Michael Ejercito registered as concise, witty, sharp and unmerciful a rebuttal of the knee-jerk anti-gun position’s multiple dishonesties, deceits and distortions as I have ever seen. I am debating whether to post the whole thing on Facebook. It may be unethical to make one’s friend’s heads explode, even heads that deserve it.
Here is his epic Comment of the Day on the post, Morning Ethics Warm-Up, 2/15/18: Money, Massacres, Mudd And More:
– These people claim that we “do nothing” regarding murder. How then, are murderers in prison? Is it just sheer coincidence that they are serving life sentences or on death row? If not, why is punishing murderers not considered “doing something”?
– “This happens nowhere else”. Does “nowhere else” include Brazil, Jamaica, Mexico, and South Africa?
– These people claim that no one is talking about banning guns. How then, did guns get banned in Chicago, Illinois, and Washington, D.C.? How did guns get banned in South Carolina in 1902 if no one ever talked about banning guns?
– These people claim to want “sensible” gun legislation. Why did none of them call for repealing the handgun bans in Chicago and Washington? Or for laws authorizing police to arbitrarily deny permits to carry firearms, even if the applicant meets all objective statutory criteria?
– Washington, D.C. had a handgun ban in 1976. Were the shootings of Ronald Reagan and James Brady hoaxes? How would such a thing be possible if it was as difficult for John Hinckley to obtain a firearm as it was for Marion Barry to obtain cocaine?
– These people say that state-level bans do not work because people simply smuggle guns from outside the jurisdiction, and we need national laws. We have national laws on marijuana, and marijuana is smuggled from outside the United States. In order for gun control laws to work, must the United States conquer the whole world? How many servicemen would be willing to fight in a war of conquest for the purpose of disarming Americans at home? How many foreign children would have to be killed to accomplish that objective?
– Regarding universal background checks, how do they expect the police to catch a crack dealer selling firearms without running background checks if the police can not catch him for selling crack?
– Kamala Harris, who at the time was the California Attorney General, said “Local law enforcement must be able to use their discretion to determine who can carry a concealed weapon” If so, why should not county clerks like Kim Davis be able to use their discretion to determine who can marry?
– The United States of America already has the highest rate of imprisonment per capita in the world. How many more prisons would have to be built to accommodate a new population of prisoners who had not even been accused of hurting anyone?
– The Second Amendment is not the only constitutional provision with adverse public safety implication. While no murder conviction was ever thrown out on Second Amendment grounds, murder convictions have been thrown out on Fourth and Fifth and Sixth Amendment grounds. If these amendments were repealed (or ignored), it would be easier to punish criminals? How many lives would be saved? What would be the price for those lives?
– More people are killed by black violence than mass shootings. What must be done about blacks? Are the anti-gun violence people willing to abrogate Constitutional protections to go after blacks? If not, what would stop a state that had already abrogated the Constitution regarding the right to keep and bear arms, from doing the same regarding black people?
Ethics Alarms 
As I said in the original post: Great blend of snarky satire and sublime salience.
Congrats, Mike
Thank you
I don’t see the connection.
Reagan and Brady were shot in 1981.
D.C. had a gun ban in 1982.
Please clarify.
It was a typo.
It was enacted in 1976, and was in effect in 1981.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/17/AR2007071700689.html
My point stands. How could Ronald Reagan and James Brady have been shot, if it would have been as impossible for John Hinckley to have a gun in D.C. as it was for Marion Barry to have cocaine in D.C.?
Did Hinkley get his gun in D.C.?
To answer my own question:
The gun used in the shooting and another like it were purchased legally for $47 each from Rocky’s Pawn Shop in Dallas, Texas. Hinckley had no criminal record and had never been committed to a mental institution. Though his family lived in Colorado, he had been attending Texas Tech in Lubbock, Texas, on and off since 1974 and had a valid Texas driver’s license
So he broke the law in bringing the gun inside the borders of D.C.?
I guess so. But, what if the same stringent restrictions were placed everywhere?
Would that have prevented him from obtaining both guns?
No, because they could be smuggled from outside the country.
I’ll fix it.
May I repost, citing “Michael Ejercito” as the source?
Sure!
I well deserved COTD Michael.
– The Second Amendment is not the only constitutional provision with adverse public safety implication. ….
I haven’t ever heard that line of argument before, and it is an excellent one. As a libertarian, I find myself aligning with the “conservative” Justices far more often. But I fear the elimination of the exclusion rule, it is one of the most powerful checks on police abuse. When something is thrown out on 4th, 5th or 6th amendment grounds, I do not feel bad at all.
These people say that state-level bans do not work because people simply smuggle guns from outside the jurisdiction, and we need national laws….
I’ve stated it before that I’m opposed to nearly all laws against possession of “things” regardless of political side. Why is it so few can see the parallels when comparing guns and marijuana? Liberals will argue for gun control and for drug legalization. Conservatives will argue for prohibition and for gun rights. They’ll use the exact same arguments for each, but take the opposite position when you swap the words “guns” and “marijuana.” Neither is able to grasp the stupidity of that behavior.
I think there is no better example on how prohibition is futile than to point out that drugs are available in prison. You can strip all rights, give the government absolute authority, and it’s not enough, drugs are still there.
I lifted this excerpt from the article “How John
got his gun,” by Richard L. Strout, 4Sep,1981:
For almost 50 years polls have shown that the public wants tighter handgun control. But this view is not shared by all. A powerful one-issue lobby, the National Rifle Association, resists stricter gun control legislation in Congress. As Hinckley is tried here the public might examine the situation once more. Last March a Washington Post-ABC News poll, following the attempt on Mr. Reagan’s life, showed 65 percent favored stronger anti-handgun control. A similar poll by the Associated Press and NBC News a monthg later reported 71 percent favored a police permit for a handgun possessor. A third poll, by Gallup in May 1981, put the control advocates’ a little higher, 81 percent.
What caught my eye was since the 1930’s the public wanted gun control. A vast amount of the population was concerned enough to speak their minds regarding the control of firearms. Maybe this opposition was sufficient to enable the 50 caliber machine gun ban, which seems more of a slam dunk, but suggests that heavy lobbying was active even then.
