A 'liberal' defense of the right to bear arms...
There is one issue where me and the political right agree. Strong protections of the 2nd Amendment. It might raise the hackles of my liberal compatriots but I am a staunch civil libertarian. I feel all of our rights need to be protected lest any of them can come under attack.
Are there problems in America with gun violence? There sure are. We have inner city criminal elements often using illegally obtained guns in violent crimes. We have some very unhinged members of society go on killing sprees, usually using legitimately obtained guns which are legal to own, ending many lives and destroying families. Guns, purchased here in the US are being smuggled across to the Mexican border and are sold to criminals there who have killed thousands. Absolutely there are problems in our society so free that we enjoy the right to arm ourselves to the teeth.
But...
Freedom can be a messy proposition. An element of risk/danger is inherent in any free society. The key balancing act in a free society is trying to impose the restrictions needed for public safety that are not overly intrusive on our freedoms. Personally I think we have enough laws on the books, most of them very reasonable and represent justifiable restrictions, in terms of regulating gun ownership. I think what needs to be done is to enforce them more effectively. But the bottom line is that we are not going to stop certain people, the ones who make the crooked timber of humanity so, from doing harm to others. What we don't need are draconian measures which limit our freedoms in an effort to keep us 'safe'. I opposed the Patriot Act on these grounds and I oppose any attempts to limit our right to bear arms for the same reason.
And for the record I don't own any guns, never have and I doubt I ever will. But I want that right available to me if I do change my mind. It is all about all of our collective rights.
Are there problems in America with gun violence? There sure are. We have inner city criminal elements often using illegally obtained guns in violent crimes. We have some very unhinged members of society go on killing sprees, usually using legitimately obtained guns which are legal to own, ending many lives and destroying families. Guns, purchased here in the US are being smuggled across to the Mexican border and are sold to criminals there who have killed thousands. Absolutely there are problems in our society so free that we enjoy the right to arm ourselves to the teeth.
But...
Freedom can be a messy proposition. An element of risk/danger is inherent in any free society. The key balancing act in a free society is trying to impose the restrictions needed for public safety that are not overly intrusive on our freedoms. Personally I think we have enough laws on the books, most of them very reasonable and represent justifiable restrictions, in terms of regulating gun ownership. I think what needs to be done is to enforce them more effectively. But the bottom line is that we are not going to stop certain people, the ones who make the crooked timber of humanity so, from doing harm to others. What we don't need are draconian measures which limit our freedoms in an effort to keep us 'safe'. I opposed the Patriot Act on these grounds and I oppose any attempts to limit our right to bear arms for the same reason.
And for the record I don't own any guns, never have and I doubt I ever will. But I want that right available to me if I do change my mind. It is all about all of our collective rights.
Advertisement
Nicely stated without falling back on the lame and antiquated assertion that a right to own firearms is the only thing that keeps a tyrannical state from going into being. Anyone who believes that the pistol they use as a cod-piece as an ineffective means to disguise their physical deficiency, or even a privately owned modern rifles, are actually capable of violently repelling a tyrannical state, is living in a fantasy world, completely unconnected to the reality. Death now silently stalks, becoming suddenly manifest in the form of hellfires spewing from the mouths of flying robotic dragon predators, controlled remotely by once hotshot video game whiz kids, safely sequestered inside deeply buried bunkers in an unknown Nevada desert location.
Even Americans who firmly believe that gun ownership restrictions need be greatly expanded, should understand that gun ownership is a specifically enumerated minority right in The Constitution, quit dancing around with semantics, and work toward enacting a Constitutional amendment, because abridging this right through simple legislation, no matter how righteous the rationale to do so, will assure future abrogations of other enumerated Constitutional rights, using the same illegitimate methods.
April 6, 2009 7:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whenever I am discussing the issue with someone from the political right and the claim that the right of gun ownership will somehow allow us to stop our government if it becomes a 'tyrannical' one elicits a 'c'mon you're kidding me' response. Anyone with a shred of common sense knows our weapons would never be a match for the ones possessed by the US military.
And that being said, like you echoed PCA, it is an enumerated right. One that needs to be defended on the principle, which I stated in the post, that allowing any right we have been given to be taken from us imperils all of them. And secondly it would be a good electoral strategy for the left to support the 2nd amendment. It is the left's main blind spot on an otherwise very good position on our rights. And if the Dems could support the rights of gun owners like they do most other rights it might signal the end of modern Republican Party as we know it...
Win-win from where I sit.
April 6, 2009 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
'Anyone with a shred of common sense knows our weapons would never be a match for the ones possessed by the US military."
It's not as simple as that. The USA is a very big place with a lot of people. History has proved that a large populace spread over a large area cannot be subjugated by even the most powerful military unless the populace is reasonably happy, in which case no insurrection would be necessary because the people would not FEEL subjugated. Furthermore, the military is not an army of robots. Americans will not feel good about killing Americans.
Psychological factors are important.
April 6, 2009 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is hard but interesting to guess at how an insurrection would play out in the U S. One scenario: If a state or a city were to secede or otherwise revolt and they had the weight of the citizenry behind them, or just a dedicated portion while others were scared or complacent, they could make it very hard and expensive in dollars and lives for the U S military to take back civil control. What the Fed. Gov. COULD do with a couple of obedient battalions of army or Blackwater mercenaries is simply shut off the electricity, the gas, and blockade the Interstate. If it was winter there would be freezing in a few days, in a couple weeks there would be starvation, and within a month there would be cannabalism and civil war within the city. When people tried to break out they could easily be rounded up or defeated in open combat.
If you feel that the government would take your firearm if it could then you would be afraid of registration because it would serve as a way to divide and conquer. Only by defying the registration law could you have any assurance that someone in uniform wouldn't knock on your door and say.”Gimmee da guns, sucker. And the box of bullets our records show that you bought last week.”
April 6, 2009 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
This goes far beyond simple gun registration these days. Although I doubt that it has been instituted on a grand scale yet, there presently exists the technology potentially rendering a person's every action visible to the state. You can no longer assume that anything you say or do is really private, although it is fairly safe to assume unless you have given the state a reason to get tagged, that your actions within you own private residence remain fairly secure.
Miniaturized cameras and audio recorders are ubiquitous. The best of these are capable of recording with an astounding resolution and clarity. They can also be produced with a long-lasting self-contained power source or methods to leech passively off of available power in the active environment, and ability to transmit data wirelessly, or other unexpected non-standard routes (through the electrical grid, for instance), both miniaturized also. It's best to simply assume these devices could potentially be anywhere that you are.
Google Earth presently purchases its satellite images from a commercial provider, taken from the GeoEye-1 satellite. It is capable of producing images down to about a 16" resolution, but government restrictions limit it to about a 22" resolution. It is rational to assume that government image satellites produce images with a much better resolution than that.
The government also has obtained access to a wide variety of extensive commercial databases, and is able to correlate the data between them. Before, these databases were not much of a concern, because they were stove-piped from each other. Now the government is able to know when you hit the ATM, then track you to a nearby grocery store where you used their discount card, and discern exactly what you purchased there using the cash from the ATM. It is also able to discover which phone number you called from your cell while shopping. They can easily even track menstrual cycles with this data. Does your city have any cameras installed at intersections yet? It does not matter if they are not being used for issuing citations. That's the way it is in Las Vegas. Rest assured than any local government in America will hand over their traffic camera archives to the NSA just from them asking without need of a court order.
