Jason,
I somewhat agree with you. DC's virtual ban on shotguns and rifles ("virtual" ban, since an inoperable weapon is as good as banned) is a joke. What bothers me is that you feel DC's ban on handguns is (come June, WAS) an acceptable compromise. Especially in light of its ineffectiveness (ever take a look at DC's per capita crime statistics?) What is your justification for supporting a ban on the most commonly used, and most appropriately designed tool for self defense? Because it is the same tool favored by criminals?
Gun control is what we do because we don't have the money or the resources to address the real roots of crime. But gun control garners votes and makes soccer moms feel good at night "knowing" that because of a ban or because of a one gun a month law, that the criminals are being "put in their place." Most people aren't educated enough about gun control and crime to make the correlation that gun control has not, and does not work. Most sheeple, I mean people, believe everything that the media tells them.
Pro-gun supporters are so adamant in their convictions because history and statistics support the ineffectiveness of any law which does not directly target criminals, not because we're "nuts."
And oh yeah, we also have that pesky little document called the Constitution if all the fallacies of gun control just don't register.
King: "I Can't Follow the Old Eye-For-an-Eye Philosophy"
Buzz this article up.
Forty years ago today, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was felled by an assassin's bullet. He was 39.
Robert F. Kennedy, campaigning for president in 1968, was in Indianapolis on the evening of April 4, 1968. The first to tell the crowd the terrible news, he reminded them of what Dr. King lived and ultimately died for:
Martin Luther King dedicated his life to love and to justice for his fellow human beings, and he died because of that effort. In this difficult day, in this difficult time for the United States, it is perhaps well to ask what kind of a nation we are and what direction we want to move in. ... [W]e can make an effort, as Martin Luther King did, to understand and to comprehend, and replace that violence, that stain of bloodshed that has spread across our land, with an effort to understand, with compassion and love.
Out of nearly 100 major cities in America that rioted at the news of Dr. King's assassination, Indianapolis was not among them. Just two months after this speech, Robert Kennedy too would be assassinated by gunshot.
From these horrible losses would come the Gun Control Act of 1968, one of the few pieces of national gun control legislation on the books today.
Dr. King said many profound things in his public and ministerial career. His statement at the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama, on May 3, 1963 -- one month before I had the opportunity to hear him and meet him in my hometown of Fort Wayne, Indiana -- seems particularly meaningful today:
The reason I can't follow the old eye-for-an-eye philosophy is that it ends up leaving everybody blind. Somebody must have sense and somebody must have religion. I remember some years ago, my brother and I were driving from Atlanta to Chattanooga, Tennessee. And for some reason the drivers that night were very discourteous or they were forgetting to dim their lights .... And finally A.D. [King's brother] looked over at me and he said, "I'm tired of this now, and the next car that comes by here and refuses to dim the lights, I'm going to refuse to dim mine." I said, "Wait a minute, don't do that. Somebody has to have some sense on this highway and if somebody doesn't have sense enough to dim the lights, we'll all end up destroyed on this highway."
And I'm saying the same thing for us here in Birmingham. We are moving up a mighty highway toward the city of Freedom. There will be meandering points. There will be curves and difficult moments, and we will be tempted to retaliate with the same kind of force that the opposition will use. But I'm going to say to you, "Wait a minute, Birmingham. Somebody's got to have some sense in Birmingham."
If Dr. King is looking down on us today, I can imagine him seeing 12,352 gun murders a year in the United States -- nearly 34 every day -- and telling us that "the old eye-for-an-eye philosophy leaves everyone blind."
Somebody's got to "have some sense" in America.
Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Getting a little thin down there JEM, so...
"Just seemed a little overly confrontational for an int ital [sic] comments on what I was laying out. It also seemed a little overly nit-picky on how I decided to explain my reasoning." Sorry, does not compute - either your prior posts were wrong or the referenced post was wrong. And comparing handguns to drugs is a false argument, in that one is enumerated (albeit questionably) in the Constitution. The other...? Goes back to a prior post - enough with the half-assed attempts. Ain't worked to well so far.