I wonder now, almost 40 years after Reagan’s assassination attempt, how has the discussion changed?
The Bill of Rights does not depend on popularity polls. That’s the whole point of it.
I wonder how Jim Crow laws polled in 1934, the year that the National Firearms Act was enacted.
Ever notice how these polls seem to only ask those they know are in favor of their desired outcome?
I have had pollers call and hang up when they find out I am not progressive. For decades.
While I am much more skeptical of calls for gun control than I used to be, I don’t think the “Won’t somebody please think of the children?” reference works here. The original Helen Lovejoy line was funny because it was a hysterical overreaction to rather mundane concerns: bears in the woods, and then a tax increase for the Bear Patrol. The reference works when it mocks people who hysterical invoke “the children” over similarly mundane concerns.
In this case, we have…actual dead children. Hundreds of them, in fact, over the past few years. We kind of have to think of the children at that point. Whether increasing gun control is an effective solution is a good question, and certainly many gun-control arguments are worthy of mockery, as some of Michael’s points show. But mocking the motivation of not wanting more kids to die strikes me as incredibly callous and tone-deaf.
Other things to keep in mind:
“– Regarding universal background checks, how do they expect the police to catch a crack dealer selling firearms without running background checks if the police can not catch him for selling crack?”
– Illinois already has “Universal Background” Checks: https://www.isp.state.il.us/docs/firearms052104.pdf
Which of course is followed up with:
“– These people say that state-level bans do not work because people simply smuggle guns from outside the jurisdiction, and we need national laws.
– The majority of guns recovered in Chicago were purchased in Illinois (40.4%) followed by Indiana (21%) [Page 7]. The really interesting stat, in my opinion, is 94.7% of the people arrested with the firearm were NOT the original purchaser [Page 11]. If that’s the case does it matter where the guns was purchased?
Click to access GTR2017.pdf
The most interesting statistic NOT in the Chicago Gun Study, how many of the people arrested with a gun for ANY reason had a valid FOID card a.k.a. a “universal background check”. While I have no doubt the number is greater than zero, I’d be shocked if it was higher then 3%.
After reading that study you’d think that once they caught someone clearly committing “Straw Man” purchases they would spend a long time in prison, right?
You’d be wrong:
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2016/09/28/police-woman-with-foid-card-bought-and-sold-guns-for-profit/
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20170414/news/170419171/
It’s a Bill of Rights issue.
Like any issue, it’s open to interpretation.
It is not as ironclad as one would think.
Of course, its not really even about tje 2nd Amendment; Its about money. Profits for gun makers, the NRA as that big sucking sound, and gun owners who throw their cash at it, and of course the corruption of our elected officials, who are woo’d by that same money.
Money talks.
Been talking since the 1930’s at least in regards to legislation to “well regulate” our militia.
It is, in fact, ironclad as far as the right to own guns goes, and the militia argument always was lame and was finally decisively rejected by SCOTUS. All the NRA, money junk is a distraction and misdirection, and a way to impugn the legitimate goal of protecting a core individual right. No, I will not allow my rights to be diminished because some citizens abuse the same rights, even if its a right I currently choose not the exercise.
A year ago, a man was going door to door and randomly shooting people in my neighborhood. Three houses were hit, and at five, I was going think hard about getting a gun, and one with more fire power than what that guy was using. They caught him, so it was not necessary.
So he wasn’t a policeman?
Surprisingly, no.
trumpgirl,
The NRA has spent 200 million dollars on all political activities in the last 20 years. Planned Parenthood spends more money than the NRA. Big Labor Unions spent 1.7 billion in 2016 alone.
This is not about money. Your progressive talking points are lies, plain and simple. This is about control, and the Constitutional rights of Americans regarding how they are governed.
Two comments:
1. A teenage boy from Parkland was interviewed by BrIan Williams, who clearly was trying to make this a gun control issue, asked him what he would do about guns if he was an adult and in a position of power. This brave and eloquent young man blasted Williams (politely) by saying that an official ban on all guns would never get rid them, and that the mental health issue was the one he would focus upon. Williams, nonplussed, only followed up with a question about which of the 17 dead the interviewee knew. !!! Good reporting.
2. I often had arguments with my liberal (for religious reasons) father, who thought that all guns should be illegal. He also thought the miliitary industrial complex was the creation of Satan (and denied all proven fact that the budget of HHS was bigger than DOD’s, e.g.), and that virtually all policemen were power-hungry sadists. So I reminded him of the history of the American Revolution, the reason for and creation of the Bill of Rights and asked him: “Then what you’re saying is that the only people that can be armed are in fact the groups you trust the least? Does that make sense?” No response.
My replies.
1. I am old enough to remember when crime was blamed on poverty and systemic racism and broken families. Now it is mental illness? Are all gangbangers insane?
2. Maybe your father believes only the police should be armed because they are power-hungry sadists.
So to make an interesting conversation (and being married to a moderate democrat, though she does hate Trump she doesn’t run around saying impeach him. Just complains when he says something dumb, which is a bit too often) So I get to hear a lot of arguments on the pro side of gun control between her and other friends. Personally I fall in the middle of it, as I can agree with a lot of their points.
– These people claim that we “do nothing” regarding murder. How then, are murderers in prison? Is it just sheer coincidence that they are serving life sentences or on death row? If not, why is punishing murderers not considered “doing something”?
I don’t think it’s people think we’re doing nothing totally. It’s that what we have been doing hasn’t been enough for a long time. And that we’re not doing anything new to remedy the situation.
– “This happens nowhere else”. Does “nowhere else” include Brazil, Jamaica, Mexico, and South Africa?
Could be wrong, but I don’t think there are mass shootings of random civilians even there. Sure Mexico cartels do mass murders to keep their power. You can just breathe wrong and someone will kill you in Brazil. But even there you don’t hear about frequent occurrences of someone walking into schools and concerts and shooting up the places
– These people claim that no one is talking about banning guns. How then, did guns get banned in Chicago, Illinois, and Washington, D.C.? How did guns get banned in South Carolina in 1902 if no one ever talked about banning guns?
