Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Pro-Gun Mythology: a Culture of Guns, Death and Violence

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

The NRA works assiduously to create a culture of guns, lies and violence in the United States. Tragically, their efforts have borne fruit. Almost anyone can get a gun; lies about the Second Amendment are unquestioned by intimidated politicians who should know better; and fatal shooting rampages will eventually (if not already) cease to shock an inured public.

The BBC was on the right track but, themselves, went wrong. Consider the following from their recent broadcast in the wake of the latest campus shooting:
The United States has the largest number of guns in private hands of any country in the world with 60 million people owning a combined arsenal of over 200 million firearms.

The US constitution, which was written in 1787, enshrines the people's right to keep and bear arms in its Second Amendment.

BBC World Service
The BBC is most probably correct about the number of firearms inside the US. That the United States has nurtured and thus become a culture of both guns and violence is true on its face. The BBC is correct as far it goes. Indeed, fatal shootings in recent years, many involving teenagers, are troubling.

But is it accurate to say that those shootings, as horrible as they are, have made the issue of gun control a key debate in US politics? No. There is no real debate about that in America. The NRA has been extraordinarily successful in perpetrating a gestalt of myths about the Second Amendment and, in doing so, it has re-framed the issue. It is no longer a debate about needless death, carnage and violence but about mythical rights under the Constitution, rights never intended by the framers, rights never intended by James Madison, the man who wrote the Second Amendment. The NRA has hoodwinked a gullible nation.

Sadly, the NRA has no opposition. The Democrats are split right down the middle on the gun violence issue. The GOP sold out long ago.

It is on the second point that the BBC has gone wrong. Though the NRA would have you believe that the "right" to keep and bear arms is both unconditional and made law by the US Constitution itself, that is just not the case. I would have expected the venerable BBC to have looked beyond NRA propaganda with regard to the meaning and significance of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. It reads:
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.

Second Amendment, US Constitution
The NRA, in fact and practice, ignores fully two thirds of the language of the Second Amendment. If you tried to get away with that in Freshman English, you would have flunked. Clearly and contrary to NRA propaganda, there is no unconditional right to own, keep, bear, or use firearms of any kind in the United States.

Moreover, events time and time again have proven with blood and carnage the absolute folly of NRA lies, propaganda, and unprecedented tactics denounced even by George Bush Sr.

The NRA position is premised upon a pernicious lie found repeated in NRA literature, position papers, and works by paid "scholars". In the world according to the NRA, only the final clause -...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed ... has the force of law. Modifying phrases, the NRA would have you believe, may be ignored. That position is simply absurd on its face. But, in the American sub-culture of guns, death and violence, logic takes a long holiday.

As a Findlaw summary concludes:
Since this decision, Congress has placed greater limitations on the receipt, possession, and transportation of firearms,8 and proposals for national registration or prohibition of firearms altogether have been made.9 At what point regulation or prohibition of what classes of firearms would conflict with the Amendment, if at all, the Miller case does little more than cast a faint degree of illumination toward an answer.

Findlaw, U.S. Constitution: Second Amendment
The NRA is wrong, knows that it is wrong and lies about it. There is no unconditional, individual right to keep and bear arms. Let's consider, in turn, some of the myths, lies, and articles of misplaced faith that are peddled by the NRA.

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people"

In fact, people with guns kill people. Guns are the weapons of choice. Knives, rocks, clubs, and paper cutters hardly pull up the rear. In most cases, it is the very access to a firearms that triggers murder. It is easier to pull a trigger and kill from afar than it is to plunge a bloody dagger into someone's heart up close and bloody! What would have been the death toll at Virginia Tech if 23 year old Cho Seung Hui, had not been able to get a gun easily. How many could he have taken out with a knife or even a sword before being subdued?

I must give credit to the BBC for spotting ludicrous American absurdities and here is one:
I have heard a representative from the Gun Owners of America claiming that if children grow up with guns in the house they get used to them and know how to handle them.

He said that in the old days children used to carry guns to school on the New York subway to take part in shooting competitions.

Such is the power of the gun lobby, and most notably the National Rifle Association, that even the mildest gun legislation, a requirement that all new guns should be fitted with gun locks, got bogged down in Congress.


BBC, Ludicrous Claims (NRA) (emphasis mine, LH)
Some dubious "scholars" suggest that because the "militia" phrase lacks both a subject and a predicate, it may be ignored, a suggestion that is simply absurd on its face. Phrases, by definition, lack both a subject and a predicate and, rather, modify an independent clause. The Second Amendment is a single sentence. By law and by grammar that single sentence must be considered wholly; it is not a Chinese menu from which you can pick one from column A and one from column B.

Furthermore, the NRA conveniently ignores and denigrates a landmark decision by the US Supreme Court that literally decrees how the Second Amendment is to be interpreted. And when it isn't ignored, it is "spun". That decision is U.S. v Miller:
The Court can not take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia; and therefore can not say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline."

U.S. v Miller
There is no way to spin that first sentence quoted above. The high court established a principle that guns may be regulated, even prohibited if they have no "...reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".

Miller goes further, clearly establishing the context, the only context (a well-regulated militia) in which an individual in the United States may excercise a right to own a firearm of any sort.
With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

U.S. v Miller
The NRA, when it is not denying the significance of some two thirds of a single sentence, would have you believe that you have a right to own and use a gun because being born American, you are automatically a "militia" member. But that's not what Miller says. It is not what Miller does. Miller, rather, states flatly that certain weapons may be prohibited and places the right of individuals to own firearms within the context of well-regulated militias themselves. There is no reference to an individual's right to own firearms outside that context.

We are often told by NRA proponents that "the militia" referred to in the Second Amendment, consists of all able free men between the ages of 17 and 45. That is taken to mean that all people meeting that description are, therefore, militia members.

That is nothing less than universal conscription; universal conscription is unconstitutional involuntary servitude. Li'l ol' ladies, the infirm, babies, the mentally retarded and/or disturbed, the terminally ill --all would be members of a militia if NRA arguments were taken to their absurd conclusions. It was, indeed, George Mason's argument but he lost that debate back in 1789 and it was James Madison who, at last, wrote the Second Amendment.

Not all citizens are, in fact and in practice, members of a militia by any definition of that term. One is not "enrolled" automatically by virtue of being born. One must "volunteer" in order to "join" the National Guard or - to use the terminology of US v Miller - one must be "enrolled" to become a member of a militia. When one "enrolls" he/she makes a choice to do so. The alternative is conscription. But militias are, by definition and Miller, voluntary. How would a "conscripted" army differ from a standing army?

In any case, it is clear that citizens are not members by birth. Perhaps in an authoritarian, fascist, latter-day Sparta - but not in a Democratic Republic! Contrary to pro-gun propaganda, the founders never debated "conscription" and many denounced the performance of militias during the war of independence.

Then what can be said of the oft-stated position that guns are necessary to defend against a tyrannical government? Universal conscription is the first means by which a tyrannical government may raise its army; it is premised upon the Hegelian notion that the State is superior to the individual. The draft has never been popular in America. During the civil war, draft riots in New York almost undermined Northern unity.

It would appear, we have unmasked the ideological underpinnings of the NRA and it has turned out to be ideological totalitarianism in which the individual is subordinated to the leviathan of state power. This is what the NRA has in mind. Moreover, conscription has never been given serious consideration as a means by which a "militia" - as opposed to a standing army - may be raised:
Conscription, however, is a device that is meaningful only in the absence of a militia. ...but any citizen also, with a minimum of commitment and training, can formally join an organized militia at the County level. That should also make them reserve sheriff's deputies, as an official part of the posse comitatus, the only armed police force that should be allowed, and reserve members of the National Guard, which of course is organized at the State level. Such a system keeps in place a small but professional, volunteer regular army (and professional sheriff's deputies) but has behind it a very broad citizen's army, trained to varying degrees in case of national need.

Ross, Kelley L., Ph.D. Machiavelli and the Moral Dilemma of Statecraft, Copyright (c) 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002
A "drafted" military is not a militia in any case.
Although Machiavelli was quite right about mercenaries, militias have often not worked out well, since they tend to be insufficiently disciplined or hardened as fighting forces. That was the case when the citizens of Renaissance Italian cities attempted to resist foreign armies (French and Spanish), and it was the case in American history, mainly in the War of 1812, when Militia forces often performed badly. Ross, Kelley L., Ph.D. Machiavelli and the Moral Dilemma of Statecraft, Copyright (c) 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002
Additionally, conscription is incompatible with the historical context which Miller took pains to establish. If the gun proponent argument had any grammatical or legal validity whatsoever, why did the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v Miller attribute to the militia phrase such weight and consideration? Fully, one half or more of U.S. v Miller is spent defining the very word "militia" as it was understood by the founders.