"I prefer to wage a battle of wearing them down with common sense. I think that will ultimately win out." Naive.
"If the current laws don't satisfy the owners of 200 million guns then what can we do to puts rules in place that accomplish our ends?" Ban 'em all - which is where we're heading anyway. Why screw around and prolong it. Either register or ban. That's it. Simple.
"Not sure what the answer is, because plainly any regulation amounts to over regulation. Doesn't stop it from being an important debate though, even with the frequent stalemates." You speak as those we're all 80 year-old men playing chess in the park on some random Thursday morning! This is important, and the time to act is NOW! Especially given the current SCOTUS case. Young grasshopper...we have much to converse about. However, it doesn't sound like it'd matter.
Well, as long as relying on common sense is naive in your world, then conversation most likely won't matter. I live in DC and the law, as written, is idiotic. They took what could have been a reasonable and acceptable ban on hand-guns and then added that shot guns must be unloaded and disassembled in the closet, thus creating a law that is ridiculous and counter-productive. Banning anything is comparable to the main issue of not treating people like adults, so, yes, in this instance, comparing drugs and guns are applicable, grasshopper.
*Uh hum* But wasn't it you that seemed open to the idea of opposing ideas, no matter how absurd/extreme/different (or whatever the term you used) it was in dealing with these softies? How can you then think because your ideas are less (or even, "more") "reasonable" that you then you resort to discarding them completely? (Specifically, mine!?)
Apologies to you, regarding your (what sounds to be a) reasonable mind and middling logic, but what you are conducting sounds an awful lot like the McCain/Barama ticket - take no stance, discard no position, but still be vague enough to appease any-, every-one who might be listening!? What gives? Make a decision, wait for spine and stick with it! Quit pansying around! C'mon now... this is no time for the weak!
"Prove to me that you can own a gun and blow away an intruder in the middle of the night without punching holes into the row-house next door because your bullets are too powerful for the job at hand." -Jason
Ok, Jason. You are asking for serious debate, then I have a question for you...
If you are concerned about "bullets punching holes though walls" of your neighbor's house, then why do you suppose some states regulate hollow-point ammunition, when, in addition to stopping power, also PREVENT that very situation from happening?
http://www.njsp.org/about/fire_hollow.html
This is the type of law which is deemed as "common sense" to the gun control platform.
If a state is banning ammunition that solves the problem I spoke of then that state is stupid. I am not a gun control advocate, but I don't consider banning ammunition a common sense means of ensuring a safe society.
Jason, pay no mind to solitude. He is the anthesis of rational debate, or anything else which is rational. He likes to drop attacks and run and hide for a few days. This is the same person who rationalizes personal defense with kitchen utensils.
Anyway, I am just curious as to what you would consider a "reasonable" gun control law? This is not baiting you, I am just genuinely interested.
Might I add - "point proven!" let the ad homenim attacks fly.
For the record, melon, if you would use that quote (kitchen utensils), in context, it might make a bit more sense, iinstead of simply hoping JEM is dumb enough to believe I would take a pasta strainer over my .45! Silly boy! A for effort; C for execution!
I explained it pretty completely below, but, essentially, I would find a way to balance public safety with the inherent right to do what the hell we want if it doesn't impact other people.
I don't think any of the current solutions are working or there wouldn't be nearly as much vitriol on both sides of the debate. Like most things in America, the solution gets lost somewhere in the middle.
"antithesis", sorry. He's also the spelling Nazi.......
Besides this mythical training, you seem to offer very little other "reasonable" alternatives? (Perhaps because they are lacking?) Listen, JEM, I applaud your efforts to have a reasonable discussion with these miscreants, as many others have done before you, but I feel obligated to bring you in on a well-known tidbit of fact...it doesn't matter. Period. They will hear what they want to hear. Read what they want to read. And shoot what they want to shoot. You'd do as well to go bang your head into the wall....they ain't listening!
If ever there was a "head in the sand" it is the collective lot here.
Quick, everyone look busy....solitude is back.