There are definitely some who want to ban guns. But there are many, I will even say most, who are fine with a limitation. Here it’s semi-automatic weapons (particularly rifles, but also handguns). Limited shot hunting rifles, shotguns, even handguns for people who need protection are fine. Ditch the auto feeders. But why the need to fire off 100 shots in a minute? Or 20 shots in 10 seconds?
– These people claim to want “sensible” gun legislation. Why did none of them call for repealing the handgun bans in Chicago and Washington? Or for laws authorizing police to arbitrarily deny permits to carry firearms, even if the applicant meets all objective statutory criteria?
To them that’s already sensible. :) They’re not going to volunteer that, but many would be fine with that if semi-auto weapons were not allowed. Or that there were stricter laws on who can not have them.
– Washington, D.C. had a handgun ban in 1976. Were the shootings of Ronald Reagan and James Brady hoaxes? How would such a thing be possible if it was as difficult for John Hinckley to obtain a firearm as it was for Marion Barry to obtain cocaine?
Well obviously they bought them outside of DC. That’s why they want this to be a national issue, not local. If you can just hop in your car and drive 30 minutes to get guns, then local bans don’t do much.
– These people say that state-level bans do not work because people simply smuggle guns from outside the jurisdiction, and we need national laws. We have national laws on marijuana, and marijuana is smuggled from outside the United States. In order for gun control laws to work, must the United States conquer the whole world? How many servicemen would be willing to fight in a war of conquest for the purpose of disarming Americans at home? How many foreign children would have to be killed to accomplish that objective?
I have to say, that’s not really a good defense for anything. Heroin, cocaine and other drugs are smuggled in. In your view then should we be conquering the world to stop it, in order for making the drug laws work? How many foreign children should die to accomplish this? Or are you saying since drugs are still smuggled in, we should just get rid of the laws like not having more gun control? All drugs should be legal and used as much as you want. Basically you’re proposing one of those with your argument. The real answer is it won’t stop it, but will make it more difficult to have it proliferate and get to those who might misuse it (like drugs). Particularly over time.
– Regarding universal background checks, how do they expect the police to catch a crack dealer selling firearms without running background checks if the police can not catch him for selling crack?
I think they would just be looking for people selling firearms whether they did other things or not. And really, background checks are almost useless. In Florida (and many states), only licensed firearm dealers are required to run background checks. There is no check required for private transactions. So if you know someone who has an AR-15, or you go to a private dealer at a gun show, just give him some cash and he gives you his gun. All legal. You don’t even need to register the gun afterwards.
– Kamala Harris, who at the time was the California Attorney General, said “Local law enforcement must be able to use their discretion to determine who can carry a concealed weapon” If so, why should not county clerks like Kim Davis be able to use their discretion to determine who can marry?
Not sure what marriage issues has to do with gun control or mass shooting? It’s throwing in a spurious argument to make a point that doesn’t relate to what you’re discussing. Besides, almost everyone in Florida gets a concealed permit if they want it. They’ve only rejected about 7,000 in the last 20 years (not counting those rejected simply because paperwork was filled out wrong), while giving out 1.6 million of them.
– The United States of America already has the highest rate of imprisonment per capita in the world. How many more prisons would have to be built to accommodate a new population of prisoners who had not even been accused of hurting anyone?
So we should not pass laws because people might break them and go to prison? I would also think it would be the same argument used for a number of crimes. Buying and holding illegal weapons would be giving money and fueling organizations to make more of them and bring them in.
– The Second Amendment is not the only constitutional provision with adverse public safety implication. While no murder conviction was ever thrown out on Second Amendment grounds, murder convictions have been thrown out on Fourth and Fifth and Sixth Amendment grounds. If these amendments were repealed (or ignored), it would be easier to punish criminals? How many lives would be saved? What would be the price for those lives?
I think most people (but certainly not all anti-gun nuts) realize those other amendments are there primarily to keep from punishing innocent people. Not just to make it difficult to punish criminals.
– More people are killed by black violence than mass shootings. What must be done about blacks? Are the anti-gun violence people willing to abrogate Constitutional protections to go after blacks? If not, what would stop a state that had already abrogated the Constitution regarding the right to keep and bear arms, from doing the same regarding black people?
Kind of a side argument to gun control for mass shootings really. Though you would hope if semi-auto handguns were banned, and/or made more difficult to own, that would lower the violence levels on their own. Let’s be honest, most people don’t care. Not because they don’t care about blacks, but for the simple (probably correct) reason they believe the vast majority of that violence is tied up to drugs and gang activity. If you’re not involved in those, you’re relatively safe.
Pong…
1.I don’t think it’s people think we’re doing nothing totally. It’s that what we have been doing hasn’t been enough for a long time. And that we’re not doing anything new to remedy the situation.
And the point is that it will never be “enough,” because in a nation with great freedom and a culture of individualism like no other, there will always be violence, and firearm abuse. The underlying sentiment behind anti-gun zealotry is anti-Americanism and a preference for European culture. Since noting will be enough, the end point is panning guns. Thus many are reluctant to start down that slope…or trap. if you prefer.
They killed more in Columbine than in Florida, and there semi-automatic weapons had little involvement. All it took were shotguns. So band those too, presumably. Right?
2. Could be wrong, but I don’t think there are mass shootings of random civilians even there. Sure Mexico cartels do mass murders to keep their power. You can just breathe wrong and someone will kill you in Brazil. But even there you don’t hear about frequent occurrences of someone walking into schools and concerts and shooting up the places.
There are not “frequent occurrences” of either school or concert shootings. Obligatory “one is too many,” but the narrative that this happens frequently is simply untrue. Meanwhile, whether the victims of mass shootings are random or not, they are just as dead. The rhetoric is that countries more gun regulations don’t have lots of murders. That’s false.
3. There are definitely some who want to ban guns. But there are many, I will even say most, who are fine with a limitation. Here it’s semi-automatic weapons (particularly rifles, but also handguns). Limited shot hunting rifles, shotguns, even handguns for people who need protection are fine. Ditch the auto feeders. But why the need to fire off 100 shots in a minute? Or 20 shots in 10 seconds?