The only thing stopping the government from creating time traces on every citizen is that the amount of storage and processing power to do so is still out of reach, even for them. Technology advances every day though.
As former Sun Microsystems CEO and present chairman, Scott McNealy, once famously said; "There Is No privacy - Get Over It".
April 7, 2009 4:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Which has absolutely zero to do with gun regulation or the second amendment.
April 7, 2009 8:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone with a shred of common sense knows our weapons would never be a match for the ones possessed by the US military.
I used to think that way. But then there was the Iraqi occupation. A group of people with guns under an occupation can band together and through that power that gives them over other people, get things like explosives to make IED's, and gets them the power to organize via fear from civilians. (The might and power of an army is no match for something like the Mafia, either.)
It's a wild west scenario that I myself wouldn't chose to participate in, one that I think it is eventually self-defeating in this day and age of mass communication. But I can also see why the traditional flippant "don't be ridiculous" response doesn't resonate with some folks.
April 6, 2009 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Need I also mention the northwest provinces in Pakistan vs. the Pakistani army, Chechnya vs. Russia, insurgent groups in Assam, India....
I actually wish the argument that "that's ridiculous" was sounder, but it's simply not. Get a bunch of people together with firearms, and they can really cause a lot of trouble for a government; ask Janet Reno.
April 6, 2009 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is a difference between a citizenry that is resisting a foreign occupational force, and a dedicated, well armed internal insurrection against the state power. Additionally, all of the examples of foreign nations you mentioned are completely dependent are constant resupply through international sources in a society already deeply fragmented into factions intent on waging deadly violence against each other. This is not the same as allowing citizens to privately possess arms in a stable society as a means to insure a tyrannical state can never evolve.
The Waco insurrection proved to be problematical for the government to resolve, and they went overboard, yet it offers compelling evidence that private ownership of arms is impotent at keeping an overbearing state at bay. Also, quit blaming Reno. She wasn't even AG when Waco broke out. William Barr was still the AG, and the precipitate act of Federal Marshals attempting to serve, what they believed to be lawful warrants, being gunned down in cold blood by the Branch Davidians, was the culmination of an investigation which had begun during the heart of the GHW Bush Administration.
The government's use of force in Waco was well beyond any justifiable grounds, and it rightfully deserves scorn for acting the way it did, but blame should be properly assessed. The Branch Davidians chose armed insurrection over peaceful resolution in The Federal Court System. They proved their own preponderant cowardice by shielding behind their own children, and unarmed women. They brought hell down onto their own heads with these actions. He who lives by the sword...
April 7, 2009 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have just about every "fact" about Waco wrong. It wasn't an "armed insurrection" by any stretch of the imagination.
It was a bunch of religious nuts who had automatic weapons and may have been violating regulatory standards in keeping those weapons. There may or may not have been some strange cult shit going on, but we'll never know since they are all dead.
At worst Waco was a hostage situation that the FBI and ATF totally fucked up.
April 7, 2009 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
You assert my facts are wrong, yet did not offer even one example. I was wrong about William Barr being Attorney General at the beginning of the Waco siege. The acting Attorney General on February 28, 1993, was Stuart M. Gerson, who had been appointed as Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division by GHW Bush. Reno was sworn in as Attorney General on March 11, 1993, 12 days into the 51 day siege. The FBI Director throughout the whole Waco incident was William Sessions, a Reagan appointee who served as Directory for all of the GHW Bush Administration.
In May 1992, the ATF was informed by the McLennan County, Texas, Sheriff's Department, about a UPS package delivered to the Branch Davidian compound contained firearms, grenade casings and black gunpowder. The ATF began an official investigation in June 1992.
In the attempt to serve the warrant on David Koresh, 4 ATF officers were killed and 16 wounded.
On April 18, 1993, one day before the deadly fire at the compound, the FBI informed them that tear was was going to be used, and for them to stay away from the tower. Branch Davidians responded by holding children up in the tower windows.
Where are my misstated facts?
April 7, 2009 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
You pick and choose your "facts" to fit the narrative you are trying to construct. A bunch of religious nuts with a couple of automatic weapons and a desire to be left alone are not an armed insurrection.
Bill Clinton could have stopped that massacre at any time and decided not to. He let it go forth in much the same manner as he attacked every "law and order" problem - overwhelming force in order to avoid being seen as a liberal pussy. The same reason he passed Patriot Act Part 1 and set in motion many of the disastrous policies pursued by George Junior and Darth Cheney.
You are OK with dictators, apparently, as long as they have a "D" after their name.
April 7, 2009 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's funny, I don't really here people trying to rescind speed limits, and they, also, at one time didn't exist.
Yet we all seem to understand that it prevents people from piling their cars into people's houses, don't we.?
Odd, isn't it?
The idea behind being able to own your own gun was best summed up, oddly enough for me, by a cub scout leader who had been in the army. He said, " If the government starts to oppress us, I don't need to have some fancy automatic weapon, I would just need a .22 rifle, I can then shoot the individual that I need to in order to bet the weapon that I need.". I don't think that he would feel any different now.
April 6, 2009 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is that the arms that are intended for mass-murder shouldn't be in any civilian's hands, and should only rarely be in the governments hands. Period. Registration of easily hidden firearms makes sense. Disallowing civilians ownership of massively destructive firearms also makes sense. Sorry, it just does. As for Obama defending the sensible gun ownership laws HE'S BEEN DOING THAT EVER SINCE THE CAMPAIGN.
April 6, 2009 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
But you are wrong. "It" is not an enumerated right. The "it" in the constitution is about the right to bear arms in the militia. The second amnendment does not now and never ever in the past did it apply to individual gun ownership except as it relates to carrying out the duties of a well regulated militia. The current court has perverted both the letter and the spirit of the law by conjuring an individual right as it applies to the second amendment. It's just not true.
April 6, 2009 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Compare the 2nd and 4th amendments:
Is the fourth amendment saying warrants can be issued without probable cause as long as they don't result in unreasonable searches and seizures, or are they laying out the reasons why under no circumstances warrants should not be issued without probable cause?
I believe the latter. Similarly, I believe the phrase about a well-regulated militia is meant to lay out a reason why the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed. Like many others here, I've never owned a gun, but that doesn't stop me from respecting this as one of our enumerated rights, that, as such, would require a constitutional amendment to revoke.
April 6, 2009 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can hold that opinion, but there's nothing to it other than opinion. Nothing in the Federalist Papers or the debates over the second amendment supports anything even remotely close to an individual's right to bear arms. In fact, the deliberations over the second amendment make it very clear that no individual right is even implied. The amendment applied and applies only to the militia.
April 6, 2009 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL
April 7, 2009 1:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
His opinion and the Supreme Court's opinion and precedent from over 220 years of nationhood. Your opinion that it is ungrounded, though, that is simply an opinion with no basis in historical fact or judicial decision.
April 7, 2009 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is simply wrong. Once again, you don't have any idea what you're talking about. Zero.
April 7, 2009 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, there are plenty of higher and lower court decision upholding the individual right to bear arms most recently culminating in the DC case decision just last year.
