Contributors

Saturday, January 12, 2013

Both To Change

With a few days until the release of Vice President Biden's committee recommendations regarding gun violence, I thought we should take a look at the 2nd Amendment and talk about its intent and purpose. There's likely going to be a whole bunch of mouth foaming, chest thumping and downright moonbat nuttery after Tuesday so let's examine the center piece of the right to bear arms. After that, I will offer my recommendations for the path I think we should pursue regarding gun safety.

Here is the 2nd Amendment:

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.

Let's talk about the first part ("a well regulated militia"). Alexander Hamilton explains the meaning of this part of the 2nd Amendment quite well in Federalist Paper #29.

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."

"If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence 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...confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority...(and) reserving to the states...the authority of training the militia"

This first part of the 2nd Amendment establishes the intention to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, and locally enforce the law. Essentially, what Hamilton is describing here is the National Guard, the modern day equivalent of a militia system. He is very careful to point out, however, that the national authority has the power over this organization, not the states themselves. After all, it is the federal government, not the states, that are responsible for providing national security. He concludes this paper by dismissing concerns about tyranny (let's remember that for a little later).

The next part of the 2nd Amendment talks about the right of the people to keep and bear arms and how that shall not be infringed. Some Constitutional scholars have taken this to mean as part of the militia but not as an individual. I disagree. It's clearly the individual and it doesn't matter whether or not they are in the military. This would be the part of the amendment that says that people (as a collective or individuals) have a right to defend themselves. Exactly what they are defending themselves against is where the problems begin.

The chief complaint about the Right is that they must have access to whatever they deem necessary to defend themselves. This includes the weapons of war that a soldier would use. In looking at Hamilton's explanation of the 2nd Amendment above, it's clear that he (and the founding fathers) did not want clusters of mini armies around the United States. He wanted a national army to preside over the local militia and provide the people with basic defense. The key word here is basic.

Justice Antonin Scalia, in writing the majority for DC v Heller, said

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. ... For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.(54)

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our [majority] opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. (54-55)

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. [Precedent says] that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time' [the Second Amendment was approved]. ... We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.  (55)

Scalia reiterated this point on Fox News last summer.

Scalia said exceptions to gun rights were recognized when the Second Amendment was written, including a tort that prohibited people from carrying a “really horrible weapon just to scare people like a head ax or something.” 

Here we see a conservative justice leaving the door wide open for a qualitative analysis of the 2nd Amendment.

With violent crime on the decline, I often wonder why the gun rights folks would be so worried about domestic types of violence that they require the modern day equivalent of a head ax. Why do they need multiple guns and ones with magazines that hold 30 bullets or more if there are less people, not more, that are victims of violent crime? The scenarios they come up with as possibilities are so unlikely that I honestly have to laugh. I mean, they don't all live in Compton or Cabrini Green!

So, we all know now (thanks to Alex Jones' mouth foam on steroids the other day) the real reason why they want their own arsenals: it's because they think our government is tyrannical. They view Democrats and the president as illegitimate holders of office who are just waiting (any day now...) to institute a totalitarian regime  and send us all to re-education camps. Many like Kevin Baker think it's going on right now and their guns are the only things that are preventing a "full" takeover. In short, Barack Obama is King George and 1776 will commence again.

Here's a little hint for them: if the federal government was really the fascist regime they say it is, they'd be hog tied right now, sans guns, and being forced fed, Clockwork Orange style, Karl Marx and gay porn. Because the simple fact is, folks, the government has much bigger and far more numerous weapons than your average gun rights person. Remember, our armed forces have more firepower than the next twenty countries combined.

And many on the Right know this because they support the funding of this every day.

Thus, we come to the ultimate irony that is the gun lobby. They scream loud and hard about tyrannical governments but they shout with equal force about how defense spending is rock solid Constitutional. So, in essence, they are supporting (with gusto) the same "tyrannical government" they fear will come some day to take their guns away...fueling it more and more every year with sophisticated weapons. In essence, they are empowering their "enemies" so their position makes no sense to me.

Now, to be fair, there are a growing number of libertarians (a few who post here like juris) who would like to see the defense department gutted. Many of my present and former students who are of a libertarian bend (there are quite a number of them, btw) want the same thing. At least they aren't hypocrites but they are wrong about the government. Tyranny is not going to happen here for a number of reasons. Our government is not a monolith. We have a brilliant system of checks and balances that will not allow a situation that would require insurrection. This lack of true central power is evident as DC is filled with a whole host of mini power bases who all struggle with one another on a daily basis. The end result is that not much gets done. If anything, the government is sedimentary which is a different kind of danger and one which we feel the consequences of every day. Of course, this is why shootings like Sandy Hook and Aurora have taken place.

So, I'm pleased to see that the plan that the Biden Group is going to release is going to be comprehensive recommendations that bring together all of the elements that are needed to lessen the possibility of this happening again while, at the same time, maintaining the right to bear arms. It's not going to simply be a matter of limiting the type of weapon or having a military grade classification of some weapons. It's going to mean background checks on every single gun purchase in America. No more loopholes for gun shows or internet sales. It's going to mean regular safety checks and mental health exams as well as demonstrating need to own certain types of weapons. Now that we know the profile of these shooters, we can make every effort to ensure that people like Adam Lanza never be allowed to have guns. This is where the mental health element comes in and, folks, it has to be taken seriously with a national effort to remove the stigma of having and seeking treatment for these sorts of problems.

With all of this in mind, here are my action items that would enable us as a nation to take giant steps towards solving this problem.