That’s easy: the need for such weapons is so you can fight off the government when it comes to arrest you for saying climate change is a crock, or something else. The more totalitarian the Democrats sound, the less sympathy I have for the “you don’t need these weapons” argument. I think the vast majority of the anti-gun Left wants to ban guns, but knows that incrementalism is their best shot. Hillary has let the mask slip, talking about Australia. Even your comment is suspicious. “Just semi-automatics! Well, maybe handguns. OK, some shotguns..” Once one kind of gun is banned, they will just more down the line. “People who need protection”? no, every citizen has the right to be able to protect themselves, as THEY see fit, not Big Brother.
4. To them that’s already sensible. 🙂 They’re not going to volunteer that, but many would be fine with that if semi-auto weapons were not allowed. Or that there were stricter laws on who can not have them.
See #3 above. And convicted criminals can’t legally have them NOW, so those other limitations will involve pre-crime and undermining the rights of citizens based on…what? A prescription for Xanax? An angry blog post? Being on a “list”? Having a complaint filed by an ex-wife?
5. Well obviously they bought them outside of DC. That’s why they want this to be a national issue, not local. If you can just hop in your car and drive 30 minutes to get guns, then local bans don’t do much.
You missed the point. ME’s point is that if bans are what the anti-gun crowd regards as “sensible,” then they are lying about what they really want. So you say, “Right, they want a NATIONAL ban.” Yes, we know that.
6. I have to say, that’s not really a good defense for anything. Heroin, cocaine and other drugs are smuggled in. In your view then should we be conquering the world to stop it, in order for making the drug laws work? How many foreign children should die to accomplish this? Or are you saying since drugs are still smuggled in, we should just get rid of the laws like not having more gun control? All drugs should be legal and used as much as you want. Basically you’re proposing one of those with your argument. The real answer is it won’t stop it, but will make it more difficult to have it proliferate and get to those who might misuse it (like drugs). Particularly over time.
Actually, that’s the Left and Libertarian point of view: legalize drugs, because the laws don’t work, and drugs are gooooooood, man! It’s lousy analogy, because guns serve a vital purpose in our hierarchy of individual rights, and heroin serves none…and there’s that Amendment. ME’s point is that banning guns is already a fantasy. It would be like Prohibition, with all the crooks having all the guns they wanted, and a thriving black market.
7.I think they would just be looking for people selling firearms whether they did other things or not. And really, background checks are almost useless. In Florida (and many states), only licensed firearm dealers are required to run background checks. There is no check required for private transactions. So if you know someone who has an AR-15, or you go to a private dealer at a gun show, just give him some cash and he gives you his gun. All legal. You don’t even need to register the gun afterwards.
It’s called trust. No, gun owners don’t want to be on a registry. That totalitarian thing, and after reading about what the FBI has been up to, don’t say they are paranoid. Personally, I think that there should be some minimal credentialing for gun ownership…if I could be sure that minimal wasn’t a slippery slope to disarming the public.
8. Not sure what marriage issues has to do with gun control or mass shooting? It’s throwing in a spurious argument to make a point that doesn’t relate to what you’re discussing. Besides, almost everyone in Florida gets a concealed permit if they want it. They’ve only rejected about 7,000 in the last 20 years (not counting those rejected simply because paperwork was filled out wrong), while giving out 1.6 million of them.
The main point is that Harris, a US Senator, sees nothing wrong with the police deciding who has rights and who doesn’t. And you just fell into the CNN trap: AR-15’s can’t be “concealed and carried.”
8. So we should not pass laws because people might break them and go to prison? I would also think it would be the same argument used for a number of crimes. Buying and holding illegal weapons would be giving money and fueling organizations to make more of them and bring them in.
I agree that this is a tangent. ME’s point is to note the hypocrisy: “mass incarceration” is a drum the Left beats, but there will be more non-violent minorities in prison if their anti-gun dreams are realized.
I think most people (but certainly not all anti-gun nuts) realize those other amendments are there primarily to keep from punishing innocent people. Not just to make it difficult to punish criminals.
Wrong! That’s the ignorance and lack of basic literacy about the Constitution that infects the whole issue. Those amendments are there to protect individual citizens from the government and its inevitable abuse of power. Domestic spying, for example, is a breach of the 4th. So is searching my house for guns after they have been banned.
Kind of a side argument to gun control for mass shootings really. Though you would hope if semi-auto handguns were banned, and/or made more difficult to own, that would lower the violence levels on their own. Let’s be honest, most people don’t care. Not because they don’t care about blacks, but for the simple (probably correct) reason they believe the vast majority of that violence is tied up to drugs and gang activity. If you’re not involved in those, you’re relatively safe.
Michael was trolling a bit on this one. Your answer sounds a bit like an infamous speech from “The Godfather”…
Here is more regarding Kamala Harris.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/Talk.Politics.Guns/rkOPVZdFTEM/GPb5UtdHBwAJ
“Local law enforcement must be able to use their discretion to determine who can carry a concealed weapon,” said Kamala Harris, who was then the California Attorney General.
I have always wondered how #BlackLivesMatter would view this. After all, according to their narrative, cops are just Klansmen with badges who
habitually gun down unarmed black men. How could we trust such people with discretion to determine who may carry a concealed weapon?
And yet, just yesterday, she tweeted this:
Today, we remember #MikeBrown and recommit to ensuring truth,
transparency, and trust in our criminal justice system. #BlackLivesMatter
So I wonder if any reporter from the network broadcast and print media would
ask her any of the following questions:
– If the reason that “[l]ocal law enforcement must be able to use their
discretion to determine who can carry a concealed weapon” is because they are just Klansmen with badges, why shouldn’t the Stormfront White
Nationalist Community also get to decide who can carry a concealed weapon?
– If the reason that “[l]ocal law enforcement must be able to use their
discretion to determine who can carry a concealed weapon” is because they habitually gun down unarmed black men, why shouldn’t the Crips also get to decide who can carry a concealed weapon?
– Is more black men dead or in prison a worthy price to pay to make lawful gun ownership more difficult?
– Is making lawful gun ownership more difficult a worthy price to pay to put more black men in prison?
– Does some magical guardian fairy turn these Klansmen with badges into freedom riders whenever they exercise their “discretion to determine who can carry a concealed weapon”?