Those sections of the decision outline the "collective" duties and responsibilities of militias. It analyzes the historical context in which the word is defined. It considers, in turn, the role of states in regulating militias. The NRA is therefore wrong, and the decision of the Supreme Court in US v Miller is the law, whether the NRA likes it or not. Incidentally, one of the best "histories" of the role of the militias during the so-called "revolution" is to be found in the body of U.S. v Miller itself. Because this history is not written by the NRA it is a breath of fresh air.

Another absurd theory often favored by NRA types would have you believe that what the founders meant by "militia" were un-regulated bands of well armed citizenry beyond the control and the regulation of states or national government. The proponents of this theory will tell you that the term "regulated" in the Second Amendment does not mean regulated "...by the government". Regulated, we are expected to believe, means self-regulated and equipped. In other words, armed to the teeth and unaccountable to anyone.

Believing the militias had been neglected, Madison would have denounced the NRA position. It was the opinion of both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison that the states had neglected the regulation of their militias. Madison wrote the second concurrent with his oft-stated criticism of the states and he sought to redress his grievance in that famous single sentence:c
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.

US Constitution, Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America, Amendment II
Madison was not talking about an individual right. He was talking about "regulation" which meant the same thing then that it does now. Who but a state could regulate what were, in fact, mobs dignified by the word militia? What are states if not "governments"? And, if a militia, is to be regulated, as Madison proposed, then who, as Hamilton asked, but a duly ordained and freely elected government "of the people" should do so? Hamilton and Madision were right. The NRA has always been wrong.

There is no point is speculating about Madison's intentions. We have his own words to rely on. There is no point in indulging in arcane interpretations as one might with Shakespeare. Madison wrote what he meant and meant what he wrote. A clue to his thinking is to be found in the chronological notes that he kept during the Constitutional convention:
Much stress had been laid by some gentlemen on the want of power in the Convention to propose any other than a federal plan. To what had been answered by others, he would only add, that neither of the characteristics attached to a federal plan would support this objection. One characteristic, was that in a federal Government, the power is exercised not on the people individually; but on the people collectively, on the States. [ emphasis added ]
It must be pointed out that here Madison is not addressing the Second Amendment directly, but rather the mind-set that he would bring to its drafting. It must be remembered that Madison initially opposed the addition of a Bill of Rights, i.e. any document which listed and specified individual rights. While not opposing individual rights per se, he felt that enumerating them would have the effect of limiting them to only those rights so enumerated.

Madison and the other founders were suspicious of armed bodies of men and the militias.
Has not Massts, [ Massachusetts ] notwithstanding, the most powerful member of the Union, already raised a body of troops? Is she not now augmenting them, without having even deigned to apprise Congs. [ Congress ] of Her intention?
The position, oft disseminated by the NRA that the "right to keep and bear arms" is a safeguard, intended to be used by the people in armed insurrection against the Federal Government when it is deemed to have abused its federal power, is simply ludicrous and seditious on its face. No governmental authority on earth has ever said, in effect: you can overthrow us by force whenever you like! No sane person believes for a moment that the Second Amendment immunizes a rag tag mob of gun nuts attacking the White House and Congress, armed to the teeth, with "revolution" on its agenda!

Whatever the motivation - revolution or self-defense -there simply is no individual, unconditional right to own a firearm. Madison's Second Amendment tells you upfront what it is about: well-regulated militias. It is not about the individual right to own a gun except in that context. Madison was very bright and had mastered the English language. He would not have written an Amendment that said anything other than what he wished it to say.

NRA literature often, conveniently, omits those portions of the US codes that say militia members must join National Guard. A militia is therefore precisely what Madison had in mind when he wrote the Second Amendment. US Codes concerning the National Guard are in line with Hamilton's original conception of a state militia subject to "National" regulation:
The President shall prescribe regulations, and issue orders, necessary to organize, discipline, and govern the National Guard.U.S. Codes, Section 110. Regulations
U.S. v Miller makes law of its interpretation of the Second. It states outright that any interpretation of the Second Amendment must consider:
  1. the significance of the "militia" phrase;
  2. the intentions of the founders in writing that phrase;
  3. the definition of "militia" as that word was understood by the founders including Hamilton, and, of course, Madison who drafted it.
Upon that criteria, U.S. v Miller then addresses the issue directly even so far as defining "militia", placing it's definition within an historical context with which Madison would most certainly have agreed. Miller outlined the "collective" responsibilities in defense of the nation - as did both Madison and Hamilton before them:
The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they [307 U.S. 174, 179] were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia - civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

U.S.v Miller
The decision is directly based upon the consideration the court gave to the "militia" phrase of the Second Amendment:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.

--U.S.v Miller
Some dubious "scholars" suggest that because the "militia" phrase lacks both a subject and a predicate, it may be ignored. Phrases, by definition, lack both a subject and a predicate. The Second Amendment is a single sentence - and by law and grammar - must be considered wholly.

If the
arguments of various "scholars'" had any grammatical or legal validity whatsoever, then why did the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v Miller attribute to that phrase such weight and consideration? Fully, one half or more of its decision is spent defining the very word "militia" as it was understood by the founders, outlining the militias' "collective" duties and responsibilities, analyzing the historical context in which the word is defined, and in considering the role of states in regulating them. Interestingly, one of the best "histories" of the role of the militias during the so-called "revolution" is to be found in the body of U.S. v Miller.

Madison's initial opposition to the Bill of Rights, which he later drafted himself, is ignored. It is often said that the founding fathers had just fought a war against government tyranny, the Second, therefore, was a hedge against another tyrannical government. But

George Washington and other prominent founders believed that the war had been almost lost because of the incompetence of undisciplined, un-regulated militia. It is highly doubtful that the founders would have placed the future of the new republic in the hands of people they considered to be incompetent.

The colonies had fought a war but it had been fought a decade earlier. They had also suffered the near chaos of the Articles of Confederation. They were at work in Philadelphia to redress the shortcomings of the Articles of Confederation. Even as they convened, Massachusetts had assembled an army and suspicions were mutual. In the end, however, Madison was convinced that the new charter, the new Constitution, had so successfully outlined a "government of the people" that no additional protections were necessary.

These were first to protect the people agst. their rulers: secondly to protect the people agst. the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led. A people deliberating in a temperate moment, and with the experience of other nations before them, on the plan of Govt. most likely to secure their happiness, would first be aware, that those chargd. with the public happiness, might betray their trust.
When Madison was at last persuaded to support a Bill of Rights, he insisted upon drafting them himself.

It is often said without basis that without the citizen’s ability to arm themselves, the American revolution would have failed. But the American revolution had been fought and won some ten years prior to the drafting of the US Constitution. The Republic, under the Articles of Confederation, had, indeed, failed. But it was not because citizens were not armed. Later, Washington would put down a rebellion of citizens who had been armed.

What saved the young republic was not armed citizens, militias, or Washington himself. It was France. Washington, arguably, lost every battle but Trenton. It was France who won the American revolution by blockading the harbor at Yorktown.

The "militias", meanwhile, were even less distinguished. They were undisciplined, often incompetent and un-regulated. They were severely criticized by Washington.

Washington, with few Continentals, began to turn in desperation to state militia. Although, as Mark V. Kwasny points out in Washington's Partisan War, 1775-1783 (1996), they made positive contributions, Washington dealt them much more criticism than praise in this five-month period. They were undependable, "there today, & gone tomorrow" (8:439).

Militiamen went home with the arms and equipment that the government issued them. Because militia officers were interested only in concocting schemes to increase their pay, they gave little attention to discipline. Some militia troops plundered citizens under the pretense of their being Tories. Washington warned that the militia should be kept away from regular troops because it would "spread the seeds of licentiousness among the regulars" (9:127). The militia failed in several cases to provide adequate defense against British and Tory foragers. The Pennsylvania militia did not turn out in a force as large as Washington expected, and many returned home after a dispute with General William Alexander, "Lord Stirling," over the distribution of supplies. Some states planned to raise what were called "colonial" troops because they could not rely on their militias to turn out to defend the state. Washington opposed this because these forces would compete with the Continental Army for recruits.


-Review of The Papers of George Washington: Revolutionary War Series, Volumes 8 & 9, The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, Reviewed by Benjamin H. Newcomb
Madison knew this and addressed the problem in a single-sentence: the Second Amendment. In fact, there is no gun debate among the founders outside the context of militias which they had criticized and intended to regulate.
Moreover, if one reads Founding Era documents, one finds that the phrase "bear arms" was almost always used to refer to military service. (The interested reader can try this himself or herself by searching for the phrase "bear arms" in the Library of Congress's databaseof congressional and other documents from the founding era.)