1. Vastly improve mental health in this country from a federal level all the way down to a community level. Launch a multi-pronged campaign to remove the stigma of talking about this and aggressively encourage young men who fit this profile to seek out help.

2. Universal background checks for every single person buying a gun at any time. Background checks are common in just about everything these days (getting a job, apt, buying a house or car) so there should be no problem requiring everyone to do this. No more gun show or internet loopholes. Private sales are also included here. Stiff penalties for those who break this law.

3. Classify weapons like the Bushmaster as military grade and require those who wish to own it to go through more rigorous screening. This system should be modeled after the Israel paradigm. This will likely cause mouth foaming on the part of gun rights folks. This is when their paranoia, laziness, irresponsibility and insecurity need to be exposed. Their nervousness about showing their moonbat too much in public is evidence enough that they know they are in the very small minority on this one. In short, we need more national interviews with folks like Alex Jones:)

4. A national tracking system for the movement and sale of guns. Few on the right whine about this when it comes to tracking Muslims or how much Sudafed people buy. This can help law enforcement catch criminals in a more timely fashion.

5. Armed police officers in every school. This is already true of many high schools but this should extend to junior high and grade schools as well. Funding, of course, is lacking in this department along with man power so it may have to be, at least at the outset, that increased patrols serve the need for the time being.

6. Make gun trafficking, giving a gun to a minor, and having a gun near or in a school a felony. In short, zero tolerance.

7. Step up prosecution of criminals who try to buy guns and crack down hard on rogue gun dealers.

8. Have regular gun buy back events and offer large amounts of cash for weapons that are military grade and clips above 10 bullets.

Obviously, this is not an all-encompassing list but it's a start. Note the absence of a two items:

1. An assault weapons ban or a ban on high ammunition clips. One of these or both will likely be in Biden's proposal on Tuesday. Not only is not a good idea politically but it won't have any sort of measurable effect other than piss people off who can marginalized and exposed for their nuttery in other ways. It's important to note, as I have above, that such a ban would not be unconstitutional, as Justice Scalia explained above. Further, the notion that all guns (rifles, shotguns, handguns) are going to be taken away after Newton is silly. It's not going to happen.

2. Banning gun free zones. The only people that should have guns in schools are police or trained security personnel. Allowing teachers, staff, or an Alex Jones type parent to carry a gun into a school is not a good idea. My reason for this is that I simply don't trust people. As I always say, it's not the guns, it's the people, specifically Americans. They suck with guns and have proven themselves to be massively irresponsible with them.

At the end of the day, I don't think that all of these ideas are perfect nor will they entirely solve the problem. That's the caricature that the Right uses to paint the left and then when things don't fall together so neatly (as they often do in life), they can play the adolescent blame game and capitalize on people's ignorance and fear. They have nothing themselves and it's far easier to be a critic than actually have the balls to put something forward.

The items on my list are meant to be a beginning down a path that will likely be a long process. Guns are not the reason why our society suffers so much violence. It's the people and our culture.

It's time for both to change.

46 comments:

Juris Imprudent said...

Essentially, what Hamilton is describing here is the National Guard, the modern day equivalent of a militia system.

No it isn't. The Guard is founded, organized and operated under the power to raise an Army.

Since Congress had the power to raise an Army all along, how exactly does the 2nd modify or otherwise impact that?

Nikto said...

Yes, it's ironic that the same people who think they need guns to defend themselves from Obama's military are the same people who want to vastly increase spending on Obama's military.

It's sheer fantasy to think that any American military officer would command his men to fire on American citizens simply for possessing weapons. That's never going to happen. Even in a society as oppressive and used to tyranny as Syria many in the military refused to obey illegal orders and went over to the rebels.

What has happened is that the government has had to act against criminals and messianic wackos like David Koresh, people who think they have the power of life and death over others. People who identify with Koresh and are paranoid enough to think the government will come after them next are exactly the kind of people who would fail the mental health checks that the NRA is proposing.

Regular citizens who own guns for self-protection, target shooting, hunting and just blowing up shit for the hell of it have nothing to fear from the government, as long as they keep their toys out of the hands of thieves and their unbalanced children.

But as the incident in Sandy Hook showed, checking up on the gun buyer with a single background check is not sufficient. Anyone who has direct access to those guns needs to checked out as well. This isn't necessary for a single .38 Special, but if someone like Nancy Lanza has an entire arsenal including Bushmasters, other citizens have the right to make sure that it is properly secured and that everyone who can get at that arsenal has his head screwed on straight.

Mental health isn't a permanent state. People can get better. And people can get worse. Schizophrenia and bipolar disorder can develop over time as can certain forms of dementia. People can become depressed. They become alcoholics and drug addicts. Adam Lanza might have passed a mental health check on his 18th birthday. But two years later, maybe not.

And mental health isn't the only issue. Gun owners should be required to pass vision and hearing tests to ensure they can actually tell what's going on before they pull the trigger. They should also be required to pass shooting range tests to demonstrate a minimal competency. The last thing an NRA member should want is some idiot with a gun making all NRA members look bad.

If the NRA is going to make it all about mental health and making sure that crazy people don't get guns, then we can't just grandfather every nut who already has a gun. Every gun owner needs to be evaluated on a regular basis.

That seems intrusive to me, but it's the price the NRA will have to pay for having high-powered weapons freely available. If gun owners believe they're part of the "well regulated militia" that is ever vigilant against government tyranny, then they need to be held to the same standards that the National Guard is. And the Guard won't let just any drunk who likes to shoot shit up join.

Anonymous said...

10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.