Here is another thing that disturbs me. When Harris made that infamous statement, no media figure or pundit ever called her out on it. In fact, I did an Google search, and, other than me, the only person I can find who called her out on this statement was John Richardson, who made references to the Jim Crow era in his criticism.
When Harris made that #BlackLivesMatter tweet, the only person I can find online, who criticized her tweet as being inconsistent with her view that “Local law enforcement must be able to use their discretion to determine who can carry a concealed weapon”,
was me.
That is right. Apparently, I am the only person in the whole world who brought this up. If you can find one other person, who, before today, criticized her for this inconsistency, I would be thankful.
What about all those pundits on this media networks?
Hell, what about the #BlackLivesMatter movement? Not one of them voiced criticism of her?
Why were these people all silent?
” That’s easy: the need for such weapons is so you can fight off the government when it comes to arrest you for saying climate change is a crock, or something else. ”
Without wishing to engage in strawman arguments, is the primary purpose of the 2nd amendment to enable groups like ISIS to overthrow what they see as a tyranny?
Was this affected by, say, Shea’s rebellion, and a dead issue by, say, 1865?
In the last century, how many uprisings by an armed populace have been effective vs ruthless tyrannies, without installing even more ruthless tyrannies in their place? Or did they require support from factions of the armed forces?
Would it be a friendly act for a foreign power to supply semi automatic military grade weapons with 1000 rounds each, without cost, to all members of the Nation of Islam, ISIS. La Raza, Antifa and their ilk? Complying with all state and federal laws on private sales of course. And a similar program for all newly released prisoners not forbidden from owning weapons? Those just have weapons given to their partners instead, or persons they nominate.
Because Freedom – supporting the right of ALL Americans to bear arms, and not just .22 handguns either.
Such an act would cost a small fraction of NK’s military budget. Or Russia’s.
ISIS is not American citizens, and there is a law against attempting to overthrow the government. You were correct: a straw man.
“… to overthrow what they see as a tyranny?”
The 2nd Amendment isn’t about overthrowing what someone “sees as tyranny”, it’s about defense from actual, clearly defined tyranny. We have a constitution written down for all to see for a reason. It’s a contract between the government and the governed. Tyranny, in the American context, then, is not a matter of opinion. It is the government breaking the agreement represented by the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment is there to put teeth into the citizenry’s ability to enforce that contract.
What scares the elite politicians the most is that a moderately successful deer hunter with enough motivation to not care about being caught (nothing to lose) can reach out and touch them and those they care about. They understand that they are committing systemic violence on those they represent, and fear retribution.
This, and this alone, restrains their hand.
They must make baby steps to get their goal of an unarmed public.
Ping back!! 🙂
1. And the point is that it will never be “enough,” because in a nation with great freedom and a culture of individualism like no other, there will always be violence, and firearm abuse. The underlying sentiment behind anti-gun zealotry is anti-Americanism and a preference for European culture. Since noting will be enough, the end point is panning guns. Thus many are reluctant to start down that slope…or trap. if you prefer.
They killed more in Columbine than in Florida, and there semi-automatic weapons had little involvement. All it took were shotguns. So band those too, presumably. Right?
That part of Anti-American bit sounds a bit exaggerated and almost out there as anti-gun responses. Just because someone is anti-gun does not make them Anti-American. It means THEY don’t feel safe in America because of others with them. That’s all. I hear that from the anti-gun side all the time about safety. “Don’t yell at someone, they might shoot you in response”, relating to being in public, getting cut-off in a car, etc. There ARE some who it won’t be enough. But MOST of the people I know, and probably the majority, understand the difference between single shot hunting rifles, non-auto-feed shotguns and limited ammo handguns as being practical in use.
By the way, that is not right about Columbine. The vast majority of shots fired in Columbine, about 80% of them, were done by a semi-automatic 9-mm handgun. The shotguns (pump action-auto feed) were mainly only used in the library. People remember the shotguns but they weren’t used much.
2. There are not “frequent occurrences” of either school or concert shootings. Obligatory “one is too many,” but the narrative that this happens frequently is simply untrue. Meanwhile, whether the victims of mass shootings are random or not, they are just as dead. The rhetoric is that countries more gun regulations don’t have lots of murders. That’s false.
I think compared to most of the world, it’s basically frequent. Certainly for what it should be. At least in terms of mass casualty incidents with random civilians. And that’s what people are concerned about here.
3. That’s easy: the need for such weapons is so you can fight off the government when it comes to arrest you for saying climate change is a crock, or something else. The more totalitarian the Democrats sound, the less sympathy I have for the “you don’t need these weapons” argument. I think the vast majority of the anti-gun Left wants to ban guns, but knows that incrementalism is their best shot. Hillary has let the mask slip, talking about Australia. Even your comment is suspicious. “Just semi-automatics! Well, maybe handguns. OK, some shotguns..” Once one kind of gun is banned, they will just more down the line. “People who need protection”? no, every citizen has the right to be able to protect themselves, as THEY see fit, not Big Brother.
I’m going to respond with three things. First, when the 2nd Amendment was done, and really through history until the last century, the average citizen had the same weaponry as the government. That’s changed now. The government military vastly out-powers citizens now. It’s no longer a defense against it. If they feel someone with a semi-auto arsenal is a threat, they’ll win. It’s the laws and policies which protect citizens from government, not their guns. The second is, using a valid argument you use on things, is who gets to determine when it’s right to defend yourself with force? If you asked the public, there are already some who feel they’re rights have been usurped. If someone gets arrested now, whatever the reason, and they feel it’s a crock, are they justified to shoot? Who gets to make that decision? There are enough false arrests right now (intentionally, or more often mistakenly) that we would have a bloodbath if every time the person felt it was ok to shoot the police when it happens. Or do you think that should be done.
For the last. If I feel that I need a 1000 rpm minigun with armor piercing ammo to protect myself, should I have it? That might be how I see fit. .50 caliber machine gun? Heck even just a few AK-47s? We already have limits on what we can have. So either you think anyone should have any weapon they see fit, or you’ve already made that decision to let big brother limit you.
4. See #3 above. And convicted criminals can’t legally have them NOW, so those other limitations will involve pre-crime and undermining the rights of citizens based on…what? A prescription for Xanax? An angry blog post? Being on a “list”? Having a complaint filed by an ex-wife?
