"People will die because of this decision" says Washington, DC's Violence Policy Center, but the question is really about how many died because of the blanket ban on hand gun ownership, isn't it? Perhaps since suicide is the leading cause of handgun death, some will choose Beretta over barbiturates or the window or driving the wrong way on the expressway.
"It is a victory only for the gun lobby and America's fading firearms industry. The inevitable tide of frivolous pro-gun litigation destined to follow will force cities, counties, and states to expend scarce resources to defend longstanding, effective public safety laws. The gun lobby and gunmakers are seeking nothing less than the complete dismantling of our nation’s gun laws in a cynical effort to try and stem the long-term drop in gun ownership and save the dwindling gun industry."
I don't know about the authoritarians we keep insisting on calling "liberals," but I'm starting to give off some steam here myself. If there is in fact a long term drop in gun ownership, it's a surprise to me, seeing as there are lines outside of gun shops and sales of guns and ammunition are booming. Prices of ammunition are soaring. If the domestic arms industry is suffering, the lawsuits by cities like Chicago are certainly part of it and the ability of foreign makers to sell more cheaply has hurt every American industry.
If these long standing blanket handgun bans have made the few cities that enacted them safer, it's never shown up in any statistics that I've seen. In fact as gun laws have liberalized nationwide, gun related crimes have decreased.
Yes, I've seen the posters, heard the slogans, listened to the blather: show me the numbers. I suggest that just as there was a lot of sound and fury and learned diatribes about the bloodbath that would follow the demise of the National Speed Limit, the facts contradicted that idiot's tale quickly and continue to do so. Facts however, are the enemy of zealots; whether they're anti scary-thing activists or the profiteers who perpetuate the War on Drugs that never worked and which has been responsible for the majority of violent murders.
Show me the effectiveness of the Chicago or Washington DC handgun bans. Show me that these cities have been any safer than cities without them. Tell me I'm part of a gun lobby, tell me I'm trying to dismantle gun laws -- it may convince the choir you preach to, but you certainly are stretching the truth with the intent to deceive. Nothing less than dismantling all gun laws? Hell no, I don't want minors to own guns. I don't want to remove most of the restrictions on where you can carry them, where you can display them openly how you can transport them and certainly not on where and when you can use them. Call me cynical, but in the years since you told me someone was going to "shoot the Avon Lady " if we allowed someone to shoot an armed home invader, invasions have decreased and the Avon lady is still alive and well. It's all been a pack of lies you told to generate revenue and get votes -- and sorry, if you're attacking my freedom, you're sure as hell not a Liberal and if you disagree, you don't speak English very well either. Call me cynical, but it's you willing to ignore the constitution for your own ends, not me.
" We know the facts prove the opposite and that areas of the country with the highest concentration of gun ownership also have the highest rates of gun death"34,000 gun deaths? What about the fact that 83% of the gun deaths in households containing guns are suicides. Why aren't you mentioning that most of the 'people who will die' if Chicagoans can keep a gun at home are just as likely to have died otherwise. Why is that a danger to me or you? Perhaps the incomplete facts support the argument, but the complete facts suggest that banning rope or prescription pain killers or alcohol or windows that open or razor blades will be as stupid an exercise and of course none of those can protect your life, now can they?
Since the handgun ban never had any effect on the gangsters who use handguns in crimes, except to make burglars a bit bolder, restoration of rights to home defense just isn't going to create that bloodbath, but proof of failure has always been seen as evidence for success and a demand for continuation of policy by authoritarians.
THANK YOU for being a sensible supporter of gun rights! You're absolutely right--the gun control crowd hasn't produced ANY relevant statistics to back up their restrictive laws. Luckily cases like these in Chicago and DC are the ones who give way to SCOTUS hearings and lead to real reform. I simply can't believe how state and local governments/law enforcement have made a mockery of our 2nd and 4th Amendments. It's called the Bill of RIGHTS for a reason!
ReplyDeleteReading the amendment, it's clear the right for an individual to own a gun was to have an armed malitcia.
ReplyDeleteThe government had no army, or money to buy weapons, so individuals bought their own with them.
Extend that to today and those serving in the armed forces have a right to own a gun in order to be armed while serving. Since the services supply weapons, there is no reason to have a right to own a gun.
The Constitution never mentions a right for an individual to own a gun to hunt, or protect one's property.
I don’t believe the issue of gun ownership is worth arguing over – the Second Amendment is clear enough (in spite of its antiquated “militia” language), and what the SCOTUS majority said in their ruling probably accords well with it. So long as cities and states retain sufficient commonsensical control over where firearms may be carried, the fact that people can own guns isn’t something I would care to deny.
ReplyDeleteThat said, does pervasive gun ownership worry me somewhat? Yes. I’ve seen at least one solid study (based on people who survived jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco) suggesting that the means of suicide are quite important – the decision is often an impulsive one among the distraught and even among those who have been seriously depressed for long periods. And often when they survive by chance, they regret the impulsive decision they made and don’t repeat it. So having a gun around is deadly if you’re in either category – people who use guns to attempt suicide are likely to succeed or at least to do serious, permanent damage to themselves.
While I don’t want the government telling me or others that I can’t own a firearm, I also don’t believe many people benefit from owning one. I’ve lived more than four decades without purchasing a weapon, and I can think of only one occasion where the use of a gun might have been fully justified. But even on that occasion the results might have been something other than what I had in mind, so it’s probably best that I didn’t have one. There are a lot of hotheads and fools in our society, and the fact that they have the constitutional right to arm themselves to the teeth doesn’t make them or anyone else the least bit safer. I suspect that it only makes them more likely to lose a curious kid or a neighbor’s kid to unintended consequences, to kill themselves, or to end up being prosecuted for a serious crime when they can’t control their temper or mistakely believe they have the right to shoot someone when they really don’t.
