“Reasonable” Gun Control
One of the common arguments of gun-grabbers is that they only support “reasonable” gun control. Of course, as long as the word reasonable remains an undefined variable, it’s hard not to agree. Of course, that’s the whole idea behind the rhetoric: by stating generally that you only support “reasonable” gun control, they can then claim a mandate to push through whatever unreasonable controls they actually had in mind.
Nevertheless, I do believe there are a few types of gun control that really do make sense, or at least should be given credit for not being inherently unreasonable. Below is a (potentially) complete list.
Instant background checks. Sure, it’s a minor inconvenience, but so what? Sure, most criminals know better than to attempt to buy their guns in legitimate outlets, but why not take advantage of those who don’t? Never forget: most criminals are stupid, and a lot of police work involves waiting for a criminal to finally do something dumb. Sometimes a pot dealer reports the theft of his own pot to the authorities. Other times, an idiot freezes his dog to death and then brings his dogsicle to the pound to request a new one. So don’t assume that just because most criminals don’t buy their guns through legitimate sources, none do. Some do, and we might as well nab them. It’s the one of the few stupid criminal acts that allow us to nab the bad guy before anyone innocent gets hurt.“Plastic” guns. Opponents of the federal ban on “plastic” (undetectable) guns are quick to point out that no such gun exists. The closest thing to a plastic gun that I know if is the Glock, of which I am an owner myself. A Glock does contain a fair amount of plastic to make it lightweight, but it also contains more than a pound of steel, and is therefore in no danger of making it through anybody’s metal detector. In fact, it’s not clear whether or not it’s even possible to make plastic, ceramic, or any other nondetectable material hard enough and strong enough to build a safe, functional firearm, but that’s beside the point. It’s not clear that such a technology is impossible, either, and since it’s not, we’re probably all better off knowing that there’s almost no market for it, and therefore very little incentive for anyone to try to develop it. That’s a good thing. The way I see it, the only person who should own an undetectable firearm is a person who can make good, lawful use out of that firearm under circumstances where a traditional one won’t work just as well. Basically, that means the CIA, and just about no one else. And if the CIA figures out a way to breach other countries’ security with a gun, I want that information to be classified, along with the very fact that such technology exists at all. Conversely, if it can’t be done, what’s the loss? So what if we lose the right to keep and bear something that can never be created in the first place?CCW Licenses. Someschlocksweenies who should thank their lucky stars that they live in a shall-issue state, choose to carry without a permit anyway as a matter of principle. The rationale is that you shouldn’t have to ask the government for permission to exercise a right (or, worse, a “Right”). Puh-leeze. It’s all well and good to argue against licensing generally, but the reality is you need a license not only to drive a car, but to build a house, to expand on a house you’ve already built, to sell stocks and bonds to the public, to sell insurance policies issued by another company that needs a separate license of its own, and even to teach in a public school. We license all sorts of crap, and until that changes, objecting to a license to carry a gun anywhere other than your own property (or someone else’s, with the owner’s consent), is really not that remarkable. Rather than stamping one’s feet over the fair, nondiscretionary licensing systems in place in most states, why not focus instead on the really crappy, criminal paradises like California, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island, which condition the right to bear arms on political connections, or on the hard core criminal paradises like D.C., Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, and Wisconsin, which deny that right altogether? Priorities, people.Ban on Gun Ownership by Felons. I think the lifetime ban is too harsh, and fail to see why a truly nonviolent ex-felon should be barred from owning a gun the day after he gets out of prison. But I think the general idea is right. While I understand that ex-thugs may have a right to self-defense like the rest of us, they’re also a big part of the reason the rest of us need to defend ourselves.Registration. I have a similar respose to the “constitutional” objections to gun registration. As a practical matter, I think it’s a bad idea because of the red tape and the potential for abuse. But those facts don’t make it unconstitutional, any more than a(-n alleged) constitutional right to vote makes voter registration unconstitutional.High-capacity magazines. Don’t get me wrong, I love squeezing off 30 rounds at the range without reloading. But I’m not gonna kid myself; it makes me go through a lot more bullets in a lot less time, making my hobby a lot more expensive than it needs to be. Oh yeah, it also helps mass killers murder more people in one sitting, while providing almost no defensive benefit to any civilian who isn’t an unusually bad shot. That too.Assault Rifles. Real ones, that is, not the wannabe look-alikes that were the subject of the once enacted, twice unconstitutional 1994-2004 federal ban or that are the subject of the twice enacted, once unconstutional 1989-2112 California one. I mean the select-fire ones that make shooting a lot more expensive than it needs to be.D.C. Handgun Ban. Anyone who’d want to live there is off his rocker, and probably shouldn’t be trusted with sharp objects, certainly not firearms.