Now could I ask do you think all limitations should be removed then? Should felons be able to have guns? People who are mentally deficient?? Obviously at some point society does make a “list” on who can purchase and own firearms. Aren’t people right now mad that the Parkland shooter didn’t have his guns taken away because he made some blog posts? Should they have been?
5. You missed the point. ME’s point is that if bans are what the anti-gun crowd regards as “sensible,” then they are lying about what they really want. So you say, “Right, they want a NATIONAL ban.” Yes, we know that.
I think you’re reading their minds in this case. There ARE some who will want guns bands. There are more who understand hunting rifles and limited ammo guns. Just because a vocal minority group gets covered in the media shouting they want it doesn’t include everyone. Much like all Conservatives aren’t white supremists because they shout that too.
6. Actually, that’s the Left and Libertarian point of view: legalize drugs, because the laws don’t work, and drugs are gooooooood, man! It’s lousy analogy, because guns serve a vital purpose in our hierarchy of individual rights, and heroin serves none…and there’s that Amendment. ME’s point is that banning guns is already a fantasy. It would be like Prohibition, with all the crooks having all the guns they wanted, and a thriving black market.
I don’t know a single person, left or right, who thinks hard drugs should be legalized. Are there some drug flunkies who do. Yes, but that is not even close to what the majority of people on either side want. I think that’s a reach Jack, or painting a very broad brush over a group based on a couple of vocal crazies in them. That goes along with that’s the Right agenda to wipe out all minorities and have whites rule because there are a couple crazies in the alt-right area who think that.
7. It’s called trust. No, gun owners don’t want to be on a registry. That totalitarian thing, and after reading about what the FBI has been up to, don’t say they are paranoid. Personally, I think that there should be some minimal credentialing for gun ownership…if I could be sure that minimal wasn’t a slippery slope to disarming the public.
That’s the problem. A lot of people don’t trust people with guns not to use them. With good reason really. Look at crime statistics. Do you really think anyone should have untraceable guns that can be used in any crime without knowing where it came from? You can point to a few instances of the FBI, and they can point out 10s of thousands of gun deaths each year. That’s one I do disagree with you on. I have no problem with gun ownership, but I definitely think they all should be registered, know who owns them, and if a crime is used with them a way to track that down. To me that’s responsible gun ownership.
8. The main point is that Harris, a US Senator, sees nothing wrong with the police deciding who has rights and who doesn’t. And you just fell into the CNN trap: AR-15’s can’t be “concealed and carried.”
I don’t really think they should. If that’s the explanation than it’s a good one. Though someone has to make a determination of who can use firearms, unless the answer is anyone can own any firearm. Right now society considers that to be the best person to do so (or change the law). And my response was on semi-automatic weapons, which includes semi-auto handguns, for conceal and carry. Also, is an AR-15 in a duffle bag technically conceal and carry in public? Or just get one of these discreet carrying kits that look like briefcases. http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010/02/22/the-tac2-ar15-discreet-carry-kit/
8. I agree that this is a tangent. ME’s point is to note the hypocrisy: “mass incarceration” is a drum the Left beats, but there will be more non-violent minorities in prison if their anti-gun dreams are realized.
Wouldn’t that go under the same hypocrisy of “get tough on crime” that is a right agenda. But not wanting to pass laws to get tough on crime? That’s the problem with hypocrisy, both sides do it all the time. Overall, (to me), the bigger problem with mass incarceration is the expense to taxpayers and government to keep people in there long term, if they’re not really a threat. But I don’t have the knowledge to determine who that is.
9. Wrong! That’s the ignorance and lack of basic literacy about the Constitution that infects the whole issue. Those amendments are there to protect individual citizens from the government and its inevitable abuse of power. Domestic spying, for example, is a breach of the 4th. So is searching my house for guns after they have been banned.
Granted, that’s a better way to look at it. I think to most that kind of falls under the same umbrella, keeping innocent people from being prosecuted wrongly (as the government does the prosecution). That’s definitely more accurate the way you wrote it though.
Michael was trolling a bit on this one. Your answer sounds a bit like an infamous speech from “The Godfather”…
Ha! I don’t even know what to say on this one. The GodFather did have some great speeches though :)
“First, when the 2nd Amendment was done, and really through history until the last century, the average citizen had the same weaponry as the government.”
Actually they did not. The average citizen had the same individual weapons as the government soldier but only the government had crew serviced weapons which at that time was various forms of cannon. There has never been any real argument that the individual citizen has a right to own such weapons. The average citizen today has access to the same firearms that the individual soldier typically caries except for select fire weapons.
“The government military vastly out-powers citizens now.”
Yes they do but so what? The United States military vastly outgunned North Vietnam and outguns Iraq. People determined to fight back can engage in asymmetric warfare and prove very tenacious.
True on the first part. Let’s change it to the differences between what the military controls and what the average citizen can have has widened significantly. There is a much larger difference in effectiveness between them.
As we both know two of the large reasons Vietnam/Iraq enemies survive in fighting back is a large number of the citizens consider(ed) the US to be an invading force and were against us. And the involvement of foreign governments and soldiers providing equipment, weapons, tactics or safety. Would that be the same case? Maybe. Local populations might not back a “new government”, though foreign help would be a lot harder.
What is assymetric warfare?
Try this one on for size:
Soldier (cop, agent, etc.) actually believes in gun confiscation, and is embracing going door to door. Since citizens (sorry, newly minted criminals) sometimes shoot back, he uses overwhelming force against any target, regardless of threat level. This is how things escalate, when the lives of the law enforcers are threatened, after all. Collateral damage (i.e. innocent bystanders, children of the accused, etc.) is an inevitable result of such tactics. Our enforcer regrets such, but they are necessary for the job to get done without loss of life on the part of the enforcers.
Now, Americans, being the ornery cusses they are, will see the tactics used by the enforcers. They cannot resist in a stand up fight, so they figure other ways to defeat their enemies. Americans do not like to see kids die for any reason, and would en mass turn to passively supporting the resistance, even if it manifests as not reporting suspicious activity. This is called asymmetric warfare.