A thought: in a society in which nearly everyone possessed firearms, the most violent and lawless people would still have a distinct edge at the moment when it matters most. Why? Because very few of us nice, peaceful blokes and blokettes would be willing to use a gun expeditiously even when it was justified; the jerk who’s willing to draw a .38 on you over a parking space is still going to get what he wants even if you’re packing heat, same as he would if you were armed with nothing more dangerous than a fountain pen. Nice people hesitate and shrink from extreme violence: that’s why the idea that a gun will protect you if you’re peaceable is little more than wishful thinking. I doubt that many genial, law-abiding Americans would be up to heeding the bandit Tuco’s advice from The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: “When you have to shoot, shoot – don’t talk.”
Sorry if I got off topic.
ReplyDeleteThe old west taught us a lesson we seem to have for gotten. If everyone is packing, that's how we start settling arguments. We need to get past this "power" idea, that if you pack a gun you are safer than not packing a gun.
Yes, statistics show that people hurt themselves, or their family members with guns, not to mention sad accidents of all kinds.
Personally I want a Stinger in my home. We'd all sleep better then.
ReplyDeleteTom makes a good point. Paul Fussell in his essay 'A Well Regulated Militia' makes that point very well. As an English professor Fussell understands (as likely did the 'founding fathers' the use of the dependent clause.
Fussell suggests if you own a gun and you don’t have a job that requires you to own one you now belong to the United States Militia. People who own guns and who do not wish to join the militia may sell their guns to the government for $1000 each. And as the statement “well-regulated” means the militia would train, (he suggested every Saturday) rain, snow, or sunshine for at least 8 hours. Occasionally one would go away for 6 weeks of training in tactics, crowd control and small arms handling. These “vacations” would include such fun “activities” as twenty-five-mile hikes and obstacle courses. I'm thinking the Canadian border in the winter. Mexican in the summer.
Further Fussell suggests that In times of war Militiamen would be trucked to borders where they would remain in field conditions for the duration, with pay of course, to defend them. During emergencies Congress could order the militia to help with disaster clean up or relief, and security. Failure to report for training or duty would mean immediate forfeit of badge, firearm, and pay.
Sounds good to me.
I agree with Tom. What a lot of people forget is that in the old west, handguns WERE banned.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, Chicago and D.C. don't live in a glass jar, and urban areas like this must pay the price for lax firearms laws everywhere else. A handgun ban in a city like Chicago is meaningless when all you have to do is go to a gun show and pick up a gun without so much as a background check at one of those tables in the back of the room.
Or just buy one on from a private citizen, like the girl who killed Tennessee Titan Steve McNair. She bought the gun from a convicted murderer. The sad truth is, our country's gun laws are so lax and so poorly enforced that of course a major urban area like Chicago or D.C. is going to have major gun crime. You don't have to work hard to get a gun in this country, not if you're a criminal and not if you're a law abiding citizen. It makes no difference.
I don't for a moment believe the Founding Fathers intended for every citizen to arm themselves to the teeth just cuz. The Second Amendment says "for the purposes of a militia" (paraphrasing). Now in Tennessee you can be armed and loaded -- guns can be brought into bars, into cars, into just about everyplace except the State Capitol. With as many nutjobs as we have in this state let me say I do NOT feel safer knowing some asshole can whip out a gun just because they don't like the bumper sticker on my car.
This is madness. Is it Constitutional madness? SCOTUS seems to think so. I don't.
When all you have is a hammer, everything is a nail. When all you have is a gun, everything is a target.
I don't think I can be convinced that assault rifles and handguns belong in our homes. I would need quite a while to study the research the Capt. cites, but I do know that it's hard as hell to control enough pertinent variables sufficiently to produce "proof" that hand-gun bans reduce armed crime or that lack of restriction on them reduces it, either. Serious researchers are continually dissatisfied with their own results for that reason, unless they've got a non-scientific agenda to push.
ReplyDeleteAs for suicide, as a clinician, I eventually came to the general conclusion--a rule-of-thumb, if you will--that most suicides are opportunistic and "accidental."
The prevalence of sub-clinical mental illnesses, impulse-control disorders, and personality disorders in our country's population during these unbelievably stressful times makes this a really bad moment to lighten gun control laws. I guess I don't have enough faith in My Fellow Man to believe that the majority would protect the minors, the heavy drinkers, the addicts, the impulsive, the depressed, the terminally ill, or just the "terminally old" in their families from the guns in their homes.
I've never understood the fascination that America has with gun ownership. When I was ten, my father became one of the first four black men to integrate the Wilson police force and he came home with a gun. He kept it in pain sight on top of a bedside nightstand but it was never loaded while it was in our home. To this day, I don't know where he kept the bullets. In spite of its nonloaded status, none of us, not even my mother, were allowed to touch it. I never really had any desire to do so. My dad told me once that you should never point a gun at someone uless you had alread committed to being willing to pull the trigger. I don't think that I could make that committment.
ReplyDeleteI don't hunt so I have no need of a gun. People with guns kill people. Pointing a weapon at another human being and pulling the trigger is not acceptable. I've heard all the arguments about self defense, but it is rare that anyone actually successfully defends self or others with a handgun. If a homeowner practices gun safety, then he or she doesn't keep a loaded weapon in the household. To be truly safe, especially if there are children i the household. the weapon and the bullets need to be kept seaparate and apart. So you're lying in bed and you hear a prowler. You grab your gun, then you have to retrieve the bullets, load the gun, check to make certain that the imagined prowler isn't your spouse or one of your kids getting a midnight snack and then shoot the prowler. Maybe you'll be successful, or maybe the prowler will shoot you or just hit you in the head with a flashlight. Hitrting a target with a bullet isn't as easy as Clint makes it look on the big screen.