Michael C. Dorf, Findlaw, Wednesday, Oct. 31, 2001
The "gun" debate among the founders focused entirely upon the organization, the duties, the responsibilities, indeed, the regulation of the various militia:
It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness.
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #29
Conveniently ignored by NRA advocates is Hamilton's proposition that militias be placed under the supervision and regulation of the national government:
This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union ``to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS.''

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #29 [ emphasis Hamilton ]
Columnist Jack Anderson (Inside the NRA: Armed and Dangerous) documented NRA ties with militant "para-military groups" and points out that the NRA has repeatedly refused disavow the militants or to condemn their terrorist tactics, excesses, and activities.
If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper.

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 29
Hamilton had in mind a national militia. How that would differ from a modern all-volunteer army, we can only speculate. It is clear, however, that the self-styled militants who exploit misunderstandings of the Second Amendment are not what either Madison nor Hamilton had in mind.

It raises the question: is the Second Amendment moot? Both Hamilton and Madison had in mind the "...right to keep and bear arms" --but within the context of a disciplined, "well-regulated militia" whose members would be expected to defend the nation. Defending the nation is not what the Texas separatists and other para-military groups have in mind; they have in mind overthrowing it by violent means. They will need guns to do it. Their motives have nothing to do with sport.

What is to be done about the the NRA, perhaps the most powerful lobby in American history? Gun control has become one of the most controversial issues in American politics over the last several decades and it is difficult not to believe that this has been the NRA's desired outcome. Much worthwhile scholarship, the Federalist Papers, the writings of those who wrote the Constitution, James Madison who wrote the Second Amendment, indeed, the Bill of Rights itself are all drowned out with NRA money, phony scholarship, propaganda, and strong arm tactics. The NRA legacy is most certainly and undeniably Whitman, Columbine, and now, Virginia Tech.

On substance, those favoring prudent measures to control gun violence have always had the stronger argument. It is not surprising to learn how often the gun lobbies resort to what has been called "dirty dealing". NRA tactics crossed the lie so often that even George Bush Sr. resigned his membership in disgust when Wayne LaPierre referred to ATF agents as jack-booted thugs.

Tragically, just as nothing changed following Columbine, nothing will change following Virginia Tech. A safer world falls victim to politics and money. We know where the GOP will come down on the issue of guns. What is tragic is that Democrats will not find the political will to help make America a safe, a more civilized nation. Most people are skeptical that 33 deaths at Virginia Tech will do anything to change a political atmosphere that is, perhaps forever, poisoned by NRA lies, money, and propaganda. The Washington Post writes about "gun rights", conceding the paradigm to the NRA. The "rights" rather are spelled out by Madison in the Second Amendment. It is time now to work within that framework to make of this nation a safer nation, a civilized nation, a mature nation that may embrace a more enlightened attitude.

An additional resource:

Inside the NRA: Armed and Dangerous--An Expose

You can safely ignore the reviews of these books on Amazon. Most simply miss the point and none are exhaustive or well researched. Just read them, if you are so inclined, and make up your own mind.

An update:

A website entitled The U.S. v. Miller Revisited puts forward the theory that US v Miller upholds a version the NRA position vis a vis Miller. Following a fairly straightforward background of the case and Robert Jackson's presentation of the The Government's Brief for the Supreme Court, the web master presents his own interpretation: How an Attorney for Miller Might Have Replied. I have placed his main points in quotes followed by my refutations:
Formally limiting the government's powers was the main goal of the American Revolution.
Simplistic! As Gen. Omar Bradley allegedly told George W. Patten: "I can read a map", I suggest one take a look at any map of North America from that era. The English foothold on the Atlantic had been cut off in "the rear" by two flanking maneuvers - one from Canada, the other based in New Orleans on the Mississippi.

That the French had made allies with interior Indian tribes was clearly a threat to British westward expansion. The war that raged in North America through the late 1750's and early 1760's was, arguably, the "first" world war and but one part of the larger struggle between England and France for trade dominance throughout the world. That portion of the war fought in North America involved the struggle between France and England for control of lands coveted by the American colonists themselves. It was but a prelude to the so-called "American Revolution" when the stated "main goal" might have involved limiting the taxing power of the the crown over the commercial interests in what we now call the Northeast.

It was the geo-political struggle between England and France that trumped all else. Often ignored was the desire of the "states", the original 13 colonies, to explore and settle areas west of the Eastern seaboard themselves, a desire that would bring the colonies in conflict with the crown over taxation, representation in Parliament, and the right of the colonies to market their own goods free of regulatory interference from the Crown. To suggest or even hint that the war of independence was fought for gun rights is, politely, simplistic.
It is plainly absurd to argue that the Framers intended directly – or indirectly by creating a foundation on which some later law-makers might build – to provide for an actual or potential government monopoly on the use of armed force or on the ownership of arms themselves.
That simply misses the entire point. If the framers ever thought about the individual "ownership of arms themselves", then show it to me in the Federalist Papers, James Madison's notes of the Constitutional Convention, George Washington's letters, etc. In fact, there was no debate whatsoever about the individual right to own firearms but within the context of the various state militias which were, in fact, derided by the likes of George Washington, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton et al.

It is because these personages were so unhappy with the performance of the militias that James Madison stated flatly in the Second Amendment that a "well-regulated militia" was essential to the security of the free state. The key word is "well-regulated". Both Madison and Washington believed that the various militias had not been well-regulated, supplied or disciplined. Washington complained that he could not even depend upon them to show up for duty. The Second Amendment is keen to redress that grievance.

It is absurd to think that the founders, unhappy as they were with the militias during the Revolution, would sit down to draft constitutional law rewarding them for having been incompetent and unreliable.
When they wrote the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, they adhered closely to English Common law, which provided that arms could be owned and carried for self defense, so long as the intent of these actions was not to terrorize others.
But the language of the Second Amendment says absolutely nothing about personal self defense. Not one word. It does, however, expend an entire phrase to the defense of the state.
That each person is responsible for his own defense against criminals has long been the law in the United States.
That is simply not the issue addressed by the Second Amendment nor by US v Miller which states clearly how the Second Amendment is to be interpreted.
In 1939 the Supreme Court was not asked to recognize that Americans never have had a right to protection by the government, and so have a right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.
What the supreme court may or may not have been asked to do is always trumped by what it does in fact. US v Miller states unambiguously that the individual right to keep and bear arms must be interpreted within the context of a "well regulated militia".

Miller did not address the issue of "self defense" except to say that a sawed off shotgun is probably not considered to be a good choice for that purpose. That is hardly a universal principle of law. The statement referring to how the Second is to be interpreted most certainly is. Therefore, any argument citing Miller in defense of a "self defense" interpretation of the Second amendment is fallacious.
And now for something completely different. The World Snooker Championships start this week. Ronnie O'Sullivan, who has won 2 World Championships and 16 other ranking tournaments, is off to a flying start.
 

In 1997, he cleaned the table in just a few seconds over five minutes, running up a score of 147. Here's what it looked like then.



According to the snooker experts:

The tournament favourite is Ronnie 'the Rocket' O'Sullivan, the most talented and enigmatic player on the professional snooker circuit. O'Sullivan has won the World Championship twice, along with 16 other ranking tournaments, but none of those successes have come in the last two years..
4/19/2007: Ronnie O'Sullivan favorite to win the World Snooker Championship

45 comments:

Anonymous said...

The same day the massacre at Virginia Tech occurred, the same day when all over the country media, newspaper commentators and cartoonists went on asking their proverbial “Why?”, an interesting and scandalous news occurred that same day that may had answered that question: US drops marine's Haditha charges. (love to give you the link in the BBC pages but the comment section of this blog does not seem to accept html tags today...)

Meanwhile, as the whole world contemplates and editorialized, bewildered, about an America so enamored with its guns that even NPR morning edition and Talk of the Nation give most of their airtime to those in favor to reducing individual liberties by screening students for mental illness as long as gun shops leave it to their potential customer and future criminals to voluntary divulge their mental instability, George W. Bush, in all great taste and intelligence for which he is now world renown, saluted the last upholding of a nationwide ban on a specific abortion procedures, by saying that the court ruling, “reflect[ed] the compassion and humanity of America”. Amazing.

You know why the media have not shown the dead body of the Virginia Tech killer ? Because, after he shot himself in the head with a nine millimeter , his face looked a lot like the United States of America...

Anonymous said...