The enforcers will have families. Parents, children, spouses. They people will live in something less than armed camps, meaning they are vulnerable. Once Americans have lost families, especially innocent families, the gloves would come off. The enforcers would find their destruction rained down upon those they care about. Sad, but that is war.
Now let’s look further. How do these enforcers get food, medicine, ammo? Supply lines in a nation the size of America are vulnerable, and looting them supports the resistance. Raiders would fade into the population, into the woods, into the cities with the goods. Long haul trucks would no longer be able to be used, and other methods are vulnerable. Ships have limited utility for most of America, and trains are easy to derail. Boats on internal waterways are easy to sink or hijack.
Don’t think the politicians who ordered the confiscations would get away, either. No, they are priority targets. So they simply have bodyguards, and are never out in the open where one can get a clean shot, right? Just like the enforcers, the bodyguards are the weak link. They have to be exposed to do their jobs. How long do you think politicians will have bodyguards when they are targeted routinely?
Gun confiscation must happen incrementally, or not at all.
That someone, of course, is a legislature (subject to constitutional constraints). This same principle applies to who can marry, and even who can receive public benefits and protections not mandated by the Constitution.
This written, it is far less problematic (though of course not unproblematic) to give executive officials discretion to waive qualifications so that an otherwise unqualified applicant can receive a public benefit or protection, than to give them discretion to deny a public benefit or protection to an applicant who meets all statutory qualifications.
Exactly. So are the police breaking the law by determining who can obtain firearms? Or are they acting on a law legislatures have given them to do so?
Not necessarily. A law could authorize them to deny benefits even to those who are otherwise statutorily qualified.
But consider this. With all these complaints about systemic racism in law enforcement, how can anyone support giving police the discretion deny benefits (let alone the right to keep and bear arms) even to persons who meet all other statutory qualifications. One would have to either deny systemic racism outright, pretend that some magical guardian fairy keeps systemic racism from influencing discretion regarding pistol permits, believe that increased racial discrimination is a worthy price to pay to make lawful gun ownership more difficult, or that making lawful gun ownership more difficult is a worthy price to pay for more racial discrimination.
“The real answer is it won’t stop it, but will make it more difficult to have it proliferate and get to those who might misuse it (like drugs). Particularly over time.”
Can you elaborate on that “particularly over time” part? Because we’ve been fighting the “war on drugs” for half a century, and we’re apparently in the middle of an opioid abuse epidemic right now that’s killing thousands of Americans every year. So how much time does a ban have to be in effect to make the contraband items difficult to obtain? Several decades clearly isn’t long enough, so are we talking centuries here?
“So we should not pass laws because people might break them and go to prison?”
I’d say we should certainly not pass laws that turn tens of millions of law-abiding citizens who have harmed no one into felons with the stroke of a pen, which is what a gun ban would do.
I have a suspicion that banning guns to reduce gun violence would be very, very counterproductive, as it would very likely result in a large, sudden increase in the number of shootings when those tasked with the actual physical confiscation started knocking on doors.
“Can you elaborate on that “particularly over time” part?”
What I meant by that is one of the main reasons people use against gun control is the “but there many guns out there already”. If they banned semi-auto weapons, let’s say. Provided an outlet for a year to pay you for the value of your weapon when you turn it in. Then over time these weapons will go down in number. Will they ever disappear, doubtful. But it will be a lot harder for the average person to get one then it is now. Wouldn’t you say that there would be a bigger issue, and easier to get drugs, if they were legal? A gun, particularly a rifle, is a lot larger and harder to pass to someone then a little baggie of pills. It’s not like you can tote around a dozen of them in your pocket and slip them to someone.
If there were a grace period to turn in your now illegal guns (let’s say a year), and be reimbursed for them, then I don’t see how people would suddenly become felons with the stroke of a pen. If after an amount of time they keep them, then they would be felons at that point. Much like if you own anything that gets illegalized by law making.
There are a couple of problems with this approach. Guns, unlike drugs, are durable and reusable. If you cut off the supply of guns (more on this in a moment), most of the existing supply of 400 million or so guns will still be usable for a century or more, if given even a little amount of care. So “waiting out” the guns would have to be a very, very long game. The much-touted gun ban in Australia yielded about 650,000 guns being turned in. Today the Australians estimate that there are still 600,000 or so of the types of guns that were banned in (illegal) circulation. If we can expect the same 50% compliance rate in America (an extremely optimistic fantasy), that would still leave hundreds of millions of guns in private hands. The mandatory post-Sandy Hook assault weapons registration in Connecticut is estimated to have resulted in about a 15% compliance rate. And that’s in Connecticut, a state with a majority of pro-gun-control citizens. Do you think there would even be half that rate of compliance with a semi-auto ban in Arizona or Texas?
Secondly, ownership of recreational drugs are not a Constitutionally-protected civil right. Banning oxycodone isn’t the kind of government over-reach that is going to spark a civil war. Aggressive gun bans, on the other hand, are very likely to end in far more violence than we see today.
Thirdly, it is much more difficult to manufacture methamphetamine or heroin than it is to make a gun. Guns are really quite simple machines. There is a popular post that’s been circulating on the internet for years in which a hobbyist machinist details how he built an AK-47 out of an old garden shovel and a few basic tools. It may be possible to tightly control the precursor chemicals to make illicit drugs (and we do that, for the most part, yet illegal drugs still flood the streets), but it is essentially impossible to regulate the simple machine tools one needs to make guns. There is a thriving cottage industry in the Pakistani mountains where craftsmen make illegal guns using hand tools like hammers and files.
“But it will be a lot harder for the average person to get one then it is now.”
The “average person” is not the problem, though. The average person is not a murderous sociopath bent on mayhem. The average person is not a religious fanatic willing to kill for his beliefs. The average person is not a gang member engaging in turf wars with rivals.
Essentially, a gun ban would only apply to those who were the least likely to ever cause harm with their guns in the first place. Criminals would still have plenty of guns, and motivated psychos or fanatics who wish to inflict mass casualties would still be able to obtain black-market guns or use alternate means (see the recent spate of car and truck attacks in Europe for an example) to sow chaos and murder.