Certainly there are other methods for killing other than guns. However, in instances where the person with murderous intent relies on other weapons, I like my odds better.
Our love affair with violence is sad. It really is about violence and the illusion of power. I like my violence in movies; I'm a big fan of westerns; I love the Dirty Harry movies; and I'm in mourning because 24 just had its last season. There's an adrenaline rush when the good guys mow down the bad guys. There is no such rush when a 14 year old standong on the corner gets killed in a drive by shooting just because she was in the wrong place at thewrong time. What it really boils down to is are you willing to take someone's life over property? Most robberies aren't about the culprit wanting to harm the home owner, but about taking the homeowner's stuff. I don't own anything that is more valuable than human life. Nothing.
If I had a gun it would be like my cell phone...
ReplyDeleteI would always be forgetting where I left it and then when i really needed it it wouldn't work...
First, as to Tom's assertion, the intent is in fact not clear, hence the years of deliberation and the militia clause simply does not state that a militia is the one and only reason to have the right to keep and bear arms. By your logic, the government could ban pocket knives, chain saws and most gardening tools. The statement: 'it looks like rain, so take an umbrella' conveys nothing mandating an umbrella ban if it's sunny out. I would remind all that a right, even if not stated, and not specifically forbidden, is thereby granted and in this case "shall not be infringed." That's the strongest support for a right in the constitution.
ReplyDeleteNobody is talking about the reluctance to shoot someone, about having a gun in a bar ( which is still illegal anyway) we're talking about someone telling me I have no right to a weapon at all when a group of angry troublemakers comes onto my property hurling racist epithets at me and my wife, or when I have to go into a dangerous neighborhood at night or when I live in an area famous for home invasions or when after a hurricane and living in an area with no police department and no way to reach the county sheriff, I'm faced with a looter. All of the above has happened to me.
I know people who loathe cars, don't own cars and insist that nobody needs one. Just how does a phobia convey a right of any kind?
Sorry, if I want to blow my brains out ( I don't) it's my brains and nobody's business.
But people seem to be unaware, or unwilling to be aware that virtually all states allow concealed carry permits - some like Vermont don't even require one: that during the years that concealed carry and the "castle doctrine" have become nearly universal, gun crimes have declined and without drug dealers and drug financed gangs, we'd have virtually none.
Yes, I'm prejudiced against groups that use bogus statistics to scare people - sorry.
Finally I'm arguing against a blanket ban on handguns at home. I'm not recommending it for all, I'm not suggesting that everyone be armed or that anyone be forced to be armed so all the fear an loathing some have as concerned weapons is not relevant. I'm also arguing against ignoring the constitution because that much freedom scares people.
To me, the bottom line is that there is no evidence that liberalizing gun laws increases crime and a great deal of evidence to the contrary. Too much of the anti-gun rhetoric is based on ignoring or being ignorant of the law and of the facts. From what I read, about one hundredth of one percent of gun crimes are committed by legal gun owners and no gang member or drug smuggler has ever given up his weapons because it's illegal to own one.
I'm not arguing against placing bars, police stations, hockey games, schools and other places off limits - Florida does and I thing every other state does and I'm fine with it. I'm not arguing for open carry in Times Square, I'm arguing that Chicago and Washington, and cities that still hang on to gun bans have the highest crime rates and those that have dropped them have the lowest. Like the Volstead act and the War on Drugs, it just doesn't work and feeds crime.
Funny, I have always had a handgun in my night stand and still do to this day. I'm glad I've never had to use it but would not hesitate to do so if threatened.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet I am not a violent person, nor do I wave my gun around or make a big deal out of having it. It is simply there, like my weather radio and first aid kit, just in case.
I live in the country where most households have at least one gun. Everyone knows that and so we have virtually no home invasions here although we certainly have a criminal element in our community.
If all honest citizens turned in their guns, we would be like sitting ducks as all criminals have illegal guns and would not be turning theirs in.
Violence in our society has precious little to do with available weapons - it is the product of a society that ignores the hungry child, the neglected child, the gangs. It is the product of a society that says "I've got mine so screw you if you don't have yours."
It is the product of a society that breeds hate and suspicion and irresponsible behavior.
Forget the weapons, they are red herrings glowing in the dark.
This conversation concerning handguns will seem quaint in a few years when freedom loving gun advocates work to end any sort of licensing requirements for puchasers or dealers, prohibition of the ban on automatic weapons and 'cop killer' bullets and any and every 'reasonable regulation' concerning private possession of weapons.
ReplyDeleteOne day my wife and I will enjoy his and hers Stingers strolling through the park or off to the grocery store.
No one can tell us what to do.
I wonder too when I ADT will offer helicopter gunship service for the homeowner who needs an evening off from defending their 'castle'?
If this amendment had to be decided incourt I wonder how many more will in the future.
ReplyDeleteSo much for being protected by the constitution.
Capt. Fogg,
ReplyDeleteAs I indicated in my comment, the Constitution seems clear enough to me: people have the right to own a gun. That the Founders thought enough of the subject even to mention it in a positive way is a good indication of that.
It's simply the case that not all of us find the usual claims as to why owning a gun is a great idea compelling. That isn't the same thing as siding with a ban.
As for your comment about suicide, ultimately, people have the right to self-determination and if someone is set on killing him or herself, it probably cannot be prevented. But to say "it's nobody's business" is another matter -- no one who cares about a depressed relative or friend would say, "Well, Bob keeps saying he's going to kill himself. He owns a firearm and seems entirely serious about turning it on himself soon, but hell, it's none of my business."
With regard to the reluctance to use a gun when it would matter most, I think it's a good way to underscore the limitations of assertions about the benefits of a gun-saturated society. I am not taken with the idea that we would all be safer if we decided to run out and load up on rifles, handguns, or any other kind of weapon. That something can be done isn't an argument that it would be a brilliant idea for everyone to do it. So while my support for the 2nd Amendment is solid, it isn't something that sparks any enthusiasm from this corner of the Jurassic.