Oh, and I wanted to add: How can we make sure that another armed “mentally instable” cretin, for the sake of national entertainment and for the sake of our corporate TV sponsors, will try to beat the last killing record at Virginia Tech, comes next school shooting season?

Well, instead of sending your students to Washington DC in a jointly organized Million Students March Against Guns, let sent them packing a stadium, each with a burning candle in hand, in a sobbing contest to the sound of “Amazing Grace”....

David said...

We can't shout loud enough are far enough.

I currently live in SE Virginia, and even in the wake of this event the mere mention of stricter gun regulations in this state is akin to blasphemy.

Unfortunately, you have to counter this shite argument w/ case studies and reasoned arguments. If you've ever been around the true NRA nuts (btw, I'm from a hunting, NASCAR family), the task is easier in concept than practice. Envision slamming your forehead against a hard and jagged surface.

Gun control is an issue area that will require a bottoms-up push, starting w/ local and state regulations, and slowly pressuring the Feds into adopting a more strict stance. This strategy will do little to address problems in the short-run; while D.C. has banned hand-guns and other personal firearms, gun murders have increased. Individuals can simply cross the imaginary line into Virginia or Maryland to purchase their weapons of intermediate devastation.

Vox Ratio
Meta-tations

Unknown said...

Dante Lee, welcome back, mon ami. You wrote:

Talk of the Nation give most of their airtime to those in favor to reducing individual liberties by screening students for mental illness as long as gun shops leave it to their potential customer and future criminals to voluntary divulge their mental instability,

The NRA has won by default. I keep wondering why the opposition has rolled over and played dead in the face --not of reason --but of sheer money and belligerance.

each with a burning candle in hand, in a sobbing contest to the sound of “Amazing Grace”....

That's a powerful image. Indeed, America will not be destroyed by terrorists from without, but by those inner demons within. Bush found in terrorism a convenient distraction and lightening rod.

For as long as I can remember, there has been a dark side to American culture. Growing up in West Texas, I saw it up close and personal. But for the life of me, I cannot put a finger on it. Much of it is bigotry, much of it is ignorance. Sadly, it will get worse before it gets better.

Unknown said...

David said...

...even in the wake of this event the mere mention of stricter gun regulations in this state is akin to blasphemy.

I am not surprised. The obsession with guns in America borders on psychosis. The lies told about "gun control" are inexcusable. The NRA has much to answer for.

Gun control is an issue area that will require a bottoms-up push, starting w/ local and state regulations, and slowly pressuring the Feds into adopting a more strict stance. T

Indeed! But as you point out, "...the task is easier in concept than practice." The NRA has partners in its deliberate campaign of misinformation. Among those "partners" are a failed educational system. How many people do you know who have read the Federalist Papers? How many have bothered to read Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention?

Frankly, I know of no one who has done so save my old profs and a handful of academics. Most disturbing is the fact that most politicians I know have never bothered to read the US Constitution. Yet, on the issue of guns, everyone is a bloody expert. I do mean bloody, literally.

I have never read anything published by the NRA that was not riddled with deliberate lies and stupid errors. And, in a culture that does not read, who knows the difference?

Enemy Combatant said...

"We Are Getting Tired of Prying Your Guns out of Your Cold Dead Hand
04.18.2007 Elayne Boosler

3,300 Americans have died in Iraq and Afghanistan in the last four years. 120,000 Americans have been shot to death in America in the last four years. Where is the outrage?"


Len, wonderful essay. Changing tack to snooker late in your post you suggest:
"And now for something completely different."
Different,sure; completely? Try this.
Better to shoot 147 like Ronnie "The Rocket" O'Sullivan, than a perfect score like "Fast Eddie" Eagle. Far better to mis-spend one's youth in a pool parlor, billiard saloon or snooker den than becoming a junior woodchuck for an armed madhouse.

FuzzFlash.

dougdrenkow said...

Perhaps I missed something in the news reports: To which militia did Cho Seung-Hui belong?

Wonderfully researched piece, Cowboy!

Anonymous said...

The founder of the University of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson, understood the harms resulting from the type of policy created at Virginia Tech. In his "Commonplace Book," Jefferson copied a passage from Cesare Beccaria, the founder of criminology, which was as true on Monday as it always has been:

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

Anonymous said...

A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state -- it is necessary for the militia to be well regulated. The militia is all those bearing arms. The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed, and is not infringed by enrolling them in the militia when they take up arms, and giving them regulation -- training, drilling, safety, and all that we require for them to be able to muster. Regulations may make allowance for the infirm, the elderly, and others incapable of ordinary militia service to meet some other appropriate qualifying standard.

SadButTrue said...

Thanks for the snooker videos. After I watch those I will read and respond to your post proper. I love snooker, it is the epitome of cue sports, but in North America they only ever broadcast nine ball. Smaller tables with larger pockets translates to less skill.

Anonymous said...

Most people who favor gun bans are white, middle-class, urban.
Most people who benefit from owning guns are the opposite, or nearly so. They are rural, poor, often black.
Go into the country, look at a lonely farm--all they have for home protection is the shotgun over the hearth.
Go into the ghetto, look at the tenements--all they have for protection is the pistol under the pillow.
Law-abiding gun owners stop crimes all the time. If just one of just Cho's victims had had a gun, fewer would have been killed.
There are already so many guns in this society,a gun ban will only remove them from the hands of the law-abiding. It will also spawn a huge criminal industry similar to the drug trade.
Please give this issue more thought.
And while you quote the British on this, take a moment to think about Switzerland--in that country there is a gun in every home and they don't have any problems with it.
I have no problem with laws that require more training before purchase, but that's it.
Yes, crazies will still get guns. They will always be able to get guns or other weapons. For me, that is just one more reason to allow law-abiding citizens to own and carry weapons.

Anonymous said...

You are missing the point all completely, anonymous. No one has called for forbidding access to guns from “law abiding citizens”. The problem is in the behavior of the gun industry itself that sells their deadly weapons just as if they were just power tools from home Depot. The criminals are not those who buy the products from the gun industry, but the criminals are the gun industry itself for amalgamating greed into selling dangerous products. Why, for instance, potential gun buyers just have to voluntarily divulge their mental medical history is just utterly irresponsible. The killer of Virginia Tech had a history of forced mental health supervision and was forcedly interned for a month. But he was free to lie in the gun shop questionnaire.

Furthermore, once a gun is bought, it should be registered in a more “physical” way. Why no politicians, even pro-guns, have ever thought and talked of having gun owners to physically show their weapons to their nearest police department in a bi-annually manner, is beyond stunning! It would indeed simplify the task of our police forces in framing a better picture of stolen guns and resold guns circulation within this country. The majority of murders in Mexico are committed by gangs armed by the flood of weapons imported from the American “laissez-faire” weapon market. The image and the PR of the NRA supporters would benefit immensely from these technical supervisions; that are not designed to erode individual liberties, but are designed to simply regulate a dangerous product; which it supposed to make sense in a normal world: the vegetable industry has more regulations and federal control than the gun industry for crying out loud!

Anonymous said...

Dante Lee:
One problem with what you say is too many in your camp DO want a complete ban on guns, and are just moving one step at a time. This causes people in my camp to balk at every change in the law because it is easy to see where they are leading.
You say "The killer of Virginia Tech had a history of forced mental health supervision." As far as I understand, his roommate reported him to mental health people because he was suicidal. Though Cho was clearly crazy, being held for suicidal speech is not enough in my view to prevent him from owning a weapon. The point here is that there simply is no way to design a law or procedure that will keep guns (or other weapons) out of the hands of people who are mentally ill. No way.
As for physically showing firearms to police twice a year. Firstly, that is impractical, and secondly, what good will it do? Same problem as ever--the law-abiding will be restricted but the criminal types will not.
Virginia Tech was a "gun-free zone." Cho smuggled in his weapons anyway. Make the USA a gun-free zone and the same thing will happen over a larger area.
If you want better gun safety, the best way to go is require training and allow more trained people to carry weapons.
Abstract legal arguments, comments from the BBC, or re-interpretations of the US Constitution cannot and will not lessen gun violence in this country. I, too, would like to see this violence stopped, but the simple notion that more regulation or total gun bans will accomplish that does not stand up to reason.

doomsy said...

For what it's worth, someone visited my site last night and said that "a gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone."

In my reply, I told him to do the following: Google Philadelphia, Kevin Felder, Cashea Rivers, murder, September 2006, read the NBC-10 story, and then tell me you would say that to the face of Alisha Corley...I'd include the link myself, but Blogger's comment feature is crappy about that stuff.