Any categories I’ve missed?
December 13th, 2004 at 1:31 pm
[...] >
One man’s reasonable is another man’s piss off
|By SayUncle|
XRLQ lists what he terms a few types of gun control that really do make sense, or at [...]
December 11th, 2004 at 6:46 am
Don’t Start None, Won’t Be None
I’ve went a round or two with XRLQ before. We’ve disagreed on a few things & discussed them in more or less a reasonable manner. I even devoted a category to our disagreements. But now he’s went & done something…
December 11th, 2004 at 6:47 am
I usually agree with much of what you post on your blog… but not this. Your points are typical of the gun-grabbing crowd… unreasonable, and unconstitutional. In your quest to reach some “reasonable” common ground with Sarah Brady, you’ve managed to ignore the highest law of our land, and make ludicrous analogies that would make Dianne Feinstein proud. Without picking apart your post, point for point… I’ll sum it up like this. The right to bear arms IS a “Right”… just as freedom of speech & freedom to worship are “Rights”. The Bill of Rights is NOT a document empowering government to grant privileges to the people as it sees fit… it’s a document LIMITING the power of the government, protecting the inherent rights of the citizens of the US. The authors new that. So do many of us today. Restrictions on our 2nd Amendment rights are as dangerous and unconstitutional as restrictions on our 1st. Maybe even more dangerous, since all good things need to be protected. I can’t imagine many “reasonable” people supporting background checks and registration if the government required it for us to speak our minds, or to pray, or write books, or post messages on blogs, We have more than enough laws all ready in place to prosecute those who commit crimes with guns. The world is not a perfect place. Far from it. No amount of anti-gun laws will end crime (see England)… not even the “reasonable” ones you suggest. The reverse is actually true. More guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens greatly reduce crime. John Lott has done EXTENSIVE research on this… and his data still remains undisputed by gun-grabbers (as long as the adhere to facts, the scientific method, and real-world events). So while I understand and appreciate the ends you wish to accomplish with “reasonable” anti-gun laws, I wholeheartedly disagree with your methods.
Molon labe.
-BDA
December 11th, 2004 at 8:07 am
1 – agreed
2 – While we’re at it, let’s ban pixie dust and sharks with laserbeams on their heads.
3 – Agreed
4 – [This entry didn't exist at the time Uncle commented. I've renumbered the rest to correspond with their new positions on the list. -Ed.]
5 – I only oppose registration to the extent it can be used for confiscation. And, in a number of cases, that’s exactly what it was used for.
6 – Regular capacity magazines aren’t really a problem in most shootings. In fact, didn’t the NY subway shooter guy calmly reload his gun three times while people just sat there? Sorry, but if I want a 50 round mag for my ruger 10/22 or a 20 rounder for my AR, there’s nothing wrong with that. Besides, I can reload pretty darn fast. Fast enough that it won’t matter if i squeeze off 10 or 20 before reloading.
7 – Disagree. I want the Hughes Amendment repealed and the $200 tax gone. NFA weapons have been used in a crime one time (by a policeman) so I tend to think the system works.