Each has cited different parts of the amendment to support that ruling, but since we don't have any actual state militias as understood in Revolutionary-era parlance, those reasons are window dressing at best.
You assertion of my being wrong is far from the same thing as my actually being wrong.
April 7, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
A militia being a citizens' army, the citizens (as individuals) have a right to keep and bear arms. One thing too often ignored in these discussions is that the second amendment envisions a society in which the military power (and firepower) is in the hands of ordinary citizens. For the government to go to war, it needs to call forth the militia. If the people don't like the war, the government's up shit creek (go to Iraq yourself, George Bush!). And if the government wants to use the military to suppress the people--well that won't work either because the people are the military and they've got the guns. Remember, our founding fathers didn't really like standing armies (like those we've got today). They thought (rightly) that such were dangerous to liberty. Jefferson when president even hesitated to build ships for the navy since it meant committing to a permanent naval force. And of course, our founders--Jefferson in particular--understood that an armed populace could rebel when in the course of human events it became necessary to do so. And the right of rebellion was recognized as the ultimate protection of individual liberties against would-be tyrants. Shit, the founders had just used it to great success. So it's not a coincidence that the second amendment is second, right up there after freedome of speech, assembly, and conscience. It's oft-despised by liberals, I know, but it's a damn important protection and one I'm not any more ready to give up than my right to due process or my right to speak my mind.
And before I finish . . .while we're on the topic of standing armies . . . what about the third amendment? Maybe it shouldn't be so roundly ignored. When I look at the tax dollars we spend to support our standing armies around the world I say damn well we're quartering troops--okay maybe not in my house, but certainly with my household's wealth!
Standing armies give the king the power to go to war for his own interest and vanity; to go to war against the will of the people; and even to go to war against the people. Standing armies are dangerous to liberty. Standing armies lead to mischief. Standing armies make possible Iraq. So viva amendments two and three. Viva the concept of the citizen militia. Viva the draft. Viva the individual right to keep and bear arms. And viva the suspicion against standing armies of all kinds.
April 6, 2009 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very good points Purple...I don't think our founders ever envisioned a country with a permanent, professional standing army. And your point about the constitutionality of it, and the 3rd Amendment, is worth discussing. For practical purposes we do need to have one now, but I don't think that was ever called for or envisioned when the constitution was written.
April 7, 2009 1:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
"And if the Dems could support the rights of gun owners like they do most other rights it might signal the end of modern Republican Party as we know it..."
Excellent point.
April 6, 2009 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, that's what we thought about the Vietnamese and Iraqis as well. An armed insurgency can bring the most sophisticated military to its knees.
I am more in-line with the blog's reasoning with regards to this issue, but that doesn't make the purists wrong. The Second Amendment was indeed written to keep the government from getting too arrogant and to ensure we could defend ourselves in the absence of a standing army. Though Hamilton made the latter unnecessary, the former never stopped being a reason for the average American to have a weapon if they choose.
I think it has actually stood between us and tyranny even more profound than the local police state most cities have going these days. One more cop in swat gear swaggering around town and I might just think about a gun myself now that the Supreme Court said it was OK for me to own one in DC.
April 6, 2009 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
It worked well for the Confederacy, didn't it?
How did that insurrection in Waco, or up on Ruby Ridge work out? Yeah they showed the government how to resist successfully.
Iraq and Vietnam are not proper comparisons, but while on the topic of Vietnam; how did being well-armed work out for South Vietnam? The reason they are inappropriate analogies, is because your viewpoint is skewed. In both instances you are viewing if from the perspective of a foreign occupying military force.
Armed insurrection against a repressive state power can only succeed through a civil war. If it comes to that here, then America is lost, no matter which side wins. The Constitution would not survive the conflict intact.
Guns don't deep a repressive government at bay; The People Do.
April 6, 2009 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ouch.
April 6, 2009 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The reason your analogies are false is that you only see this through the lens of revisionist history that seems to have missed many key points. North Vietnam won that war after kicking our ass for a decade. South Vietnam was assimilated, not the other way around. Afghanistan proved the same thing to the Soviets. Iraq has proved to be much the same kind of war, even if there is a seeming end in sight.
I am viewing it through the lens of the occupied, not the foreign invaders.
Ruby Ridge and Waco weren't insurgencies, but they are perfect examples of government overreacting to an insignificant "threat" and killing basically innocent people. Under a democratic administration no less, who may not have started it but were more than willing to finish it. If the US government became an occupying power in our country and Waco became the norm with regards to the exercise of the power of the state, we would have another civil war in short order.
It would be vitally important which side won in that case and I would hope most patriots would be insurgents.
Much like the analogy you didn't seem to grasp, a civilian population suffering under illegal rule - in this case, a government that has tossed aside the constitution and clamped down - would fight back with everything at their disposal. Given the number of Vietnam and Iraq vets, most of whom are armed because they don't trust what Uncle Sam can do under the wrong control, the war in this country would be long and bloody. Our last Civil War could have very easily gone a different way. The outcome of that conflict was hardly a foregone conclusion, despite your implication to the contrary.
We don't have enough troops to subdue a country of 22 million. What makes you think the government could subjugate 320 million, even if only a small fraction were armed?
April 7, 2009 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
You post twaddle such as this, alongside accusing me of revision? Amusing. The American military did not get its ass kicked by North Vietnam. Every serious attempt by the North to invade the South during America's military presence in Vietnam was successfully repelled at a much higher casualty count for the North than for American forces. America was in a strategically unwinable situation, because it was a foreign war, and 1) Americans would not accept the casualty levels, especially after the institution of the lottery draft, that greatly equalised the casualties across race/class; 2) Americans would never have accepted the level of enemy casualties necessary for conquering the North, as it would have needed to approach genocidal levels.
If you truly desire to learn why North Vietnam won, I suggest you look to a "A Particularly Loquacious Day" of Henry Kissinger's:
April 7, 2009 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, Henry Kissinger is the authority on Vietnam and why we lost. I suppose you'll be quoting Westmoreland and Johnson next. Your single-source comments are almost funny in the naive assumptions based on little or no evidence, direct or otherwise. They are also odd in that they are coming from a supposedly liberal blogger.
We lost for the same reason the French lost - it is impossible to maintain an occupying force on hostile foreign shores indefinitely. It has been the same story for invading forces, regardless of any short term wins or aspirations of empire, for the entirety of recorded human history.
Eventually, the native population will win out over the invading force. In this analogy, everyday Americans would be defending themselves from a tyrannical government as the occupying force. They would have a lot more to worry about than were to target their awesome weapons capability. It is also hardly a foregone conclusion that everyone in uniform would toe the line.
Your mistaken assumptions are only out-weighed by the sarcastic arrogance of your presentation.
April 7, 2009 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe people should wake up to that! We now have drones. Who needs a soldier or an army when a billion dollars can buy you a swarm of unmanned aircraft to do your bidding?
April 6, 2009 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Be careful what you wish; it may come true.
April 7, 2009 4:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Anyone who believes that the pistol they use as a cod-piece as an ineffective means to disguise their physical deficiency, or even a privately owned modern rifles, are actually capable of violently repelling a tyrannical state, is living in a fantasy world, completely unconnected to the reality."