I'm tired of hearing pontifications from gun ownership advocates, proclaiming how oppressed they are because people propose gun regulations based on common sense. I'd pay one of them money if they actually had the guts to spout this stuff in the presence of someone who had suffered a horrendous loss due to gun violence.

I'll try to be a more frequent visitor - thoughtful and interesting stuff as always.

Anonymous said...

Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns

John R. Lott, Jr.

School of Law

University of Chicago

Chicago, Illinois 60637

and

David B. Mustard

Department of Economics

University of Chicago

Chicago, Illinois 60637

July 26, 1996

* The authors would like to thank Gary Becker, Phil Cook, Clayton
Cramer, Gertrud Fremling, Ed Glaeser, Hide Ichimura, Don Kates, Gary
Kleck, David Kopel, William Landes, David McDowall, Derek Neal, Dan
Polsby, and Douglas Weil and the seminar participants at the
University of Chicago, American Law and Economics Association
Meetings, and the Western Economic Association Meetings for their
unusually helpful comments.

Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns

Abstract

Using cross-sectional time-series data for U.S. counties from 1977 to
1992, we find that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters
violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental
deaths. If those states which did not have right-to-carry concealed
gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders;
4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravate assaults would have been
avoided yearly. On the other hand, consistent with the notion of
criminals responding to incentives, we find criminals substituting
into property crimes involving stealth and where the probabilities of
contact between the criminal and the victim are minimal. The largest
population counties where the deterrence effect on violent crimes is
greatest are where the substitution effect into property crimes is
highest. Concealed handguns also have their greatest deterrent effect
in the highest crime counties. Higher arrest and conviction rates
consistently and dramatically reduce the crime rate. Consistent with
other recent work (Lott, 1992b), the results imply that increasing the
arrest rate, independent of the probability of eventual conviction,
imposes a significant penalty on criminals. The estimated annual gain
from allowing concealed handguns is at least $6.214 billion.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/RKBA/guncont.html

Anonymous said...

Anonymous says:

“[Too] many in your camp DO want a complete ban on guns, and are just moving one step at a time.”

The “too many” are not winning as much as the anti-abortionists do so by using the tactic you’ve described. But you are wrong again in believing that “we” want a complete bans on guns. First of all, with a third of American household owning a gun and with 45 millions of weapons dissolved into the fabric of this country, a total ban on gun is now out of the question. It is way too late.

Anonymous contradicts himself:

“As for physically showing firearms to police twice a year […] that is impractical, and secondly, what good will it do?”

“If you want better gun safety, the best way to go is require training and allow more trained people to carry weapons.”

It’s just depends, of course, how you want to spend your tax dollars. The result is the same it will require an oversight by law enforcement. But, again, should you go to the cop with a paper that confirms that you are now adequately trained, and then the police department will issue you a permit to buy a gun? Or would it be more practical to just register your gun and bi-annually present it again? Republicans have showed the last eight years that big government was not really a problem. We had the creation of the Homeland Security. They, can oversee this registry, can’t they?

Anonymous:

“Virginia Tech was a "gun-free zone."

…. As are pre-schools, elementary schools and high schools, thank you very much!
Or perhaps, you tell me when the appropriate age for carrying a gun is.

Anonymous, finally:

“I, too, would like to see this violence stopped”

How’ about you bringing on better ideas in how to stop it, uh?

Anonymous said...

1) This whole blog started with the contention that we do not have the right to bear arms, so I have been loosely focused on that.

2) Sorry, reporting to the police twice a year will not happen and I will not support that. That is a massive burden to law-abiding citizens and a waste of police resources. It will do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of the criminally insane.

3) I am OK with requiring a gun-safety check or even a class before purchase.

4) Read the University of Chicago study posted above.

5) Bottom line on the problem. We agree that we will have guns in the USA for a long time. Since there are still more sane people than criminally insane, we would lessen gun violence by allowing more people to carry weapons. That is the "better idea."

Unknown said...

whig said...

.. The militia is all those bearing arms.

Sorry. SCOTUS has defined "Militia" in US v Miller. One must be enrolled in a militia. Unless, of course, you favor universal, compulsory conscription. Clearly, Madison and the other founders did NOT have that in mind. Nor do most Americans today.

Unknown said...

Biby Cletus said...

Nice post, its a really cool blog that you have here, keep up the good work, will be back.

Thanks, Biby...I am checking your blog out now.

Enemy Combatant said...

Better to shoot 147 like Ronnie "The Rocket" O'Sullivan, than a perfect score like "Fast Eddie" Eagle. Far better to mis-spend one's youth in a pool parlor, billiard saloon or snooker den than becoming a junior woodchuck for an armed madhouse.

I am but a recent convert to snooker, getting up to speed on the rules, strategy and styles. What a great game. It is a joy to watch a good frame, a good match.

dougdrenkow said...

Perhaps I missed something in the news reports: To which militia did Cho Seung-Hui belong?

Good question. If the gun types are correct, the many who are automatically militia members by mere ownership of a firearm shouldn't really be entrusted with the defense of one's country.

But like all NRA cover stories, the "if you own a gun, you are a member of a militia" story is the most absurd. It's amazing how people believe it.

SadButTrue said...

Thanks for the snooker videos. After I watch those I will read and respond to your post proper. I love snooker, it is the epitome of cue sports, but in North America they only ever broadcast nine ball.


Haven't played "nine ball" but have lost many a game of "eight ball". Snooker, however, is the real deal. What a joy to watch!

Anonymous said...

Most people who favor gun bans are white, middle-class, urban. Law-abiding gun owners stop crimes all the time. If just one of just Cho's victims had had a gun, fewer would have been killed.

Is that because White people fear and distrust black people? Or is it because poorer black people cannot afford the assault rifles favored by the NRA??

There are already so many guns in this society,a gun ban will only remove them from the hands of the law-abiding. It will also spawn a huge criminal industry similar to the drug trade.

That's all just speculation. I will wager that the opposite is true i.e. that as guns have become increasingly easy to get the crime rate has gone up. I suggest that you ...

give this issue more thought.


And while you quote the British on this, take a moment to think about Switzerland--in that country there is a gun in every home and they don't have any problems with it.

I know a thing or two about Switzerland. Your analogy breaks down entirely. In Switzerland, there is a REAL militia and is very "well-regulated", I can assure you. And there is no gun ownership outside that framework. Clearly --that is NOT what the NRA has in mind.

The NRA would most certainly oppose the kind of regulation of firearms that you will find in Switzerland. At last, I wish the NRA would stop lying about Switzerland. There is absolutely NO analogy with Switzerland to be made.

I have no problem with laws that require more training before purchase, but that's it.

Then you will most certainly oppose the Swiss model which you cited.

Yes, crazies will still get guns. They will always be able to get guns or other weapons. For me, that is just one more reason to allow law-abiding citizens to own and carry weapons.

It simply does not follow that because crazy people will get guns, we should make it easy for everyone to get guns, espcially crazy people, or that we should do so whether they really need them or not.

Moreover, it does not follow that because some people will break the law, we should make it easy for them or that we should make it easy for them to get the tools by which they do so.

Secondly, the mere ownership of a gun changes a personality. I have seen this happen time and time again. Bears repeating: as gun ownership has gone up year by year in the US, so too, has crime. If that is not a linked if not causal relationship, I don't know what is.

Finally, NRA propaganda is full of lies and distortions. They have lied about American history. They have lied about the role of Militias. They have lied about what constitutes a militias. They have lied about Switzerland. They have lied about the role guns have played in America's ongoing crime spree. And they have lied about the every single court decision having to do with the regulation of firearms. I advocate that everyone who is fed up with this crap, organize to expose the NRA for what it is.

doomsy said...

I'm tired of hearing pontifications from gun ownership advocates, proclaiming how oppressed they are because people propose gun regulations based on common sense. I'd pay one of them money if they actually had the guts to spout this stuff in the presence of someone who had suffered a horrendous loss due to gun violence. I'll try to be a more frequent visitor - thoughtful and interesting stuff as always.

Indeed, it is amazing that the NRA and NRA-types have been able to get away with the most absurd fabrications, rationalizations and outright lies. They have literally tried to rewrite American history. I wish James Madison were alive today to tell them how utterly absurd they are. Madison detested the "militias" and said that they almost lost America its war of independence. His feelings will not have changed about the current crop of gun nuts. If the US must depend on the NRA membership for its defense, then we are sorely fucked!

Anonymous said...

