Maybe if We Just Called it “Arms Proliferation Prevention” . . .
Posted by
KTK
Glenn Reynolds on the Omaha Mall shooting:
it’s worth noting — since apparently most of the media reports haven’t — that this was another mass shooting in a “gun-free” zone. It seems to me that we’ve reached the point at which a facility that bans firearms, making its patrons unable to defend themselves, should be subject to lawsuit for its failure to protect them. The pattern of mass shootings in “gun free” zones is well-established at this point, and I don’t see why places that take the affirmative step of forcing their law-abiding patrons to go unarmed should get off scot-free.There’s even an academic literature on mass shootings and concealed-gun carriage.
Perhaps we need legislation. If it saves just one life, it’s worth it.
I keep wondering why so many of those who take this view of small arms are ready to start a war to defend precisely the opposite view of nuclear weapons. Surely atom bombs don’t kill people, right? People kill people. A nuclear-armed Persian Gulf is a polite Persian Gulf. After all, once they impose gun control on Iran, they’ll be here next.
Further on the issue of consistency, if Reynolds supports lawsuits against places that ban guns, owing to their effect on the availability of guns for OK Corral-style shootouts in the crowded aisles of suburban shopping malls (which he thinks are a good thing), shouldn’t he also support New-York-City-style lawsuits against gun manufacturers who flood the market with cheap weapons aimed at the criminal crowd, owing to their effect on the availability of guns for people who use them for crimes? After all, if the issue is that the availability of guns has an effect on the balance of power between criminals and other citizens, both sides of that equation are equally contributory, and presumably those who supply guns to the wrong side are at least as much at fault as those who prohibit them to the right side. If it saves just one life, it’s worth it.
I’m sure the Instapundit will be quick to adopt a consistent position on both these issues.
UPDATE: (fixed some formatting errors and typos)
As one commenter noted, Reynolds has responded on his blog. Sadly, all he has managed to do is undermine his own reputation for critical thinking ability.
(1) We don’t allow felons or the mentally ill to carry guns. Iran seems to fit in to this category.
I’ve already responded to a version of this claim in the comments, but I’m surprised to see it from Reynolds. It’s obvious nonsense. For one thing, nations aren’t subject to mental illness. For another, Iran’s leaders don’t seem to be in the least bit irrational, though certainly repressive. (And on the plus side, they’ve invaded fewer countries than George Bush, and likely killed fewer people.) But most important of all, the logic of his own argument has nothing to do with sanity or its lack. His argument against gun control is that it is not successful in preventing felons and the mentally ill from obtaining gus, and that is his reason for advocating wider availability of guns for all; that only serves to strengthen my point. He claims that wider distribution of guns will allow for more aggressive response in cases of violence (what’s better than one person shooting into a crowd in a shopping mall, if you’re Glenn Reynolds? - everyone in the crowd shooting at each other!); obviously that would also be the case regarding nuclear weapons, and so, if his argument makes any sense, he ought to advocate it in that scenario as well. I’m glad he (implicitly) agrees that it would be unthinkable to encourage unregulated distribution of nuclear weapons, but there is no distinction between the logic of my argument for doing so and the logic of his argument for doing the same thing with small arms. I’m glad he also (implicitly) agrees with the rest of the sane world regarding gun control, but it’s disappointing that he doesn’t realize that he agrees. I hope this helps.
(2) Suits against gun manufacturers are an attempt by government officials to circumvent the political process, using tort law to do what they can’t do via legislation because the voters oppose it. I don’t think that applies to my example at all.
How could it not apply? First, the reason for the lawsuits is irrelevant. If the case is actionable - and it certainly should be - the tortfeasors (i.e., irresponsible and murderous gun makers) ought to be held accountable. There’s no right to commit torts against the body politic and then be immune to answering for your actions merely because the civil penalty is brought in a court and not in an election. (The courts are one of the branches of governmental authority. They exist for a reason.) Second, civil authorities are well within their rights to use court actions to enforce public policy - they do it all the time. Distributing guns irresponsibly is as much a public health threat as distributing tainted food or leaded paint, and the government is right to do something about it. Finally, how are ideologically-motivated lawsuits (no doubt ginned up by the same bunch of paid political activists and subsidized plaintiffs as are behind the current Supreme Court gun-rights suit) against what Reynolds himself has noted, on his blog, are “places of public accomodation”, in order to force them to increase the number of guns used in every shooting incident, any less an attempt to create policy through the courts and not the ballot box than are lawsuits aimed at limiting the number of guns used in such incidents? It seems that, for Reynolds, “I don’t think that applies . . .” really means “I realize that refutes . . .”.
More than a few people have been killed by airbags; I think they should be removed from all automobiles. If it saves one life, it’s worth it.
Comment 12/7/2007
Three times as many people die in this country from medical malpractice as from firearms.
Guns don’t kill people, doctors do.
See how silly such logic is?
Comment 12/7/2007
If I see instapundit advising ownership of firearms by the crazed (Iran, Korea) or felonious (Iran, Iraq), or the disarmament of sane, law-abiding nations, that argument would make sense, KTK.
Comment 12/7/2007
Backyard swimming pools are the #1 killer of real children, as opposed to the 17 year old thuglife gang bangers in urban areas that anti-gun statisticians tell us are children, in the United States. Obviously, backyard swimming pools must be banned because it will save at least one child’s life. After all, nobody needs a swimming pool in their backyard because the government is providing all those public pools.
Don’t like the Second Amendment? OK. Try to get it repealed. Otherwise, have a nice day.
Comment 12/7/2007
gattsuru:
The question, though, is what is the Instapundit type willing to do to prevent the crazed from getting firearms? He’s willing to start a war to do so on the macro (Iran/Korea) scale, but his attitude on the small arms scale seems to be “the more people that are armed, the less likely the crazed are to act.” So why doesn’t this attitude scale?
Letalis:
Don’t like the Second Amendment? OK. Try to get it repealed.
Why? Nobody bothered to do so with the Fourth…
Comment 12/7/2007
For that matter, why do people need to swim anyway? It’s dangerous, and if man were intended to breathe water [we would have developed gills over the past few millennia | your deity of choice would have given us gills ]
Comment 12/7/2007
Gattsuru:
For one thing, there is no standard of, or enforcement mechanism for, determinations of sanity or legality at the level of nations (especially since generations of Republican presidents have done everything they could to undermine the World Court). Iran and North Korea have as much legal right to own nuclear weapons as does the US - and a better track record regarding their use.
For another, the argument has nothing to do with being sane or law-abiding. The justification for the “flood the world with guns” position has always been its supposed internal logic: more guns means more likelihood that those using guns wrongly can be stopped by those using them rightly. (I.e., it presumes that the availability of guns by itself has no effect on how likely they are to be used or cause accidents.) As a strategy for controlling violence, this is actually much weaker than the traditional logic of nuclear deterrence, which holds that the possibility of retaliation will prevent the use of weapons before it takes place, not merely allow for a violent response after it takes place. Those who think more guns will lead to less violence must surely think the same thing even more strongly regarding nuclear weapons, if, that is, they actually believe their own rhetoric.
(Note also that the deterrence argument has empirical evidence behind it: no nation facing nuclear deterrence has ever used nuclear weapons in warfare, while the only nation that ever owned them without danger of retaliation used them immediately against a country that did not have them. Clearly, according to Reynolds’s logic, the answer is to distribute nuclear weapons as widely as possible and encourage lawsuits against those who seek nuclear non-proliferation.)
Comment 12/7/2007
Gun ownership should be required. Carrying should be strongly encouraged. Then only the truly insane would ever attempt to use a gun to hold up a place of business, knowing that most of the people around them will be able to shoot them if necessary.