In the Framers' terms, the National Guard is a "select milita", not the entire militia, which is everyone capable of fighting.

The original version of this law was passed on May 2, 1792. (In other words, this is the definition specified by the Framers.) The only updates since then were to add women, and the National Guard.

Anonymous said...

Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1890--91 (THE definitive guide to interpreting the Constitution until "unconstitutional" began to mean "a judge's personal preference.")

The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

In case you missed it, that's PURPOSE.

Of course, Joseph Story wasn't one of the Framers, even though James Madison chose him for the Supreme Court. But these guys were:

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance.
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 28

Yes, the guy YOU like because he wanted a stronger federal government than Madison. But even he didn't want what you are after.

Anonymous said...

The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.

Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

James Madison, Federalist Paper 46

Anonymous said...

While these two men disagreed on the scope of the federal government, they were in absolute agreement that a government devolving into tyranny—even the one they were setting up—was always a possibility. Thus, both men argued that the citizens must be able resist a tyrannical government, with success being most likely if resistance is organized on a more local level, primarily at a state level.

In short, both men argued that the ability of citizens to fight against a national government and its army (whether foreign invasion or domestic tyranny) is crucial for freedom to be maintained. To be able to do that, the average citizen must have access to military grade weapons; weapons far more powerful that what most people can buy today. But you want to push it further?!?

Do you agree or disagree with this statement?:

[W]hen a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object [destroying rights] evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Juris Imprudent said...

This will likely cause mouth foaming on the part of gun rights folks.

That is what disagreement with anything you want is - foaming at the mouth. And you complain about the other side's hyperbole.

Fucking pissant hypocrite.

So please quote me what part of the Constitution grants a general police power to the feds. Because a good deal of what is being discussed is police power, pure and simple. Now let me go wipe the foam off my chin.

Juris Imprudent said...

Anyone who has direct access to those guns needs to checked out as well.

Maybe they should have to carry papers with them everywhere they go to - and then we could allow the police to stop anyone at any time to make sure their papers are in order.

Mark Ward said...

To be able to do that, the average citizen must have access to military grade weapons; weapons far more powerful that what most people can buy today. But you want to push it further?!?

I think you missed the point of this post. I am recommending against a ban on assault weapons or high ammunition clips. However, if people want to own those weapons, they are going to have to have more stringent training and checks. This would include mental health tests in a regular basis. Because, NMN, there's nothing "average" about those types of weapons so the people that are licensed for them should not be average. They can be trained by the military if they are that concerned about the tyranny of government. Speaking of which...

You dodged one of my main points about the federal government. If you support a robust defense department, aren't you essentially fueling what you fear? At least juris isn't a hypocrite on this one nor is Fez. I don't agree with their views, given the state of international security in the world, but at least they are staying true to what they think is right.

Now, just because I am not advocating a ban doesn't mean that such a ban is unconstitutional. Scalia was pretty clear in Heller and I'm wondering whether you agree or disagree with him. In all honesty, his opinion is pretty much where I am at with guns. States or cities can't ban handguns. It's against the Constitution. The right to bear arms is an individual right not a collective one (i.e, you don't have to be in a militia).

Anonymous said...

This would include mental health tests in a regular basis.

You've been over at TSM long enough that you should know the answer to this question:

Why are shall-issue concealed carry laws a better protection for Second Amendment rights than may-issue laws?

Or we could look at it from another direction. As a social studies teacher, you're supposed to know about history. Can you think of any examples from history where the government claimed the ability to qualify who got to own arms? (As opposed to someone disqualifying themself by committing a violent crime or through a institution level mental defect.) How did they turn out? And most especially, why did it turn out that way?

Mark Ward said...

I produced a very lengthy post on the 2nd Amendment that not only answered your question but served me quite well in putting out a definitive view on where I stand on gun rights and where I think we should go from here. I also think that Nikto, in his comment above, supported my points in more detail and with a most welcome slant.

So, now it's your turn. Address my question regarding the DoD and your support of it. Yes or no, do you agree with Scalia's view in Heller which I quoted in this link. After that, come up with a few action items (as I have done) on what you would do to solve this problem.

Your questions of me will go unanswered until you do so. We're not going to play the "keep the focus on Mark" game.

Juris Imprudent said...

This would include mental health tests in a regular basis.

And under what Constitutional power in Article I can Congress enact that? Or am I just irrationally foaming away?

Juris Imprudent said...

This would include mental health tests in a regular basis.

What happens to someone's guns if they fail a post-sale test? What if I pass and my wife fails?

You trust the mental health professionals to do this - the same people you don't trust to administer SSRIs.

You see, I don't think you really believe this, you are just arguing for two reasons: 1) to be an ass, and/or 2) because you can't resist the urge for govt to be larger and more intrusive.

Juris Imprudent said...

Yes, it appears my last question put the focus on Mark, so by all means - ignore the other ones and complain about that one.

Anonymous said...

Mark,

There are major problems with your view. But rather than me telling you what they are and having you simply reject them out of hand because I am the one who said it, I'm trying to get you to think it through for yourself. Thus, questions where I am attempting to draw on facts which you should already know. It's the only way I know of to have anything approaching a reasonable discussion with someone like you.

So do you want an honest discussion? Especially one based in reality? Then think about those questions.

Larry said...

#1: Yes.

#2: Shows Mark still doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about when he says, "No more gun show or internet loopholes. Private sales are also included here." There's no "Internet loophole", and I'm not even sure what that's supposed to be, and the so-called "gun show loopholes" are private sales between individuals, dipshit. Yes, I'm going straight to the vulgarities because it's not like this hasn't been explained to you repeatedly, only to bounce off your thick, thick skull like flubber.