I know a lot of gun owners. Some of them I have known very well for a long time. Not one of them even remotely resembles your description. None has any physical deficiency, and all are very well grounded in reality. None believes that he or she can singlehandedly repel a tyrannical state. But they all know, like our founding fathers knew, that one way to repel a tyrannical state is for most of the public to have guns and know how to use them.
It is also conceivable that one of these people might someday save my life or yours.
April 6, 2009 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Statistically, they are far more likely to shoot their spouse in an argument, or have a tragedy when a child plays with it. But that's their choice.
The real issue here is regulation: Cars are registered, tagged, regulated. You need driver's education, licensing, testing and insurance to drive. It's very rigorously enforced everywhere, simply because cars are dangerous if mishandled. Why are guns different?
The problem with gun rights groups are their opposition to reasonable restrictions and regulation. They want special treatment. They are the selfish special interest group, par excellence.
April 6, 2009 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does what any particular special interest wants really matter? We have mostly sensible gun regulation in this country and I don't see that going away anytime soon.
April 6, 2009 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or take it in a fit of rage.
April 6, 2009 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Am I correct assuming that you do not know Bob Barr?
The Yosemite Sam School of Firearm Safety never recovered from this...
April 7, 2009 2:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
This sort of counter-argument never ceases to be a source for great personal humour. Nice job, refuting the joke, while not even approaching the underlying assertion it was grounded in.
Let me attempt to present it again. Note that I'm only narrowly addressing claims that private gun ownership is somehow magically vested with a power to repel a modern tyrannical state. This does not reach to what I believe is the best argument for private gun ownership: a natural right to self-defense responding to violent acts in the course of day to day life.
Small arms, especially sidearms, but including all small arms, have been rendered impotent for use keeping a tyrannical government from coming to power in America. Maybe you haven't been paying attention here. America now has a weapon in its stockpile, produced domestically, that contains 50 lbs of high explosive, wrapped in a hardened steel packaging capable of penetrating 3' of reinforced or 6' of unreinforced concrete before detonating. It is delivered from an airborne platform, from over the horizon at up to 60 miles distance. It can be radio controlled, and controlled robotically through pre-programmed computer chip embedded in the weapon. It has a television camera to aid in target acquisition and targeting. It has a deployable after launch glider configuration, which enables its effective target radius from 60 miles out to be 3'; a six foot bullseye that 50 lbs of HE is going to hit from 60 miles out, quietly, except for possibly a few second warning, if you know what the sound means. Tell me Pistol Pete; how are you going to stop it?
This is like Yosemite Sam believing he can stop that Varmit Rabbit Bugs.
April 7, 2009 3:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
How did the Iraqis stop it? Do you know anything about war at all? About the American armed forces and the history of their use over the last fifty years or so? Not to mention that the modern military is all volunteer and would hardly be counted on to roger up and start shooting Americans.
If a totalitarian power (um, George Junior anyone?) got into control and was able to instigate such draconian laws that the people felt the need to rebel, it would be a long-term, insurgency situation. Not the US Air Force bombing the shit out Tulsa. It would also created divisions much like those seen during our last internal wars, the Civil War and Revolutionary war.
Not sure what history books you are reading, but they seem to be missing a couple of chapters.
April 7, 2009 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
ROTFLMAO- a Navy boy, who was neither a SEAL nor a corpsman is lecturing me about the realities of war. Tell me Commodore, did you learn all about war from the scuttlebutt floating around on the poop deck when the Rear Admiral was engaged with the 1st, then 2nd, then 3rd Mates?
April 7, 2009 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
They are called books and films. Perhaps you have heard of them. Based on your comments, it doesn't appear that you have. My account of war is written in the history of our own country, freely available in any city library. None of this rocket science, though it hardly yields to your obvious prejudice.
Your sarcasm is totally out-proportion to the comment I made, which was hardly some startling insight into the nature of war. Do you know people who have served in Afghanistan or Iraq? I am sure they would be much more familiar with my version than yours. Are claiming you have been a SEAL and a Corpsman? That means you've been to SERE School and Field Medical Service School in addition to BUDS?
I've been to both of the former schools and know a lot about the latter through many personal friends who were SEALs or training to make the cut. What I learned, and just about everyone I met in all four branches of the service over my ten years in uniform, is that war is hardly the black and white issue you make it out to be.
April 7, 2009 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS: Based on your comment, you obviously know less about the military than you do about US history.
April 7, 2009 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just gave up on this one. Awhile ago. Americans want guns.
Americans want cars. About the same number die driving their cars as shooting their guns.
Regulations will never go away. New laws will, perhaps, keep better track of the guns like we keep track of cars.
April 6, 2009 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Reasonable restrictions are fine with me dd. We have reasonable restrictions on many of our rights. The 1st amendment does not allow a person to shout 'FIRE!!!' in a crowded theater, for example, so there are limits which can/should be placed on any right. But trying to impose limits which have an overall chilling effect on any right is not the way to go.
Well time to go to work...I'll get caught up on the discussion later tonight.
April 6, 2009 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Libertine, I've never really cared about the gun issue one way or another. I've lived in countries where guns are ubiquitous - Canada and Switzerland - and countries where they are completely absent - UK and Denmark. Gun legislation to me makes little difference.
A little anecdote, though i don't know if it illustrates anything in particular. I had an acquaintance in Switzerland who was in and out of prison for petty crimes, bar brawls and such, and at home he had this unbelievable SIG 550 high-powered automatic rifle leaning up against the wall (obligatory military issue). I don't think it ever crossed his mind to actually use that gun for any of his criminal or violent purposes. It never even occurred to him. it never occurred to me or anyone else that he would. It was just there like his military uniform.
The point is I never sense in these other countries the kind of gun 'love', or gun culture that we have in the States. Why that is, I don't know. There is something in the american psyche that sees a heroic aspect to guns. Very bizarre. And it makes the issue of guns so much deeper and sensitive than merely parsing the constitution or crime statistics.
April 6, 2009 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
But we don't have a continuing tradition of shooting them off at weddings like in Iraq, Yemen or Somalia, and ownership of them probably has less societal status here than in those countries.
We even have stories about white hat sheriffs in the Wild West taking them away when one is in the town.
I don't know the answer to the "why" here, but I am pretty sure that people who simply compare the U.S. with Europe in this regard, as if Europe represents the entire rest of the world, are not going to find the answer. The interesting thing about American gun love is that it seems more related to individualism and autonomy, and less to tribe, and perhaps even is a bit less tied to proving "manhood" than many other places in the world?
April 6, 2009 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
AA, always love your comments, but this one's odd. If we start comparing the US to Somalia or Yemen, I don't think we're going to find much that is useful. What I say goes for other parts of the world that I know - Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, South Korea.
April 6, 2009 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
The point is that if you want to figure out the cultural reasons for something like this, I don't think it gets anyone anywhere to see it as a black/white "America is one way/the rest of the world another" situation. (To be clear: I don't think you are doing that, but I think many people do, and it's simply not accurate.) There are many different societal relationships to guns.
Example: the news feed on guns in Asia at gunpolicy.org.
April 6, 2009 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
thanks for the link! very useful.
April 6, 2009 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder how they celebrated these things before the advent of guns....