'tude, since you've thrown a few irrelevant posts our way this afternoon, maybe you'd like to actually engage in discussion without involving personal attacks. Care to give a shot at the question i posed to JEM?"
"Prove to me that you can own a gun and blow away an intruder in the middle of the night without punching holes into the row-house next door because your bullets are too powerful for the job at hand." -Jason
Ok, Jason. You are asking for serious debate, then I have a question for you...
If you are concerned about "bullets punching holes though walls" of your neighbor's house, then why do you suppose some states regulate hollow-point ammunition, when, in addition to stopping power, also PREVENT that very situation from happening?
http://www.njsp.org/about/fire_hollow.html
Or maybe you just want to keep wasting space for the rest of the afternoon?
Yeah, but ideas are like pollen. You never know when something might take root. What, besides education and training, can we put in place that is reasonable in a nation of laws? I try to keep my solutions as simple as possible so everyone can understand them. However, I do agree that debating zealots is most often a wasted effort.
So this is why Paul has been so busy on the blogs lately, he's had a lot of time on his hands, you know, because he and the BC won't be on the V-Tech campus protesting.....
http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2008-04-08-0119.html
It's good to know that at least the university administration recognizes the need for class when you are memorializing your fallen comrades rather than using their blood as a soapbox.....
Another hat-tip to Uncle...
Part of "The Children(tm)" demographic.....
http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=8120385
Hat tip to Uncle.
"The whole idea behind the second amendment was to ensure a young nation could protect itself from other countries - not create an environment where an eye-for-an-eye, outside the bounds of the law, was the norm. They wanted a society of civilized men." -Jason
You forgot that the 2A also guarantees that the Government could not infringe upon the already inherent right to self-protection, which is evidenced by fact that the founding fathers choose the phrase "...the right of the people..." instead of the "right of the militia" or the right of the states."
One important aspect that most pro-gun control advocates fail to recognize is that the 2A is not what is "creating" this eye-for-an-eye environment. This mentality is simply the inevitable evolution of society which glamorizes violence and degradation of women, is reliant on socio-economic inequalities (unfortunately, society's economics simply could not function in an environment where everyone is a millionaire, ie, society NEEDS the poor), has a failing judicial system which exacerbates criminal recidivism, has a horribly underfunded educational system, rewards the proliferation of bastardized children (more children = more welfare) and a plethora of other societal and environmental factors. Blaming "The Gun Show Loophole (tm)", "Assault Rifles(tm)", the 2A itself, etc... only minimizes societies problems and hides the fact that to remedy them is practically an insurmountable task hindered by misappropriation of finite resources and society's failure to hold individuals accountable for their actions.
"The whole idea behind the second amendment was to ensure a young nation could protect itself from other countries - not create an environment where an eye-for-an-eye, outside the bounds of the law, was the norm. They wanted a society of civilized men." -Jason
That is only part of the reasons, and for many of the founding fathers, it certainly not the most important of reasons. At the time the Bill of Rights was being drafted, most of the founders wanted their individual states to maintain the organized and unorganized militia structures that won them their freedom from Britain, yet they also realized the need for a standing army to protect against threats that individual states were not equipped to deal with. But they were worried that a centralized governmental power could grow so bid that it become oppressive over their individual States.
The founders saw the right to keep and bear arm as a unalienable right given to them by God and didn't feel it even had to be enumerated, but luck for us, they also feared that such a power government could enact federal law to disarm the masses and then disband the militias as their first steps on the road to suppressing individual freedom To guard against this, they demanded a prevision be enumerated into the bill of rights (the 2nd Amendment) to ensure that this was addressed.
I have no problem with sensible gun control. What does that mean to me?
We do our level best to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally unstable individuals. Sensible regulations meaning if you are going to own a gun and have a valid license to carry that gun, either concealed or not, you must demonstrate competence with that gun. I had to qualify every six months in the military. I don't think yearly competency tests are outside the bounds of sensible regulation.
Of course criminals won't abide by the rules, but I don't think that is a reason not to have them.