What is so hard to understand about the attractiveness of not having to worry anymore about armed robberies, rapes, kidnappings or pretty much any other type of violent crime?
Comment 12/7/2007
Reynolds has a good reply on his website to the illogic of Leanleft, above. To get a concealed carry license, in most states one must pass a background check, get fingerprinted, and pass a shooting test. Given that the police will always be armed, but often far away, and that criminals will always be armed, isn’t it better that law abiding people be armed?
Comment 12/7/2007
Perhaps you hadn’t noticed but the D.C. handgun ban failed to prevent one single handgun related murder. This is what happens when you have a naive and overly simplistic world view. You run around making idiotic comparisons of nuclear weapons to firearms.
Comment 12/7/2007
I think your reference to “OK Corral-style shootouts in the crowded aisles [of] suburban shopping malls” proves the point against you. The good guys had guns at the OK Corral. Moreover, they won.
Comment 12/7/2007
The point about there being no sanity tests for nations suggests that the person/nation analogy is a poor one. But it was your analogy, not mine.
Comment 12/7/2007
Mr. Reynolds is absolutely correct. I, and many other regular citezens I know, could have had a significant effect on the situation in Omaha. The problem was, none of us were there. I make a point to avoid places of business that want to restrict my RIGHT to defend myself and others. The no-guns policy will most likely attract the criminal element to the easy victim. I should point out that this kid did not feel it appropriate to “take revenge” at The Bullet Hole, the shooting nearest to Westroads.
Comment 12/7/2007
KTK says:(Note also that the deterrence argument has empirical evidence behind it: no nation facing nuclear deterrence has ever used nuclear weapons in warfare, while the only nation that ever owned them without danger of retaliation used them immediately against a country that did not have them. Clearly, according to Reynolds’s logic, the answer is to distribute nuclear weapons as widely as possible and encourage lawsuits against those who seek nuclear non-proliferation.)
This is an inapplicable analogy and the argument doesn’t scale. The idea of *licensing* civilians to carry conceable small arms (i.e. handguns) is not necessarily to put the fear of retaliation into the insane in order to stop them from using small arms in a mass killing. Indeed, the shooter in Omaha had no real fear of retaliation because he intended to, and did, shoot himself. The evidence, however, does suggest that he came into the mall and store and “cased” the place for armed security before he returned and started shooting. So, he apparently wanted to make sure the coast was clear so that he could kill as many as possible before he killed himself. And his note indicates that he didn’t kill himself in a spur of the moment decision; he planned to die.
Nevertheless, the idea of licensing civilians (and not madmen) to carry concealed weapons is to allow them to protect themselves and others from a madman bent on destruction to others and himself. In the nuclear arena, an apocalyptic madman Iran (to cite just one example) might be perfectly willing to die in the conflagration that would result from his destroying Israel with his one nuclear device. He will have killed his millions of Jews thereby ensuring his place in Heaven with his 72 (or is it 74?) virgins. Regardless of whether the rest of the world retaliates (which is frankly doubtful), he will have killed millions of Jews.
Comment 12/7/2007
Nuclear weapons are hardly defensive. Unless you want to talk about MAD, which doesn’t seem to be a very good analog when we’re talking about an individual shooting random people in a mall.
Comment 12/7/2007
I think MALLS should be banned, College campuses too.
Dangerous places … especially when some dink goes off the deep end and commits a mass shooting … then the general sheeple cry to take the right to private firearm ownership/self defense away from those law abiding citizens that have done nothing wrong…yet are willing to defend themselves and others by concealed carry …
Should you choose to NOT DEFEND you and yours fine … wait for the cops, but don’t deprive me of the chance defend myself …
Concealed in MT.
Comment 12/7/2007
The question, though, is what is the Instapundit type willing to do to prevent the crazed from getting firearms? He’s willing to start a war to do so on the macro (Iran/Korea) scale, but his attitude on the small arms scale seems to be “the more people that are armed, the less likely the crazed are to act.” So why doesn’t this attitude scale?
The “Instapundit type” believes we should take all reasonable steps to stop criminals and crazies from obtaining such weapons — on the small-scale, from criminal and mental health background checks to keep them from getting them at one end of the spectrum to the ability to return fire if they get them any way.
In the macro, from political sanctions to apply pressure on rogue governments to stop them from obtaining nukes to military action to stop them from using them if they get them anyway.
Seems reasonable.
The opposite approach is disarm the law-abiding, under the foolish notion that this will stop criminals and crazie from getting guns. That’s kind of like closing all the pharmacies to solve the illegal drug problem.
Comment 12/7/2007
re your “OK Corral” example, let’s have a contest. You start naming examples where a response to a gun-wielding crazy led to an innocent casualty at the hands of the citizen respondant and I’ll start naming examples of innocents being killed in gun-free zones by crazies. Let’s see who runs out of examples first.
I have always heard the spectre of random flying bullets used by those opposed to an armed citizenry, but despite the large numbers of responsible citizens legally packing heat have yet to be presented with a single link to just such an event. If ti is a choice between your hypothetical possibility of a stray bullet or the repeatedly demonstrated reality of purposefully aimed shots going unanswered I know which scenario I find more disturbing.
Comment 12/7/2007
[…] Iran and North Korea have as much legal right to own nuclear weapons as does the US - and a better track record regarding their use. -KTK
Ah, no.
Iran is party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which explicitly states that it has renounced it’s ‘right’ to become a nuclear power.
Comment 12/7/2007
KTT:
By the way, I presume from your “better track record” quip, that you disagree with President Truman’s decision to use atomic weapons on the agressor Japan. You certainly picked an odd day to raise that point, eh? Nevertheless, if that really is the cut of your jib, I fear that there is precious little about which we will ever agree.
Comment 12/7/2007
no nation facing nuclear deterrence has ever used nuclear weapons in warfare, while the only nation that ever owned them without danger of retaliation used them immediately against a country that did not have them.
Now, take this historically accurate analogy and tell me which position Robert Hawkins was in at that mall.
Comment 12/7/2007
“If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns”. It’s not only a bromide, it’s a tautology. And tautologies, you will note, are guaranteed to be true.
There are many millions of guns in private hands in the US. There still will be, when all the honest people are disarmed. The guns are not going to evaporate. They will fall into the hands of the police (police state!) or thugs.
But I’d imagine that’s what the Left wants. The left is not a reality-based community, it’s a community-based reality. The physical world has nothing to do with it.
Comment 12/7/2007
KTT:
You remember President Truman, don’t you? That peace-loving Democrat who follow that pacifist Democrat Roosevelt, and who led the United States into combat in Korea? You know, the Democratic former Army Captain and haberdasher from Missouri who was followed by that war-mongering Republican golfer, Dwight David Eisenhower?
Comment 12/7/2007
“He claims that wider distribution of guns will allow for more aggressive response in cases of violence (what’s better than one person shooting into a crowd in a shopping mall, if you’re Glenn Reynolds? - everyone in the crowd shooting at each other!)”
Note the utter and complete lack of mass murderings having ever taken place at gun shows or gun dealerships, where guns — are indeed distributed widely … well-nigh exhaustively, in fact. And yet, somehow, this fantasy of “everyone in the crowd shooting at each other!” has never happened. Somehow!
Now, how can that observation from what those of us who retain a shred of sanity refer to as “the real world” be taken in any other way than proving Messr. Reynold’s thesis, and thus directly refuting the screed posted on this page?