April 7, 2009 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's one I found from a quick google, Bedouin/Saharan wedding tradition:
...Men perform 'Al Ardha' (war dance), armed with swords and whips...
http://www.zawaj.com/weddingways/bedouin_color.html
...Men perform Al Ardha, a war dance involving swords and whips...
http://www.xpress4me.com/news/uae/national/20000684.html
April 7, 2009 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. to be fair, here's a more "anthropologically-sensitive" description:
Al-Ardha is a show of the tribal individuality and force. A number of men line up in a semi-circle. A drummer stands in the middle along with a poet, who reads out a poem - loudly. After the poet finishes, the men in the queue repeat many times in unison the last verse of his poem in the same rhyme. Concurrently, the men move agilely brandishing swords and daggers. Al-Ardha is usually held on feast days.
Don't you wonder sometimes why it took someone so long to come up with Freudian theories, inaccurate as they are? :-)
April 7, 2009 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you're ever interested, AA, there's a wonderful account of the whole development of this type of thinking in History of the Unconscious by Ellenberger. If you read that, you see that Freud's "theories" were not really that original. They were in the "air" at the time. Freud was a man determined to become famous. He kicked anyone out of his circle who did not slavishly follow his theories (and some of the earliest versions were "strange" to say the least).
Many things fascinate me. And I read a great deal "about" Freud at one time. Most therapists have passed way beyond where he began. Even psychoanalysis is no longer the rigid theoretical and clinical practice it once was. And good analysts are concerned about the therapeutic relationship and more aware of their own role in the process now. (I am neither an analyst nor a Freudian.)
If you are really interested in the topic, I highly recommend that book. It is long and detailed. And after reading it, you can see that Freud was not all that original for his time. But he promoted himself quite a lot - and acquired disciples, mostly by analyzing them. Which, of course, was a conflict of interest. Oh, well....
Sorry if I got off the track of your comment - and this thread.
April 7, 2009 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which of course suggests a strong tradition of using "weapons" during celebrations. I wonder if the military honors after a marriage - a couple going under "swords" held to form an arch - is a similar tradition here.
Thank you, AA. And of course I should have googled on my own.
April 7, 2009 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about my Right to own bomb-making materials, shoulder-fired rockets, and machine guns???
Sure, it's messy, but I don't think it should be prohibited nor have any registration, background checks or other limitations. I want to be able to buy bomb-materials at the 7/11 and enjoy my "freedom".
A few bombs going off here and there is the price of "freedom".
April 6, 2009 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
So you're arguing ("arguing") that gun rights are a slippery slope?
April 6, 2009 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, not really. I'm making an argument ad absurdum. Gun rights aren't absolute, like any other rights.
And more importantly, we have a duty to solve problems that harm our nation. Throwing up your hands and saying "oh well, nothing can be done" has never brought us progress on any issue.
"Freedom is messy" is a glib response to these weekly massacres. As is often noted, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. We have a responsibility to solve the problems which deprives us of the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I saw this recently at the FDR memorial:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bootbearwdc/87351226/in/set-1533962/
"Freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, freedom from fear."
April 6, 2009 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Observer, I would not be surprised if prescription medication plays a big part in these massacres. Americans these days are drugged to the gills. I have witnessed examples of severe personality disorders and psychosis from medication. It is a fact that withdrawal from many popular antidepressants causes violent and suicidal behavior -- not to mention the many other risky drugs and combinations of drugs.
April 6, 2009 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just another reason why people with psychiatric conditions should be barred from owning weapons.
The VA Tech massacre is one trategy where that measure would have saved lives.
Yet another reasonable restriction the NRA opposes.
April 6, 2009 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Supposing you're correct about what caused these massacres. Think about how much less damage these folks could do if they couldn't get their hands so easily on so many weapons.
April 6, 2009 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oleeb, I agree wholeheartedly. I would like to see exhaustive background checks on all applicants for gun ownership, plus mandatory safety courses.
Quite a few gun rights advocates believe that any citizen who wants a gun has the right to own one without any background check at all. These people believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an absolute right with no restrictions. To me that position makes no sense.
Most gun owners are conscientious. The damage done by careless, mentally ill, or criminal gun owners is far less than the damage done by careless drivers. Better background checks and training could greatly reduce gun injuries and deaths. It's not rocket science, though it is politically difficult.
April 6, 2009 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
now you are talking sense. The problem is the gun lobby hates all the things you just said. They want NO RESTRICTIONS. Thus, our problem.
And where are these sensible reasonable gun owners? They allow the NRA to dominate the discussion and keep quiet. If gun owners for greater regulation could speak up, things might change. If they don't, they deserve to be tarred with the same brush as the gun nuts. You can't have it both ways and 'silently oppose' the radicals.
April 6, 2009 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Don Masters, CEA Agent: Yeah, and it
bothers me sometimes that I don't feel guilty
about it. Don't you think that's psychotic
behavior?
Dr. Sidney Schaefer: No I don't! It
explains your utter lack of hostility. You can
vent your aggressive feelings by actually killing
people! It's a sensational solution to the
hostility problem."
C
April 6, 2009 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
The argument going on in Canada right now:
Furious Canadian Gun Lobby Threatens Tories Over Registry Back Down
Globe & Mail (Toronto)
6 April 2009
Canadian PM Suffers 'Unquenchable Desire to Weaken Our Gun Laws"
Toronto Star (Ontario), Editorial
6 April 2009
April 6, 2009 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I understand the liberal tendency to want to understand and empathize with the "other" side.
Yet never have I read a "conservative defense of gun restrictions".
Why is that? Don't we risk imbalance if 'their' side fights tooth and nail (talk of prying from cold dead hands) and 'our' side wants to sympathize.
When the tables are turned, do they do the same for our issues? Where are the conservatives empathizing with the plight of immigrants, or the wrongfully accused on death row, or even mother nature being ravaged by ruthless industry?
Liberals are too generous to a fault.
April 6, 2009 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's funny. We're too generous and we are the ones with the problem. Curious to some to that conclusion rather then that the Republicans have no appreciation for the fact that a society forms when people agree to behave a certain way and not to behave another way.
April 6, 2009 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not saying we are the ones with the problem. But the rightwing and special interests basically don't know how to behave like civil adults. They view compromise as an opportunity to gain ground for their next attack.
I'm just saying it's remarkable -- astonishing -- that I've NEVER heard a conservative gun rights advocate ponder whetehr liberals might have a point about all these killings. Never.
April 6, 2009 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Far too many people don't know what "gun control" actually means. The NRA, Faux News and other irresponsible public figures gin up anger, rage and fear by lying to the American people about just what it might entail. We see the results all too often, like the three dead policemen in Pittsburg. Fear that Obama would confiscate his weapons was at the top of the list for the killer.
(In the run up to the election, I saw a lot of those lies spread around various towns. People actually believed Obama would take away their weapons)
"Gun control" to me doesn't mean confiscation. It means treating guns like cars. You take a course, you get a license, you purchase your gun. You take follow up courses. I would add that there is no societal interest, whatsoever, in allowing semi-automatic or automatic weapons, so their ban is rational, logical, and improves the health and safety quotient for all Americans.