As can be seen by the comments to my plea for common sense, the wild west indeed alive and well. You have more chance of being hit by a bus than of being a victim of violent crime. Somehow the unrestricted "right" to own and bear arms independent of a "well-regulated militia" seems to be counter to the sensible common sense men who wrote the constitution.
The whole idea behind the second amendment was to ensure a young nation could protect itself from other countries - not create an environment where an eye-for-an-eye, outside the bounds of the law, was the norm. They wanted a society of civilized men.
I don't it is unreasonable that we demand lawful ownership of a gun ensures to me and my family that you aren't more dangerous armed than the "criminals."
Jason:
I forgot to put your name on my first response to your post. In regards to your comment...
The whole idea behind the second amendment was to ensure a young nation could protect itself from other countries - not create an environment where an eye-for-an-eye, outside the bounds of the law, was the norm. They wanted a society of civilized men.
Study your history. Guns are what made this nation civilized. They were used to win our freedom from England and to civilized an untamed country. Even today they are still used to protect us from evil either by law enforcement or by private citizens.
Finally, if you are going to demand that gun owners take yearly tests to show that our Second Amendment rights will not infringe on your safety, I am going to demand that you take yearly tests to show that your First Amendment rights will not infringe on my safety. After all, words can be as damaging as weapons.
Michael
Words aren't bullets, by the way. This is why you gun nuts only make my argument more cogent.
Jason:
Please check my posts. I did not call you a "nut" or anything derogatory. So, how can we have a construtive debate if you are calling us names simply because you disagree with us.
Michael
Words can be very dangerous, especially when spoken by ignorant anti-freedom sympathizers, who have no idea to what they speak, basically just regurgitating the Brady or other firearm hate groups talking points.
As far as you making a cogent argument, to date I can not say have never seen you make one.
Laws made this nation civilized. Not guns. Guns killed our enemies, both actual and perceived. That is all. They were a tool not a reason for being.
Jason:
I never said they were a reason for being. Yes, laws are important (I should know as I am currently finishing up my Texas law enforcement officer certification) but without something to enforce those laws (guns in the right hands of the right people) the laws mean nothing.
You are right...guns are a tool. And , like most tools, they can be used for good or evil. A claw hammer can be used to drive a nail or crush a skull just like a gun can be used to protect the innocent or kill them. It's the user not the tool. So, do you want to confiscate all claw hammers because they can be used to kill even though most people use them like they should be used? The same is true of firearms.
There are an estimated 200 millions firearms in private hands in the US. Estimates on defensive gun uses (DGUs) each year range from 83,000 to 2.5 million. (See DOJ study below). The 1994 DOJ study showed that those defending themselves with firearmw were 2.5 times less likely to be injured than those using something other than a firearm or who had no weapon.
http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt
Guns are used in positive ways (to stop crime and save lives) much more than in negative ways.
Michael
Jason:
The Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear arms. You are suggesting that there be yearly tests where we would have to show that we are competent enough to practice that right safely.
Since it is part of the Bill of Rights do you want to apply the same standards to the other Nine Amendments? For example, the First Amendment guarantees our right to free speech. Should we have to prove every year that we are competent enough to practice that right of free speech safely? After all, words used incorrectly can be as damaging as weapons. We are also guaranteed the right to worship as we choose. Do you want a test every year that would prove we have the ability to practice that right safely?
The Bill of Rights is not a shopping list. You can not pick and choose as you please. They were written as a package and what ever you do to one impacts the others.
Michael
Then you can't choose to ignore the "well-regulated militia" part because it suits your argument. As a civilized society, we have the right to pass rules that govern dangerous behaviors or hobbies or property. Me shouting at the wall won't kill the person in the next room.
Jason:
In Colonial days, the word "regulated" (when used in context of the militia) meant well-trained and disciplined not "controlled". Check out the unabridged Oxford English Dictionary, 2d ed. 1989, Vol 13, p. 524, and Vol 20. p. 138. They still have this definition for "regulated".
http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/six-about-2nd.htm
But, shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater and causing a panic can kill people! Words, used the wrong way, can kill.