#3: Good luck classifying semi-auto rifles as "military-grade", asshole, when they're patently not very useful for the military, otherwise it would be buying AR-15s and not M-16s and M-4s. What you're talking about is classifying semi-auto rifles the same as machine-guns. If by some miracle that law passed Congress (and there's no doubt Obama would sign it if it did), it would be the most widely disobeyed law since Prohibition, and about as effective.

#4: Re: National tracking of firearms. "Few on the right whine about this when it comes to tracking Muslims or how much Sudafed people buy." Sure, asshole, of course it must be so if you say so. "This can help law enforcement catch criminals in a more timely fashion." How? Please tell us dumb yokels precisely how that will work. Oh wait, I've got an idea. Let's put Fast and Furious Eric Holder in charge of this! He'll make sure no guns get into the hands of criminals! Or if they do, that we catch those criminals. Or, or, well, he'll do something, anyway.

#5: Armed police officers at every school. Wait a minute. That was to be ridiculed when the NRA suggested it. Now it's a good idea? Oh wait, this is Mark's famous "flexibility" in action. It's absolutely essential to be able to flip positions in the twinkling of an eye if the Party Line changes. It'll flop back just as quickly should the need arise.

#6: Make gun trafficking, giving a gun to a minor, and having a gun near or in a school a felony. In short, zero tolerance. Illegal gun dealing is a felony. And making it a felony to have a firearm in or near a school would've prevented exactly which school shooting, you colossal ignoranus? If you're already going to commit murder, let alone mass murder, any lesser crime/criminal penalty is already MEANINGLESS This is magical thinking at it's stupidest.

#7. Yes.

#8: Dumb.

Where's all of the new and innovative ideas you were touting? This is the same tired old shit your side's been serving up for decades.

Lawdog says it better than I can.

Larry said...

I do have to say that we definitely should ban "high ammunition clips". There's nothing more dangerous than stoned clips that cause reloading accidents because of their impairment. A high Mauser stripper clip once cut me, and stoned M1 Garand clips twice did unspeakable things to my thumb. Thankfully, no modern rifle uses clips.

Anonymous said...

if people want to own those weapons, they are going to have to have more stringent training and checks.

Because nothing says independent check and balance upon overreaching government like a populace who's only armed members are the ones that that same government deems 'reliable' enough to have arms.


If you support a robust defense department, aren't you essentially fueling what you fear?

How many armed Americans? How many people in US military? What do you know about fourth generation warfare?

No, not fueling the fear.


Scalia was pretty clear in Heller and I'm wondering whether you agree or disagree with him. In all honesty, his opinion is pretty much where I am at with guns.

Are you sure you agree? You seem to be in disagreement with this statement: "[Precedent says] that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time'"

Perhaps it is because you do not see the most popular rifle in America to be 'common usage' but rather you see it as something other than 'average'.



Private sales are also included here.

Fuck you. Really - fuck you. You cannot make that work without a national registration. Oh, you support that too. Not going to happen. Registration equals confiscation. Confiscation equals civil war. You really do not want to go there.


having a gun near or in a school a felony

Oh, awesome sauce. Hey, can I carry my gun to the grocery store? Guess I better check if my route passes close enough to a school to see if I'd be a felon. Some of your shit really is shit isn't it?

military grade and clips above 10 bullets

You've had plenty of time and opportunity to educate yourself about the items and details that you wish to regulate. You are still ignorant. If you cannot or will not rid yourself of your ignorance how do you expect anyone to take you seriously?


pecifically Americans. They suck with guns and have proven themselves to be massively irresponsible with them.

But the actual facts and numbers show you to be totally and completely incorrect. Natter on as you will - but it doesn't make you right, and you can't make up your own reality.

be a beginning down a path that will likely be a long process

Just a beginning? And you wonder why I don't believe people like you when you say you won't try to take my guns?

Guns are not the reason why our society suffers so much violence. It's the people and our culture

Then why did 90% of your 'solutions' have to do with guns and not with people or culture?

Mark Ward said...

under what Constitutional power in Article I can Congress enact that?

Under what Constitutional act can the state administer driving tests?

So do you want an honest discussion?

I do want one but it won't happen until you address the dichotomy of arming the DoD with more and more money every year vs being concerned about the tyranny of government, Scalia's comments regarding a ban on some weapons not being unconstitutional, and present your own solutions to solve this problem. After that, we can compare our ideas.

Larry, thanks for the comments as well as proving my point. You only have criticisms, no real solutions of your own.

Are you sure you agree? You seem to be in disagreement with this statement: "[Precedent says] that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time'"

I do agree with him when you take the other statements, that I quoted above, into account. But you really haven't addressed whether or not you agree with him: it's not unconstitutional and there is tort to show that average citizens can't own "really horrible weapons."

You cannot make that work without a national registration. Oh, you support that too. Not going to happen. Registration equals confiscation. Confiscation equals civil war. You really do not want to go there.

Yeah, let's get a few things straight, GD. I don't buy the bravado on the part of gun rights enthusiasts. First off, everyone has their price. Offer them enough money for a gun buy back and some will cave. Second, many are cowards that have big mouths and like to post on blogs. Yippee! I doubt there will be any sort of armed insurrection. You underestimate the laziness of this country.

Regarding national registration, I would think you would support a system that would keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Most people support universal background checks and closing the gun show loophole. Please correct me if I am wrong but you support all those tracking policies in terms of Muslim terrorism, right? So why not domestic terrorism? It's the same thing. We want to prevent unstable people from murdering innocent civilians.