It's not denying anyone's rights. It's just drawing a logical line in the sand. As in, yeah, you can buy a gun, but you can't buy a machine gun, etc.
Most of the world is appalled at our fixation with guns. They don't get it. And those who study the issue also know that America leads the world in gun related deaths AND incarcerates more people than anywhere else on the planet. Those two facts indicate our current system isn't working. The results are terrible.
Logical, sensible "gun control" is in order and has never been tried on a national scale here. No one can say it won't work, BECAUSE it hasn't ever been tried.
And that's not even dealing with the amendment itself, which actually talks about militias, and was never meant for all citizens. It was written for certain white males of that day, of a certain age, who were IN militias. It was written in a time with a fresh memory of revolution and British soldiers confiscating guns, food and lodging from Americans. If the founders could have foreseen how their poorly written amendment would have been distorted, exploited and abused, they never would have included it. They certainly never meant for it to include everyone, at all times, regardless of the situation.
We DON'T live close on the heels of a revolution. We DON'T live in a nation with fresh memories of an occupying power, stealing food, lodging, guns, etc. We are now almost 220 years after that time. Why some people want to cling to a dangerous anachronism is beyond me. Why some would actually kill to protect that "right" is insane.
April 6, 2009 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Human nature does not change. Our founding fathers knew that our own government could someday become a de facto "occupying power," and quite a few Americans right now believe that is happening. That progression has happened countless times all over the world, when revolutionaries dethroned tyrants and became tyrants themselves. Some tyrants rob the populace with guns, and some rob with laws.
April 6, 2009 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or credit.
April 7, 2009 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or credit.
Best post I've seen all day!
April 7, 2009 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought the same thing about the original comment. America's lack of historical context is pathological.
April 7, 2009 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush legally declared himself dictator, he just didn't implement martial law.
"President Barack Obama invoked "state secrets" to prevent a court from reviewing the legality of the National Security Agency's warantless wiretapping program, moving late Friday to have a lawsuit that challenged the program dismissed."
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Obama_follows_Bush_policy_on_wiretapping_0406.html
Jay Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe are preparing legislation that would give the President the power to control the internet in the event of a "cyber disaster."
Obama's legal counsel is fighting tooth and nail to protect almost every executive power grab enacted by Bush/Cheney.
Cheney said that Obama would like what they did to the office. If Obama isn't planning on declaring himself dictator, he's certainly not very concerned that a future president might.
April 6, 2009 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
observer2 sez:
"Far more likely" than what alternative? What is the source of this statistic?
April 6, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, statistically more likely to use the firearm on themselves and their family than a would be intruder.
Arthur Kellermann: "for every case of self-protection homicide involving a firearm kept in the home, there were 1.3 accidental deaths, 4.6 criminal homicides, and 37 suicides involving firearms."
April 6, 2009 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the statistics do seem to show that while it's true that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people," it is also true that people with guns tend to kill more people (especially their spouses and children) than people without them.
Hard for the NRA to dispute that; which is why they almost always quote anecdotes and not statistics.
April 6, 2009 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
"for every case of self-protection homicide involving a firearm kept in the home, there were 1.3 accidental deaths, 4.6 criminal homicides, and 37 suicides involving firearms."
Those 4.6 criminal homicides were not "in the home," so this statistic is improper. Also, guns do not have a magical ability to inspire suicide; guns just provide one easy means for suicide. Bridges work just as well -- better, in fact, because when you jump off a bridge you can't miss.
April 6, 2009 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's simply not true that someone who wants to commit suicide will find some other way. Suicide success is highly correlated to having something effective handy. (Fact: Women attempt suicide far more than men, like 4 times, but men actually kill themselves more often because they choose more effective means, like guns)
Depressed people don't want to make an effort. A firearm is extremely dangerous for suicidal people. A public bridge is a bit risky, as people might stop you or you might survive the fall but be injured. Ineffective means, like pills, probably prevent a lot of people from suicide so they can get help.
So, no, all methods are not equal, and guns are probably the worst one -- private, effective, little chance of being caught or stopped.
April 6, 2009 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
The statistic I recall was that women are 4 times as likely to attempt suicide, and men are 4 more times to die from suicide, making the ratio of attempts/success 16:1 for men vs. women.
Not that I think this has any bearing on the right to bear arms, however, as I also believe in the right to end one's life—not that concerned loved ones shouldn't try to dissuade those considering such an action.
April 7, 2009 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the stat, which is shocking.
It definitely does have meaning for firearms -- meaning that having an effective means handy to kill onseself makes a huge difference. ie. It's better to keep dangerous weapons from the mentally ill.
People may or may not have the right to end their life, but clearly depressed individuals are not acting out of choice, but of illness. The cognitive distortions of sick people are not the same as, say, a terminally ill patient who with clarity of midn decides to not prolong their own suffering.
April 7, 2009 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Think, also, about some of the OBVIOUS problems with such widespread gun ownership.
Those police officers in Pittsburg were obviously armed. The idea that having guns somehow protects you from other gun-toting nuts is itself crazy.
And the preponderance of gun-ownership is a boon for criminals. They get a huge portion of their weapons from B and E jobs.
Not to mention, put a knife or a bat or something else in that right wing lunatic's hands, and those police officers would still be alive.
I remember righties often saying that the Constitution isn't a suicide pact, at the start of the invasion of Iraq. Perhaps they should think about that when it comes to their irrational resolve to keep America armed and dangerous, without restrictions.
April 6, 2009 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
What if we had laws related to gun safety only? For instance, if your gun is stolen, you go to jail. If you point a gun at someone, ever, you go to jail. If your gun is used in a crime, you go to jail. Anyone who is ever guilty of any one of these gun crimes loses their right to own a gun, period, forever. If ever found in possession of a weapon thereafter, they go to jail.
Dick Cheney shot a man in the face...he should have served jail time. I don't care what the reason for the incident was. As someone carrying a weapon he is completely responsible for any damage that occurs. Let's adopt the motto, Guns don;t kill people, people kill people, and whenever someone misuses a gun there will be jail time regardless of how the incident occurred. We should have very clear, no legal obfuscating laws that hold people who own or use guns seriously accountable. Everyone can have one or a hundred, but then they are always responsible for those guns.
April 6, 2009 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds reasonable to me. One should go to extreme measure to ensure the safety of extremely dangerous items. Not sure about the theft clause, but I am sure there is room for compromise if the end goal is actual accountability to our existing regulations.
April 6, 2009 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gregor, careless drivers injure and kill far more people than guns. Should those careless drivers be forever banned from car ownership and driving privileges?
April 6, 2009 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking as someone who thinks that car ownership is also a "right" (unenumerated, of course) that many people overstate the importance of, I see no problem with such a regulation.
My only complaint (and this applies to guns as well as to cars) is that "zero-tolerance" rules are always stupid. There should be room for reasonable judicial interpretation, which unfortunately will also leave room for judicial abuse, but I believe that is a necessary risk.
April 7, 2009 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please forgive a history grad whose emphasis was Constitutional History and European Law, who minored in English and received an MA in American Lit all those light years ago, for weighing in on this.
The Second Amendment says:
"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."