Comment 12/7/2007
The “Instapundit type” believes we should take all reasonable steps to stop criminals and crazies from obtaining such weapons
Yes, but they also believe that requiring background checks at gun shows is not a reasonable step… Just sayin’.
All:
It’s probably a good time to let the record show that I do not favor a repeal of the Second Amendment, and that (at least as liberals go) I’m moderately pro-gun (to the extent that I am a CCW permit holder). So it’s not like I’m some “Brady bunch gun grabber” or whatever the derisive term du jour is.
In truth, I find both of the vocal sides of the gun debate to be incredibly tiresome. The fact that neither side wants to admit is that there’s probably nothing that could have prevented the Omaha attack. The guy took his own life! You really think the possible presence of a packing CCW holder was likely to deter him? Sure, there’s a chance that an armed CCW holder may have shot the attacker before he took all those lives, but I think that chance is an awful lot smaller than most of the rabidly pro-gun folks want to admit. At the same time, as has been pointed out by gun rights advocates ad nauseum, it was already illegal for this guy to have the gun in the mall, so it’s not likely any additional legislation would have further prevented it.
And let’s call a duck a duck: Even if the presence of CCW holders would have reduced the death toll, the anti-gun crowd still wouldn’t support this. Even if additional legislation would substantially reduce the number of gun deaths in this country, the pro-gun crowd still would oppose it. So it’s not like we’re arguing about anything where anyone is even remotely willing to reconsider their position.
So what we’re left with, then, is a bunch of virtual ink spilled, and over what? The idea that my slippery slope can beat up your slippery slope? It’s a tragedy that was almost certainly non-preventable, and attempts — by either side — to coopt it to score cheap political points are, in my view, reprehensible.
All that aside, I do think KTK has a point when he suggests that the ability to sue the mall and the ability to sue the gun maker have roughly the same logical foundation (a poor one, I submit, but the same nonetheless), and that those who advocate one while opposing the other are engaging in a double-standard. (You might have a case for suing the mall for not having adequate security in general, but I don’t think there’s any valid reason to be able to sue them for their “no guns” policy. It is their right to have such a policy, and as a CCW holder, it’s your right not to go there because of it.)
Comment 12/7/2007
You are so out of your intellectual league in this debate. My advice? Follow the first rule of holes.
Comment 12/7/2007
KTT:
Nations aren’t subject to mental illness? Possible. But their leaders sure are. I suppose you are going to tell us next that Hitler and Stalin were perfectly sane.
At least Stalin smoked, drank, and ate red meat.
Iran’s leaders purport to believe that when they die, if they have been good little Muslims, submitted to the will of Allah, killed some Jews/Infidels, and spread the Word of the Prophet with the sword, they will be rewarded with the numerous (can we agree on that) virgins in Paradise.
Sounds pretty irrational to me. At the very least, it sounds kind of dangerous, don’t you think?
As to the lawsuits, you say “if the case is actionable — and it certainly should be….” Well, there you go, then. You have decided and the rest of us should just live with it. It is of no moment, I guess, that the Congress which represents the rest of us has decided otherwise? Gun makers produce and market a legal product, that has by the way constitutional protection, and the overwhelming percentage of the 200 million plus firearms in this country are never, ever, used in a crime.
Don’t like that legal product? OK. Try to have it outlawed. Otherwise, have a nice day.
Comment 12/7/2007
“they also believe that requiring background checks at gun shows is not a reasonable step”
Sales at gun shows are subject to the same laws, including background checks, as sales not at gun shows.
Comment 12/7/2007
Dude. As has been pointed out by many commenters, you really just have no clue.
Just enjoy your “Insta-lanche”, then slink back into obscurity.
Comment 12/7/2007
Ah, but background checks are required at gun shows. It is a violation of federal law for the holder of a Federal Firearms License to sell a gun at a gunshow, or anywhere else, without complying with the NICS requirement.
The question is whether we want to allow federal intrusion into the lives and business of private citizens such that they, too, are required to go through an FFL holder to sell their privately owned firearm to another private citizen. Some states require it; others do not.
But, it is a debatable point upon which, I think, reasonable people can disagree.
Comment 12/7/2007
“A nuclear-armed Persian Gulf is a polite Persian Gulf.”
How do you figure that? Israel has nuclear weapons, and Iran has been killing Israelis via Hamas and Hizbollah for quite some time, not to mention American soldiers in Iraq (our nukes don’t seem to be deterring them). More likely, Iran will view nuclear weapons as giving them carte blanche to engage in much MORE terrorism, knowing they no longer face a risk of being overthrown through application of our massive conventional superiority.
What really renders your argument silly though is the obvious point that nukes are not a weapon of self-defense, but a weapon of mass destruction. A nut with a nuke can’t be stopped with more nukes, unless you’re willing to kill millions.
“For one thing, nations aren’t subject to mental illness”
Tell it to the Jews in Germany in the 1940s. You know, that country that imposed gun control and then massacred its defenseless minorities.
Also, given that your rather silly argument is that Iran has a “right” to nuclear arms similar to an individual’s right to self-defense, you can hardly object to the anthropomorphizing Glenn engages in.
Comment 12/7/2007
This nonsense has also been linked at www.subguns.com.
That being said, I’m outa here.
Comment 12/7/2007
I will mention that the current government of Iran has invaded and occupied exactly as many countries as has the United States under George W. Bush.
Specifically, they stormed and occupied the American embassy in Tehran, which is the sovereign territory of the United States.
Comment 12/7/2007
“the availability of guns for OK Corral-style shootouts in the crowded aisles of suburban shopping malls (which he thinks are a good thing)”
No, he thinks shoot-outs are preferable to methodical, unopposed slaughter.
Comment 12/7/2007
Note to all that I edited my comment #25 and greatly increased its length; some of you posted responses to just the first part of it, and may wish to re-read the full thing. Or not.
Sales at gun shows are subject to the same laws, including background checks, as sales not at gun shows.
Right, so what’s important isn’t who’s buying the gun (we don’t give a flying fuck about that), but who’s selling it.
Seriously, though, what’s at issue here is what constitutes a “reasonable step” to prevent the “wrong people” from getting guns. From a practical perspective, I can’t sell my car to somebody else without state involvement. Why should it be different for guns? Why does my right to sell my gun outweigh the criminal’s lack of a right to buy one?
I don’t want to threadjack this discussion with the gun show issue, so I’ll let it go this time.
But, it is a debatable point upon which, I think, reasonable people can disagree.
You are, in all honesty, the first pro-gun person I’ve ever had explicitly take that position. Most of them crap themselves at the mere suggestion that there might be anything at all amiss at gun shows.
Comment 12/7/2007
is what is the Instapundit type willing to do to prevent the crazed from getting firearms?
Well, with even pro-gun maniacs like Saysuncle or Snowflakes in hell quite happy with the HR2460, this sort of statement is rather obviously answered.
Comment 12/7/2007
The problem with mass shootings isn’t the Second Amendment, but the First. As long as losers can make themselves “famous” in our 24-hour media-saturated world where just having your name known by millions, no matter what you’ve done, is the ultimate achievement, then we will continue to see this.
Media outlets do not print the names of rape victims. So it will hardly be onerous to ask them not to print the names of mass shooters. It would also be nice if the media reports could accent the “loserness” of the shooter. Oh, and while we’re at it - could witnesses and cops stop referring to a criminal as “the gentleman…” How about, “the individual.” Or maybe even “the bastard.”
Comment 12/7/2007
TallDave:
It’s called sarcasm. Perhaps you’ve heard of it. KTK wasn’t promoting the “armed Persian Gulf/polite Persian Gulf” idea, but mocking the “armed society/polite society” idea.