At 4:00 PM, Anonymous said...
5) Bottom line on the problem. We agree that we will have guns in the USA for a long time. Since there are still more sane people than criminally insane, we would lessen gun violence by allowing more people to carry weapons. That is the "better idea."


totally makes sense if you are insane. how do we know you are not trying to pull a fast one on us. and, you make it sound like it's a close call. where do we stand as a country? 53% sane vs. 47% criminally insane. Or is it like 72% sane vs. 28% insane? Are the criminally insane trending up? and how does this ratio, whatever it is, argue for more guns? Are you saying that the sane are faster draws than the criminally insane? Or that sane people don't commit crimes or kill people? i know, i'm insane for even responding.

len, another tremendous post which i will forever be linking to in future arguments with irrational nra members.

Anonymous said...

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/RKBA/guncont.html

What is your answer to the study linked above?

Unknown said...

anonymous said...

What is your answer to the study linked above?

Even if the study is valid, it does not address the issues I raised which are primarily:

1) Whether or not the Second is an individual right or a collective right. No study concerning concealed weapons can divine the intentions of the founders, and, in this case specifically, James Madison.

2) No study can address various lies told by the NRA about the legality and/or intention of the founders with regard to the Second. It is entirely possible that the study in question could be valied but a valid study cannot make true the multitude of lies already told be the NRA about any number of things.

3) No such study addresses the Constitutional issues raised in the article. Nor --the historical issues.

4) Even if the study should prove to be true and valid, it sounds like mutually assured destruction to me. The acronym for that is MAD.

5) The study itself does not address the kind of society we might have had, had not a gun culture taken root to begin with. In other words, law abiding people might never have felt the need to arm themselves had not criminals got guns to begin with.

6) If one accepts the premise of the study, then the logic of it --taken to its reductio ad absurdum --is a society that no civilized person would want to live in.

Better, I think, to address the causes of the problem than to paper over them after the fact.

Vierotchka said...

Anonymous said:

And while you quote the British on this, take a moment to think about Switzerland--in that country there is a gun in every home and they don't have any problems with it.

I am Swiss, so I am in a position to tell you how wrong you are. Even though every male Swiss adult who has been enrolled in the Militia (aka the Swiss Army) does have to keep his uniform, equipment and assault rifle plus a box with seven bullets in his home, by no means is there a gun in every home. First of all, 20% of the population in Switzerland is not Swiss. Secondly, not every Swiss national home has a male adult in it. Thirdly, not every male adult has been enrolled in the Militia since not every adult Swiss male qualifies - handicap, flat feet, bad eyesight, deafness, blindness, psychological disorders, and many other handicaps bar a male from being enrolled. Also, there is an upper limit of the number of able-bodied and able-minded men to be enrolled which does not reach the total of such men. Those who have been enrolled have to undergo shooting practice and assessment every year. Also, each man who is called up can choose to do a "civil service" rather than a military service, and there is a certain percentage of men who choose and obtain deferrment, including conscientious objection - the latter automatically leads to civil service.

Furthermore, Switzerland does not have a culture of violence and fascination with guns and killings, and its collective psychology is one of precision, discipline, reason and level-headedness. Even though gun laws in Switzerland are very liberal, the acquisition of both guns and munitions follow some pretty strict rules, including a fairly long waiting period during which the police authorities make a full enquiry and assessment of the buyer, including whether ownership of a gun and ammunition are truly justified. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of the gun licenses are restricted to keeping the gun in the home, and guns for sport and for hunting also fall under strict regulation as to how they are to be carried outside of the home (and it is not all that easy to obtain a hunting license, either, and in order to have a gun for sport, one has to be an accredited member of a sporting club) - it is extremely difficult to obtain a permit to carry a gun outside of the home, and even more difficult is the obtention of a licence to carry a concealed gun.

For all the reasons I have written above, Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates and lowest death-by-guns rates in the world.

I am regularly amused by the American pro-gun individuals who cite Switzerland as an example in an effort to justify their violent pro-gun stance (which constitutes a tu quoque fallacy) and who are so obviously totally ignorant about Switzerland and its gun laws! LOL!

Vierotchka said...

Anonymous said:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/RKBA/guncont.html

What is your answer to the study linked above?


Link is dead - "Object not found!".

Anonymous said...

I stand corrected on the Swiss thing.
But I still don't feel convinced by anything the BBC says.
Nor am I convinced by this interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, though it is well-argued.
Rightly or wrongly, this is the nation we now have, and the 2nd Amendment has been interpreted as it has for a long time.
See the comments of Thomas Jefferson above as a balance to Madison.
Please look at the University of Chicago study linked above (the link works if you copy it).
Seems people in this string are serious about discussing this issue. Please keep the disrespectful rhetoric to a minimum and stop the ad hominem statements as these serve no good purpose.
In a nutshell, here is the pro-hand gun position as I see it:
1) We have many guns in the USA and will have them for a long time.
2) We have not been successful at stopping illegal drugs and guns will not be much different.
3) Given those facts, it is a practical impossibility to keep guns out of the hands of deranged individuals such as Cho.
4) Given that fact, it is good policy to allow more people to own and sometimes carry guns, as responsible gun-owners often do stop crime, and certainly do act as a deterrent (see Chicago Study mentioned above).

Basically, it is not possible to rid the nation of guns and it is not possible to stop someone like Cho from getting a gun, so it would be a more rational policy to allow more people to own guns, not fewer.
I think anti-gun people would do more good pressing for gun training classes rather than chasing the misty goal of a gun-free America. I have not given it enough thought, but I am sure there must be clever ways that more people could be trained in the responsible use of firearms.

By the way, I do not own a gun and do not want one. I live in a medium size city (under 100K) with very liberal carry laws. We have one of the lowest crime-rates for a city of our size in the USA. I want my neighbors to have firearms. Most of them are good people, and there is nothing you can do that will stop the bad ones from getting guns.

One last point, not yet mentioned--private gun ownership is our last defense against a fascist take-over of the US gov't.

I will change my views if anyone can present better reasoning (not better rhetoric), and I expect readers of this string to do the same.

Unknown said...

I stand corrected on the Swiss thing.

But I still don't feel convinced by anything the BBC says.

But my argument was not in any way dependent upon the BBC. I merely quoted some interesting BBC stuff. BBC did not make my argument.

Rightly or wrongly, this is the nation we now have, and the 2nd Amendment has been interpreted as it has for a long time.

Do you expect me to believe that a lie becomes true with the passage of time? The Second is interpreted wrongly primarily because the NRA has behaved despicably.

See the comments of Thomas Jefferson above as a balance to Madison.

Jefferson's opinion may be of interest in general but less so with regard to the Constitutional Convention. He wasn't even there. The Second amendment is the work of one man: James Madison.

Here is a list of the Virginia delegates: John Blair, James Madison, George Mason, James McClurg, Edmund J. Randolph, George Washington, George Wythe.

Madison wrote the second. A better clue to its meaning are his notes from the convention.

. Please keep the disrespectful rhetoric to a minimum and stop the ad hominem statements as these serve no good purpose.

But I don't respect the NRA.

Moreover, valid descriptions of various NRA lies are not ad hominem attacks. Nor is it ad adhominem to point out a lie and prove it to be so.

... it is a practical impossibility to keep guns out of the hands of deranged individuals such as Cho.

And, therefore, we do nothing? Nonsense. What we do is: we REGULATE most guns and ban some outright.

Given that fact, it is good policy to allow more people to own and sometimes carry guns, as responsible gun-owners often do stop crime, and certainly do act as a deterrent (see Chicago Study mentioned above).

What fact? Better to melt the guns down and recast them as something useful. America has proven to the world that because of money and lies, it has not the will to act responsibly.

BBC stats on the number of guns in America are correct and verifiable. The situation indicates the degree to which Ameicans simply will not think clearly about "guns". Tha national attitude toward gun ownership is more akin to that of an adolescent than an adult.

Basically, it is not possible to rid the nation of guns and it is not possible to stop someone like Cho from getting a gun, so it would be a more rational policy to allow more people to own guns, not fewer.

So - what are you saying? That Americans will just have to content themselves with an ocassional mass murder? Sorry, that is fallacious and immature. Grow up, America!

I think anti-gun people would do more good pressing for gun training classes rather than chasing the misty goal of a gun-free America.

And just what good do you think a training class would have done Cho? Do you propose to improve his aim? I repeat: grow up America. The rest of the world is growing tired of your shit.

I will change my views if anyone can present better reasoning (not better rhetoric), and I expect readers of this string to do the same.

My sources are factual. My reasoning is sound. Are you calling valid arguments mere rhetoric? You might have made a better point by refuting an argument rather than labeling it.

Anonymous said...

I am not convinced by your response.
Let's keep it short.

1) How are you planning to rid the nation of guns?

2) How are you planning to keep them out of the hands of people like Cho?

Unknown said...