And I guess if my neighborhood decided to allow motorcycles, I'll be a Hell's Angel by Thursday.
ReplyDeleteOh boy, that hysterical slippery slope fallacy was supposed to be for Fox News and Republicans wasn't it? It's no more likely to cause a bloodbath in Chicago than it is to cause one in the 99.9% of the rest of American cities that do not ban handguns and allow Concealed carry.
You're subject to arrest and confiscation of your car if you're caught "smuggling" sparklers into hypernanny Chicago. Now if I'm allowed sparklers here, will I be insisting on nuclear weapons next week? Gimme a break.
For what it's worth, "cop killer" ammunition, as it's called in New Jersey is simply hollow point hunting ammunition everywhere else and generally recommended as safer because it doesn't tend to ricochet. Seriously the misinformation is worthy of Fox.
Dino: I'm not trying to convince you you need a gun or slingshot ( illegal in New York) My argument is only that I don't feel like being forced to give up what's considered an Olympic Sport in saner climes or to dispose of my civil war relics because somebody else might hate himself.
If there's a public desire to eliminate guns (impossible though it may be) then we need to amend the constitution, not ignore it or entertain ourselves with paranoid fantasies, flim flam rhetoric and all the other tea party kind of crap.
I would point out that Mexico has vastly more stringent gun laws and heavier punishments than we do and a bloodbath to go with it. I would also point out that although few of us might feel the need, another couple was murdered in their home by someone looking for a quick buck to buy drugs with last night a few miles from here. Happened last autumn to a woman home alone, but she knew whee her husband kept the Glock and shot the guy.
No, actually full auto weapons aren't actually banned - you just need a special license. No that doesn't mean those gun nuts will be holding on to their howitzers or ICBM's with their cold dead fingers. Gimme a break - please!
Capt. Fogg,
ReplyDeleteCriticism isn't a demand for prohibition.
If I said I thought movie x is a bad film and that I wouldn't waste my money on it, do you suppose my next move would be to try to prevent you physically from going to see the film, or to take away your wallet so you have no money to pay to see it? It's entirely possible to criticize something (in this case widespread gun ownership and its supposed benefits, especially in a big-city environment) without also saying it should be illegal. So far as people just say, "the Constitution says I can own a gun," I'm altogether on their side; if they start telling me how efficacious owning one will be, I'm apt to cast some doubt on that assertion because I don't find it convincing. I would not try to tell them they have no right to buy one if they choose.
Actually an attorney for the NRA during an radio interview following yesterday's Supreme Court decision said it was likely we would see challenges nation-wide to laws regarding armor piercing ammunition (i.e. cop killer bullets), fire arm dealer licensing, automatic weapons, etc. etc.
ReplyDeleteYou know. 'Reasonable regulations'.
It's beginning to feel like a righty site in here -- fallacies, fugues, emotional diatribes and extrapolations from them.
ReplyDeleteYes, if we allow gays to marry, we'll have people marrying dogs, right? Just like if we allow someone in Chicago to have a .22 target pistol the way 99% of the rest of the country always has, we'll have everyone, everywhere carrying bazookas and anti-aircraft missiles.
And of course an attorney for the NRA can be trusted to predict the future. Once again, one State's "armour piercing" is another state's full metal jacket to be preferred. Really the scare tactics are no better than the Republicans are slinging around and just like them, we don't seem to care about the facts - if we're even able to process the information amidst the din of hysteria.
Remember the shitstorm over the NRA pushing for "plastic guns?" Turned out it was another hoax and those allegedly "invisible" Glock pistols are visible in holsters of most police departments. Only a part of the frame is plastic and you sure as hell will detect them with an airport scanner. A lie is a lie, whether our side tells it or the other side. It's no different to call me a communist for advocating a graduated income tax than to say I'm inviting a bloodbath by going to a range a few times a year with my friends.
No, the courts are not going to allow grenade launchers or any of that. That's unmitigated bullshit worthy of Fox News.
This subject and all such discussions are full of loaded, deliberately misleading, deceptive and contradictory terms, and it's that way because a rational discussion might weaken the phobic resolve.
So why should I assume that any regulation will be overturned because it's been affirmed that Americans have the right to own and keep firearms?
I shouldn't and neither should you nor should I have to mention the slippery slope fallacy a second time.
Nobody has said anyone else should own a gun or that most people need them or that you can protect your life with one -- what the Court has said is that the right to do so by those who do shall not be infringed and the constitution specifies, and the constitution provides, a method to change that if the country really wants to. I don't think it does want to. It doesn't provide for just ignoring it because you're afraid.
The legal battle over the Constitution (and other laws) is about words to define intent.
ReplyDeleteDisagree with my interpretation of the right to own a gun, but I don't think my interpretation is that far out of line with the words of the gun amendment.
Capt. Fogg,
ReplyDeleteI notice that you keep appending comments without addressing them to anyone in particular.
"It's beginning to feel like a righty site in here -- fallacies, fugues, emotional diatribes and extrapolations from them."
What, precisely, is that a response to or a description of here on this site? I don't quite see that your words suit anyone's comments on this blog. They certainly have no relevance with regard to my own remarks.
I would appreciate it if when we comment, we could make it clear to whom the remarks are addressed, where that is appropriate for clarity's sake.
Captain Fogg:
ReplyDeleteYou raise some interesting points:
"So why should I assume that any regulation will be overturned because it's been affirmed that Americans have the right to own and keep firearms?"