Comment 12/7/2007
“Right, so what’s important isn’t who’s buying the gun (we don’t give a flying fuck about that), but who’s selling it. ”
But that’s not what you’re suggesting when you yammer on about the non-existent gun show loophole. What you’re saying is, you oppose lawful commerce in arms among two private persons when there’s no background check. that’s different.
Comment 12/7/2007
. . . When you tangle with both Conservative Reading Comprehension Disorder and gun rights, you’re just looking for trouble . . .
Rather than go back and forth on all these different points, including, bizarrely, Harry Truman’s military record (?), let me just point out that essentially none of the responses above has anything to do with what I wrote (Reynolds included, for the most part, but with the possible exceptions of LM,E at #14, and Bill at #15).
Nothing I wrote was premised on the efficacy of gun control, the frequency of shootouts, who were the good guys at the OK Corrall, under what circumstances only outlaws will have guns, or any of the other particular factual questions related to gun control that have been brought in above. My post, and follow-ups, were entirely directed at the internal logic of Glenn Reynolds’s argument.
To put it as simply as possible: Reynolds contradicts himself. He does so by arguing that more guns will create a safer world, in the case of small arms, but more nuclear weapons will create a more dangerous world, in the case of strategic arms - and that it is appropriate to punish those who try to prevent the acquisition of weapons in the former case, but to punish (with unprovoked warfare) those who try to acquire weapons in the latter. He does so again by suggesting a remedy for his perceived problem of too few guns in the right hands (lawsuits against those who restrict guns) that he is not willing to countenance for the precisely parallel problem of too many guns in the wrong hands (lawsuits against those who distribute guns). I clarify the former contradiction by pointing out that the logic of de-escalation Reynolds uses to advocate for small arms (post-facto retaliation) is similar to, but actually weaker than, the logic of de-escalation in the case of strategic arms (prior deterrence), and that on that basis he should adopt his own position on nuclear arms (i.e., confiscation) in the case of small arms as well, but doesn’t.
Reynolds’s own response, in the former case (regarding deterrence), was to attempt to invalidate the analogy by introducing the issue of background checks - but I pointed out that the logic of his “retaliation” argument does not rest on that issue, and so the contradiction persists. His response in the second case (regarding lawsuits) was to claim that there was something somehow illegitimate about an application of civil procedure he opposes, but not about the one he approves of - a laughably weak answer.
Anyone with a useful remark on any of those issues will be contributing to the debate. Those wishing merely to make outlandish and/or defensive claims about their guns may find a more welcoming forum in another venue.
LM,E and Bill: You are right that deterrence will not always work on suicidal or insane actors, but that is a problem that invades both sides of the guns/nukes analogy. It doesn’t seem that the right answer to that problem is “more guns” or “more nukes”, in either case, respectively.
Comment 12/7/2007
Yes, the pro-gun side jumps in to refute you. And you respond with dick jokes. Game, set, match.
Comment 12/7/2007
[…] In light of the gun fight starting again, I am just going to repeat what I wrote after VT: […]
Pingback 12/7/2007
But that’s not what you’re suggesting when you yammer on about the non-existent gun show loophole.
Who said anything at all about a “gun show loophole?” Certainly not me. In any case, is it possible to buy a gun without undergoing a background check? If my understanding of the law is correct, then yes it is. Is it possible to do this at a gun show? Again, my understanding is that in most places, yes, it is. I wouldn’t call that a “loophole.” I’d just call it a hole.
What you’re saying is, you oppose lawful commerce in arms among two private persons when there’s no background check.
What I’m saying is that it’s not possible to know whether the commerce in arms even is lawful without the background check. That you can’t see that distinction doesn’t mean the distinction does not exist.
And you respond with dick jokes.
Oh, lighten the hell up. Like you’re some beacon of highbrow humor, who has never reduced himself to a dick or fart joke. Get real. To paraphrase Jon Stewart, it’s not so funny when it’s aimed at your side, huh?
Comment 12/7/2007
Nations don’t suffer mental illness? I suppose there are some Jews and Cambodians who would differ.
Comment 12/7/2007
It’s always fun to watch the tolerant, diversity-promoting left show its true colors. We begin here, of course, with the “shootout” strawman, based on a bigoted, insulting stereotype which not only has no evidential basis, any evidence we do have is directly contrapositive, as submandave points out, above.
From there we jump, of course, to nuclear weapons, which as always are ascribed to the Right despite the fact that the only people who have ever used them were Democrats. It is the Left’s absolute declaration, as so cheerfully pointed out by Gattsuru, that (e.g.) Iran has an absolute right to possess nuclear weapons — but, remarkably enough, they do not even consider the notion that the analogy works the other way, too. If Iran, which specifically and repeatedly declares that it intends to use nuclear weapons to gain its ends, including mass murder of Jews, is entitled to own nukes, on what ground do you assert that anybody should be denied possession of lesser weapons?
The answer, of course, is that there is some mystical quality associated with “statehood”. Given that somebody has managed, by hook, crook, or sufficient nastiness, to achieve the position of Head of State, it follows that not only is the State presided over entitled to all the rights and privileges of all the others, but it is entitled to delegate those rights and privileges. It’s perfectly right and logical, for instance, to send policemen (with guns) out to enforce hate crimes laws against people who say things the Left doesn’t approve of; the policemen in question are absolutely entitled to carry weapons, whereas (e.g.) the policeman’s brother, who lacks a badge, is assumed to be a vicious criminal if he does so. And of course that refers back to the first bit — if you want an account of a “Wild West shootout” you should ask Louise Johnson. Except, of course, that you can’t.
Basically, the ultra-rational “reality-based” community is running entirely on irrational visceral reactions, basing its proposals strictly on the “squick” factor and ascribing the qualities of Mystical Amulet to what is, in fact, a pretty simple example of technology. I once worked out that a Ma Deuce — that is, a fifty-caliber machine gun, such as the military uses — is doing about fifteen horsepower when running at full steam. This is absolutely horrific, of course, especially compared to routinely facing drugged-out individuals with little training and less supervision coming straight at them with fifty-ton bludgeons driven by thousand-horsepower Diesel motors.
Underlying all is a nasty-minded elitism that demands not only that other people take care of their problems for them, but that they reserve the right to treat those volunteers with contempt; and a dull, low-level fear that never even rises to the status of cowardice, which assumes that their fellow citizens must of necessity be Out To Get Them and therefore must have as little power to affect them as possible. As L. Neil Smith points out, even if we accept the stereotype of guns as penis-substitutes, what can we say about people who hysterically demand that they be taken away? Because it is hysteria. There is absolutely no evidence, anywhere, that restrictive gun laws reduce crime or violence, and at least some evidence that they have the reverse effect, but evidence doesn’t matter. Guns are Eeevil.
Regards,
Ric
Comment 12/7/2007
Repeatedly ad nauseum we hear the historically ignorant compare an armed citizen’s taking on a crazed, gun-wielding killer in a public place to the Gunfight at OK Corral. Let’s recall that the Gunfight at OK Corral was an action by the City Marshall Virgil Earp and his deputized brothers and Doc Holladay to enforce a gun ordinance against the “cowboy” faction. Ironically, the OK Corral mayhem resulted from enforcement of a Tombstone gun control ordinance and nothing would have happened had the Earps left the cowboys alone. The fight took place in a vacant lot near the OK Corral with only the lawmen and cowboys present. The lot was not filled with innocent citizens, and no one other than the lawmen or the cowboys was killed or injured.