FindLaw offers some important points:
(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/)
"In spite of... legislative action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of firearms, there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, are an ''individual rights'' thesis whereby individuals are protected in ownership, possession, and transportation, and a ''states' rights'' thesis whereby it is said the purpose of the clause is to protect the States in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units. Whatever the Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action, not extending to state or private restraints. The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force.
"In United States v. Miller, the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that ''... (w)ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.'' The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ''... civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ''comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ''when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.'' Therefore, ''... (i)n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.''"
A militia then, according to United States v. Miller, is not some white supremacist group meeting in some backwoods enclave to protect itself from the US gov't.
A militia, according to United States v. Miller, is a duly deputized group of citizens tasked with defense of the community. That group of citizens is further tasked with supplying themselves with the weaponry in common use at the time. It might be argued that assault rifles with armor-piercing rounds, bazookas and gernade launchers, sidewinder missiles and C-4 are the common weaponry for these times.
It follows then, to determine if the citizenry are duly deputized by default, or is there a process in which training and accreditation are necessary to deputize a citizen.
The next question, which United States v. Miller does not address, absent the militia clause; do private citizens have a right to bear arms for military action with weaponry common for the times?
Can I as a private citizen, not affilliated with any sanctioned, local government-organized militia, own a M-1 tank? Can I have a fertilizer bomb or depleted uranium?
An even more important question then, if the militia clause is acknowledged; are the "soldiers on occasion" expected to supply that weaponry?
Commonsense shows that a central armory for the militia has been the historical norm; the "soldiers on occasion" are not expected to fly their B-1 bombers from home when called for weekend duty.
I could also get into the definition of "people" in the Constitution, and the Second Amendment in particular; suffice it to say, Jefferson stated and the Federalist Papers concurred, that "people" was the state.
An "individual" was part of the "people."
So if I have no santioned participation in a militia, do I as an individual have the right to bear arms for military action? Any arms in common use by the military of the times?
I don't want the Roberts Court answering these questions, because I know it would be a disaster. But a Supreme Court will have to address this issue eventually.
April 6, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bravo.
I tried to post something similar, but I guess three links is verboten.
April 6, 2009 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently 2 is the max now.
April 7, 2009 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Justice, you say:
"Commonsense shows that a central armory for the militia has been the historical norm..."
The Second Amendment says differently:
"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."
Also it is fair to say that the security of a free state might include security from tyrannical government actions.
April 6, 2009 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're missing my point; every locality has a national guard armory; that is where the tanks, missiles and jets are housed. The citizenry doesn't bring their own rocket launchers to their weekend duty; it is supplied by the armory; also, the armory has any number of rifles and guns. The only court case to address the right of the citizenry to bear arms is US v Miller; which affirmed individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force.
Not a white supremacist militia, or the black panthers as a militia, or the JDL, or PETA; but a state militia and public force.
That is the history.
History also shows, that state militias were tasked with a speedy call to arms against a foriegn invasion; not a fight against our own federal government.
The call to arms to fight against our own federal govvernment has been ritually argued from the more extreme right on the political spectrum.
That is the history of the Second Amendment.
If we take the case to the extreme, as I have; what is to prevent me from bearing depleted uranium as my Second Amendment right? It can be argued that depleted uranium is in common use on the battlefield and protected by the Second Amendment.
Just like the cop killer guns that the NRA and some here seem to want as their right.
April 6, 2009 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
And one other thing, the "right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms... " is defined as the State.
Get it?
People = State.
When the individual is addressed in the constitution, the individual is referred to as a "person" or a "citizen."
"Article. IV.
"Section. 2.
"Clause 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
"Clause 2: A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime."
The Second Amendment does not say, "The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms... " or "The right of a person to keep and bear arms... "
It says, "the right of the people... "
Once again, that is the history.
April 6, 2009 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
This seems to imply that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to reserve the right of armament for the State. That doesn't seem at all consistent with the Bill of Rights, which is primarily comprised of enumerated individual rights that the State may not infringe.
The enumerated powers of Congress found in Article 1, Section 8, already provide for militia. Do you mean to suggest that a militia to would not have been allowed to possess armament in absence of the Second Amendment?
April 6, 2009 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
DF, those are excellent points.
April 6, 2009 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Get it?
People = State."
____________________
Justice, I know what people are -- I see lots of them every day. Most of them live in their own homes, and they have hands and feet, and they walk around.
If you can show me a valid copy of the Constitution that defines people in some other way, I'd like to see it. Until then I'll use the English language definition.
Furthermore, please notice this other mention of people:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,..."
Will you claim here also that people = state?
April 6, 2009 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You need to bone up on your Jefferson letters and the Federalist Papers; "The People" is defined as the state, an individual is a "citizen" or "person."
I hate to surprise you with this; but the language is codified. That is why we are supposed to be a nation of laws, not a nation of men. You are defining a word from the baggage you carry; I am definging a word from its use by the writers of the Constitution.
What these strict constructionists, these original intent assholes like Roberts, Scalito, Bork et, al. disregard when firing up their base of Judicial Haters and Enemies of the US Constitution is that there are volumes and volumes of correspondence, debates, essays and reportage about the writing of the constitution, while it was being written.
The Constitution is not a stagnant document like Bork, Roberts and Scalito argue; but a document that is alive and based on precedent itself.
Because, what the Constitution does not address, then decisions revert to English Common Law.
That is the history and the facts.
April 6, 2009 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...the language is codified. That is why we are supposed to be a nation of laws, not a nation of men."
There lies the ultimate slippery slope, which is the way the lawyers like it. When words don't mean what they mean, anything goes. Usually the meter goes. It goes up, at hundreds of dollars an hour.
From another perspective: if it is all so perfectly and clearly defined, why do the "citizens' still have guns after more than two centuries?
April 6, 2009 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Justice, I would like to point out a second time that if "People = State," the Fourth Amendment makes no sense.
April 6, 2009 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "people" was always referred to as a collective by Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, etc; therefore, "... The right of the people to be secure in their PERSONS, houses, papers... "
In any case; it is my Second Amendment right to have a dirty bomb or any arm I can bear.
A Smith and Wesson .44? Definitely a wimp gun.
A real man carries a bazooka!
Hoooooyaaaaa!
April 6, 2009 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Justice, this reminds me of a talk I once had with a Christian who relished preemptive war. I asked him about "Thou Shalt Not Kill," and he told me that actually the real commandment said "Thou Shalt Not Murder," and he said killing and murdering are two entirely different things.
I hope you'll pardon me if I don't buy your argument.
April 6, 2009 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
what is my argument?
April 6, 2009 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Justice, your argument is that People = State in the Constitution/Bill of Rights. I disagree. If the terms were carefully codified, then the usage of 'people' would have been consistent, and the Fourth Amendment would have been worded differently.
April 6, 2009 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, my argument is that reasonable restrictions on arms is prudent and legal.
If I take the pro-gun argument to its disasterous consequences; my right to bear a dirty bomb should not be restricted by registering it and waiting for a three day security check.
It's so... so... un-American!
April 6, 2009 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your version of the "pro-gun" argument is a straw man that isn't being forwarded here. Where is the big public outcry for private ownership of fighter jets and DU rounds?
April 6, 2009 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
The pro gun crowd fought for hand guns and now assault rifles are fought for as well.
Give a rat a cookie, it's gonna want a glass of milk.
