “Media relations. Cheryl Stopnick.”

NRA: “Yeah, this is Jenny Cimone (spelling is as close as I can figure, as they never put her name up) calling from Washington, D.C.”

Stopnick: “And who are you with?”

NRA: “I’m with a company called the Mercury Group. Out of Washington.”

Stopnick: “Uh-huh, and what is your group?”

NRA: “And we provide investigative services to the NRA.”

Stopnick: “Uh-huh.”

NRA: “And we wanted to talk to him about the demonstration he did on CNN yesterday.”

Stopnick: “Uh-huh. Well, I’ll take your number and pass your message along.”

NRA: “OK. Um, when do you think you could get back to us?”

Stopnick: “I don’t know.”

NRA: “Let me ask you this: I know that, um, there was a deputy involved, in, in..Chris Worth?”

Stopnick: “Uh-huh?”

NRA: “Is he available to talk?”

Stopnick: “No.”

NRA: “He’s not.”

Stopnick: “No.”

NRA: “OK. Alright, well we’ll just wait to hear from him.”

Stopnick: “Thank you.”

NRA: “Thanks.” (End of conversation.) “Well as you can imagine, we still haven’t heard back from Sheriff Jenne or from CNN’s John Zarella who we also called.”

And then she goes into the NRA speil.

What you’re seeing here is the Violence Policy Center’s tactics in action:

“Assault weapons-just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms – are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons – anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun – can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.”

Show the rubes a machine gun and tell ’em it’s an evil banned “assault weapon” and they’ll believe you. Don’t tell them that the only thing that makes an “assault weapon” according to the law is the name of the weapon, or whether or not it has a flash-hider or a bayonet lug, and they’ll think the law did something good.

SHOW THEM THAT THE “GOOD” GUNS CAN’T HURT A CINDERBLOCK AND THEY’LL BUY ANYTHING.

I am OUTRAGED.

(Updated. I’m reliably informed that the NRA talking head is Ginny Simone (last name pronounced Sim-o-nee))

Is the Government Responsible for Your Protection? Part 1

KevinLeave a comment



A lot of people seem to think so. “We need more police, better enforcement,” is usually the refrain you hear when crime rates go up, or a string of crimes occurs. The police tell us that we shouldn’t resist when we’re being robbed or raped. It’s called taking the law into your own hands when you do. It’s the job of the police and the justice system – branches of the government – to protect you, according to most people. Certainly according to most police chiefs and elected officials.

But is it?

Let me tell you a story:

In the early morning hours of March 16, 1975, Carolyn Warren, Joan Taliaferro, and Miriam Douglas were asleep in their rooming house at 1112 Lamont Street, N.W. Warren and Taliaferro shared a room on the third floor of the house; Douglas shared a room on the second floor with her four-year-old daughter. The women were awakened by the sound of the back door being broken down by two men later identified as Marvin Kent and James Morse. The men entered Douglas’ second floor room, where Kent forced Douglas to sodomize him and Morse raped her.

Warren and Taliaferro heard Douglas’ screams from the floor below. Warren telephoned the police, told the officer on duty that the house was being burglarized, and requested immediate assistance. The department employee told her to remain quiet and assured her that police assistance would be dispatched promptly. Warren’s call was received at Metropolitan Police Department Headquarters at 6:23 a. m., and was recorded as a burglary in progress. At 6:26 a. m., a call was dispatched to officers on the street as a “Code 2” assignment, although calls of a crime in progress should be given priority and designated as “Code 1.” Four police cruisers responded to the broadcast; three to the Lamont Street address and one to another address to investigate a possible suspect.

Meanwhile, Warren and Taliaferro crawled from their window onto an adjoining roof and waited for the police to arrive. While there, they saw one policeman drive through the alley behind their house and proceed to the front of the residence without stopping, leaning out the window, or getting out of the car to check the back entrance of the house. A second officer apparently knocked on the door in front of the residence, but left when he received no answer. The three officers departed the scene at 6:33 a. m., five minutes after they arrived.

Warren and Taliaferro crawled back inside their room. They again heard Douglas’ continuing screams; again called the police; told the officer that the intruders had entered the home, and requested immediate assistance. Once again, a police officer assured them that help was on the way. This second call was received at 6:42 a. m. and recorded merely as “investigate the trouble” – it was never dispatched to any police officers.

Believing the police might be in the house, Warren and Taliaferro called down to Douglas, thereby alerting Kent to their presence. Kent and Morse then forced all three women, at knifepoint, to accompany them to Kent’s apartment. For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of Kent and Morse.

Those paragraphs are taken, with the exception of a single word, “appellants,” verbatim from the opinion in Warren v. District of Columbia. Carolyn Warren, Joan Taliaferro, and Miriam Douglas were the appellants in a lawsuit against the District of Columbia and its police department for failing to protect them. Fail them it did, but the court found against them. And here is its reasoning:

A publicly maintained police force constitutes a basic governmental service provided to benefit the community at large by promoting public peace, safety and good order. The extent and quality of police protection afforded to the community necessarily depends upon the availability of public resources and upon legislative or administrative determinations concerning allocation of those resources. The public, through its representative officials, recruits, trains, maintains and disciplines its police force and determines the manner in which personnel are deployed. At any given time, publicly furnished police protection may accrue to the personal benefit of individual citizens, but at all times the needs and interests of the community at large predominate. Private resources and needs have little direct effect upon the nature of police services provided to the public. Accordingly, courts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community. (Emphasis is mine)

Note the quote: “without exception.” This is not the first time someone has sued the government for not protecting them, not by a long shot. It’s one of the most egregious examples, but far from the only one.

So, it isn’t the government’s responsibility to protect “individual members of the community,” that is, you and me specifically.

So whose job is it?

Think on that awhile. I’ll come back with Part 2 where I’ll discuss just why it can’t be the job of government.

KevinLeave a comment

Somebody generally beats me to it

And quite often does a better job of it. That’s one of the reasons it took me so long to start my own blog. Jealous green-eyed rage. Regardless, I appreciate quality work when I see it, and I’d be remiss not to point it out to whomever might stumble in here. Isntapundit (no, not Glenn. The other guy) has a post up that perfectly illustrates the gun control movement in the personage of Andrew McKelvey, chief honcho of Americans for Gun Safety. Although the comparison to a deadly parasite was a bit graphic for dinnertime. Go read it. I’ll wait.

Journalistic Consistency, or: “All the news we see fit.”

KevinLeave a comment

There’s an AP news story about the Case Western shooter. The headline reads: “Cleveland Shooter Had Military Training” (though they did leave off the hysterical exclamation point.) That’s good. That’s interesting. And it’s in keeping with the general liberal position that people who receive military training are all psycho-killers-in-waiting. The story relates:

The 62-year-old man accused of a shooting spree at a prestigious Cleveland university had military training with the Indian army and a grudge against an employee, authorities said Saturday. Ok, fair enough. But is it relevant? The article goes on to cover the fact that Biswanath Halder was wearing a “bullet proof” vest and some kind of helmet with a wig glued to it as he went through the building apparently firing indiscriminately. The story relates that “(Halder) never walked on the sidewalks, always down the middle of the street” according to one person interviewed. OK, that’s a little weird.

At the end of the article it states the source of the opening assertion:

The resume Halder posts on his Web site includes service in the Indian army, as well as experience in computer programming, designing electrical measuring equipment in Germany, real estate and financial planning. Very good – cite your sources.

Interest thus piqued, I ran a Google News search on Mr. Halder.

There was this story told us that 425 rounds of ammunition were found in his car,

this one that tells us all about the “poor man’s Uzi” that Halder used (and it – as most news stories do – gets crucial information wrong concerning guns and gun laws),

this one with the headline “Alleged Shooter Had Gun With 32-Round Magazine” (No exclamation point there either, but you know it’s implied.) The article discusses the ammunition used, saying: “The ammunition used were hollow-point bullets, designed for maximum amount of damage and minimal penetration.” Well, not exactly but then the press so seldom gets this stuff right anyway. Note too that the article quotes a “firearms expert” who says that the Cobray pistol Halder had “…could have a 32-round magazine in it and have 32 rounds in the gun.” Note that – COULD have. Did he, or didn’t he? Anyway, this article also contradicts the first story a bit, because the same expert is also denigrates Halder’s training. “Donnett said it’s clear that the alleged gunman had little training….’If this gentleman had really known what he was doing, the fatalities would’ve been way up,’ she said.” Harsh words for a man with military training.

(Oh, and there’s a photo on the site that’s apparently supposed to be the two guns in question. One of them might be a Ruger, the other is DEFINITELY not a Cobray. Guess they didn’t have one in their archives. I suppose I should be happy that they didn’t use a picture of a REAL Uzi.

Anyway, this story mentions Halder’s web site too. It says this:

Halder would write about destruction on his Web site, and there were anonymous postings calling him a moron, and a making fun of his fake hair and fake teeth.
One posting said, “People around you don’t like you, so take a hike and get out of our lives.”

This story has the headline: Case Western killing inflames gun opponents

Well THERE’S a surprise. But Halder’s a side-note in this story.

Then there’s this short blurb about the lawsuit over Halder’s web site that apparently sparked the shooting.

Anyway, it’s pretty apparent that the news organizations not only knew he had a web site, but where it was and what was on it.

So, why was there no mention of the fact that Halder was pretty rabidly against the war in Iraq, and a supporter of gun control? His site is down now, but it wasn’t immediately after the shooting or the media couldn’t have checked his resume. I got in before they firewalled the sites and looked.

It was apparent that the guy was one bat short of a full belfry.

Oh, right – Relevance.

KevinLeave a comment

Depending on the State for Your Safety

I’ll have more (much more) to say about this later, but I found this column by Dave Kopel interesting, as I have been studying the UK’s approach to gun control for quite a while, specifically the legal attitude concerning self-defense. So color me unsurprised when Dave followed up on the article with this feedback from someone who’s been there:

“I’m an alumna of Pepperdine University, a school which proudly owns a house/campus on Exhibition Road, literally across the street from the Imperial University, in the middle of South Kensington, right near Harrods, Hyde Park, the Albert Hall. Within two days of arriving for our first semester in London, our relatively small [American] class (37 students, 10 men, 27 women) was visited by a local police officer to instruct us on living in London. Her first question was to the women, ‘How many of you brought mace?’ Three girls raised their hands. She told us we couldn’t use it, shouldn’t even carry it, it was illegal.

That’s correct. Mace, teargas, and pepper sprays have been outlawed since passage of the 1953 “Prevention of Crime Act.” This made it illegal to carry an “offensive weapon” without being able to demonstrate a need for it. Offensive weapons included knives, pointed objects, and firearms, along with chemical sprays. In other words, you had to apply to the government and get their permission in order to carry anything with which to defend yourself. In 1953, remember.

“Had any of us brought any other type of weapon, such as a knife? Several of the men in our group indicated that they carried pocket knives. She told us to leave them at home too.”

As mentioned above, carrying a knife for self-defense was made illegal (without permission from the State) in 1953, but what constituted a knife? That question was rectified with the Criminal Justice Act of 1988 which defined what an edged or pointed weapon was thusly:

“…any article which has a blade or is sharply pointed except a folding pocketknife.” and “This section applies to a folding pocketknife if the cutting edge of its blade exceeds 3 inches.” So, if you carry a very small pocketknife, you’re OK, right? Are you going to take that risk? Small folding lockback? Illegal. Yup. Lockbacks are not considered to be “folding knives.” Carpet knife? Illegal. Boxcutter? Illegal. Leatherman? Illegal. Unless, of course you can prove in court that you had “need,” i.e.: that you used in for work and that you had it on you in conjunction with your work. Woe unto you if you stop by the pub on the way home with anything considered illegal on your person or in your car.

What happened to the English common-law assumption of innocence? It’s turned on its head here. You have to prove your innocence, because the law assumes that if you have something that can be used as a weapon, you intend evil.

If you’re interested, the British Knife Collectors Guild has a site covering the specifics of the laws there. To continue:

“Then she instructed us on how to properly be a victim. If we were attacked, we were to assume a defensive posture, such as raising our hands to block an attack. The reason was (and she spelled it out in no uncertain terms) that if a witness saw the incident and we were to attempt to defend ourselves by fighting back, the witness would be unable to tell who the agressor was. However, if we rolled up in a ball, it would be quite clear who the victim was.

“The feeling I got was, in London, it is not permissable to defend oneself. I also understood that this police officer thought Americans were more likely to be agressive and/or cause more damage to a potential attacker. She was warning us for our own good. I have to admit, she did not make me feel particularly safe.”

Yup. Depend on the State to protect you. You’re not qualified to protect yourself. It would sound like a Monty Python piece if it weren’t true. As Joyce Lee Malcolm has documented, England’s anti-self-defense laws have resulted in violent crime rates considerably higher than we have here.

Update: HAH! Glen Reynolds comments on this, too. But I didn’t see it until AFTER I had my post up. (How does he read all this stuff?)

KevinLeave a comment

Welcome to the bathroom wall. The link goes to a post by UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, which I will quote shamelessly (hey, I gave the link).

The Internet is a bathroom wall.

Consider: Anyone can write anything on a bathroom wall. There’s little accountability on a bathroom wall. It’s hard to tell who wrote what on a bathroom wall. Truth looks just like rumor on a bathroom wall. Great stuff is interspersed with awful, stupid stuff on a bathroom wall.

Most people know instinctively not to offer as verification or a point of information the phrase “Well, you know, I read on the bathroom wall that. . .” Yet far too many seem willing to lace their discourse and communications with “facts” gleaned from bulletin boards, e-mail and Web sites.

That from a 1998 Chicago Tribune piece by Eric Zorn. Now Eugene’s pithy comment:

The sad fact, which I’ve noted in many posts over the past year (and even setting aside egregious examples like the Jayson Blair affair), is that most media turn out to be a bathroom wall, too. An exaggeration, but less of an exaggeration that I’d like it to be.

Precisely. So, who says that one bathroom wall is superior to another? The reader does.

KevinLeave a comment

DISCLOSURE

I am strongly interested in the rights of individuals, in particular the restrictions upon our government to respect those rights.

As such, I’m not much of a fan of the government we have. In fact, I used to use this signature line:

The Constitution may not be the finest work ever set to paper,

but it beats whatever the government’s using these days.

So it comes as no surprise that I’m not real enamored with the Republicans, and I find the Democrats abhorrent. Of course, I think the Greens are flakes, and the Libertarians tend to be flakes of a different shape.

Anyway, bearing this in mind, I invite you to read Rachel Lucas’s transcription of Barbara Walter’s Hillary interview. Uh-huh.

KevinLeave a comment

I can see I’m going to spend a considerable amount of time linking to other sites for my (hopefully only temporarily) nonexistent reader base, but this one is classic and should not be missed:

Kang’s Classroom: Politics 101

Warning: Don’t drink anything when you read this. You’ll need a new keyboard.

KevinLeave a comment

In relation to the “What is a right” essay…

I posted below, I found this quotation attributed to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. I don’t have any other information detailing where it was published, so I’ll hold off on actually laying it at his feet (though if someone can give me a pointer, I’d appreciate it). However, it says in a paragraph what took me an entire essay — Rights are what a society believes they are. (Of course, I was trying to win something, and it was oriented specifically towards the right to arms, but….)

Here it is:

To some degree, a constitutional guarantee is like a commercial loan, you can only get it if, at the time, you don’t really need it. The most important, enduring, and stable portions of the Constitution represent such a deep social consensus that one suspects if they were entirely eliminated, very little would change. And the converse is also true. A guarantee may appear in the words of the Constitution, but when the society ceases to possess an abiding belief in it, it has no living effect. Consider the fate of the principle expressed in the Tenth Amendment that the federal government is a government of limited powers. I do not suggest that constitutionalization has no effect in helping the society to preserve allegiance to its fundamental principles. That is the whole purpose of a constitution. But the allegiance comes first and the preservation afterwards. (My emphasis)

Indeed.