Anonymous, I am not surprised that you remain unconvinced by reason and facts. The same can be said of the NRA as a whole.

Other nations have reasonable laws, controls and regulations. Why not the US? If it is your position that the US does not, then the burden is on you to tell me and this forum just why that is.

The question is not how to keep guns out of the hands of people like Cho. The question is why the hell was he able to get them so easily in the first place.

You've missed the whole point.

Anonymous said...

Len:

1) Since there is no way to rid the nation of guns, restricting gun ownership only penalizes the law-abiding.

2) Since there is no way to keep guns out of the hands of people like Cho, restricting gun ownership similarly only penalizes the law-abiding.

3) There are many studies that show that gun-owners frequently prevent crimes; indeed, they do so more often than the police, who usually arrive too late. I have posted a link to one of the studies above (the Chicago Study). Many studies also show that liberal carry laws further reduce crime. Think from the point of view of a criminal for a moment--what would you fear more, the police or an armed "victim?" In studies of criminal intention, it is found that criminals are most afraid of armed citizens. In areas with liberal carry laws, criminals cannot easily tell who has a firearm and who does not, and in this way, the law deters crime.

4) You may be right about the NRA. But this debate goes beyond whatever they may say or not say.

5) You wrote a good essay and I commend you on your argumentative and verbal skills. That having been said, you have not yourself met the burden of proof for why we should change gun laws in this nation. We are not Europe or Japan. We have unique traditions and needs.

6) As for why I believe we should keep our laws as they are most places and liberalize them in others, I cite the Chicago and related studies, and the reasoning I have presented in this answer and in others above. Furthermore, I believe firearms are our last defense against fascism in the US. Here are a couple more links which I commend to your attention:

http://rense.com/general76/mths.htm
http://rense.com/general76/univ.htm

Thanks for providing this space. I have enjoyed communicating with you and your readers.

Unknown said...

Since there is no way to rid the nation of guns, restricting gun ownership only penalizes the law-abiding.

Nonsense. A law regulating the sale of firearms even to the point of prohibiting certain weapons would have no affect on me whatsoever. And I consider myself to be among those law abiders about which you are so concerned.

You have merely asserted. You have not made a case.

Since there is no way to keep guns out of the hands of people like Cho, restricting gun ownership similarly only penalizes the law-abiding.

I daresay the US is very nearly alone in its inability to keep deadly firearms out of the hands of people like Cho. It is not a question of whether but of will.

You persist in stating as fact an unsupported "factoid" i.e. that "...there is not way to keep guns out of the hands of people like Cho.". Who says? The NRA?

There are many studies that show that gun-owners frequently prevent crimes; indeed, they do so more often than the police, who usually arrive too late.

You are saying that criminals should be allowed access to guns because it is impossible to do anything about it. Then why not disband the police because they often arrive too late?

With regard to handguns, there is much that can be done. But that is the subject of a second article

You may be right about the NRA.

I am right about the NRA. I am also correct about my thesis: "The NRA has worked assiduously to create a culture of guns, lies and violence in the United States. Their efforts have borne fruit. Almost anyone can get a gun; lies about the Second Amendment are unquestioned by intimidated politicians who should know better; and fatal shooting rampages will eventually cease to shock an inured public."

You wrote a good essay and I commend you on your argumentative and verbal skills. That having been said, you have not yourself met the burden of proof for why we should change gun laws in this nation.

That was not my thesis, although, indeed, I believe that we should change the gun laws in this nation. I can make that case in a second essay.

We are not Europe or Japan. We have unique traditions and needs

We are born, we live, we procreate, we work, we die. We are not so special and, in many cases, not so smart. Why does that prove or support your fallacious position that because something is hard, it cannot be done?

As for why I believe we should keep our laws as they are most places and liberalize them in others, I cite the Chicago and related studies

But didn't the US Supreme Court (however disingenuously) cite the 14th amendment as the pretext for taking and ultimately ruling on Bush v Gore? No...I think consistent, federal regulations are in order. More so, if we had a legitimate regime and a Congress accountable to people, not lobbies and corporations.

Anonymous said...

I have made all my main points.
Thanks for your response.
Readers can make up their own minds.

Two things to add:
1) http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/21/us/21guns.html?hp
U.S. Rules Made Killer Ineligible to Purchase Gun

This article from the NYT tells how Cho was not an eligible gun-buyer. The VT campus was also a "gun-free" zone.
Right there, we have TWO gun bans entirely failing.

2) Ban guns and you will spawn yet another criminal industry.

Unknown said...

This article from the NYT tells how Cho was not an eligible gun-buyer. The VT campus was also a "gun-free" zone.

All the more reason to tighten up the control and manufacture of guns.


Right there, we have TWO gun bans entirely failing.


It is NOT a failure of the ban. It is a failure of enforcement.

Even if it had been a failure of the ban, it does not follow that because the ban failed, nothing should be done. To its logical conclusion, if one person is murdered, legalize murder.

Ban guns and you will spawn yet another criminal industry.

By your logic: let's legalize crime.

You are simply not thinking clearly or constructively about this issue.

Anonymous said...

You say: "It is NOT a failure of the ban. It is a failure of enforcement."

You are half-right. It's a failure of BOTH. The SWAT team at Virginia Tech waited 10-15 minutes hiding behind squad cars and trees before going into the building.

You say: "By your logic: let's legalize crime."

I did not say that. But you are saying, let's criminalize self-defense.

Quote from your hero: "[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation;(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." --James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

You say: "You are simply not thinking clearly or constructively about this issue."

I have provided good reasons for what I believe and posted links to several studies that support my claims.

Also, I have not once used an ad hominem attack in this string.

Unknown said...


You are half-right. It's a failure of BOTH. The SWAT team at Virginia Tech waited 10-15 minutes hiding behind squad cars and trees before going into the building.


None of which would have been necessary if guns had been effectively controlled.

Moreover, the NRA has always opposed effective measures to control guns and it has done so from a destructive, ideological bias which is premised upon a pack of malicious, deliberate lies about the Second Amendment.

But you are saying, let's criminalize self-defense.

Nonsense! What I said was:

The NRA has worked assiduously to create a culture of guns, lies and violence in the United States. Their efforts have borne fruit. Almost anyone can get a gun; lies about the Second Amendment are unquestioned by intimidated politicians who should know better; and fatal shooting rampages will eventually cease to shock an inured public.

Quote from your hero: "[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation;(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." --James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

A typical selective quote that does not explain Madison's antipathy toward the militias. Moreover, I stated the fact that Madison wrote the Second Amendment and that includes the militia phrase, his intention that those who bear arms be regulated. I also stated that Washington, Madison, and Hamilton rounded lambasted the militias as incompetent and unreliable.

whig said...
The militia is all those bearing arms.

By a decision of SCOTUS, merely bearing arms dosn't get you into a militia. One must ENROLL. Read my article. Read US v Miller.

The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed, and is not infringed by enrolling them in the militia when they take up arms, and giving them regulation -- training, drilling, safety, and all that we require for them to be able to muster.

Doing all that against their will is universal conscription. A draft. Fine. Let's draft those who wish to play with guns.

I repeat: gun proponents simply will not think clearly about this issue.

Anonymous said...

Len:

If you would drop your animus against the NRA, the deeper levels of this issue might gain better focus. I have not once mentioned the NRA and though they are powerful, they most certainly are not the only advocates for what many of us do perceive as being our 2nd Amendment rights.

You have conveniently avoided the behavior of the SWAT team at Virginia Tech. The info may change, but last I read, they waited 10-15 minutes OUTSIDE of the building, hunkered behind trees and cars. Meanwhile INSIDE the building a single maniac shot over 175 rounds. Think about it--a SWAT team that does not know how to break open a door, does not know how to shield itself against ONE PERSON, and does not know that it must act quickly if lives are to be saved.

And none of this even mentions the way the first shooting was handled, the lack of awareness among the students and teachers, etc.

If just one student or teacher had been carrying a firearm, this tragedy might have been greatly reduced. Face it, the cops cannot protect you. They almost never do. They arrive after the crime has been committed. Then they mop up, do interviews, and sometimes succeed in catching the assailant.

Another point: Guns are not that hard to use. Most people handle them responsibly. Please look at some of the studies I have posted that well-illustrate this point and others I have made.

You end your comments above by drifting back into abstract legal arguments. As stated, you have done a good job on that angle, but surely you must realize that few will be swayed by what you say and that, in the main, most people in the USA interpret the 2nd Amendment as the right to bear arms.

Another point: The problem underlying VT and other school shootings does not seem to be guns per se, but the irresponsible use of anti-depressants.

Look at this list:
Anti-Depressants and Killers--A Sampler

--Eric Harris was on Luvox and Jeff Wiese was on Prozac.
--Kip Kinkle (Oregon), on methylphenidate and Prozac, killed four people, including his own parents, and wounded at least 22 others.
--Luke Woodham (Mississippi), on an SSRI, killed three people, including his mother, and wounded at least six others.
--Jason Hoffman (California), while taking the antidepressants Celexa and Effexor, shot and wounded four students and two teachers. He later committed suicide while incarcerated.
--Cory Baadsgaard (Washington). On Effexor, he held 23 classmates and a teacher hostage with a rifle.
--Elizabeth Bush (Pennsylvania). She blasted away at fellow students, wounding one. She was on an antidepressant.
--T.J. Solomon (Georgia). He wounded six classmates. He was on antidepressants.
--Shawn Cooper (Idaho). He fired two shotgun rounds in his school, narrowly missing human targets. He was on antidepressants.
--Jeremy Strohmeyer (Nevada). He raped and killed a 7-year-old in a ladies' room. He was on Dexedrine.
--Michael Carneal (Kentucky). He killed three students and wounded five others. He was on Ritalin.

And of course Cho was using anti-depressants as well.

You say: "Fine. Let's draft those who wish to play with guns."

In that you have tipped your hand. You DO want to take guns away from law-abiding citizens. And THAT is why the NRA and everyone else resists your arguments at every turn. It is YOU who are radical, you who want to make this country a "gun-free sitting-duck" zone.

Sorry, I don't trust SCOTUS, POTUS, or DOPUS. And I really don't care what they say.

If some wigged out nut blasted on anti-depressants starts shooting in my school or mall, I want to be able to protect myself. And I do not intend to hide under a table hoping the cops will save my sorry ass.

Unknown said...

Sorry, I don't trust SCOTUS, POTUS, or DOPUS. And I really don't care what they say.

But you do, apparently, trust the endemic liars of the NRA!!!!

If some wigged out nut blasted on anti-depressants starts shooting in my school or mall, I want to be able to protect myself.

You are a specimen that I can point to in support of my "animus" against the NRA. You typify what the NRA helped do to America, that is, make it a nation in which solutions come in a bottle or a gun.

Alas, we have little to talk about, nothing in common, and you simply will not get it into your head the structure of a logical fallacy. And even if you had, you would never admit that you were guilty of it.

You might start your own blog on blogspot.

Anonymous said...

The bottom line is, "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed upon". Period. As it has been said many times before; From my cold, dead fingers. I love hunting, shooting and the shooting sports, as do my wife and children. If some of you don't, that's fine. That is why our fathers and fore fathers fought and died to give you that right. But don't try to tell others what there rights are, when it is in plain black and white over 200 years old.

Unknown said...

The bottom line is, "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed upon". Period.

Nope, you are dead wrong again. But thanks for proving my point. I couldn't have done a better job myself. THAT is precisely the NRA's biggest lie.

The Second Amendment, IN FACT, reads:

"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."

There is NO period until you come to the end of the single sentence.

Since when has a comma come to mean: please disregard the first part of this sentence????????

Unknown said...

The Second Amendment might have said what you THINK it said --but it doesn't.

The Second Amendment might have said what you THINK it said if Madison had agreed with you --but he didn't.

The Second Amendment might have said that you THINK it said if the incompetent progeniturs of today's gaggle of gun nuts hadn't screwed up big time --but they did.

You and the NRA are wrong and/or ignorant about the Second Amendment, the case law, and the history of the United States.

Anonymous said...

Len, I understand you arguement, but really, how hard is it to get over the wording of the 2nd Amendment? The first and last parts? It clearly identifies two bodies. A militia (and since we were just becoming a country, we had no army) and the right of the people (IE its citizens). Do some laws need amended, changed and enforced? Yes. Do we have the right to defend ourselves? Yes. Is the NRA full of it? Sometimes. But I am sure you have been accused of the same thing. I have too. The point I am trying to make it that if an armed citizen had been able to defend themselves at VT, the casualties could have been far less.

Unknown said...

Len, I understand you arguement, but really, how hard is it to get over the wording of the 2nd Amendment?

It's the law!

And, if you found yourself unjustly charged with murder, and knowing that the significance of but a word, a phrase, might make you innocent or guilty, would you ask the same thing about how the murder statute was framed?

The first and last parts?

Last time I checked, neither you nor the NRA are credited with inventing English syntax.

Do some laws need amended, changed and enforced? Yes.

That's not the issue. Nothing as of this date amends the Second. It remains law, something for which you have no respect.

Moreover, no one on this forum, no one in the NRA has made a case for amending the Second. Indeed, the NRA would most certainly oppose amending the second because they mistakenly cite it to justify their absurd theories and historical distortions.

In fact, I might be more in favor of amending the Second than would the NRA. I would tighten it up precisely such that even the NRA could not possibly misinterpret it.

Clue: either every man jack of the NRA are stupid to the bone or their interpretation of it is a deliberate lie. Which is it?

The point I am trying to make it that if an armed citizen had been able to defend themselves at VT, the casualties could have been far less.

Significantly, you merely assert, you do not support with fact or evidence. Cho should never have had a gun to begin with. That might have been the case had not the NRA lied about the Second for a period of some 125 years. It might not have been the case had not the NRA helped create a culture of perverted gun worship in this country.

Anonymous said...

Len, I'll have to leave you with this. You do your thing, and I'll do mine. Oh, one more time. From my cold, dead fingers!

Anonymous said...

Len:

You have a partial argument, at best.

The parts of the argument you are missing and consistently refuse to address are:

1) The need for guns for self-defense in rural areas in particular, and in some cities and towns.

2) The fact that no one is going to be able to rid this nation of guns. If you try, you will start an uprising. If you half-succeed, guns will be smuggled into the country, much as illegal drugs are now. In either of those cases, all you will accomplish is the removal of firearms from the hands of the law-abiding, and you can be sure that the criminal class will exploit that pronto.

3) There is good data showing that armed citizens stop many crimes and that the police almost always get there too late.

4) The 2nd Amendment has been interpreted the way it has for a long time, and rereading Madison will not change one thing about that.

5) Hunting.

6) Gun issues are separate from the NRA. You can go on and on about the NRA as much as you want, but it is not convincing because a) many of us have nothing to do with the NRA and b) you treat it like a straw man and use the excesses of the NRA to replace real answers to the questions posed just above and in many other posts in this string.

7) Handguns and rifles aren't much, but they are something, and as such, they do stand between a freedom-loving citizenry and a potentially fascist state.

If you want to convince anyone of your views, you need to fashion a whole argument that responds to the very legitimate questions people have been posing on this site and elsewhere. It does no good to call us "brainwashed," "stupid to the bone, "liars," "perverted gun worshipers," "ignorant gun-nuts," and many other choice phrases. Ask yourself, what kind of person uses language like that to win an argument?

One last point: My girlfriend sometimes house-sits in a lonely rural farm. It would take the police at least 20 minutes to respond. She wants a handgun next time she goes, and I agree.

Anonymous said...

One last point: My girlfriend sometimes house-sits in a lonely rural farm. It would take the police at least 20 minutes to respond. She wants a handgun next time she goes, and I agree.


As do my wife and I, who is home with my children, while I am out working. She loves her pistol, and the others that I have there (besides the one with me now, that I bought legally, following my lengthy background check for my Concealed Carry Permit). She has her permit, shoots very well and is very safe. And believe me, knowing that, I sleep a little bit better at night, when I am away from home.

Unknown said...

You have a partial argument, at best.

That's just not true. If it had been, you wouldn't be so upset.

There is good data showing that armed citizens stop many crimes and that the police almost always get there too late.

Then why didn't you cite it?

The 2nd Amendment has been interpreted the way it has for a long time, and rereading Madison will not change one thing about that.

Only interpretations by the courts have the force of law. US v Miller's interpretation of the Second IS case law. SCOTUS decisions ARE law. There are NO SCOTUS decisions supporting the NRA's stated position.

Gun issues are separate from the NRA. You can go on and on about the NRA as much as you want,

The First Amendment guarantees my right of free speech. That means I get to write about the NRA if I want to.

Significantly, no one held a gun on you and forced you to read what I wrote. If you don't like my choice of topics, there are millions of blogs out there. Find one.

but it is not convincing because a) many of us have nothing to do with the NRA

Good for you. I hope you didn't give them any money.

you treat it like a straw man and use the excesses of the NRA to replace real answers to the questions posed just above and in many other posts in this string.

Must I repeat? The NRA, its lies and tactics, was the SUBJECT of my article. If you wish to write about something else, start your own blog.