If ordinary citizens demonstrate the capability to handle military grade weapons, then they can have them. If not, they have to get buy with handguns and ordinary rifles. Classifying these weapons can be left up to the DoD which you support with increased funding, no? It's not the uphill battle you are making it out to be.

You guys need to understand that you are in the way, way minority here. In fact, GD, you are starting to stray into McVeigh=Nichols land here and that's why I think you are pissed. As Nikto said above, perhaps you would fail any sort of regular mental health exam and that's what has you pissed. Far more than 50.1 percent of the population supports bans on some weapons. Ever more than that support universal background checks.

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

One last thing, Israel is a free country and a democracy. No one is worried about a tyrannical government there and yet they have very strict gun laws, having policies that are similar to what I am suggesting. Are you suggesting that they are not free?

Anonymous said...

average citizens can't own "really horrible weapons."

Great! But you are making up your own definition. An AR-15 is a moderate powered carbine. The most popular rifle in the US. To say it is some sort of 'really horrible weapon' does not fit the reality. It only fits your fantasy.

I would think you would support a system that would keep guns out of the hands of criminals

But registration has proven to DO NOTHING to keep guns away from criminals.

Most people support universal background checks and closing the gun show loophole

No they don't.

So why not domestic terrorism? It's the same thing.

Because, you are not advocating tracking a terrorist. You are advocating tracking an inanimate object that is overwhelmingly owned by law abiding citizens. Therefore you are not advocating tracking terrorists, you are advocating tracking everyone on the off chance that you find a random terrorist.

Classifying these weapons can be left up to the DoD which you support with increased funding, no?

Really stupid comment Mark. I advocate giving funding to my local police department. That doesn't mean I advocate giving them more legal power and authority.

No one is worried about a tyrannical government there ... Are you suggesting that they are not free?

I am suggesting that you have a severe reading comprehension problem. Nobody is EVER SPECIFICALLY worried about a tyrannical government until the non-tyrannical government disappears and is replaced by the tyrannical government that nobody thought could happen 'here'.

Haplo9 said...

>Classify weapons like the Bushmaster as military grade



What you really mean is the AR15 - Bushmaster is the manufacturer, AR15 is the base weapon model they manufacture. So you mean a lot more than just Bushmaster. Can you explain why it makes sense to classify an AR15 as "military grade"? What defines something as "military grade" vs not? "military grade" is similar to "assault rifle" in that I have no idea what you mean when you say it. The most obvious difference between military firearms and civilianis firearms is full auto. That's already done. No new law needed. The other obvious difference is caliber weapon - it's very difficult if not impossible for a civilian to own a weapon that fires projectiles in the 100mm or greater range. So.. What other criteria do you think is meaningful here?

Anyway was a long week, didn't get back to this till now. From the other thread:

>I think the classification is going to be more detailed than what Correia fears.

Ok, so what is the classification? Is it unreasonable to ask that you be specific? If so, why?

>In addition, the idea of allowing conceal/carry in schools is preposterous, and quite Orwellian.

Well, that's your opinion I guess, but it seems pretty odd to call it Orwellian. It's Orwellian to think that the best way to defend against someone shooting at you is to shoot back? Huh? The only thing Orwellian in all this, if you ask me, is the whole idea of gun free zones. Yeah - they are gun free until a criminal or nutcase decides to make it not gun free, at which point said criminal/nutcase has a bunch of targets that can't fight back. Now that is Orwellian.

>Life is not a Hollywood film where a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with one.

I don't recall saying this. Or anyone else. Guns are tools. Dangerous tools, no doubt, which is why they should be treated with large amounts of respect and care. The only place they aren't treated like that is.. Hollywood. You don't, by chance, get your impressions of gun owners from watching movies, do you? The reality of gun ownership is quite different, though I'm sure you can find exceptions.

Haplo9 said...

>There are already police in my school. Beyond that, however, no. I just don't trust people with guns.

And for schools that don't have police at the school already? Out of curiosity - do you think the principal of Sandy Hook wished she had a gun when she charged at Adam Lanza only to get gunned down? I do.

>Alex Jones here is a shining example of why.

Out of curiosity, why? Are you claiming he's mentally unstable or something?

>The reason why there is a lack of specificity at the moment is because everyone is still trying to explore what elements to put into a plan to prevent this from happening (side note: doing nothing is not a plan).

Hard to agree with that one. The implication from what you say is that the left is just taking its time crafting some very smart and intelligent legislation that will specifically deal with things like Newtown and leave everything else untouched. Instead, the vast majority of what I've seen are proposals to choose some guns and ban them, with occasional smatterings of banning "gun show loopholes." (It's worth pointing out that the "loophole" has nothing to do with gun shows. It's that private party sales don't have to go through background checks, mostly because getting setup to do background checks is not something your average seller knows how to do.) If you buy a gun from an actual dealer at a gun show, you will get a background check. Anyway, ignorance is clearly a reason for the lack of specificity as well. For example, from the nearest paper:

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020087572_gunlaws09m.html

It includes this gem of a sentence:

"At the top of their wish list are a cap on the number of bullets a gun magazine clip can hold and a prohibition on so-called assault weapons, semi-automatic firearms that discharge quickly."