Maybe it's because I live in Alan Gottliebs hometown and am inundated with the man's views almost daily. His unceasing drumbeat for a very selective interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is something I'm far too familiar with.
http://www.saf.org/
And maybe it's because an NRA lawyer the day of the decision speaks with great enthusiasm of the endless challenges to be made to local and state firearms regulations across the nation. Obviously the man can't read the future and has no way of knowing which laws will be challenged and what the subsequent rulings will be but there will be, with renewed enthusiasm challenges to every heretofore 'reasonable regulation' imaginable. The state of Virginia today enlarged the rights of concealed weapons permit holders to carry their weapon into bars. What a triumph for democracy!
And maybe it's because there is an entire universe of gun advocates who want more and more and more in terms of firepower, availability and ease of acquiring weapons and even fewer of the already none too harsh requirements presently in effect in various jurisdictions. One needn't be an 'authoritarian' to be concerned. Ammoland provides an endless stream of useful information for the gun owner.
Here's a great question from one of their forums:
"I walk/jog on a country highway that is a connection between a larger highway and a major interstate. There are several long isolated stretches on my route and I have already had a couple of somewhat unnerving encounters. Could I please get some advice on what type of lightweight handgun to purchase and how best to conceal it underneath my workout clothes? BTW, I have arthritis in both my thumbs and find it almost impossible to rack the slide on even the smallest autos. Thanks, all."
http://www.ammoland.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38
The regular site is a mother lode of information on getting, I dare say, more bang for your buck
http://www.ammoland.com
Another interesting point:
'I shouldn't and neither should you nor should I have to mention the slippery slope fallacy a second time.'
The slippery slope fallacy is that the United States government is somehow going to disarm America. Seriously though I would like to see the 2nd Amendment enforced as written.
Just what is a 'well-regulated militia' anyway?
Look. The war is over. the 2nd Amendment was, is and always will be the law of the land. Guns aren't going away nor are they going to be confiscated by the government. The only questions remaining are which ones we tolerate in society.
The larger, ongoing question of why we continue to cling to the notion we need them certainly won't be answered in my lifetime.
'... but proof of failure has always been seen as evidence for success and a demand for continuation of policy by authoritarians.'
ReplyDeleteYou'll be happy to know that on my list of THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO CHANGE ONCE I RULE THE USA guns aren't even in the top 50.
A few of my current bete noires. All enterprises likely would be closed. Individuals would be sent to re-education camps.
NASCAR
Country music
The singer/songwriter
Starbucks, Walmart, McDonalds
Liz Cheney
Social networking
Rock 'n' Roll Marathon Inc.
Anthony Bourdain
Christopher Hitchins/David Horowitz/Michael Medved
Lady Gaga
Microsoft
And I would immediately order a ten year moratorium on the manufacture, distribution and sale of the electric guitar.
Using a mobile phone while operating an automobile would be a capital offense.
In my view the social/cultural effluent in which we try and make our way is the greatest threat to the developed world.
And when I'm in charge things are going to change.
It goes without saying, your humble cephalopod is always well armed; and if any of you find this laughable, please reconsider: Your arms leave little round holes that spurt red liquid. On the other hand, my arms leave rows and rows of little round hickeys that cause snickers and gossip.
ReplyDeleteOne confession to make: In my formerly human state before assuming the cephalopod lifestyle, I once shot three people, whom I watched gleefully develop from blastocysts to full-grown adults, who also got shot and now have offspring of their own. Lets just say I am certainly a product of my generation: Make love not war.
Freedom to chose, three cheers for the Constitution!
While I keep a handgun at home, out on the road I carry a stun gun which is easier to use in a confined space and can be applied to almost anywhere to thwart an attacker or dog.
ReplyDeleteThe other item which is legal anywhere and which I give to college age girls in my family is a marine grade air horn. It will fit in the drink holder, can be grabbed and discharged and then turned around so that the canister can be brought down on the bridge of the nose or smashed into an eye socket. The noise will hopefully attract some help.
I would think the air horn would be my weapon of choice in a vecro holster while jogging on a lonely stretch of road - although I knew a martial arts sensei that used to teach a self defense course and his first rule was stay out of dark, dangerous places late at night. Making yourself an easy target is a good way to get attacked. Carrying a gun where you might be surprised in a confined space is NEVER a good idea.
Rocky,
ReplyDeleteA stun gun sounds pretty good. Of course, if you want to stun people, you can also just recite the news headlines these days -- it's one shocker right after another.
I myself have a mildly disquieting rumble for my first line of defense, which can be taken up to a midly disquieting roar if circumstances warrant. If that doesn't do the job, I then instantiate a course of predatory sizing-up head shifting (as seen on Jurassic Park). And as a last resort, a display of teeth. Very, very large, jagged teeth. Always works.
Dino,
ReplyDeletePlease accept my apology if my comments seemed to be directed to you or anyone here rather than at the "liberal" community in general. We too easily espouse the kinds of things that play into the hands of those who portray us as authoritarian, nanny state intruders and even fascists -- and this is one of those times.
They make endless capital out of our desire to ban french fries and salty snacks; take milk out of school lunches, expel students for owning an aspirin or nail clipper, charge people with drunk driving when they're not driving. We've made fools of ourselves insisting that things stop happening when you make them illegal, that scary things will go away when we ban them and most of all that people should never, ever be trusted not to be psycho-killers. Republicans don't have to work hard to show us as the people who want to criminalize everything.
Do you know you can't even buy strike-anywhere kitchen matches in Chicago? We've created the cartoon image of Democrats running amok like Will Robinson's pea-brained robot shouting danger, danger! In fact that cartoon has become quite real in the minds of half the country.
All the uproar about bloodbaths, psychopaths carrying RPG's to Church and even nuclear proliferation that will result from affirming the second amendment and Chicago being forced to do what the rest of the country has been doing all along has nearly pushed me over the top, short trip although it may be. I'm sorry I didn't make myself more clear.