On the reimbursement front, there’s got to be a better way to spend a hundred billion dollars toward the goal of violence prevention than to buy and destroy a small fraction of the privately-held guns in America (and by definition, those guns you do manage to collect will come from the law-abiding people who were most likely never a danger, anyway).
“First, when the 2nd Amendment was done, and really through history until the last century, the average citizen had the same weaponry as the government. That’s changed now. The government military vastly out-powers citizens now.”
So you’re arguing for widening that imbalance of power by restricting citizens to single-shot rifles and reduced-capacity handguns?
I’m still trying to understand by what you mean about the 2nd Amendment being in a hierarchy.
The Bill of Rights is a list, and the order is not accidental. The most important to the least, the 10th, the catch-all for limited government power. Speech, etc; right of self protection and defense; right not to have your home comandeered; right not tobe searched or have one’s home searched; right to due process in law; right to legal representation, right to trial by jury, no cruel and unusual punishment, and the two catch-alls at 9 and 10.
The First is so you can advocate against abuses of power, and the Second is so you can fight for the remaining eight.
Like the different interpretations of John’s Revelations, there are different analyses of the Constitution and in particular and especially, the Bill of Rights.
One interpretation suggests at face value (1-10) that our rights are linear, hierarchical in nature.
May I suggest that the Amendments were originally proposed to be embedded within the text of the 7 articles of the constitution, rather than tacked on to the end. Perhaps it was expedient to just list them at the end, than to rewrite the Constitution.
The 1st Amendment, “Congress shall make no laws…”, relates to Article I, Section 8, the powers of the legislature.
The 2nd through 4th limit what Congress may do (Sec 9), of which 2 & 3 relate to Congress’ war powers during peacetime, exempting Marshall Law, (“…but in manner prescribed by law.”).
The 4th is part and parcel with the 5th-8th regarding the limits to the government’s judicial powers ( Art 3).
9 and 10 are catch alls perhaps, but most likely intended to serve as guides on how to the whole of the document was to be interpreted; a reminder that it’s people and states that are the priority, not the federal government. In effect, above all, the last two are probably the heart and soul of the whole Constiturion, amendments included.
Relevant to this topic.
http://mises.org/blog/fbi-us-homicide-rate-51-year-low
That was an interesting article. This explains how safe I feel in many areas of the country, however…We have entered a new age after Columbine. (The suggestions to arm teachers are impractical, to say the least: Teachers are already working twice as hard as a generation ago. There simply is no room for a CCL. Can you see your old 4th grade teacher, “Mrs. Migillicuddy” sporting a glock? LOL. Double the funding to public schools (still cheaper than vouchers-for-private for both gov’t (taxpayers) and parents. Use the money, not for pay raises, but return to the days of fully utilized classrooms, school psychologists, counselors, additional teachers to get to smaller class sizes, stop standardized drill and kill testing, which would free up instruction for meaningful lessons, provide for extracurricular activities after school to catch kids from falling into crime. That’s just a start. Expensive, yes, but raising/teaching/reaching kids ain’t cheap.
Also, the proliferation of weapons had allowed that illegal alien to find a pistol and accidently shoot that gal on Fisherman’s Wharf in San Francisco. We are saturated with weapons.
“Something ” has to be done.
May I offer the following for discussion:
https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/two-simple-laws-could-solve-americas-epidemic-violence
1. is intellectually dishonest. When the next weapon used is shotguns, then we ban them, then rifles. Meanwhile, I want to be able to at least have fire power that approached what criminals will have, and the police. Finally, any gun banning will require confiscation. Read Charles Cook’s rant. It applies.
2. Unconstitutional, straight up. There is no constitutional right to own and drive a car. You also can’t hide cars and buy black market cars. Do you want waiting periods on cars? I can go buy one right now. I can also buy as many as I want or can afford. Nor does the government say I can’t buy a Lotus. Who made that analogy? it’s terrible.
Also, traffic laws are designed to reduce the risk of unintentional collisions.
1. The mass murders of the 1930’s were fueled by Prohibition. Stricter restrictions of semiautomatics would give criminal gangs a greater share of the firearms market.
2. Regulations regarding automobiles only covered who may operate cars on public roads, not who may own them. think about it. No state prohibits persons with drunk driving convictions from owning cars, at least as of 2017.
3. Traffic laws and licensing exist to reduce the risk of unintentional collisions. They are not addressed with dealing with intentional or reckless collisions. Laws against murder, manslaughter, reckless endangerment, and vandalism provide for punishment of those who engage in intentional auto collisions.
4. there is nothing to indicate that gangbangers do drive-bys because they lack firearm insurance.
At any rate, regardless of sound rebuttals, engaging gun-grabbers on rhetoric comparing Firearms to Cars (or any other luxury) is a weak form argument – in concedes an essential *false* premise to the Left: that guns are just another possession *like* any other possession.
They are not and therefore cannot be discussed analogically to those possessions and how those other possessions may or may not be regulated by the government.
“Double the funding to public schools…”
That doesn’t seem to have worked. Funding for public schools – in inflation-adjusted dollars – has more than doubled on a per-pupil basis over the last 30 years or so. Public schools seem to have, on average, gotten worse in that time period in almost all measurable ways, so it might be logical to conclude that more money isn’t going to solve the problem. There appear to be deeper structural flaws that can’t be fixed by a few more teachers and smaller class sizes.
I suspect that deeper analysis would show that the problem of violent, troubled children has roots more in the child’s home life (a broad category that includes family interactions, genetics, medical issues, social media exposure, etc) than the school system, so any attempts to solve it at the school level are going to have limited success at best.
‘These people say that state-level bans do not work because people simply smuggle guns from outside the jurisdiction…”
I’ve always thought this argument highly illogical and contradictory in light of another claim commonly made by these same people. Isn’t one of the main tenets of the “control” crowd that the very presence and availability of firearms is a (if not the) major driver of gun crime? If that were so, wouldn’t they expect the crime to flow to where guns are more plentiful, cheaper, and readily available (“outside the jurisdiction), rather than the other way around? If, as they are claiming, the guns instead move to areas where they are banned and more difficult to obtain, wouldn’t that confirm that the underlying problem is something endemic to those locations, instead of the relative ease with which the firearms can be had elsewhere?