This sentence is roughly equivilent to saying "my serve is off because the chair 3 courts away is facing the wrong direction." To someone who doesn't know anything about tennis, they might say, "wow, I didn't know chair position mattered so much!" To someone who does know something about tennis, they'd say "wtf does chair position have to do with your serve?" (Yes, I played a lot of tennis when I was younger.) Back to that sentence - there is no such thing as a "magazine clip." A magazine and a clip are two different pieces of hardware. Second - what does "discharge quickly" mean? The speed of the round when it exits the gun? How is that meaningful, since the speed of the round is just one component of its ballistics profile? Maybe they mean you can fire it quickly by pulling the trigger fast. Ok, but you can do that with any semi-auto. I can fire all 10 rounds in my pistol magazine in about 3 seconds, if I wanted to. There is also a fairly useful "What makes an assault weapon?" infographic - take a look at it and let me know just which of those things have anything to do with the ability of the weapon to be used to commit mass murder. Pistol grip? Bayonet lug? Collapsible stock? How would lacking those things have done anything to stop Adam Lanza?

Haplo9 said...

>Gun rights folks immediately assume that this is going to mean gun grabbing and they are very sensitive about this.

Might that be because gun grabbing is the first thing that is talked about and proposed? What do you think Dianne Feinstein's bill does? Um, it bans certain guns (among other things.)

>Mental health is the center piece if you want to be honest about it.

Maybe, but it's worth asking yourself - what would you propose to do if someone committed a mass shooting who had no mental health problems or wasn't taking an SSRI's?

>People who live in homes with people who have mental illness (like Nancy Lanza) should have to demonstrate their responsibility on a regular basis if they are to own guns.

Maybe, but doesn't it seem reasonable to assume that if Adam Lanza was willing to kill his mom and a bunch of little kids, that he would also be willing to torture his mom to get a safe combination/key, or willing to drill through whatever kind of protection was put around the guns? What you say sounds nice but I have no idea how one would "demonstrate their responsibility" for something like this.

>How often is this necessary? Take a look at this...

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm

I don't get it. There are many ways you can die. There are also many ways you can be severely injured (or raped if you are a woman.) A gun is not a cure all for all situations. But it can help in some of them.

Haplo9 said...

>Would you be amenable to such a conversation?

(referring to a conversation establishing clear reasoning on what weapons are off limits.) Sure - but I think you've been having that conversation with a bunch of people over the last few weeks. The main pushback you are getting is that taking the current landscape as what is, there *is* no clear reasoning on what weapons (in addition to what already is) should be off limits. That's why people keep asking you what a "military style" weapon is, among other things.

And, to the present post:

>So, we all know now (thanks to Alex Jones' mouth foam on steroids the other day) the real reason why they want their own arsenals: it's because they think our government is tyrannical.

I don't get it - isn't it possible that people want their own guns because of the possibility that the government might become tyrannical, rather than they think it is tyrannical right now? After all, it seems pretty rational to think that once the government becomes tyrannical, even if the odds are very low today, it's going to be awfully hard to get weapons once it becomes that way.. right? That's leaving aside the other reasons for owning guns, like personal protection.

>5. Armed police officers in every school.

Any reason it has to be police officers? Seems like that should be best left up to local districts to me. If a school wants to allow their teachers to carry, so be it. I don't really care how it's done, I just want a school to be able to fire back. Even having just a couple of administrative staff have guns under lock and key is better than nothing.

>Make gun trafficking, giving a gun to a minor, and having a gun near or in a school a felony. In short, zero tolerance.

How would that have stopped Lanza?

>1. An assault weapons ban or a ban on high ammunition clips.

I don't get it. You don't want to ban assault weapons, but you do want to ban the AR15, a "military grade" rifle, which is the poster boy of "assault weapons". That doesn't make much sense. Clarify?

>At the end of the day, I don't think that all of these ideas are perfect nor will they entirely solve the problem. That's the caricature that the Right uses to paint the left and then when things don't fall together so neatly (as they often do in life), they can play the adolescent blame game and capitalize on people's ignorance and fear.

I agree that these ideas aren't perfect. I think the criticism for the left is the usual thing. Something happens > something must be done > this is something > lets do it! When it is pointed out that that "something" won't actually accomplish anything useful, the critic is lambasted for not caring about the something that happened.

>They have nothing themselves and it's far easier to be a critic than actually have the balls to put something forward.

Strange, because pointing out that gun free zones are a child's fantasy, and making it so that schools can shoot back sure sounds like putting something forward to me. You may not like those ideas very much, but they sure aren't nothing.

Larry said...

The resident dipshit opines: "Under what Constitutional act can the state administer driving tests?"

As everyone but Dipshit knows, it's the states that administer driving test, not the Federal government. As everyone but Dipshit here knows, the 10th Amendment says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." That's why states administer driving tests of their own devising for people who want to drive on public roads, Dipshit. If you want to drive on your own private land without a license, insurance, or registration, that's just fine.

That's also why states set up their own rules on concealed carry. Some states make it very difficult (Illinois, for example) unless you've got connections, some have no restrictions except that you must be able to legally own a firearm.

And Dipshit here still has the reading comprehension of a cocker spaniel because he obviously missed where I agreed with him on a couple of points. And for a teacher, Dipshit has no clue about not only basic terminology nor history. This is a debate that has gone on since wheel-lock pistols were invented in the 1500's, and in a debate that's gone on for almost almost 500 fucking years, there aren't many new ideas anymore. Except the gun-banners redefinitions of words, conflations of meanings, and other ways to use emotionalism to stir up feelings. But new ideas? Dipshit has none despite claiming that he has, and then tries to turn that back on us. Where's your vaunted "new ideas", Dispshit?

Mark Ward said...

But you are making up your own definition.