Had there been an armed citizen at the recent Omaha mall shooting, the killer might have been silenced before killing 9 people. A similar event happened at a law school in Virginia several years ago when a law student retrieved a handgun from his vehicle and confronted the killer, who meekly surrendered to him. Even had the armed citizen discharged his gun, he probably would have fired only one or two aimed shots, which is much safer than letting the crazed killed continue to continue to fire for several minutes. Any collateral damage would probably have been minimal, and even it the armed citizen accidentally killed someone, several others would probably still be alive.
The immorality of the anti-gun position is mind boggling and seems to assert that we are safer if we let more people die.
Comment 12/7/2007
Except he — as both he and I pointed out — do not advocate, and even advocate laws which would work to better prevent, the ownership of arms by the felonious or .
At the very least, it’s not hypocritical since his viewpoint shows Iran to be both felonious and mentally fucked up, as he’s pointed out regularly. Given that the country in question stones folk for looking at the wrong gender, forbids recognition of atheists or agnostics as human, and has stated that another entire country should be wiped off the map… I think it’s a little hard to disagree with him. In addition, as a signatory of he NPT, any acts by Iran to produce nuclear weapons would be a clear violation of well-known, consented, clearly-stated international law, and the closest synonym to a felonious country as it gets.
Comment 12/7/2007
[…] UPDATE: I’ve already said this in comments here, but I think it’s important enough to deserve a front-page mention. I shall rise to the narcissism level of the Gospel of John, and cite myself: It’s probably a good time to let the record show that I do not favor a repeal of the Second Amendment, and that (at least as liberals go) I’m moderately pro-gun (to the extent that I am a CCW permit holder). So it’s not like I’m some “Brady bunch gun grabber” or whatever the derisive term du jour is. […]
Pingback 12/7/2007
Say Uncle - But of course! It is far more important to the left to make a reply wittily than sensibly. Hence, the greater effort they put into the clever name-calling and exaggerating the position of their opponents (OK Corral, flooding the world with guns, Conservative Reading Comprehension Disorder). Please understand, SU, liberalism is not an intellectual position but a social one. This is why eye-rolling, cool insults, and dismissive tone are treated as replacements for substantive argument - it’s just high school all over again.
Gun-control advocates think they’ve been unfairly insulted? Try this experiment. Open up a fresh Word document and write down your case. Then go back over it and remove all the insults and sneers. You won’t think you found much at first, but then proceed to the next step: reverse the direction of the argument and note what phrases and tones you would find gratuitously insulting if they were sent in your direction.
Huh. Not much left, is there? (Please remember that if you actually do have a lot left, my guess is that you are deluding yourself, and an intelligent gun-rights advocate could point out a few sneers that you missed.)
Now, with that little bit of actual intellectual argument left - and there are a few good points that could be made - enter the discussion like an adult.
Comment 12/7/2007
The licensing and registration of motor vehicles is solely for the purpose of creating revenue. Licensing and registering handguns would be solely for the purpose of generating revenue and moving toward confiscation–as has been seen in other countries.
The reason you’ll never see private sales subject to background checks is because it can’t be policed. I can pull into your driveway with a pistol under my coat, enter the privacy of your home, and sell you that pistol. I can’t very well do that with a ton chassis pick-up. Motor vehicles and firearms are hardly comparable.
I oppose an attempt to regulate private sales because it will be ineffective. Criminals get their guns either by stealing them, or by purchasing them from other criminals who’ve stolen them. The only effect of forcing the registration of private sales is to generate revenue for the State, and to enhance its already frightening ability to compile data on the citizenry. Likewise, I’d like to see the current background check procedure be changed. There’s no reason to use my DL number, social security number, and the serial number of the firearm in the same phone call, and to the same desk. Unless, of course, you’re performing de facto registration of firearms and their owners.
Comment 12/7/2007
the pro-gun side jumps in to refute you
Referencing here the parallel discussion on Tgirsch’s post just after this one, as well as all that lies above, you really don’t mind caricaturing yourselves, do you? For any other interest group, not acting like knee-jerk ranters, in response to a comment criticizing one’s critical faculties, would have been an obvious first move.
In what world is “avalanches of gibberish about guns” a refutation of a logical argument about anything? Just the word “gun” elicits the same rhetoric, anecdotes, factual claims, and slogans (”only outlaws will have guns” . . . sheesh) in every possible context - whether it’s Reynolds, Zumbo, or any other thing, and completely irrespective of the actual subject under discussion. Are there even any pro-gun debaters? Can you prove you’re not just a recycled Serdar Argic spambot? If I’d written “Glenn Reynolds uses a dialup modem to make blog posts about gun control“, the resulting thread would have been exactly the same as above.
To repeat myself: my original post was not about gun restrictions. It was about Reynolds’s (lack of) logical consistency in arguing against them. That’s a distinction that makes a big difference to people who think about what they write, rather than just writing it. If your definition of “refutation” is “peace through superior firepower”, you’ve certainly won this argument on the basis of volume alone. But if making your words bear some relation to the actual subject under discussion, let alone crafting a compelling argument with them, is any part of the issue, perhaps a little more aimed fire, and a little less spray-and-pray, would be in order.
Comment 12/7/2007
So, there should be no anti-SLAPP statutes, such as those found in CCP 425.16, 23 other states, and one terrority, since the reason for lawsuits doesn’t matter?
After all, improperly actioned speech can really be nasty, and even lifethreatening when used against the correct individual.
Comment 12/7/2007
Bull. You may have thought so — but what you actually produced was boilerplate based on bigoted stereotype. As such, replying with boilerplate (even off the direct topic) is perfectly reasonable.
President Bush makes the point that military action against Iran is a possible result of Iran’s actions. You and the rest of the leftoids leap from that to OMIGODTHEBUSHBOTWANTSTOINVADEIRAN!!!!! and stop thinking. It is precisely the same stereotype that insists that a person wishing to keep a firearm for self-defense must of necessity be aching with the desire to blow away [insert left-dependent group]. The possibility that Bush does not want to invade, or that the defender would prefer not to shoot anybody, but that in both cases the individuals believe that a credible threat would reduce the likelihood of those actions, is apparently something whatever you have instead of a brain simply cannot accommodate. (Note that you and the rest are obediently serving Chimpy McHitlerburton’s ends. Your shrieking hysteria that Bush Wants to Invade makes the possibility more credible, and the threat therefore more effective).
And if you want to argue that the two cases contrast with one another in Reynolds’s case — that is, that arguing for wider gun ownership contradicts arguing for using force to narrow nuke ownership — then you had better acknowledge that it works the other way, too: If you are prepared (as you clearly are) to argue that Iran deserves, in some sense, to be allowed to possess nukes, you have no arguments that will support restricting anyone else’s ownership of anything less. And if you’re going to try to support allowing yourself to make the argument while denying its obverse to Reynolds on the grounds that nukes and handguns are incommensurate — which they are — then you have no ground upon which to argue that Reynolds’s proposal is invalid.
Regards,
Ric
Comment 12/7/2007
There are people in this country who cannot acquire a firearm legally because they have demonstrated that they are not responsible by virtue of the fact that they have committed certain crimes. Personally, I think that Iran probably does have the right under international law to acquire nuclear weapons. However, many people feel that given actions and statements by the Iranian leadership, it is not wise to allow them to acquire these weapons. And I can understand their point of view.
Your analogy is fairly silly because there is a huge difference between small arms in the hands of individuals and WMD by a country like Iran. (Consider the uses and the destructive power.) The closer analogy would be to manufacturing or acquiring explosive devices, and that is also prohibited by unlicensed individuals in this country.