I hate to see us acting just like the NRA with its hyperbole and hysteria about gun grabbers and criminals lurking behind every bush.
Few people seem to have much of an idea as to what weapons legislation we have on the books and how much they vary from place to place -- making a pillar of the community into a felon by stepping across a state, county or even city line. The pocket knife I've carried for over 40 years would make me a felon in New York City. Driving from here to Illinois would require me to take any firearm out of the car, lock it in a box, remove the magazine and lock the box in the trunk, yet the difference in crime between Gary Indiana and Chicago doesn't seem to show it's worth the effort.
But I digress again. I know there are gun nuts. I know there are people afraid to get out of bed without sufficient firepower. I know there's an industry pandering to the fearful. I'm not nuts and I'm not part of that culture. They are a small minority of the total and a minority of gun owners.
I'm no different from the guy - and in fact I am the guy - who collects fishing reels and old Leicas and who loves historical objects. Like my Swiss cousins, for whom Feldschiessen is the most popular men's sport, it's just another sport like archery or the Javelin.
The gun owners I know own $4000 shotguns and shoot only pieces of pottery or shoot target pistols for fun, but yes, there are times I've been happy to have one and most of the yacht owners I know have had reason to be glad they carry guns aboard, but basically we're normal people who resent being lumped in with loonies and like normal people we're not going to become hit men, deranged serial killers and bank robbers -- nor are we going to shoot up a McDonalds while the unarmed occupants are defenseless, now that Chicago or DC will allow some guy in a dangerous neighborhood to own a revolver.
There's not only going to be no bloodbath in Chicago, no serious consideration given to legalizing hand grenades and bazookas, but the Democrats in general will benefit if this perpetual hoplophobia is put to bed since Republicans have long won elections solely on their second amendment positions. They've been profiting from calling Obama a "gun grabber" which he isn't, and we've played into their hands.
Thanks, but no apology is needed, Capt.
ReplyDeleteI would agree that Democrats have made themselves an easy mark for the "ban-happy" label for several decades running, even to the point where right-wingers are able to pin it on someone like President Obama, who patently has no interest in taking anyone's firearms away.
I think liberals would do well to avoid trying to say the Constitution doesn't say what it says, and instead just focus on sensible limitations of the sort that attend any right whatsoever.
A little thought experiment suggests why this is the best course. Here are the first two Amendments from the original Bill of Rights:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It may be worth noting that the only one of the original ten Amendments to include a justification along with the right being enumerated is the 2nd. And it's fair to point out that the justification sounds quaint today (as does the mention of a $20 rule for trial by jury in the 7th Amendment) because we don't defend ourselves by means of citizen militias. One could, I suppose, claim that the writers deliberately allowed their support for weaponry to be bound by time and circumstance. Even so, if the authors had included a justification of the 1st Amendment in a foolish preliminary clause such as, "A well-spoken Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, ..." I daresay that liberals like us wouldn't be pleased with right-wingers who insisted that the ridiculous embedded justification nullified the right to free speech or allowed for the establishment of a state church. We hold these rights too dear to accept that kind of nullification, so I think it's fair to suggest that the main thing is the assertion of the right, not the antiquated justification for it.
As readers of the Constitution, I think, the formalist (and “presentist”) in us is at odds with another strong impulse – the one that drives us to consider at least the sensibilities, if not what we suppose to be the precise intentions, of the Constitution’s writers. And here I have no doubt that a diligent reader of the Constitution’s authors would turn up any number of obvious indications (both in and beyond the Constitution itself) that those authors by no means wanted the government to have an absolute monopoly on the potential for violence: they distrusted government too much ever to grant such a monopoly. To suggest otherwise, I think, is to end up on the wrong side of a very basic argument about why we established the Republic in the first place: the aim was to arrive at a prudent, limited form of government that neither permitted anarchy nor encouraged the governors to repress or restrict their fellow citizens needlessly. Banning weapons altogether would surely not have seemed like a good idea to the Constitution’s authors.
Captain,
ReplyDeleteI would like to know how you account for the fact that countries with very strict handgun bans (e.g. England, Japan) have such low homicide rates. Can you write this off totally to their being more homogeneous societies? Somalia is a homogeneous society too, and the gun death rates there are pretty bad.
Incidentally, I believe that anyone who wants to speak about second amendment issues who has not read Federalist Paper no. 29 should google it and read it right away. In it, Alexander Hamilton deals directly with the question of what a "well regulated militia" was meant to be, and with some related issues, such as the common conservative claim that the militia was intended to consist of all adult citizens (it wasn't.) I think you will come away from these few pages feeling that you have learned a lot about the second amendment.
Eagle,
ReplyDeleteWhy not read the Pickwick papers? Seriously -- neither Dickens nor the Federalist papers are US law. The constitution was passed on the approval of more people than Hamilton and more sources than his political position papers. The signatories signed off on it as it was written without reference to some other document to be used in its interpretation. Should we consider Jefferson's "Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks." and if not, why not as long as we're indulging in special pleading and interpretation of prophecy?
Will you really argue that those men valued safety over freedom? Really? because that would make me do my "make my day" sthick and it's not ready for prime time.
That same constitution gives the power to tell us what it means to the Supreme Court, not to anyone else and it has done so. If you want to ban firearms there are ways to amend the constitution if you can find enough like minded people, but I'm satisfied that the majority are quite happy with the second amendment as it stands and I'm confident that it allows us to get on with important things and not waste our time with this one.
But I can't help but see that question begging like a Greek Chorus in the corner of "would we would all be better off if we were defenseless except for those endowed with youth and strength and few scruples?" Could I depend on 911 cornered by some duelin' banjo nutjob 300 miles from anywhere in the Everglades? In my own back yard after a hurricane knocks out all communications?
I'd like to know by what magical fiat you could make a hundred million guns disappear in the first place.