I have no desire to do so. Nor do I think that gun enthusiasts should either. I'd like to see the military, or at least a local authority, classify these weapons. I think it's important to point out again that I am not calling for a ban on assault weapons.

No they don't.

Well, let's see...92% did last December, 83 percent did in 1999, according to USA/Gallup

CNN has it at 95 percent after Newton and 96 percent last August.

So, yes, they do. Come out of the bubble, dude.

You are advocating tracking an inanimate object that is overwhelmingly owned by law abiding citizens.

No, I'm talking about tracking people. Did you read that poll link? 60 percent of those polled don't have a gun in their house. So, they wouldn't be tracked.

Really stupid comment Mark.

Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion but as Hamilton explained, the training of the militia is to be carried about the national military. That's the intent of the right.

is replaced by the tyrannical government that nobody thought could happen 'here'.

And that's your paranoia which the country is quite frankly tired of having to deal with. The unique nature of America makes this possibility highly unlikely. Our system of checks and balances has worked quite well and our wealth usually trumps any delusions of dictatorship. There's too much at stake for us to go down that path. There are many reasons why we are not like those other countries that succumbed to totalitarian states. Perhaps a future post is in order to explain why but I doubt you will change your mind. It's hard to break out of the comfort of the bubble:)

Mark Ward said...

That's why people keep asking you what a "military style" weapon is, among other things.

They keep asking me that because they can play their usual games. It absolves them of dealing with their responsibility on the gun issue and, as always, allows them to call me stupid. Ultimately, it's not going to be up to me to decided this. It shouldn't be left to the gun lobby and their supporters either due to their mammoth bias.

what would you propose to do if someone committed a mass shooting who had no mental health problems or wasn't taking an SSRI's?

There hasn't been one yet. And they are all male as well so what does that tell you?

I don't get it.

My point in putting up this link is to show that people are afraid of the wrong things. Rather than worry about home invasions or tyrannical governments, they should worry about these other things that are clearly greater threats.

Any reason it has to be police officers?

Because of their training. Please don't come back with the gun enthusiast arrogance about how they are all stupid and you guys are better trained. It's just not true.
As Scalia pointed out in Heller, banning guns in schools and other areas is perfectly constitutional.

Haplo9 said...

>They keep asking me that because they can play their usual games. It absolves them of dealing with their responsibility on the gun issue and, as always, allows them to call me stupid.



If someone (you) advocates for banning "military style" firearms, it is game playing to ask you to define just what exactly it means for a firearm to be "military style"? How could that possibly be game playing? The logic seems pretty simple.
a. There is marginal difference in terms of lethality between an AR15 and a handgun. Virginia Tech, if no other discussion of ballistics, calibers, or other gun tech, should convince you of that.
b. There is a group of people who want to ban the AR15 but do not want to ban handguns.
c. That same group of people seem to be unable to articulate a logical reason why to ban the AR15 but not handguns. I can't come up with a reason. Certain handguns can fire just as fast, using more powerful bullets, than an AR15 can.
d. Therefore, it seems reasonble to suspect their either though malice (they don't want to ban handguns yet because they don't think they can, but that is the long term goal) or ignorance (they really do think there is some kind of dramatic difference in killing effectiveness between an AR15 and a handgun), that same group of people will eventually attempt to ban handguns. Like I said - I would disagree with the attempt to do so, but at least it is a position that would likely have changed the way Newtown happened. Thus, this position where you ban some guns doesn't make any sense. It seems to make sense to you, so isn't it logical to ask you to explain it?



>Rather than worry about home invasions or tyrannical governments, they should worry about these other things that are clearly greater threats.



Why not worry about both? Or, more accurately, keep some tools with you that may be useful in the unlikely event that such things happen, with the hope that you never have to use them. What - do you think I'm *eager* to shoot someone with my gun? No, but if I'm in a situation where a gun provides me with the only realistic option of defending myself or family, I sure don't want to be saying, "Darn, wish I had gotten a gun."

Haplo9 said...

>And they are all male as well so what does that tell you?

It tells me that as of this moment, we know that males on SSRI's are more likely to engage in mass shootings. Which isn't very useful since mass shootings are very rare, even among the population of males that are on SSRI's. My point is this - yes, mental health legislation might be a way to prevent future Adam Lanza's of the world. How do we stop non male or non-SSRI using shooters in the future? Seems pretty wishful to just assume that all future shooters will be prescription drugged up males, doesn't it?

>Ultimately, it's not going to be up to me to decided this.

Out of curiosity then, who should decide it? Politicians like Dianne Feinstein? If so - why would we expect that Feinstein is knowledgeable about guns, or has any particular interest in reducing gun violence? She's interested in only one thing - getting votes. So are pro-gun politicians. Seems like an odd crowd to entrust that sort of decision to.

>Please don't come back with the gun enthusiast arrogance about how they are all stupid and you guys are better trained.

I'm not sure anyone has made a blanket statement like that, but ok. My point is that at the time that a mass shooter shows up at a school, I have a hard time seeing how more guns in the hands of people opposed to the shooter is going to make the situation worse, and seems very likely to make the situation better. A smaller school with a single police officer doesn't seem very ideal to me because a shooter knows ahead of time how many guns he might be against and who has them. The ideal would be that the shooter doesn't know how many people might be armed. (Incidentally, that is one very good rationale for concealed carry, or concealed ownership. The risk of crime goes way up if you don't know who can shoot at you, even if actual gun ownership might be low.) That said, police officers would be better than nothing, I just think it's needlessly and in some ways counterproductively restrictive. I suspect that local school districts and/or states will decide this question for themselves, which is as it should be.

Larry said...

No, asshole, we want to know WHAT THE FUCK YOU MEAN! If you can't explain what you mean, then that should be a pretty big fucking clue to you that you don't know what you're talking about. Not that you haven't demonstrated that repeatedly.

Banning guns in schools is useless. The only people that would obey that are the law-abiding that mean no harm and are no threat. I can just imagine the Columbine or Newtown shooters, bent on mass murder saying, "Oh no! We can't take our guns inside. Oh gosh darn it, now what are we going to do?" A typical progtard feel-good measure that accomplishes as much in the real world as sticking your thumb in your mouth and sucking vigorously in order to make yourself feel better.

Larry said...

Err, replying to Mark above, not Haplo9, and without bothering to quote Mark's dopeyness.

Actually, Haplo9 did a much better job of answering Mark. I lost patience with Mark's extreme obtuseness and constantly playing the fool.

I think Mark doesn't want to define terms precisely because he realizes how that undercuts his superficially "reasonable" arguments. That's also why he considers so many direct questions as "gotcha" questions. Not because they're gotcha questions in the standard accepted definition of the term, but because an honest answer reveals his position to be fallacious, while a dishonest answer makes him look unacceptably foolish (and believe me, that's a high bar to reach). But that's life on Planet Smurfadelphia.

Anonymous said...

No, I'm talking about tracking people.

And you have the 'nads to call US "Orewellian"?

Your irony detector is completely missing, isn't it.

Anonymous said...

So do you want an honest discussion?

Apparently the answer is "No".

Juris Imprudent said...

Under what Constitutional act can the state administer driving tests?

Really? Do you have play that stupid, because I don't believe you really are that stupid. If you were that stupid you couldn't even tie your shoes let alone manage a blog or get married and raise a family.

So, you aren't that stupid, and you aren't honest enough to admit the real answer that you actually know. That just leaves dishonesty, doesn't it?

I do appreciate you proving that progressivism is rooted in fantasy and dishonesty.

Juris Imprudent said...

I think it's important to point out again that I am not calling for a ban on assault weapons.

So, you want a cookie?

Instead, what you appear to support is utterly beyond the reach of the Federal govt. You might as well support a ban, for all the likelihood of it happening.

Juris Imprudent said...

No, I'm talking about tracking people.

No that is priceless coming from someone always talking about the goose-stepping right and their fascist tendencies.

Juris Imprudent said...

Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion but as Hamilton explained, the training of the militia is to be carried about the national military.

No, it just shows that your reading comprehension is something below atrocious. Or, you actually do understand what you read but you are such a morally twisted liar that you have to recast it into something in accordance with your own perverse view of humanity and govt.

Juris Imprudent said...

And that's your paranoia which the country is quite frankly tired of having to deal with.

Whereas your paranoia about people with guns is more of a problem than anyone else's beliefs about govt.

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure anyone has made a blanket statement like that,

Actually, at one point Mark admitted his own ignorance, then immediately turned around and attacked guardduck for making well founded statements from his own direct knowledge. Since then, Mark has made absolutely no effort to correct that ignorance by gaining knowledge, yet he continues to opine as though he actually knows all that can be known about guns. And we called him on it.

It's not his lack of knowledge that causes him to react like that, it's being called on it that galls him. So yes, we have called Mark ignorant, because he is. In fact, he has frequently been called willfully ignorant on many topics (accurately IMHO). Is willful ignorance the same thing as "stupid"? If so, then guilty as charged. Mark should be ashamed of continuing to make a charge of willful ignorance true.

Juris Imprudent said...

There hasn't been one yet. And they are all male as well so what does that tell you?

Why don't you post your proof that Lanza was on SSRIs. Or is just because you say so all that you need?

Juris Imprudent said...

My point in putting up this link is to show that people are afraid of the wrong things. Rather than worry about home invasions or tyrannical governments, they should worry about these other things that are clearly greater threats.

Un-fucking-believable.

REALLY un-fucking-believable.

This may be the greatest hypocrisy in recorded human history.

Juris Imprudent said...

You see M, it ends up about you because you make it about you - about your childishness and your dishonesty and your hypocrisy.

You are a narcissist, through and through. No doubt you love this attention, even though you will deny it and claim all you want is an honest discussion.

Anonymous said...

Rather than worry about home invasions or tyrannical governments, they should worry about these other things that are clearly greater threats.

1) What is the PURPOSE of the Second Amendment as stated by the men who put it in the Constitution? (This is an open book question. Feel free to look up the answer.)

2) Is the Constitution law?

(Even more open book than usual. The answer is posted above.)

For the record, the historical examples of why this purpose is so crucial to freedom is covered in this thread. (Note, Mark complained about my work being "too long" because it's a Kevin Baker grade wall-o'-words, implying that he didn't even bother reading it, and clearly not comprehending it.)

Anonymous said...

Rather than worry about home invasions or tyrannical governments, they should worry about these other things that are clearly greater threats.

Really? Why should we believe you?

Juris Imprudent said...

So M has time to post a pointless poster but not to address any of the defects of his argument. I guess were all just unreasonable people foaming at the mouth.

Anonymous said...

Life is not a Hollywood film where a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with one.

It doesn't happen like it does in the movies, but it does happen. For example, here's one from this past Friday.

“I don’t believe in guns,” said Dorsey. “I don’t own a gun. I’m totally at the mercy of my saviors. They obviously sent two angels to help me. These people protected me when I couldn’t protect myself.