RE: “irresponsible and murderous gun makers”
Just because a company manufactures an inexpensive firearm doesn’t make them “irresponsible” or “murderous”. Many would like to own a gun and cannot afford anything more expensive, while successful criminals can afford very high-priced weapons. Classic examples come from the special Gun Court in Chicago. The first case heard was a woman who defended herself and her children from a home invasion with a .25 semiauto - a very cheap gun. The idea that cheap guns were created with criminals in mind is pretty far-fetched. You have proof of this?
The argument is made that these are the preferred weapons of criminals. Not the criminals I’ve ever run across: .22 and .25 is way too small. Besides, they were all making a lot more money and could afford much better firepower than that. But even if it was true (i.e. if statistically they were used in violent crimes more often than others), can you prove that this was the intent of the manufacturer? And even if you can prove that, what other objects are manufactured that are the preferred instruments of criminals? For example, many moons ago certain gangsters preferred to steal certain cars because they performed better.)
RE: “After all, if the issue is that the availability of guns has an effect on the balance of power between criminals and other citizens, …”
Strawman. The issue is not availability. In this situation, the felon who was planning to kill people illegally acquired a weapon and illegally carried concealed. That’s what happens in a situation where the law creates an environment where felons and agents of the State are the only ones who are allowed to carry firearms. If someone starts shooting and a cop isn’t around, innocent people die who cannot defend themselves. Sure, many of them may have firearms at home, but if they follow the law and don’t carry them in public, the good guys are effectively unarmed. There are plenty of guns, but people cannot protect themselves outside the home. (Of course, this is a big reason why home invasions are much more common in places like Britain and Europe that in parts of the US.)
RE: “Distributing guns irresponsibly is as much a public health threat as distributing tainted food or leaded paint”
If, of course, you could show that the manufacturers are responsible for the “distribution”. They aren’t: federally licensed individuals are responsible for that.
RE: “To increase the number of guns used in every shooting incident …”
By any objective standard restricting the number of guns in every shooting incident to the number held by bad guys is a bad idea. There are just too many stories where violent offenders got stopped by good guys with guns.
Here’s where I really disagree:
RE: “The courts are one of the branches of governmental authority. … Civil authorities are well within their rights to use court actions to enforce public policy - they do it all the time.”
You seem to be a big advocate for State control and authority. As someone once said about Gun Control, “It’s not about guns: it’s about control.”
Comment 12/7/2007
Just remember, when you need help in seconds, the cops are just minutes away. Just like in Omaha - 6 minutes and by then the victims and the shooter were both dead.
Comment 12/7/2007
I agree with you on most points, sir, but to clarify :
Iran is a signatory of the NPT, and thus consented to not developing nuclear weapons. While it can retreat from the treaty with a 90 day ‘waiting period’ and thus has the right to acquire nuclear weapons, it has willingly surrendered the right to do so secretly or publicly until such time as it leaves the treaty.
Comment 12/7/2007
Any business or organization that disarms the public is taking on the responsibility of protecting the public. Even if you are a gun control advocate, you can see there’s a case to be made that the mall should have had far more armed security guards. What is odd is that due to the irrational fear of guns, the mall probably thought it was making itself safer by disarming the public.
It’s an imperfect analogy, but imagine the mall banned hyperdermic needles because it feared drug sales/use, and a diabetic went into shock. The mall has no needles itself and patrons have to call an ambulance, which arrives too late. Does the victim’s family have a case?
Comment 12/7/2007
I think the point about small arms being protective and strategic arms being aggressive has some merit. Although, small arms certainly can be used in an aggressive way - but often those cases involve illegal small arms, so that would render those cases moot anyway.
But honestly, most KTK is right in the sense that most of the refutations here are irrelevant to his point. If you truly want to refute the post, on its own terms, explain why the argument doesn’t scale.
I also must note that if it was against the law to be named Dr. Ellen, only outlaws would be named Dr. Ellen. Legality is just a reflection of cultural values, it bears no intrinsic relation to morality, health, etc. If the second amendment were to be repealed, pro-gun gun owners wouldn’t magically feel immoral or anything, though technically they’d be “outlaws.” Any of you guys smoke weed - does it make you feel like an outlaw to do so?…
My only request is that we cease that entire line of argument.
Comment 12/7/2007
Re #2
jblog Says:
December 7th, 2007
Three times as many people die in this country from medical malpractice as from firearms.
Guns don’t kill people, doctors do.
See how silly such logic is?
_____
Wrong! It goes; Guns don’t kill people, people do.
Same stupid people, sometimes with guns, sometime with incompetence!
Comment 12/7/2007
I don’t mind the lowbrow humor if it’s humorous. That was not and was mostly just stereotypical insults.
“you really don’t mind caricaturing yourselves, do you?”
not at all. we’re just better at it than you are.
“In what world is “avalanches of gibberish about guns” a refutation of a logical argument about anything? ”
present a logical argument. or a factual one.
Comment 12/7/2007
For another, Iran’s leaders don’t seem to be in the least bit irrational
So you’re for hanging gays and wiping Israel off the map then?
What’s sad is you’re actually taking yourself seriously after a statement like that.
Comment 12/7/2007
From a practical perspective, I can’t sell my car to somebody else without state involvement. Why should it be different for guns?
From a practical perspective, you can’t use a car without also using facilities built and maintained by the state, i.e., roads. The ’state involvement’ you refer to is primarily intended to ensure that the people who use the roads pay the taxes necessary for their upkeep- not the prevention of car-related crimes.
Firearms are generally used at privately-owned ranges or on private property, not publicly built and maintained facilities that are paid for by the state. When they are used on public lands (hunting, for example) there is generally a license involved, and a fee associated with the license.
Why does my right to sell my gun outweigh the criminal’s lack of a right to buy one?
Because the criminal has forfeited that right due to the criminal’s illegal actions. You, as a law-abiding citizen, have not…
Penalizing people who don’t break the law because of the actions of criminals is a slow road to hell. There will *always* be someone more stupid, bloodthirsty, ruthless, or depraved than the last monster.
Should this justify ever-increasing restrictions on what law-abiding citizens can do?
Comment 12/7/2007
Reynolds contradicts himself. He does so by arguing that more guns will create a safer world, in the case of small arms, but more nuclear weapons will create a more dangerous world, in the case of strategic arms - and that it is appropriate to punish those who try to prevent the acquisition of weapons in the former case, but to punish (with unprovoked warfare) those who try to acquire weapons in the latter.
That’s not a “contradiction” so much as it’s discussing two different things.
Comment 12/7/2007
om a practical perspective, I can’t sell my car to somebody else without state involvement. Why should it be different for guns?
Because you don’t have a 2nd Amendment right to sell a car.
Duh.
Comment 12/7/2007
Ever wonder why mass murderers don’t walk into police stations and start shooting?
(No need to rush to an answer; I’ll give you a few minutes……)
.
.
.
.
Oh, and if somebody pulls a gun in a mall like this nut did, you’re damned right I’d hope someone else fires back at him. Better that than just letting him blast away unopposed, Gandhi.
Comment 12/7/2007
I totally agree that we should ban firearms ownership, and concealed carry laws should be recinded. I feel much safer knowing that when I’m out burglarizing people’s houses that they can’t shot me. And its so much easier to pick up chicks (and rape them) for our mutual enjoyment (I know they want it). Keep up the good work. I think the comparison to nuclear weapons is valid as well. In fact, I think that goes for ALL weapons. I think the United States should set an example and completely disarm. I’m sure once all our offensive and defensive capabilities are gone, and the military has been completely disbanded, all other countries will follow suit. The world will be one big happy place. If we don’t have any means to defend ourselves, I’m SURE every other country will now feel safe and get rid of all of there weapons as well. Why on EARTH would anyone want to do anything bad to us if we didn’t have any means to defend ourselves? I’m sure if anything DID happen (and that would just be reDICKulous) I’m sure economic sanctions would end any hostility immediatly! Just because its never worked before, doesn’t mean it won’t work now. I’m a liberal criminal for God’s sake! I believe this stuff! Nothing bad will ever happen to me! La la la lalalalalalalala!
Comment 12/7/2007
For one thing, nations aren’t subject to mental illness.
What was Nazi Germany, then, exactly?
For another, Iran’s leaders don’t seem to be in the least bit irrational, though certainly repressive.
For what values of “rationality” is any kind of repression “rational”? Conservatives love to trash reason in favor of faith (i.e. the kind that rules Iran); this is their ammunition.
what’s better than one person shooting into a crowd in a shopping mall, if you’re Glenn Reynolds? - everyone in the crowd shooting at each other!
As he’s said nothing of the sort, this is just projection.
obviously that would also be the case regarding nuclear weapons, and so, if his argument makes any sense, he ought to advocate it in that scenario as well.
Well, except for the fact that:
Nations are not individuals, and
Nukes are not small arms.
Neither of these two pairs are interchangeable; each item is completely different in principle from the other. Both analogies are laughable on their faces.
Nations do not possess any rights; only individuals have those. Rather, nations — which invariably means, their governments — may only exist by the free consent of the people they govern, and have no rights in themselves. The people (which means individuals; there is no such entity as “the people” apart from individuals) retain the moral right to withdraw that consent in the face of an uncontrolled government.
Furthermore, I know the distinction of principle between small arms and weapons of mass destruction might be lost on you, but it’s there, trust me. Not only are nukes useless for muggers, and a 9mm pistol won’t scare a street gang, let alone a government — but the individual right of self-defense recognized in the Second Amendment has nothing to do with making war, which is something else entirely.
I suspect this blog is misnamed; it should be “www.falloverleft.com”.
Comment 12/7/2007
Only weapons that can be carried are arms. Nuclear weapons and artillery fall under seperate classifications. You can’t compare the two.
How would one use a nuke for self-defense, anyway?
Comment 12/8/2007
Actually, isn’t part of the popular rationale for our use of the bomb that it ultimately saved more lives than if we didn’t use it? In that respect, how much of a stretch is it to call the use of the atomic bomb “self defense,” or at least defensive? Just throwing that out there.
What is odd is that due to the irrational fear of guns, the mall probably thought it was making itself safer by disarming the public.
Yeah, how irrational to be afraid of guns…
Comment 12/8/2007
“For one thing, nations aren’t subject to mental illness”. You are absolutely right. Nazi Germany and Hitler were the height of saneness. Pol-Pot, no insanity there. Kim-Il-Sung, nada.
By the way, I can get you the Eiffel Tower cheap.
Comment 12/8/2007
Because you don’t have a 2nd Amendment right to sell a car.
You’re right, I don’t. Then again, I don’t have a second amendment right to sell a gun, either. I defy you to find the words “buy” or “sell” anywhere in the 2nd Amendment.
Oddly enough, the word “regulated” does appear in the 2nd, which brings me to another beef: Pro-gun folks like to pretend that the first half of the 2nd amendment is irrelevant, while anti-gun folks like to pretend that the second half is.
(Now, at this point, about five dozen pro-gun types will start posting cherry-picked links and explanations about how the first half of 2A is a “justifier” for the second half, but that’s not relevant to my point, because where the rubber hits the road, they would tell you that there would be no practical difference in the application of 2A if it just started with “The right of the people…” Given that 1A doesn’t start with “Free and open discourse, being necessary to the security of a free state,” it’s reasonable to assume that the opening clause of 2A was put there for more reason than just “This is why we’re doing this.” And, in fact, I think an honest reading of the history of it will find a rationale that is much more nuanced — and much messier — than either the rabidly pro-gun or rabidly anti-gun side is willing to admit. As with much of the Constitution, 2A was ratified as a compromise between the framers who wanted an armed general public, and those who did not.)
Comment 12/8/2007
No, we can just pass third grade English. At whatever time that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” is not true, we’ll be quite content to talk about rethinking the second half of the damned text.
As it is, however, I don’t see the Militia Act being found unconstitutional under the “necessary and proper” clause any time soon.
Comment 12/8/2007
Most — not quite all — pro self-defense activists wouldn’t really object to requiring all gun purchases to go through FFL dealers if we thought that attempts at additional restrictions would stop about there.
But we don’t have any reason to believe that they would; the anti gun types, in those states where there are such requirements, haven’t stopped there.
Until they do, expecting us to stop opposing yet another at most unlikely-to-do-anything-good restriction is unrealistic.
As it is, the large body of unregistered guns in circulation (all guns bought in my own Minnesota, just to take one small slice) acts to make the step beyond registration — confiscation; see the UK example, or “assault weapons” in NY — impractical, and that’s a good thing.
Comment 12/8/2007
tgirsh: what, in your considered opinion, did “regulated” mean, in that context, at that time? After you think about that, consider the grammatical construction of the Second Amendment; are you of the opinion that grammatical construction then was different in a relevant way than now?
Comment 12/8/2007
gattsuru Says:
December 7th, 2007
Comment 12/8/2007
The subject of the sentence in the Second Amendment is ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms.’ ‘Right of the people’ is a phrase that recurs repeatedly in the Bill of Rights and it invariably means rights of individual citizens. The dependent clause is, in fact, a justification clause, of a sort that was then common in constitutional language. It does not affect the main clause. The argument can be paraphrased like this: Individuals must have the right to own guns, because otherwise we cannot have militias (i.e., community defense forces), and militias are necessary to defend citizens from possible abuses by the standing army of a national government. Why can’t we have militias without the right to own guns? Because then it would be easy for the national government to disarm citizens (a hot issue in the 18th century). Now it can be reasonably argued that the justification clause is obsolete and we do not really need militias anymore. But the main clause still stands: individuals have a constitutional right to own guns, and this right can be removed only by another constitutional amendment. It is grammatically, legally, and historically untenable to read the sentence as though the subject were ‘militias’ and not ‘the right of the people.’ Also it should not be assumed that the militia clause is the ONLY reason for the right to own guns. It happens to be the only reason given in the Bill of Rights, but that is because the Bill was written specifically to assure people that their rights would be protected from interference by a strong central government. For most people, then and now, self-defense is a more pressing reason for owning guns. The case on gun rights now before the Supreme Court should clarify these matters.
Comment 12/9/2007
Jayzus, you people are amazing. As if signs and treaties and laws mean anything at all to criminals or maniacal dictators. These people are predators and don’t give a flip for your sensitive understanding of international law or gun statutes. All they care about is them having the power to do what they please and you being stupid enough to think that some agreement or contractual obligation (something silly like maybe gun banning laws)is going to be enough to keep you safe. Keep dreaming liberal (oops! progressive idiots!!
You know what - I actually agree. I think what we’d disagree on who the criminals and oppressors we need to worried about protecting ourselves from are, though…
And, in that case, we need militias now more than ever.
Ironically, it seems that those who most ardently support the second amendment, the right to arms as it relates to assembling a militia to protect against unconstitutional encroachment by the Federal Government are the first to endorse such encroachments in practice.
Something tells me it was Texan gun nuts endorsing armed Panthers preaching “self-defense” to combat institutionalized brutality, dehumanization and constitutional violations carried out by instruments of the state.
As long as they define and enforce the “law” such that self-defense concerns of the hegemony are legitimized, and the acts of violent resistance by the marginalized are criminalized, y’all are just sipping lemonade in the shade. As long as the law is applied so that we will support the use of (even preemptive) violence by the military industrial complex and condemn the use of violence by the Weathermen - y’all cool!
Nah, I’m sure you’re all about principle, and not ideology; I’m sure you support Ward Churchill too…
Comment 12/10/2007
doyne:
The dependent clause is, in fact, a justification clause, of a sort that was then common in constitutional language.
Really? If it’s so common, where else does such language appear in the Constitution? Certainly nowhere else in the Bill of Rights…
Joel
Let me start by pointing out that I appreciate your civility of tone; it’s uncharacteristic of these debates, where I often take crap from both sides, given that I don’t fit neatly into either one. So again, your tone is appreciated.
…if we thought that attempts at additional restrictions would stop about there.
Generally speaking, I’m not a big fan of slippery-slope arguments. A restriction either makes sense on its merits, or it doesn’t. Fears of “what comes next” would have to be pretty overwhelming before I’d let them get in the way of an otherwise sensible reform. And that holds true of all subjects, not just gun rights.
what, in your considered opinion, did “regulated” mean, in that context, at that time?
My understanding of what “well regulated” meant in its original context is something akin to “properly trained and equipped,” although there’s always a certain amount of tea-leaf reading when trying to discern “original” meaning.
consider the grammatical construction of the Second Amendment
As far as I can discern, the Second Amendment isn’t even a complete sentence, which is a big part of the problem with interpreting the damn thing.
As I alluded earlier, 2A was a compromise; if its sole intent were to guarantee an individual right to firearms ownership, it would have been passed simply as “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged,” and that’s that. Clearly, there was a bit more to it. The original drafts of what was to become 2A even included a conscientious objector clause that would have permitted people to refrain from serving in the militia if they did so for religious reasons; such a clause wouldn’t make any sense if militias were considered to be some sort of informal entity. (If my understanding is correct, and it might not be, that clause was removed because a similar clause was apparently used to undermine the militias in England at some point.)
Comment 12/10/2007
I did not say such language appears in the US Constitution. I said it was common in constitutional language. Eugene Volokh of the UCLA Law School found dozens of examples in state constitutions of provisions with the same grammatical structure as the Second Amendment, i.e. a justification clause explaining the need for a right, followed by an operating clause securing the right. For example, the Rhode Island Constitution says “The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish sentiments on any subject…” (Volokh’s 1998 article on this subject can be found at the Wikipedia entry on the Second Amendment).
Why you think the Second Amendment is not a complete sentence I do not know. Some versions put a comma after “militia,” but that is because in the 18th century commas could be used to indicate rhetorical pauses. The structure and meaning of the sentence have never been in doubt.
You try to make much of the fact that this is the only place in the Bill of Rights where a justification clause occurs. Surely that is irrelevant. Maybe it’s an accident. Maybe they thought some explanation of the connection between militias (local or community defense forces composed of men using their own weapons) and standing armies belonging to a national government would be useful, as the argument was not quite so familiar as that for freedom of the press. Maybe they wanted to remind everyone of the danger of standing armies. In any case the justification clause could have been deleted without altering the meaning of the operating clause in the slightest: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.”
Who thinks militias were conceived purely as informal entities? The Latin word militia meant both ‘defense activity’ and ‘those who do it.’ Most of the drafters of the Constitution knew Latin.
Don’t understand why you think the amendment was a ‘compromise’ between those who wanted a general armed citizenry and those who did not. Only the first view can be found in the text.
Comment 12/11/2007
a justification clause explaining the need for a right, followed by an operating clause securing the right.
But this is a bit of a double-edged sword, no? By putting a justifier in, aren’t you implying that the right listed is dependent upon that justification, such that if the justification is no longer valid, the right no longer requires protection? We haven’t required a citizen militia for our security in about a century or so…
Why you think the Second Amendment is not a complete sentence I do not know.
Because it uses a sentence structure that’s archaic, and is no longer used. At minimum, it seems to be missing at least one verb. The second half stands on its own as a sentence. The first half doesn’t, and doesn’t tie well into the second half. “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, …” to me implies that a verb ought to follow. A “well-regulated militia” has to have a verb associated with it for the sentence structure to be complete (at least in modern usage). Otherwise, you’re just hanging there. A militia does what?
Don’t understand why you think the amendment was a ‘compromise’ between those who wanted a general armed citizenry and those who did not.
Because the history surrounding the drafting of the Amendment is clear on this. It’s just difficult to find a clean version of the history, because both sides of the debate have spun it all to hell. Once upon a time, I found some very good reading on that subject, but I’m having difficulty finding it again. I liked it, because it contained plenty to piss off both extreme sides of the gun debate.
All that said, the amendment says what it says, and as I read it, it does explicitly protect an individual right. At the same time, it does not necessarily prohibit all restrictions of that right. In the contemporary language of the constitution, “infringed” means “destroyed,” not “limited.” (For that matter, “bear arms” was closer in meaning to “fight” than to “carry weapons.”) Thus, it guarantees an individual right to own weapons, but not an unlimited one, as I understand it.
Comment 12/11/2007
You can argue all day about how the 2A is worded, about how many commas there are, and what the hell “militia” means. How is it that the part of the Constitution which we call the “Bill of Rights,” which recognizes and protects the individual rights of the citizens of this country, and which clearly makes the distinction between “the people,” the “States,” and the “United States,” can be construed to restrict these same rights? The “Bill of Rights” tells each citizen that only they have rights, that these are specific ones, and that this list of rights is not all inclusive. Now we have folks saying that it doesn’t really mean that for the 2A. All the other amendments are good-to-go; but this one, the second amendment, is actually subject to regulation because it has the word “militia” in it. Come on. You don’t really believe that do you? “But it’s outdated!” “The founding fathers didn’t really know that we would someday have super deadly assault thingys!” “They didn’t have police back then!” Rubbish.
I know what my rights mean. Until they make police officers small and light enough to fit in my holster then I will carry whatever I feel makes me and my family safe.
The nuke arguement is just absurd.
C
Comment 12/11/2007
CTone:
the second amendment, is actually subject to regulation because it has the word “militia” in it.
I don’t think anyone argues that. They argue that it’s subject to regulation because it has the word “regulated” in it. The people who focus on the word “militia” are generally the ones who argue for a collective right rather than an individual one.
Comment 12/11/2007
Did you ever hear of a participle? ‘Being …” is a participle. The participle doesn’t dangle, as it clearly modifies ‘militia.’ No other verb is needed. The wording is not even particularly archaic.
I already said, above, that it can be reasonably argued that the militia clause is obsolete, though I don’t think that is an adequate reason for removing the amendment.
I agree that the amendment establishes an individual right, but not an unlimited one.
Comment 12/11/2007
No other verb is needed.
Why not? Again, separate out the clause, and let it stand:
“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.” That’s not a sentence. The “being necessary” part indeed modifies militia, but it doesn’t tell us what the militia does. With apologies to School House Rock, the militia is the subject of my sentence, and what the predicate says it does. Except here, there ain’t no predicate!
The wording is not even particularly archaic.
I’m glad you think so, but I suspect most contemporary speakers of English would disagree.
it can be reasonably argued that the militia clause is obsolete, though I don’t think that is an adequate reason for removing the amendment.
But that’s the problem, in my mind, with the “it’s just a justification” explanation; because if the amendment rests on the justification, and the militia is what justifies the amendment, and the militia is obsolete, then so too is the amendment itself, and it need not be removed. I don’t think that’s what you want here.
Comment 12/11/2007