Years ago, my town tried to pass a handgun ban after a schizophrenic woman shot up a school in another town. The most passionate opponent was the police Chief who pointed out a 50 year record of no gun crime and who refused to make half the town into criminals or conduct searches without cause. I agreed.
America is what it is and for many reasons I shouldn't need to explain and we're not going to become Swiss or Singaporean any time soon. Argument by analogy is inherently tendentious anyway.
Do you want me to stand on lone foot while I explain cultural differences? I'm not here to give graduate degrees in cultural anthropology and you know I'm not and you know that you've made up your mind anyway.
There's a name for that gambit I can't remember but shall it suffice to say that The Swiss are on the honor system when it comes to public transit fares and always pay anyway and Mexico has much more strict gun laws than the US and so does Burma and yes, there is indeed a bloodbath going on in such places.
Japan literally worships obedience to government - unto death. It's different in Mississippi. But you know, the Yakuza make do very well anyway. They can get all the guns they need.
Criminals are dealt with very harshly in Japan but countries with no death penalty and only light sentences for murder have fewer murders, so please don't try this tortous argument - it's an endless waste of time and I've said all I'm going to.
____________
Eagle,
ReplyDeleteWhy not read the Pickwick papers? Seriously -- neither Dickens nor the Federalist papers are US law. The constitution was passed on the approval of more people than Hamilton and more sources than his political position papers. The signatories signed off on it as it was written without reference to some other document to be used in its interpretation. Should we consider Jefferson's "Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks." and if not, why not as long as we're indulging in special pleading and interpretation of prophecy?
Will you really argue that those men valued safety over freedom? Really? because that would make me do my "make my day" sthick and it's not ready for prime time.
That same constitution gives the power to tell us what it means to the Supreme Court, not to anyone else and it has done so. If you want to ban firearms there are ways to amend the constitution if you can find enough like minded people, but I'm satisfied that the majority are quite happy with the second amendment as it stands and I'm confident that it allows us to get on with important things and not waste our time with this one.
But I can't help but see that question begging like a Greek Chorus in the corner of "would we would all be better off if we were defenseless except for those endowed with youth and strength and few scruples?" Could I depend on 911 cornered by some duelin' banjo nutjob 300 miles from anywhere in the Everglades? In my own back yard after a hurricane knocks out all communications?
I'd like to know by what magical fiat you could make a hundred million guns disappear in the first place.
Years ago, my town tried to pass a handgun ban after a schizophrenic woman shot up a school in another town. The most passionate opponent was the police Chief who pointed out a 50 year record of no gun crime and who refused to make half the town into criminals or conduct searches without cause. I agreed.
America is what it is and for many reasons I shouldn't need to explain and we're not going to become Swiss or Singaporean any time soon. Argument by analogy is inherently tendentious anyway.
Do you want me to stand on lone foot while I explain cultural differences? I'm not here to give graduate degrees in cultural anthropology and you know I'm not and you know that you've made up your mind anyway.
There's a name for that gambit I can't remember but shall it suffice to say that The Swiss are on the honor system when it comes to public transit fares and always pay anyway and Mexico has much more strict gun laws than the US and so does Burma and yes, there is indeed a bloodbath going on in such places.
Japan literally worships obedience to government - unto death. It's different in Mississippi. But you know, the Yakuza make do very well anyway. They can get all the guns they need.
Criminals are dealt with very harshly in Japan but countries with no death penalty and only light sentences for murder have fewer murders, so please don't try this tortuous argument - it's an endless waste of time and I've said all I'm going to.
____________
Dino,
ReplyDelete"I think it's fair to suggest that the main thing is the assertion of the right, not the antiquated justification for it."
I agree and who is to say the justification told the whole story? As I've said before many of us face situations where there is no law at all but for the power of private citizens and without arms, that law belongs to the biggest and least scrupulous.
"I daresay that liberals like us wouldn't be pleased with right-wingers who insisted that the ridiculous embedded justification nullified the right to free speech or allowed for the establishment of a state church."
And of course they are arguing just that point. Isn't this the same argument claiming that as the founding fathers were Christian, they really meant us to be guided by Christianity and not secular law?
That's why I'm so upset when we Liberals do it and claim it's different. It isn't different and if we think so, we're not liberals.
No, no amount of reason will suffice, there's always a contrived analogy, a flagrant fallacy, a bombastic voice to reckon with and never any discussion of the lack of correlation between banning things and the trouble we have with those things. It's just peremptory proclamations: take away guns, take away death. It's like arguing with fundies and libertarians when I don't toe the party line.
Yes, dammit, freedom has a risk and so do most Utopian plans having to do with safety. I don't want the safety of a police state and I don't want it because I'm a damned Liberal and if one does, one isn't.
A state where the only security comes from the state is in fact a police state and neither free nor secure.
And sorry, but I will always be more likely to suffer too much freedom than suffer from not enough and a government that will not trust the citizens it's composed of will not be ( and is not) trusted.
Through the years of Republican tyranny, we've become accustomed to feeling we liberals the champions of freedom and constitutional law, but maybe we've just become reactionaries too, suckered by promises of safety. It takes guts to be a liberal, more so when we're ahead than when we're behind and now that we're a little bit ahead, we're starting to sound just like them
"Through the years of Republican tyranny, we've become accustomed to feeling we liberals the champions of freedom and constitutional law, but maybe we've just become reactionaries too, suckered by promises of safety"
ReplyDelete"We" haven't become reactionaries.
I haven't read a single post on this thread advocating confiscation of personal firearms.
The question is 'what's reasonable?' Just as free speech isn't absolute neither is ownership and use of weapons.
The Virginia legislature voted to allow folks with concealed weapon permits to take their weapon into bars, nightclubs and restaurants where alcohol is served provided the permit holder doesn't drink.
I'm not sure this is such a good idea.
I don't see a big upside in this. Nor do I see a big upside in large numbers of my often volatile fellow citizens carrying guns all the time. But I'm certainly not suggesting guns disappear.
But you're right that it takes guts to be a liberal.
Liberals I know don't buy into the far too accepted idea the United States is a land of endless danger with the only thing between us and them is our guns.
The federalist papers are of course not law, but they lay out exactly what the writers of the constitution intended when they wrote the law. This particular federalist paper is very illuminating, because it speaks so specifically to what the second amendment was intended to do.
ReplyDeleteArthur,
ReplyDeleteBy "we" I didn't mean the Zoners, but the hide bound, intransigent, dogmatic and unblinking people who call themselves liberals and want to restrict, ban and control all kinds of things; not just guns, but soft drinks. There is a lot of misinformation out there about guns and gun laws and gun statistics and much of it stems from organizations people usually call liberal. I don't mind different opinions, I do mind misrepresentation.
What I'm saying is that one can't, by definition, be a liberal and an authoritarian at the same time. And again, I was addressing the wide universe some people call " the left."
Eagle,
The Federalist Papers are a distraction, in my opinion. The second amendment does not say our rights to weapons are restricted to militia members. It does not say that a possible need for a militia is the only reason to allow what the British were afraid to allow. It says the right is a right and may not be infringed upon. It says what it says, not what Madison said in what was a sales pitch.
Many of the people who signed the constitution believed that not all men are created equal, that some may be only property. I think most did not favor giving women the vote. Jefferson was a slave owner as were others. If your argument were valid, I could argue for slavery and landed,white male suffrage based on original intent, now couldn't I?
Once again, there are prescribed ways to amend the constitution, there are no legal ways to ignore it.
"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."
ReplyDeleteClearly the right to own a gun is given in order to have an armed militia, not for personal protection, hunting, or any other activity.
I am not for gun bans. I own a gun.
All legal (Constitutional) issues are decided on the intent and definition of words. The "militia" explanation for a right of an individual to own a gun, is clear in the amendments first few words.
Let me ask you this: The government has no intention of quartering soldiers in your house at the moment. Should we repeal or simply ignore that increment of freedom because the government now has adequate housing?
ReplyDeleteTom, your argument is fatally flawed and besides, it's a dead horse. The amendment simply does not exclude other reasons for owning a weapon. It absolutely would not have been approved with that intent. It does not specify types of weapons or number of weapons or what the owner may do with them. It does not say the right shall not be infringed 'except for' or 'until times change.'
Neither the law or a judicial ruling is to be interpreted as meaning more than it stipulates because of conjecture about the private feelings of the legislators or judges since we are a nation of laws and not of men -- or at least we're meant to be.
Do we re-institute partial slavery because Lincoln really didn't think African slaves were quite entirely equal? Of course not, but that's your argument.
Once again, it does not say a militia is the only reason not to infringe upon the right and the writers were articulate enough to have said exactly that if they had wanted to and to have said it clearly. We don't need to examine entrails or get out the Ouija board.
In 1789, firearms were necessary for life in much of the United States and were widely and proudly owned, whether to provide food or to keep foxes out of the henhouse or for protection against hostile wildlife - four and two footed.
The idea that only a tyranny will disarm its citizens is not a 21st century invention and the tyranny of the British Crown had just ended because Americans were armed and ready and competent with arms. You can't tell me they didn't associate arms with liberty and a bulwark against tyranny.
Yes, it says that we should not limit ownership so that we might if needed form a militia.Indeed it does and indeed we might yet need to do so, but no matter how one wishes that it says the right will go away if we don't need that militia because the government has enough guns now, it does not say nor imply it. The word 'only' does not appear. Let me repeat the word only does not appear
Jefferson was proud of his marksmanship and enjoyed shooting - as I do - and he certainly wasn't shooting himself in the foot by backing an amendment that would take away his rifle, his constant companion -- literally or figuratively. It's ludicrous to think a necessary right would be so restricted.
The courts have decided, the majority of Americans have decided and it's time for Liberals, progressives and democrats to stop shooting ourselves in our many feet and drop this issue. It's one of the things that has kept Republicans in office and if this issue had been decided before 2004, there would have been a Democrat in the White house instead of a demented cowboy.
I'm not saying we cannot have a right to own a gun for reasons other than what the amendment says. I'm merely saying that we have to read outside the words of the amendment, to come to that conclusion.
ReplyDeleteThe right to privacy (which we base things like a right to an abortion on) is not in the Constitution, except for an interpretation by a panel of Justices. It's not stated in words.
As far as gun ownership-it's only stated in words-in order to form a milita.
God help us if we start reading outside the words. It's the same argument they're using to portray the Constitution as being a restatement of the Bible. As humans we will select the outside words to suit our prejudices and that's a dangerous practice.
ReplyDeleteOnce again, the Federalist papers were written to sell something. The author was not the author of the constitution nor the bill of rights and the bigger voices were not opposed to the private ownership of arms. In fact, and as we know, they were virtually all gun owners. Hamilton found this out to his chagrin.
No, we don't have a specific right to privacy in all matters, but we do have protection from unreasonable searches and seizures as concerns our homes and papers and persons which means the law has no right to inquire into a pregnancy if no crime is involved in producing it and we do have a court that is not authorized to write laws. We didn't have protection from slavery or indentured servitude either, but we did have the equal protection clause. We also do have a court that has decided the matter.
Look at it this way: if I were to write a building code that states "since there is a danger of fire, all houses will have a back door."
Can I get around that by insisting that I have a sprinkler system?
The second amendment says the right shall not be infringed - that means it shall not be infringed upon whether or not we need a militia now or in the future and you can't say we won't.
It's simple, clear, unambiguous English and plain to read, and besides, the horse is so dead it's beginning to stink.