April 6, 2009 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
When the straw man wilts, head for the slippery slope.
April 6, 2009 11:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Until it stops against the granite of precedent.
What you call a slippery slope of a straw man argument is actually the process of tort law; one acknowledges the extreme in which a law might affect.
Arms were defined in US v Miller as having something to do with the common weaponry of the militia; an individual's legal possession of a weapon was determined by the "militia" clause. A sawed-off shotgun was deemed as not a worthy weapon of the militia by SCOTUS and a restricition on "arms" was codified.
In DC v Heller, Scalia held that restrictions on possession of assault rifles by the District of Columbia was unconstitutional because it defied the militia clause.
It is not a slippery slope to argue then, why not a dirty bomb, or a sidewinder missile, or a Death Star Death Ray; if those weapons are of the common weaponry? why can't those be covered by the Second Amendment? They are, "arms," after all.
This is actually how tort law works.
The argument here is whether to restrict guns. Some say any restrictions violate the Second Amendment.
Yet no one would argue for the right to a dirty bomb, or a bazooka.
Assault rifles have no place in an urban environment. If you want one, join the National Guard.
April 7, 2009 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
See my response below.
Also, and you can address this below because we're getting so close the margin here, but what's an "assault weapon"?
April 7, 2009 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Justice, you say that:
"The "people" was always referred to as a collective by Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, etc; therefore, "... The right of the people to be secure in their PERSONS, houses, papers... "
and that therefore People = State.
You also say:
"an individual is a 'citizen' or 'person.'
By your logic, the Fourth Amendment should therefore read as follows:
"The right of the CITIZENS to be secure in their persons..."
So how do you explain the fact that it was written as follows:
The right of the PEOPLE to be secure in their persons..."
Maybe they hired a rookie proofreader.
April 6, 2009 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is a historical fact that "We the People," or "The People" was a term for a collective.
I don't want to be caught up in an argument about syntax.
I am perfectly willing to go by the precedent that the People have a right to bear arms.
Strict Constructionists and Original Intent afficiandos maintain that any restriction on the right of the people to bear arms is unconstitutional and an affront to American Principles.
I don't see anything in the Constitution that defines "arms" as being restricted to rifles and handguns.
I want a fucking M-1 Tank! I want a Star Wars laser system! I want a dirty bomb and remote-controlled drone to hitch it to!
It's my right! Gawddammit!
I'm an American and the Second Amendment guarantees my right to Bear Arms!
Any arms!!!
Register my dirty bomb and wait three days for a security check? Fuck that!
How dare Big Brother restrict my rights granted by the founders!
April 6, 2009 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know those arguments. I agree with them. Give every mfer a musket
ha ha ha. "Surface to air missiles. I mean why not a home made nuke
You got it Justice. I do not disagree.
April 6, 2009 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
We should all have a Death Star Death Rays we can set up in our back yard, so if those black helicopters come to take away our freedoms, we can Death Ray them to death.
Wolverines!
April 6, 2009 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Justice, our only disagreement is about the meanings of some of the words of the Bill of Rights. Like you, I believe that arms restrictions are crucial.
I don't think many Americans would protest if their neighbors somehow managed to buy tanks and rocket launchers and the state then confiscated them.
One caveat: the less we trust our government, the harder it will be to restrict arms.
April 6, 2009 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too late.
April 6, 2009 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which goes to my argument about my individual right to bear depleted uranium, F-1 fighter jets, rocket launchers and remote-guided cluster bomb drones as ratified by the Second Amendment.
I might think Scalia would agree from his opinion on DC v Heller, (especially if I showed the proper fealty to the landed gentry class which Scalito/ Roberts are die-hard adherents).
Which shows the lunacy of the Roberts Court and why any Regent University/ Federalist Society alum should be denied membership to the Bar and hold any judicial or governmental administrative post.
April 6, 2009 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Owning a pistol or long gun is a far cry from owning DU rounds or a fighter jet. Advocates of gun ownership are not demanding to own any of those things. Did you see my comment above? How do you square that circle?
A Federalist Society litmus test? Do you actually have philosophical differences with a guy like Scalia or are you trying one up him in a "who's the biggest fascist" contest?
April 6, 2009 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
DF, excellent points.
April 6, 2009 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you ever heard of the term, "precedent"?
The argument has always been about the individual versus the state in regards to arms; does the individual have the right, or does the state have control of arms and the militia?
We have been arguing about what the term "people" means.
It seems it has several meanings.
What is the definition of "arms?"
It could mean a dirty bomb, in my scenario, if that is a weapon in common use by the military. The "precedent" that was set is from that court case I referrenced; US v Miller.
You call my dispute a straw man.
Hell yeah!
If the pro gun crowd is upset about registering guns and rifles; then they better shut up when I put on a fez and carry a concealed dirty bomb.
Register the fucking guns and clamp down on these fucking gun sellers and arms merchants.
Otherwise, I want a dirty bomb, an M-1 Tank and Death Star Death Ray to protect me from the Religious Right who are trying to take away my copy of the Origin of Species and dvd of Barbarella!
April 6, 2009 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you ever heard the term "arrogant"?
Speaking of precedent, I already showed you the precedent. It's called District of Columbia v. Heller. The Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for private use. Case closed.
You've been quite clear on your opinion on the meaning of the word "people" in this context, but you haven't really addressed many of the counter-arguments upthread. What's ridiculous is that while claiming that your interpretation is the "history" and the "fact", you keep bringing up laughable examples like dirty bombs and fighter jets. Who exactly is advocating for this?
And as far as the "people" go, I'll say it again:
The enumerated powers of Congress found in Article 1, Section 8, already provide for militia. Do you mean to suggest that a militia to would not have been allowed to possess armament in absence of the Second Amendment?
While I think there's room for debate about what the Framers may have intended with the Second Amendment, and especially what they might think about it today, I'm pretty fucking sure that it didn't have anything to do with your cockamamie examples. Why? Because there was no such thing as aviation or atomic science in 1787. So, can agree that the Framers didn't intend to protect the right to own things that didn't exist?
Individual gun ownership, and regulations on said ownership, are not unreasonable. Depending on the state in which you reside, guns are already required to be registered. For the most part, I think we have a pretty reasonable standard as far as gun ownership goes. There are things that I would change about it, but I think there's room for valid debate about exactly what regulations we ought to have. I think that's kind of the point of this thread: Liberals go too far in their anti-gun rhetoric. Acknowledgment by the left of the right of people to own firearms would go a long way in fostering a discussion about sensible regulation.
To me, people who would prohibit all private gun ownership sound as crazy as your fallacious arguments. Is anyone really advocating that people be allowed to own heavy munitions, atomic weapons or fighter jets that are worth the GDP of a small island nation? No, they're not. It's disingenuous nonsense. As you rightly point out, the debate is about whether or not there ought to be private ownership. Again, that's established: People have that right in America. That's called "precedent".
On a side note, perhaps we should remember if we're unhappy with District of Columbia v. Heller that Roe v. Wade runs that same path of stare decisis right back to Marbury v. Madison. Especially when you talk about implementing ideological litmus tests for government service, you sound no different to me than the arch-conservatives who gripe about the liberal, "activist" judges.
April 7, 2009 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink