A few weeks back, I had a very long discussion with the folks over at TSM about the Sandy Hook tragedy and what is likely going to be a sea change in the way guns are viewed in this country. Mixed in with the chest thumping, mouth foaming, jingoism and adolescent bullying was this comment.
I think there needs to be a sound philosophical reasoning for establishing a clear, rational category of weapons that are off limits. Maybe it's the wide area destructiveness and indiscriminate standard I mentioned earlier. Or maybe it could something to the effect that if it's something which not even most governments can control, then no individual can own it. Another possibility could be the category of weapons you would not use when fighting a defensive war on your own soil.
I couldn't possibly agree more. Of course, the gun rights folks don't even want to have that discussion as they hit over boil in about a second and begin to descend into paranoid rants about the 2nd amendment. What are they really afraid of?
It's not losing the right to bear arms. People are always going to have that right with a variety of guns and other weapons from which to choose. And it can't be that they think that our government is suddenly going to become fascist and/or communist and they will then need those arms to defend themselves against tyranny....well, maybe that is it a little bit:) Perhaps it's simply that they like their toys and they don't want to give them up.
Honestly, though, I think the real reason why they don't want to have the discussion about what weapons are OK and which ones aren't is that it leads to the necessity of coming up with a solution to gun violence in this country. To begin with, they don't want a solution because the violence enables them to continue to justify themselves and their ideology. This is why you rarely hear them talk about violence going down across the nation. If they ain't a comin', then why do they require so many armaments? (Note: this is similar to why they don't want to talk about good economic news or the realities of climate change...they would no longer be able to justify their imperial edicts and bloviating ideology).
There is a bigger and more obvious reason why they don't want have the solution discussion: they don't have one. That's exactly what was on display when Wayne LaPierre did his broken record of a press conference two weeks ago. For a group that champions high capacity guns, they are decidedly low capacity on real world solutions. It's more guns and fuck you, don't take away my gun. That's it. That's all they have.
The singular most amazing point about this is the colossal level of impotence of which Nikto spoke recently. One would think that with such a tenacity for defense that they could come up with something better than the same ol' same ol' but alas, this is not the case. Press them on the issue and that's when the personal attacks, bullying and Spanish Inquisition begin which all further illustrate their total failure at addressing this problem (this is similar to how they approach other issues as well so it's really no surprise).
The sad news for them is that, after Sandy Hook, we are now going to have this discussion. Even though violence in the country is going down overall, this tragedy has changed the landscape due to the nature of the crime. One simply can't look at numbers and say, "Well, less people died from school shootings so let's not worry about it." The quality of the crime matters and we know in all these cases how it happens.
Guns are only a part of this. After we reason which weapons are off limits and which aren't, then we need to look at the safety issue. The profile for these shooters are essentially the same...young, male, mental and emotional issues, taking medications, lack of parental cohesion...so is there a way to screen for this in future gun purchases? Perhaps not on a government level but, similar to car insurance where there are higher risk groups for accidents, there could be higher risk groups for owning guns. If you are in this group and want to own a gun, requiring a certain type of insurance might be a solution. This is the type of conversation that needs to happen.
Much to the apoplectic chagrin of the gun rights folks, they are going to have to come up with something more than what they have now. Significantly more. Or they will take themselves out of the debate and risk losing more than just their Bushmasters. So, let's start with this quote above. What are the categories? How should they be divided? Why would some people perceive some weapons as defensive and not others?
63 comments:
You were pressed for a recommendation, which eventually (and reluctantly) made - to use Isreali law as a model. When questions - just simple questions - were asked, you abandoned the effort saying they will come up with something.
You call that a discussion?
Only the simple-minded insist we must do something without thinking through if that is better than doing nothing.
Oh, and that whole comment that you are so enamored of does not even begin to address semi-auto rifles or pistols.
The problem is that there's a gap between constantly evolving technology and political thought (and therefore law). Laws are always written for the here and now, with little regard for how things will change in the future.
When programmers write software the goal is to code it in such a way that future developments and requirements will be easy to incorporate into the original program. You avoid things like hard-coded "magic" constants. You avoid assumptions that force a limited size on arrays. Assumptions like these are often the way hackers find their way into computers systems, by exceeding the limits programmers assumed.
Guns are a perfect example of technology evolving faster than law. Single-shot muskets are not all that dangerous because they take a long time to reload. That means an English long bow or a crossbow is more dangerous than a musket under many conditions. That's not the case with a Bushmaster.
We write laws like bad programmers write code. We hard-code magic constants, like tax rates, that need to change with the conditions. When times are good, tax rates should go down. When times are bad, tax rates should go up on the people who are best able to pay them, which may not always be the same people.
The same is true with guns. Weapons technology has evolved, causing the problems we have today. The power of the weapons individuals can possess exceeds society's capacity to protect ourselves from their misuse.
We've made halting progress toward this. We don't allow just anyone to buy rocket launchers, machine guns and tactical nukes. We have always had a sliding scale of accessibility to weapons technology, enforced at first by sheer difficulty and expense of obtaining it (cannons were too expensive or difficult to construct for anyone but governments in 1776).
Over time technology has made more powerful weapons cheaper and easier to obtain. That requires other mechanisms to control access to dangerous weapons, such as licensing and regulation.
The right has talked about emphasizing mental health instead of other types of regulation. The problem is that mental health is not a permanent state. People go through depressed phases in their lives, and then they get better. Just looking at suicide alone, guns are a real problem. Because they're so good at killing, people who use them have a much higher suicide success rate. Other methods, such as slitting your wrists or overdosing with sleeping pills, are not as effective. If depressed people had less access to guns, they would kill themselves less frequently: it's just statistics.
But people aren't always depressed. They lose their jobs, find out their wives are having affairs, get divorced, and so on. Schizophrenia and bipolar disorders often develops over time. For mental health monitoring to be effective, the government would have to be on everyone's case all the time, looking for the slightest aberration. And what happens when they see behavior that's questionable? Haul them into the loony bin? Put them on a list of people who can't buy guns? What if they've already got a gun? Should we take it away?
Monitoring everyone's mental state is just too large a task. The only practical solution is to monitor the mental states of people who have access to guns. That means training, licensing, testing and retesting of people who own guns on a regular basis. It's either that, or an overall ban on the sale of guns.
Juris,
Amen, and amen.
The standard suggested in that comment allows for far more than mere semi-automatic "small arms".
they are going to have to come up with something more than what they have now. Significantly more.
Why? Why aren't well established facts and clear logic enough? Isn't 2.3 being less than 14.3 enough?
Do we need "new" reasons for why things fall to the ground? Would you seriously argue that "gravity" is "no longer enough, you have to come up with something more"?
That's ridiculous! It's also a logical fallacy known as Appeal to Novelty. But hey, I don't really expect that to change your mind. After all, you still don't understand the meaning of "fallacy".
Here's a shocker. Is Russia becoming more free that the U.S.?
Pravda Tells America: Keep Your Guns
“This will probably come as a total shock to most of my Western readers, but at one point, Russia was one of the most heavily armed societies on earth,” wrote columnist Stanislav Mishin in his recent column.
“This was, of course, when we were free under the Tsar. Weapons, from swords and spears to pistols, rifles and shotguns were everywhere, common items. People carried them concealed, they carried them holstered. Fighting knives were a prominent part of many traditional attires and those little tubes criss crossing on the costumes of Cossacks and various Caucasian peoples? Well, those are bullet holders for rifles.”
However, the Communists [Reds] weren’t stupid, he wrote, and when they took power, “One of the first things they did was to disarm the population. From that point, mass repression, mass arrests, mass deportations, mass murder, mass starvation were all a safe game for the powers…”
…
“To this day, with the Soviet Union now dead 21 years, with a whole generation born and raised to adulthood without the SU, we are still denied our basic and traditional rights to self defense. Why? We are told that everyone would just start shooting each other and crime would be everywhere …. but criminals are still armed and still murdering and [too] often, especially in the far regions, those criminals wear the uniforms of the police.”
Even today, the columnist wrote, authorities “do as they please, a tyrannical class who knows they have absolutely nothing to fear from a relatively unarmed population. This, in turn, breeds not respect but absolute contempt and often enough, criminal abuse.”
Mishin said America’s Second Amendment, the right to have and bear arms, “is a rare light in an ever darkening room. Governments will use the excuse of trying to protect the people from maniacs and crime, but … in reality, it is the bureaucrats protecting their power and position.”
“In all cases where guns are banned, gun crime continues and often increases. As for maniacs, be it nuts with cars (NYC, Chapel Hill, N.C.), swords (Japan), knives (China) or home made bombs (everywhere), insane people strike. They throw acid (Pakistan, UK), they throw fire bombs (France), they attack. What is worse, is, that the best way to stop a maniac is not psychology or jail or ‘talking to them,’ it is a bullet in the head, that is why they are a maniac, because they are incapable of living in reality or stopping themselves.”
Decidedly NOT what I expected from Pravda. But fascinating that such an argument comes from someone already living in the kind of situation Marxy wants to create.
Guns are a perfect example of technology evolving faster than law.
Just wow. What amazing gun innovation has there been in, oh, let's say the last 30 years in firearms technology?
Oh, wait. I get it. You mean that it is hard to amend the Constitution in order to obliterate the RKBA. Well, it isn't like you and your fellow idiots haven't tried via subterfuge; maybe you should give it a straight forward honest attempt?
Mark,
+1 to the earlier comments regarding the quote you cite at the beginning. You keep referring to that quote. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Nikto,
Where to begin.
Perhaps by noting that the gun control argument that the Second Amendment protects only muskets and flintlock rifles, if legitimate, would be a better example of the type of the lack of flexibility you are talking about. After all, what militia could be worth a Damn if it had only muskets.
Second, if we have to reinterpret and restrict the 2nd Amendment because guns have become too dangerous, we should do the same to the rest of the Bill of rights. After all, the founders never could have conceived of the internet where your free speech could cause the deaths of hundreds due to a riot in Pakistan.
Third, regarding your statement about ownership of cannons...you're totally wrong. Much artillery was privately owned. Ships granted letters of Marque and Reprisal could be outfitted with lots of cannons owned by the holder or holders of the letters.
I would go on, but I'm tired of this.
you abandoned the effort
Conversations have to be two way, juris. The constant berating and attention on me isn't a discussion.
And Israel was brought up as a model by your crowd, not me. Now that the actual facts have been examined, it doesn't look so good, does it? Funny, because you don't hear the Right talking about Israel being less free than we are...in fact, it's full on support of whatever they want to do as they are the only democracy in the Middle East.
The power of the weapons individuals can possess exceeds society's capacity to protect ourselves from their misuse.
Yep, that's pretty much it. That's why wrapping yourself in the 2nd amendment for these types of weapons is terribly inappropriate. That's why I put this quote up from TSM. We need to have this discussion and have all sides engaged on how best to prevent this from every happening again.
That means training, licensing, testing and retesting of people who own guns on a regular basis. It's either that, or an overall ban on the sale of guns.
Well, we can't do the latter and I wouldn't want that. The former already happens to a certain extent and will likely be expanded after Sandy Hook. But I think you give the profiling angle the short shrift. We know who these guys are, basically, and if we applied some serious thought as to how these events happen (along with technology), we might be able to minimize these horrible events. Also very funny, we don't hear many complaints about profiling Muslims now, do we? But when it's young, white men who own guns then it's THE END OF THE FUCKING WORLD.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
Then what do you think it means?
I would go on, but I'm tired of this.
Well, you're not the only one. I'm tired of being labeled a "gun grabber" simply because I want to talk about the practical use (in terms of defense) for a gun that fires 30 bullets without reloading. I'm tired of an earful of hyper-sensitive teenager operating under a made up threat that all their toys are going to be taken away.
But most of all, I'm tired of the complete impotence of gun rights supporters and their monumental lack of reflection on this issue. Come up with something new and be part of the solution instead of being part of the problem.
be part of the solution instead of being part of the problem.
Explain the process by which YOU identify a problem and find a solution.
And Israel was brought up as a model by your crowd, not me
Way to totally mis-characterize the ACTUAL conversation Mark.
Israel was brought up because they have civilians with guns in schools. YOU brought up what you thought was a good idea to follow Israels gun licensing model.
Now that the actual facts have been examined, it doesn't look so good, does it?
The actual facts that were examined that don't look so good ARE NOT the people in schools part, but rather YOUR idea to follow the licensing model.
Distortion. That's your game.
Conversations have to be two way, juris.
You proposed something, were questioned - politely, and you apparently had no answers or just lost interest. You then proceeded to emote vigorously about how we must do something and they will! If I don't agree I am some kind of monster - and you want to complain about being called for that?
And Israel was brought up as a model by your crowd, not me.
No, you brought it up as a legal template and asked us what we think. I would commend you for at least having that as a proposal, because otherwise you got nothing.
the Right talking about Israel
Are you talking to me, or the voices in your head?
We need to have this discussion
What fucking discussion? Is this just supposed to be an emot-a-thon? Is that what you want? Because you sure don't want to discuss anything concrete like law.
But I think you give the profiling angle the short shrift.
Look up "profiling" and the 14th Amdt. And Nancy Lanza would not have fallen in with this profile anyway - so it wouldn't do much good, would it?
Also very funny, we don't hear many complaints about profiling Muslims now, do we?
Oh wait, you do get it, sort of. I certainly have heard complaints about profiling Muslims. You haven't? Then again, you love Obama's kill 'em with a drone approach.
I want to talk about the practical use
Since you have little knowledge and no experience, what value should be placed on your talk?
I'm tired of an earful of hyper-sensitive teenager
Projecting again M.
"'I do not think it means what you think it means.'
Then what do you think it means?"
As has been stated by the other posters, that statement would easily encompass AR-15's and even M-16's. What the person you quoted was talking about was indiscriminate weapons and ones with a wide area of destruction--e.g. explosives, destructive devices, etc. He then went on to propose that the limit should be even further afield, such as limiting control over the biological, chemical, and nuclear agents that I don't think anyone would want to be readily available.
As for the discussion you ask for, there are two ways to proceed:
1: Adopt a "Living Constitution" frame of reference in which we get to say that we have evolved beyond the amendment and relegate it to the status of a historical anachronism that doesn't restrict our ability to control guns.
The problem with this approach is that the Text of the Constitution loses its meaning and we only have the rights that the Supreme Court determines we have. Remember that the greatest progenitor of this concept, Holmes, issued some damnable decisions when he decided that the Constitution shouldn't protect certain free speech (anti-war protests) and that it should allow for forcible sterilizations for eugenics.
I'm not saying that the Living Constitution leads to Sterilizations, but that if the country descends, en masse, into such depravity or some hysteria, there is no "dead hand of the past" to slow or stop them.
2: We can stick to the text of the Constitution, interpreted for the modern day in a logical manner. E.g. The internet was not around back in the day, but it is a mode of disseminating news, information, written, and spoken opinions, etc. It pretty clearly falls under the 1st Amendment's freedom of speech and of the press.
This would require us to reevaluate our modern system of government and try to return to the Constitutional limits, or to pass amendments to the Constitution to change the delineated structure to one that we think fits better in modern times. (e.g. there's no authorization of Social Security, etc. Either eliminate (by phasing it out rather than screwing those dependent upon it) or pass an amendment that adds the administration of such a program to the list of enumerated powers.)
I'll continue this in a second post so I don't hit a size limit...
What is the PURPOSE of the Second Amendment as stated by the men who put it in the Constitution? (This is an open book question. Feel free to look up the answer.)
Mark: Just what weapons do you think are needed only for a defensive war on your own soil? Guess what? Even the most neutral nations with no intentions of ever fighting outside their own borders have used select-fire battle rifles (i.e., fully automatic rifles with 20-round or larger magazines firing full-power rifle cartridges) or assault rifles (full-auto rifles with 20-round or larger magazines firing intermediate-power cartridges) since the 1950's. Sounds good. I'll take you up on that idea.
Nikto: You're wrong about cannons being effectively limited to governments in 1776. Many were private owned.
Fezzik2525: You're somewhat wrong about cannons in private hands because many merchant ships were armed for defense (depending on what waters they sailed in). Letters of Marque and Reprisal were needed to permit attacks to be legally made on enemy shipping without being branded a pirate (though they weren't necessarily a defense if you were caught by the enemy navy, especially if they considered you a rebel).
were questioned - politely
You really are a god-damned, fucking, clueless idiot!
Weird version of "polite" inside the bubble.
Oh for fuck-sakes, how many posts interceded? Do I get frustrated with your evasions - you're damn right I do. I would expect you to be frustrated with me if I was that evasive. If you are going to be a spewing asshole like N, then don't ask for a discussion - which implies more than just listening to someone rant.
Funny though how an insult gets through to you when questions, facts and reason won't.
Mark,
That was only AFTER you repeatedly responded to (not "answered") the polite questions with hard core, intelligence insulting garbage. In other words, after you had already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have no interest in actual "discussion".
Again,
What is the PURPOSE of the Second Amendment as stated by the men who put it in the Constitution? (This is an open book question. Feel free to look up the answer.)
Just for honesty, here are the consecutive posts...
M:
I think we could use Israel as a blueprint for the changes made here. Here is what they do...
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/israel
Click on Gun regulation and tell me what you guys think.
-----------------------------------
JI:
Are you suggesting that as state or federal law? A state could potentially enact it, but there is no federal authority in the Constitution to do so.
I see the age cut-off as a problem: you are denying a right to a legal adult.
Are you going to tell me you are okay with the carry status (open and concealed)?
-----------------------------------
After which M made no reply. So again I ask - what is the discussion you think we should have? Apparently it is that you stand at your pulpit, preaching and I am expected to shout Amen or Hallelujah in reply?
Pt. 2
There would be too much to discuss in one go about how we would return to a Constitutional structure for our military, militia, and view of arms and arms controls, so I will have to hit a few high points that we could drill down on, as needed, in any further discussion.
The original intent of the founders, as indicated in the Militia clause of the Constitution and in the clauses that deal with forming an army and calling up the militia, was to decentralize the power base, and also the expense, of defending the country.
A modern interpretation of the militia would not look like the national guard which is a hybrid creation in which the members are dual enrolled, both as militia and as federal soldiers. This structure was created because, under the Constitution, the Militia couldn't be called up and forced to fight overseas.
For those of you who do not object to all war, but do object to unjust wars, however you define that, think about that for a minute. Under the original intent, the government could call up the militia to defend us from attack, but it couldn't force them to fight overseas. Since the Militia consists of all men (or of all adults if we want to redefine it that way in the federal statutes), it would be hard to argue that a draft was constitutional since it was a selective calling up of individual militia members and forcing them to fight overseas. This could restrict military adventurism because the hawks would have to recruit volunteers to fight whatever war they wanted.
As for the arms of the militia, I'm guessing that the portion of this that would be of interest in our current context would be: do they get to own assault rifles? Rocket Launchers? Tanks?
Yes, yes, and yes. Before you have a heart attack, lets look at this. If we want the militias of the states to protect us from invasion and we want to save the money we're spending on the bloated Department of Defense, the best way is to decentralize the provision of arms and vehicles as well.
In the founding era, individuals and groups of individuals owned cannons. Rocket launchers and Tanks would be the closest modern equivalent. Why not let a billionaire buy a tank rather than forcing everyone to chip in on it. States could still buy these to meet whatever requirement readiness demanded, but the eccentric billionaires would defray the costs.
Pt. 3 of 3
Yeah, but then you'll have Ted Nugent driving an M1 Abrams down Main Street. No. A rocket launcher and a tank are pretty darn dangerous and not exactly useful for running off a home invader, so you may find Widespread support for having the state regulations of the militia state that certain arms such as these should be stored at a local armory/practice range in most states. Other states like Montana might solve the problem by requiring that they be stored either at one of these places, or in a private, secured location outside city and town limits. Either solution would be accompanied by stringent regulations regarding the time, place, and manner of their utilization due to their extreme danger.
As for the assault rifles and less disfavored weapons, they do have great utility in home defense, unlike grenade launchers, and they are not unreasonably dangerous, so I would argue that they should be allowed to be kept at home, though if you didn't want to keep yours there, you'd be welcome to store it in the local armory.
Finally, I'll note that the phrase "well regulated militia" refers to regulations both setting out what types of arms are acceptable for militia use, and requiring regular training. Here's the opportunity for all of that extra training you say gun owners need. Additionally, the training days/weekends/week of the year would be an event that would pretty quickly expose someone with mental/personality issues such as many of these shooters we have recently seen, and would allow the militia officers to intervene and get the person help. In this way, in addition to returning to a Constitutional structure, we might even see a reduction in these mass shootings as people with issues were discovered and gotten help.
For the uninitiated who have just wandered in, the thread were Mark worked very, very hard to earn every bit of that insult is here.
What the person you quoted was talking about was indiscriminate weapons and ones with a wide area of destruction
But to many people, 20 schoolchildren with as many as 10 bullets in their bodies is a wide area of destruction caused by an indiscriminate weapon. It certainly is to me.
As to your points...
1. We already have adopted a Living Constitution as they did not have these weapons at the time. Subsequent SCOTUS cases have confirmed that some are legal under the 2nd amendment. That seems to be just fine with gun rights folks while other SCOTUS cases (like the recent health care challenge and others they don't like) are not fine and are fallout from "The Living Constitution."
2. As I said in a previous thread, comparing the freedom of speech and the right to bear arms is a false equivalency. The nature of each of these rights is vastly different from one another. As Nikto noted above, "the power of the weapons individuals can possess exceeds society's capacity to protect ourselves from their misuse." This is not the case with the internet. It hasn't aided in the random deaths of innocents on a regular basis.
The problem I have here is with the leap. If some guns are banned, then next it will be free speech or all guns. It's happened before in history and if we're not constantly in a state of paranoia about this, then we must be naive. I completely reject that notion as this country (still the greatest on earth) is not ever going to let that happen. Certainly, in our own history, any time we've gotten close to that (and it's been because of right wing extremism, not left wing), those forces have found themselves on the losing end.
Sounds good. I'll take you up on that idea.
If we start to behave more responsibly as those nations do, then, yes, people can own those weapons. As of now, though, they have shown that they can't behave responsibly.
Larry,
I did remember that merchant ships had cannons for defense, but I oversimplified in my haste. I was thinking along the lines of an overhaul that would change something from a merchant ship to something that was obviously an attack vessel. Still, I should have just stuck with the Merchant Ship example since it proves the point without requiring a letter of marque.
Yeah, but then you'll have Ted Nugent driving an M1 Abrams down Main Street. No
Agreed. But please try to understand that this is how many people view the semi autos used in these attacks. It's domestic terrorism.
so I would argue that they should be allowed to be kept at home, though if you didn't want to keep yours there, you'd be welcome to store it in the local armory.
I'd go along with the local armory. Now, THAT is a new and good idea. But wait, I haven't even gotten to your last paragraph...
Finally, I'll note that the phrase "well regulated militia" refers to regulations both setting out what types of arms are acceptable for militia use, and requiring regular training. Here's the opportunity for all of that extra training you say gun owners need. Additionally, the training days/weekends/week of the year would be an event that would pretty quickly expose someone with mental/personality issues such as many of these shooters we have recently seen, and would allow the militia officers to intervene and get the person help. In this way, in addition to returning to a Constitutional structure, we might even see a reduction in these mass shootings as people with issues were discovered and gotten help.
Now that is how you kindly and sensibly solve a problem. Any sort of extra training and scrutiny would obviously be helpful. Some very good thoughts here, fez...way to think out of the box!
My only concern is the difference in perception between you and I. I just don't see that level of threat that would require this much armament and could see a potential for a lot of misinterpretation.
But to many people, 20 schoolchildren with as many as 10 bullets in their bodies is a wide area of destruction caused by an indiscriminate weapon.
He pointed the gun at each one, and squeezed the trigger multiple times. That is hardly indiscriminate. You of course want to blame anti-depressants even though there is no evidence that he was taking them. And you want to blame a gun -- why exactly?
Now it was indiscriminate in Bath Michigan - but that wasn't guns.
As I said in a previous thread, comparing the freedom of speech and the right to bear arms is a false equivalency
No it isn't no matter how many times you repeat this complaint.
If some guns are banned, then next it will be free speech or all guns.
Granted, you do not advocate for banning all guns, but your blog-mate did as do many others. Those same people claim that banning some is a step on the way to banning them all - even if you don't. Do you notice here that I hear what you argue rather than constructing a voice in my head labeled Markadelphia and arguing with it. The problem with your argument of banning some is two-fold: 1) it has no logical basis or limit, and 2) it encourages those who wish to ban all. If you want to persuade people to only ban some - spend your time arguing with those who want to ban them all about why that is a very bad idea (and unlikely to ever happen, i.e. manage their fantasies).
One more thing to add...this is the first time I've ever heard anyone so perfectly define what "a well regulated militia" means. Thanks for the comment!!
But please try to understand that this is how many people view the semi autos used in these attacks.
Many people used to view blacks as only suitable to slavery. A stupid, ill-informed, emotional view shouldn't be treated as equivalent to a logical, well thought out one.
But to many people, 20 schoolchildren with as many as 10 bullets in their bodies is a wide area of destruction caused by an indiscriminate weapon.
Oh look, it's the Marxaphasia tactic again!
No Mark, you do not get to create your own private word definitions.
indiscriminate
1. not discriminating; lacking in care, judgment, selectivity, etc.
When you fire a gun in one direction, does someone behind you, or to your right, or left, or the next room (outside the bullet's trajectory) or the next block, or everyone within a mile die? No!!! Not even if the gun is a shotgun!
A gun must be AIMED. The weapon itself is VERY discriminating. It ONLY hits what it is aimed at.
Definition time again:
discriminating
1. differentiating; analytical.
2. possessing distinctive features; capable of being differentiated;
What's the differentiation in a gun? What the gun is being aimed at vs. not being aimed at. A gun is the ultimate in discriminating weapons: one bullet going only where it's pointed.
Unlike, say, tear gas, which, if set off in a school, has the distinct possibility of harming every child in the area even if they weren't the target.
You said you wanted the false equivalencies to stop. Here's where YOU can start: Stop equating the indiscriminateness of the SHOOTER with the precision of the WEAPON he used!
Mark,
Regarding your statement about the killing of twenty school children showing that the AR-15 is indiscriminate and cause a wide path of destruction: You know good and well that is a deflection, and a poor one at that. The KILLING was indiscriminate because of the evil intention of the shooter. The Weapon itself fires a single projectile on a well determined flight path--it does not lob a rocket that explodes and damages anything nearby.
Regarding you numbered points:
1. We're using "Living Constitution" to mean different things here. What I was talking about was not allowing the document to adapt to new technology, etc. I addressed that type of adjustment in my second option and the two posts that followed. When I said Living Constitution, I meant Holmes' concept that changing times changed the actual bounds set forth in the document and invalidated certain proscriptions that we no longer needed or wanted, without the need to actually amend the Constitution.
2. I wasn't even comparing the rights in the manner you allege. I was using the internet example as a non-controversial example to try to help you understand the manner of interpretation I was suggesting--one that takes into account the changing technology and incorporates the rights or privileges associated with it under the appropriate category in the framework of the Constitution.
To provide an intermediate example I left out of the other posts to save on length, consider the development of flight. I can imagine an argument whether the Air Force should be governed under the Congress' enumerated power to create an Army, or its power to maintain a Navy, and an argument regarding whether to view warplanes as "ships of war" that states cannot keep during peacetime, or as military equipment that the militia should utilize. If we were serious about following the Constitution, we'd probably fight back and forth over these, and we might be better served by passing an Amendment to settle it.
If your concern about my equating First and Second Amendments had more to do with my first point where I said that a Living Constitution theory didn't protect us from having other rights evolve into historical anachronisms, that isn't something that requires an equivalence of the rights. It just requires that a mode of interpretation and decision making be accepted and then that it be applied elsewhere by an immoral judge.
Finally, with regard to your statement that it's always been right wingers who have restricted rights, I guess it wasn't that progressive messiah FDR who locked up all the Japanese. Let's not play "You have the most blood on your hands." Let's instead learn from the lessons of the past and determine not to repeat them.
Mark,
I'm going to answer two of your points out of order.
First, I'll go to your later comment regarding not seeing the threat that requires such an amount of armament.
Remember, I'm talking about a drastic shrinking of the Department of Defense by cutting the army back, and possibly phasing it out during peacetime, and by then replacing national defense with the militia system. It would restrict military adventurism and the fact of everyone owning 1 long gun that they had trained with (whether they keep it at home, or at the local armory), and of at least the state militias as collective groups owning some armor and heavy weapons would mean that any nation in the world would be insane to attack us.
The other point I wanted to address is your statement about understanding that others view assault weapons as excessive, etc. and your earlier statement that you haven't heard good explanations regarding why we need them.
I understand how people feel. I have had friends who felt that way. Some still do, though after we talked the issue over, they can see where I'm coming from; others have come around to see things my way after we talked.
To list all the reasons we need or want "assault weapons" would take the mother of all UberComments, and I've exhausted your comment software enough, so I'll give you a simple example that intersects with my ubercomment's statement that assault rifles were not unreasonably dangerous and were useful for home defense.
There are lots of home invasions with multiple people involved. In these situations, it is always good to have extra ammo. You may not think we need 30 rounds, but I think you might admit that 10 could be too few shots in some cases when you consider that there could be multiple attackers, that you might miss a few times, and that the attacker could have either body armor or even heavy enough clothing or be a tough enough person that multiple shots are required.
Also, having a 30 round mag means that I can load a number greater than 10, but less than 30, or even just load 10, and not have the magazine at full capacity where the spring wears out or the feed lips deform. This is how I keep my varmint shooting AR ready. The gun and a 30 round magazine with 10 rounds in it stored in a safe. I can just pull them out, stick in the magazine as I go outside, load the chamber, and kill whatever is attacking my chickens.
I know one objection to the home defense argument will be, "Why not use a revolver, a semi-auto pistol, or a shotgun for home defense?"
The simple answer is that each weapon has pros and cons. Handguns are quick, lightweight, and easy to maneuver. They are also the hardest to shoot accurately, and they shoot large bullets that can plow through more walls than an AR with proper ammo.
Shotguns and rifles are longer, and therefore harder to use indoors, but due to their length, it is much easier to hit what you are aiming at.
Also, there is frangible ammunition available for all of these weapons. This ammo is what Air marshals carry. The idea is that it breaks up quickly, going through fewer walls in the case of a miss, and transferring its energy into the bad guy in the case of a hit. With this kind of Ammo, an AR-15's spindly little high velocity bullet can break up faster than a handgun round or a piece of buckshot, and therefore shouldn't go though so many walls if the data I've looked at is correct.
The conclusion that I draw from the facts I've tried to lay out about these defense options is that an individual needs to weigh the costs and benefits of each choice against their needs, the composition of their walls, and their individual skill and aptitude (e.g. I'm naturally best with shotguns--my brother with rifles--my mother with a little snub nose revolver).
BTW Mark, You said you could see a lot of opportunity in the framework I suggested for misinterpretation. I'm curious, what do you mean by that?
Gosh, who would ever need more than 1 bullet to stop just one perp?
Many people used to view blacks as only suitable to slavery. A stupid, ill-informed, emotional view shouldn't be treated as equivalent to a logical, well thought out one.
Well, congratulations, juris. Not only do you get the award for the worst false equivalency I've ever seen but this has to be the most insensitive and downright offensive comment I've ever read on here. Comparing a gun to a human being...wow.
Try to set your emotions aside about guns and see that many people view these sorts of weapons as a means to kill as many people as possible. Calling them stupid and ill informed doesn't help your cause. You'd be better suited to take fez's type of approach.
BTW Mark, You said you could see a lot of opportunity in the framework I suggested for misinterpretation. I'm curious, what do you mean by that?
I'm not sure to which comment of mine you referring...I scanned back and couldn't see one. I actually think your framework for having a local armory and more stringent checks on the people that operate heavier weapons is a great idea. Honestly, this could have weeded out people like Nancy Lanza and prevented her son from access to the weapons while, at the same time, provided for a well regulated local militia.
The conclusion that I draw from the facts I've tried to lay out about these defense options is that an individual needs to weigh the costs and benefits of each choice against their needs, the composition of their walls, and their individual skill and aptitude (e.g. I'm naturally best with shotguns--my brother with rifles--my mother with a little snub nose revolver).
Agreed but how many people actually do this? Imagine there is a number of people that all own guns. What percentage of these people would this statement characterize? Even if it is 80 percent or some other high number, that will still 20 percent that would be irresponsible....which brings me to your last question...
You know good and well that is a deflection, and a poor one at that. The KILLING was indiscriminate because of the evil intention of the shooter. The Weapon itself fires a single projectile on a well determined flight path--it does not lob a rocket that explodes and damages anything nearby.
I disagree. He wanted to be able to kill as many people as possible in as short amount of time. No doubt it was indiscriminate because he was evil but the tool he used enabled him to do that more effectively. The gun rights folks need to see this and come up with a solution (as you have done above and as I discuss more below) that may not ban these guns but keeps them out the hands of people with no training.
Holmes' concept that changing times changed the actual bounds set forth in the document and invalidated certain proscriptions that we no longer needed or wanted
Sure, I understand that but it's been my experience that these bonds are looser or tighter depending upon ideology. For example, Congress has the power to tax and borrow money on the credit of the United States. Yet, the same people who vigorously argue for the 2nd Amendment are also fighting to change that and question it constantly. So, it's a Living Constitution when it suites whatever argument whatever side is making.
I wasn't even comparing the rights in the manner you allege.
My apologies. It came up in a previous thread and I carried it over to this one.
Let's instead learn from the lessons of the past and determine not to repeat them.
Agreed. Yes, FDR was wrong in what he did. My thought in bringing it up, though, was Joe McCarthy. Imagine what would have happened if responsible citizens had armed themselves against the tyranny of government during that time.
and by then replacing national defense with the militia system.
Well, I have a great deal of respect for this position and think we need to hear more of it from the right but I have to disagree. The world is not a nice place and its our armed forces that keep it the way that it is. In short, we are the foundation of the free market in the world and without anyone having our backs (because we have their's), it has to be that way. Now, does it have to be as large as the next 20 countries? No. And with our debt problems, cuts are going half to be made. So, I'd likely meet you some of the way on this idea.
The other problem to consider is what sort of an effect defense cuts will have on the economy. Cut too much too soon and thousands are out of jobs. These are people's lives we are talking about here...families...children...no doubt, the defense industry has abused the government in the past (and vice versa) but it isn't ALWAYS bad.
I've exhausted your comment software enough
Comments like yours are most welcome and highly encouraged. Don't spare anything on my account. Google can handle it.
There are lots of home invasions with multiple people involved. In these situations, it is always good to have extra ammo.
I guess what I'd like to see is an example of the number of thwarted home invasions (and lives saved) compared to the number of accidental deaths resulting from those weapons combined with the times the invaders took the guns themselves. In the case of the Lanzas, they had these weapons for home defense and look what happened.
Further, with violence declining in this country, it makes it harder to make this case. It also makes it harder for the case of gun control as well:)
Comparing a gun to a human being...
Which of course I didn't do. What I did was compare the viewpoints. Seriously, how did you ever get a college degree with such miserable reading comprehension?
Try to set your emotions aside about guns...
Oh M you really are just too funny when you project like that.
...see that many people view these sorts of weapons as a means to kill as many people as possible.
I don't care that idiots have stupid views. Do you fucking hear that? I will not treat with respect stupid, infantile emoting as though it is logical thought. You may choose to do that - mostly because you are only capable of the former and not the latter.
Honestly, this could have weeded out people like Nancy Lanza
OK M simple question: what did Nancy Lanza do that disqualified her from owning any guns? Exactly how would she have been weeded out? Answer this, or I will bury your bullshit in an avalanche of abuse.
No doubt it was indiscriminate because he was evil
You get this much right, then immediately project his indiscriminate evil behavior ONTO THE GUN! Right there is where you fail. Right frikkin' THERE!
You are taking an attribute of one object and applying it to an entirely DIFFERENT object. Specifically, taking an attribute of one PARTICULAR human being—and not even of all human beings, but 1/6,000,000,000th of the human race—and applying it to an inanimate object which has inherently the exact opposite attribute.
Let me put it this way, if someone walks around poking random people with a sharp stick, is the stick "indiscriminate", or is the person holding the stick indiscriminate? The "logic" you have been using in your argument so far requires that you say the "sharp stick" is an indiscriminate weapon, putting it into the exact same category as a nuclear bomb.
And again:
What is the PURPOSE of the Second Amendment as stated by the men who put it in the Constitution? (This is an open book question. Feel free to look up the answer.)
I'm not sure to which comment of mine you referring...I scanned back and couldn't see one.
Why do you have to go back to look for your own comments? Can't you remember what you write?!?
Here is what you said:
My only concern is the difference in perception between you and I. I just don't see that level of threat that would require this much armament and could see a potential for a lot of misinterpretation.
What people like Mark, and most definitely Nikto, don't seem to understand is that a man armed with 18th Century weapons such as a Brown Bess musket with a bayonet, a brace or two of flintlock pistols to fend off adults, and a sword could have killed as many teachers and kids in an elementary school as Adam Lanza did. A lot of it would be more up close and personal, but in a situation like that, there really wouldn't be much to stop him. Trap a bunch of little kids in a room and start butchering the old-fashioned way. It's happened quite a lot in history before. I'm sure Nikto would feel much better about that. And Mark would be bleating about the need to limit access to weapons of indiscriminate slaughter and mass destruction such as sharp pointy things made of metal.
Why do we have mass killings? Here is an answer that is sure to make someone apopletic (despite his own criticism of media sensationalizing).
Because of the inescapable reach of media, mass killings affect virtually everyone. While the victims and the ones who loved them suffer terribly, the rest of us may feel a combination of many emotions: grief (through empathy), fear, disbelief, curiosity, fascination, and even a thrill at seeing the commotion caused by what happened. Each horrific event puts us on a new emotional binge.
But you should really read the whole thing.
Mark,
Regarding the number of people who weigh the choices of caliber and type of gun--you need to browse the gun blogs more. You should SEE the fights we have with each other regarding caliber, which gun is appropriate for what, etc.
You noted that the type of weapon used enabled Lanza to kill more easily. Yes, it did. The same features that make something more useful for defense make it more useful for offense--both righteous and evil.
Even without this AR, he could have managed this same thing with a double barreled shotgun (fire one barrel and reload--the second barrel always has a loaded shell in it to shoot anyone who rushes you while you reload the first chamber). However, this would be dependent on the idea that his actions would be so evil and shocking that he wouldn't be rushed by many people at once (which seems to have been the case).
However, the home owner defending himself may be up against a group of people who have made the decision to take action, so they are less likely to be shocked and rooted to the ground than innocent victims--thus making a larger capacity much more desirable and even needed in that situation.
When you talk about both sides adopting the "Living Constitution" method of interpretation when it suits them, I'll agree. This is done. It should not be done.
Allowing ourselves to bounce back and forth like this is schizophrenic. We need to pick one, and preferably the latter, and follow that path.
The best example of consistency that I can think of is Clarence Thomas whenever a commerce clause case comes up. No clause of the constitution has been stretched further than the Commerce Clause (a process that started because the Post-Civil War court gutted the 14th Amendment, and rather than overturn precedent, later courts used the Commerce Clause as a work-around. After all, the Laws of the Medes and the Persians (and the precedents of the Supreme Court) cannot be changed.
Whenever an expansive commerce clause case comes up, Clarence Thomas writes a short, one page dissent or concurrence that says, in effect, this case doesn't deal with Interstate Commerce, and therefore the law is unconstitutional. He did this on the Lopez case (Gun free school zone that pulled back on the expansive commerce clause). He then did it again, this time in the form of a dissent, on a drug case, the name of which escapes me. The drug case involved a completely intra-state supply chain from field to smoker.
In Lopez, the issue was gun-free school zones (yes, that was considered an interstate commerce issue until the Supreme Court got the case). Predictably, the Conservatives sided against the law (though not with Thomas), and the progressives favored a broad reading of the commerce clause.
In the drug case, the other 4 conservatives from Lopez suddenly thought that it made perfect sense to regulate purely intrastate commerce under the interstate commerce clause, and they won because 1 progressive stuck with the expansive commerce clause. The other three liberals suddenly thought that the clause needed to be restricted more than Lopez had restricted it.
Thomas doesn't stand firm on everything, but on the Commerce clause, he's a rock, regardless of whether the case is guns, drugs, or textiles. I don't think its too much to ask that when we deal with the constitution, we all try to be this strongly principled, and do it on all the issues.
Cont.
Part 2.
(And I don't know why this is now showing an opaque reference instead of fezzik2525)
Regarding FDR and Joe McCarthy, and your question about if people had taken up arms against them: I wish they had, especially in the case of the Japanese internment which didn't allow the legal remedies people could and did seek vs. McCarthy.
I don't mean that I wish we had a bloody civil war. I just wish that a line of men with shotguns or rifles had stood in front of their Japanese neighbors' houses and told the collectors to FOAD. This would have caused a stink, gotten picked up in the media, and ignited a discussion that might have brought us back to our senses.
If you look up the Battle of Athens (Wikipedia has a tolerable summary) you'll see that we had a small revolution in Athens Tennessee right After WW2 that tossed out a corrupt sheriff who was rigging the elections, and whose men had beat up some voters including a black man who they also shot (I think he did survive).
Your next comment was twofold--the idea that the world is a dangerous, unfriendly place, and the idea that we can't put all the soldiers out of work immediately.
Regarding the latter, I didn't make it clear, but if you remember my social security example, I talked about phasing it out in a way that doesn't hurt anyone depending on it. The same would be needed here, and in the case of Any big change back to the Constitution. We've strayed so far in many places that it might take us a generation to get back to it.
A gradual change would allow states and eccentric billionaires to hire tank mechanics from the army. Others might find jobs as the firearms and ammo industries grow, or get jobs on the security details for the armories, etc. The size of the army could be reduced by attrition, and it might only take a couple years or a decade.
As for the world being dangerous and unfriendly--that's why we become the porcupine--friendly and nice, not pushing anyone around, but bristling with quills. With everyone trained, and with a gun available for every adult, whether at home or stored at their local armory, no nation would mess with us. We would have calmer relations with some people who don't like us throwing our military weight around. And we could always deal with true threats that justly deserve it by declaring war and forming a volunteer army.
Still, if you prefer to keep a standing army, while I would recommend against it as being damaging to liberty, you are welcome to propose amendments and legislation to keep one in addition to the Militia.
Finally, regarding your comment about liking to see the defensive uses of "high capacity" firearms vs. their misuse, there aren't any stats that are that detailed, but if we look at defensive gun uses vs. criminal uses, the last numbers I saw showed far more defensive uses than crimes committed (and this was using the Brady Campaign's lower number of defensive gun uses per year, not a pro-gun group's estimate).
You also talked about cases where the guns are taken and used against the owner. This happens infrequently, and it's harder to yank a rifle away from a person with two hands on it than to deflect a handgun being held, primarily, with one hand.
I will not treat with respect stupid, infantile emoting as though it is logical thought.
And that's why you will continue to lose elections, juris.
that a man armed with 18th Century weapons such as a Brown Bess musket with a bayonet, a brace or two of flintlock pistols to fend off adults, and a sword could have killed as many teachers and kids in an elementary school as Adam Lanza did.
No, he wouldn't have because the reload time would have been greater so either someone in the school would have stopped him or the arrival of the police (still in about 10 minutes) would have stopped him. And what about misfires? From someone who supposedly knows about guns, your statement is perplexing.
Fez, I'll write a more detailed comment to you tomorrow when I have some more time...good thoughts!
And that's why you will continue to lose elections, juris.
I'm not running for office. I'd rather be right than popular - and that is all an election is.
Now, how about an answer to how any background check was going to disable Nancy Lanza from purchasing any of the guns she did? You aren't going to answer that, are you? You won't even try, nor will you admit you have no clue. But you will insist it is possible, and therefore I must respect your opinion on the subject.
Fuck you.
No, he wouldn't have because the reload time would have been greater so either someone in the school would have stopped him or the arrival of the police (still in about 10 minutes) would have stopped him.
Three guns and a blade? Defenseless kids?
Your statement is, unfortunately not perplexing.
Oh, and it took 20 minutes for the police to enter the bldg.
For example, Congress has the power to tax and borrow money on the credit of the United States. Yet, the same people who vigorously argue for the 2nd Amendment are also fighting to change that and question it constantly
Bullshit.
What is argued is whether the constant taxing and borrowing is intelligent, conductive to future growth and economic well being or in certain circumstances within those very constitutional bounds.
Find an actual quote where someone HERE has said congress DOES NOT have the authority to tax and borrow.
You can't. That is why your statement is an ACTUAL voice in your head.
I'm tired of being labeled a "gun grabber" simply because I want to talk about the practical use (in terms of defense) for a gun that fires 30 bullets without reloading
But you DON'T want to talk about it. The first time it was even mentioned you ridiculed the person who mentioned it. This despite your lack of knowledge and the posters expert knowledge. Way to 'have a conversation'.
more stringent checks on the people that operate heavier weapons is a great idea. Honestly, this could have weeded out people like Nancy Lanza
Lanza DID NOT have 'heavy weapons'. The idea you are referring to also did not categorize a semi-automatic rifle of small caliber as a 'heavy weapon' either.
Honestly, this could have weeded out people like Nancy Lanza
How? What specifically would have triggered a turn-down on her?
Mark, you fuckwit, a bayonet and sword don't need to be reloaded. And I specifically said, the guns were there to fend off adults. I swear to god you've got the reading comprehension and reasoning ability of a mildly retarded cocker spaniel, but without the house-training.
And I, too, want to know what kind of checks could've weeded out "people like Nancy Lanza". Perhaps you'd care to inform us how your Federal Bureau of Pre-Crime Investigation could've done anything? Or how national gun registration could've prevented this? I don't recall if you've suggested that, but since you're deeply fond of holding your commentariat guilty of the sins of random strangers, I guess you wouldn't mind explaining that one, too?
Especially because Nancy Lanza didn't do anything but get murdered in her sleep.
you need to browse the gun blogs more.
I've spent a fair amount of time on them, fez. To be honest, they make me sad so I gave it up. If they were only more like you and less like the other posters here, I might hang around more often.
the home owner defending himself may be up against a group of people who have made the decision to take action,
But when does this happen with any sort of regularity? This same home defender has more of a chance of having a health condition or getting killed in a car accident than being attacked in their home. As Barry Glassner says in "The Culture of Fear," people are afraid of all the wrong things.
We need to pick one, and preferably the latter, and follow that path.
Why? The founding fathers certainly didn't do that. Washington and Hamilton started a national bank which was most definitely not in the Constitution. The problem I have with literal interpretations of the Constitution is the word "interpretation" is quickly forgotten. Like arguments over the Bible, everyone is subjective and having a uniform approach to all issues ALL the time is very limiting.
and your question about if people had taken up arms against them: I wish they had,
Agreed. In each case, however, there would have been many conservatives rallying against them in the name of national security. I'm sure you have the same complaint about the Right that I do...many are closet fascists. My view has always been that they don't handle power very well and abuse it far more often and more egregiously than the left.
I talked about phasing it out in a way that doesn't hurt anyone depending on it.
I didn't talk about it then because we were getting along so well (although, disagreeing amicably) but this would be a huge mistake. Social Security has reduced poverty in the elderly by at least 40 percent, likely more. It is a valuable social program that has strengthened, not hindered our economy. Our climb as an economic titan during the time Social Security has been around is proof enough of this as well.
The size of the army could be reduced by attrition, and it might only take a couple years or a decade.
There is a lot of possibility in what you say. The peacenik in me loves it and I could honestly see people shifting out of weapons technology and into health tech or some other field. Heck, the Army is a leading researcher in breast cancer! So, you're right, it is very possible.
that's why we become the porcupine--friendly and nice, not pushing anyone around, but bristling with quills.
The issue I have with this is that we have a world market now. After Bretton Woods, we made it a point to set, as a goal, liberal economic theory around the world. If we leave well enough alone in the world, that freedom will be threatened. Now, I will agree that the situations in Vietnam and 2nd Iraq were definitely overreach but the 1st Iraq was not. Neither is going after Al Qaeda which, admittedly, is less of a military issue and more of intelligence challenge.