As far a militia, check out this scan froma 1771 Encyclopedia Britannica.
http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/militia.htm
Michael
"Of course criminals won't abide by the rules, but I don't think that is a reason not to have them..."
Exactly. But what you commonly see happening with the progun crowd is a desire to 'throw the baby out with the bathwater,' so-to-speak. In other words, they typically use the excuse to try to get rid of gunlaws they don't like by arguing that such laws are no good because 'criminals will break them' and they are aimed at only law-abiding citizens, which is incorrect.
Another problem is the progun crowd often complains that not enough is being done about violence in general; and that only laws are being enacted ~ when the 'root causes' are still unsolved. The fact is, no one has all the answers for the root causes of human violence & inappropriate forms of human aggression. If we did, we wouldn't have discussions on weapons, would we? We'd already have the answers.
K
Right, Broken window policing did more to lower crime rates in NYC than Bernard Goetz blowing away four teens on a subway car. I don't understand why gun nuts can't see that a society without rules breeds violence, not the other way around.
By all means, keep a freaking arsenal in the house if you want to, but you must prove that you are mentally competent to own them legally and are able to operate them safely and in a manner consistent with the law.
The 2nd Amendment is about the only one that guarantees the right for my fellow citizen to own a tool that could kill me. I don't think that is so much to ask that we come up with rules at least as strict as owning and operating a car.
Jason:
Check the laws. The laws regarding buying a gun are already much more strict than for buying a car. In order to buy a firearm form an FFL you have to go through the NICS background check that searches for criminal background through a Federal database. (You don't have to do that to buy a car, now do you.) Also, I can drive my car into any state in the US. But, the only way that I can carry my concealed firearm is if that state had reciprocity with Texas for CHL holders (New York state, for example, allows concealed carry but does not have reciprocity with Texas).
People can always do things illegally if they want to do so. That includes operating a car illegally by changing the license plates or VIN number.
Also, if you want some real dialog, stop calling us names. No one here has done that to you from what I have seen.
Michael
Jason,
My workbench has dozens of "tools" that could potentially kill you, including screwdrivers, saws, pipe wrench, etc....
What keeps a safe environment is the intent of the user. I know that if I take my screwdriver and stab someone with it, there's a pretty good chance that i could inflict harm. But my screwdriver is meant to drive screws. Just like my firearms are meant to protect myself, hunt, and to have a little fun with at the range. Adding a battery pack to my reciprocating saw does not suddently turn me into a mass murderer. Just like guns don't create a criminal.
Not addressing the individual mentality and societal influences associated with crime in general as our #1 priority is only contributing to the evolution of violent crime and criminals.
We've had decades and decades of history proving it.
Pro-rights people only want our politicians and legislators to wake up and recognize this fairly obvious problem instead of continuing to pursue remedies which have only proven to be failures.
"By all means, keep a freaking arsenal in the house if you want to, but you must prove that you are mentally competent to own them legally and are able to operate them safely and in a manner consistent with the law."
For the last several decades no one has complained about my personal ownership of guns. No one has claimed that I was incompetant, unsafe, or unlawful in their use.
Does this sort of proof meet your standards, or am I guilty until proven innocent?
Yes Kelli a very good question. What exactly would you propose to do with criminals who break in to your home? Would you offer them a nice bottle of Perrier, Ask them to excuse you while you dialed 911 and pray the police will come in time? All the while they are destroying everything you love or worked for?
Do you know of the case Warren v. District of Columbia? DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services? Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department? Or Thurman v. City of Torrington?
You really need to look them up, only problem you will not want to live in Paul"s little fantasy world anymore.
Where in any of my arguments did I say that you don't have the right to defend yourself in your own home. I didn't. I live in DC and actually think the law goes too far. But, again, that doesn't mean we should just let it be a free-for-all.
Prove to me that you can own a gun and blow away an intruder in the middle of the night without punching holes into the row-house next door because your bullets are too powerful for the job at hand.
Let's h
Posted April 4, 2008 | 09:09 AM (EST)