I guess I'm wondering what you would have done in WWII. The world is even more connected now than it was then so I just don't it's feasible to be a porcupine.
but if we look at defensive gun uses vs. criminal uses, the last numbers I saw showed far more defensive uses than crimes committed
I'd be happy to look at those numbers if you have a link handy. Otherwise, I'll poke around myself and see what I can find. No worries if it's too much of a bother.
As Barry Glassner says in "The Culture of Fear," people are afraid of all the wrong things.
Now that is fucking hysterical coming from someone so afraid of [some] guns and gun owners.
So you intellectually and morally bankrupt bullshit artist - how would a background check have stopped Nancy Lanza from buying her guns?
I'm not afraid of guns nor gun owners. I'm not even afraid of ideological zealots who hate to be proved wrong, act like teenage boys, and have to win every argument.
What concerns me is their willful ignorance and how it affects other people's lives. Their paranoid fantasies are part of the problem, not the solution.
willful ignorance
You are no one to lecture anyone on that.
If you gave that up, you wouldn't have anything.
Well, to be fair, he'd still have his magical thinking. Which is apparently all that he has to support his assertion that background checks could've prevented the Newtown shooting. But hallucinogenic rainbow unicorn farts don't translate into English very well, and even he knows that, so he'll just pretend it never happened.
Ya know, there is one place where background checks aren't required because all weapons are simply prohibited:
Prison
Drugs are also prohibited there. There is total surveillance, limited access, and routine in-depth searches.
So how well does a total ban under "ideal" conditions for enforcing such a ban work out?
“But when does this happen with any sort of regularity?”
It’s not the frequency, it’s the fact that it can happen. I have a fire extinguisher bolted up under a counter between my stove and the laundry room—two most frequent places for a fire. I keep a pistol on my side when out and about (and where legal—where it isn’t I have something heavy or otherwise usable to distract attackers and defend myself—e.g. a Very bright flashlight with sharp edges) and a shotgun by my bed when I’m in for the night.
“The founding fathers certainly didn't do that. Washington and Hamilton started a national bank which was most definitely not in the Constitution.”
And that’s one reason why I’m not a fan of Hamilton. Yes, they did this, but that just shows they were fallible men capable of not following the Constitution. I’d come down anti-central bank on the grounds of prudence, but if you’re pro-bank, I would suggest that the proper mode of action here would have been a Constitutional Amendment (like was done with the income tax which I am not a fan of, but which was properly added to the Contitution).
“The problem I have with literal interpretations of the Constitution is the word "interpretation" is quickly forgotten. Like arguments over the Bible, everyone is subjective and having a uniform approach to all issues ALL the time is very limiting.”
This is why I’m proposing a uniform standard for interpretations. Anything less is by nature subjective. The limiting nature is not a bug, it’s a feature. This way, the limits are certain and known to all. They can be changed by Amendment if we see a need to, but they can’t be changed subjectively based on a lawyer convincing a judge to pass off on a new “interpretation” that he came up with in the shower or on the pot.
“I'm sure you have the same complaint about the Right that I do...many are closet fascists. My view has always been that they don't handle power very well and abuse it far more often and more egregiously than the left.”
I’m a reformed neo-con. It took self reflection, study, and some discussions with lots of people for me to see the authoritarian bents I once had. As for your statement regarding the handling of power, I can’t agree with you there. We all tend to be blind to the authoritarian tendencies of our side. I see as many problems on the right and the left. They’re just centered in different areas. Both are crony capitalists (which is a fascist trait), they just support different cronies in different industries. Both abuse executive power, most clearly seen in power grabs in the “War on Terror.” Also, I despise the less egregious abuses of power more than the big ones because they ratchet up the heat on the frog pot, as it were, by establishing precedent.
“I didn't talk about it then because we were getting along so well.”
I’m fine with not fighting over Social Security right now. I only brought it up as an example I knew you would want to keep to illustrate my position that we should either eliminate it or pass an amendment adding it to the congress’ enumerated powers. The discussion we’re avoiding would be the discussion regarding whether to pass such an amendment.
“We made it a point to set, as a goal, liberal economic theory around the world...
I guess I'm wondering what you would have done in WWII. The world is even more connected now than it was then so I just don't it's feasible to be a porcupine.”
Fostering liberal economic theory could be done by example, by trade, and by diplomacy—the same way you and I are talking over this issue now. If a situation arose where fighting was necessary, have congress actually declare war for the first time since WWII, raise a volunteer army (having a well trained militia would ensure that the volunteers could be properly trained up to the current mission quickly), etc. Or, if the situation isn’t that dire—e.g. pirates like in Somalia, actually exercise the power to grant letters of Marque and Reprisal.
As far as WWII goes, a full discussion would be huge. For one thing, I view WWI as the global equivalent of Airsoft players grabbing up real AR-15’s and thinking they can shoot each other the same way. If you read a good history of the series of world wars in which the American fronts were known as the French and Indian wars, and then read a history of the power struggles leading to WWI, you will see many similarities. The thing that made the difference was that arms technology had improved so much and they hadn’t figured out how to use it.
If you look at WWI rifles like the Enfield, Mauser, and Mosin Nagant, you will see that the sights are graded out to 1000-2000 meters. The idiots thought they’d have 18th and 19th century tactics of marching formations firing barrages at each other, just from much farther apart. They never thought of snipers, close quarters combat, etc.
I think we should have left them to sort their shit out themselves since neither side had a monopoly on being in the right in that war. Still, the absolute worst thing we could have done was what we did do at the end. Wilson’s attempt to end war forever set the perfect stage for Hitler and WWII.
Of course, if you’re at the beginning of WWII in the real world and in real history as it developed, I have no problem with getting involved in helping friends fight off an aggressor. I wouldn’t make a treaty in advance (so as to avoid getting pulled into a clusterf@#k like WWI), but if there’s a legitimate reason to fight (aggression, genocide, etc.), declare war as the constitution says, raise an army, and kick ass.
“I'd be happy to look at those numbers if you have a link handy. Otherwise, I'll poke around myself and see what I can find. No worries if it's too much of a bother.”
I can’t remember exactly where I saw the numbers. It was a fight where a gun guy took the FBI stats and compared them with 2.5 million Defensive Gun Uses. A Brady Campaign person, I think Joan Peterson, challenged the study that came up with that number, so he cited FBI estimates, other studies with lower estimates, and then a Brady Campaign estimate. He didn’t say if it was from their current website or an older publication of theirs. Even their estimate on defensive uses was higher than the gun deaths number. I did note that the Brady person didn’t argue with his citation of their number—just ridiculed him for trying to twist stats in his favor, which leads me to believe that even if he got their estimate wrong, it wasn’t off by much or the Brady person would have bashed him over the head with the proper number.
As a final side note, the usual complaint against the study that estimated 2.5 million is that it accepted anecdotal estimates with little or now backing. This is a valid complaint from a stats fight perspective. However, I will say that while the number may be too high (perhaps by a lot), defenders of the study note that there are a lot of defensive uses that don’t generate police reports—I, myself, know of some such incidents where a gun was brandished, or openly grabbed but not drawn, and since no shots were fired, no police report was made, so those uses won’t appear in any statistics. The problem is that it’s hard to verify how many of these incidents there are.
Post a Comment