8 – While I don’t care about DC, I think their gun ban is ridiculous (i don’t think it’s just handguns).
December 11th, 2004 at 6:50 am
Schlock? That’s pretty low. Disagreeing over ideas is one thing, but name calling? Needless to say you’ve lost my vote for lawyer of the year. :cool:
& yes, I’ve got a post up about this.
December 11th, 2004 at 9:56 am
BDA: England is a lousy example. Their policies are aimed at disarming everybody. Mine are aimed at disarming the bad guys, or better still catching them in the act of attempting to arm themselves if/when they are dumb enough to go through the lawful channels. And your Sarah Brady analogy doesn’t pass the laugh test. Sarah Brady in favor of shall-issue concealed carry laws? We should be so lucky.
Uncle: Pixie dust is a lousy analogy, since creating a deadly weapon out of pixie dust is a scientific impossibility. Creating an undetectable firearm, by contrast, is a scientific eventuality. If such a gun were invented, you or I wouldn’t be able to do anything with it that we can’t do with the guns we have now. Terrorists would. I’m not a fan of registration or magazine cap limits myself; I just listed them as “reasonable” because unlike most kinds of gun control, they’re not inherently unreasonable.
Publicola: I was not aware that “schlock” meant anything horribly evil. The intent was to be mildly insulting, not deeply so. I’ve changed the word to “weenie.”
December 11th, 2004 at 10:56 am
XLRQ… I think England is a perfectly good example. Take a look at the gun-grabbing crowd in our country, and ask yourself how they’d react to your “reasonable” anti-gun laws. They’d embrace them… because it would be a step in the desired direction… which most certainly IS disarmament. Your “reasonable” suggestions open the door to a mudslide. Talk about failing the laugh test? Take a look at the flawed premise of your argument. Most bad guys DON’T go through lawful channels… but we law-abiding citizens do. And these days in England, guns are still around. The black market didn’t go away & bad guys are still armed. What DID go away was the ability for the good guys to protect themselves legally.
And I never meant to infer that Sarah Brady would be in favor of shall-issue laws. I said you were seeking a “reasonable” common ground with her… somewhere in between upholding the Constitution and wiping your rear-end with that pesky ol’ document.
Molon labe.
-BDA
December 11th, 2004 at 11:43 am
BDA, you’re wrong. Very few gun-grabbers would support shall-issue CCW, which is the status quo in most states, and a quantum leap in the pro-gun direction in all but two of the rest. With the exception of high-capacity mags, the other proposals are all law now, so they wouldn’t be a step in either direction. And note that I’m not arguing FOR limits on magazine capacities, just noting that they are not inherently UNreasonable.
However, to the extent that your reading of the Constitution makes registration, shall-issue CCW or a ban on undetectable firearms unconstitutional (as opposed to merely undesirable), I think you are the one being unreasonable. No other constitutional right is construed that broadly, so why should this one be any different?
My point exactly: most, which is not the same thing as all. If I leave my front door unliked, “most” people won’t take advantage of that to break in, but that’s no reason not to lock it to keep out the few who will. Background checks a very, very minor inconvenience for us law-abiding citizens, but can spell instant arrest for those bad guys who are dumb enough to try the legal channels – and I suspect there are more dumb criminals out there than you may think. Also, it’s a mistake to treat the “bad guys don’t go through lawful channels” as though that were an immutable fact. It’s not. Bad guys rarely go through legal channels precisely because of the background checks that you oppose. If those checks weren’t in place, bad guys would buy their guns the same way they buy almost every other legal product: from their local retailer. The net result would be more sales tax for the state to collect, but also more bad guys with guns (assuming that there are at least some bad guys out there who are risk-averse enough to be deterred both by the risks of being caught buying through a legal dealer, and by the risks inherent in any dealings with local gun runners).
As said before, your points regarding England are not taken. Going after the bad guys is one thing, and using the bad guys as an excuse to go after everybody is another. FWIW, I’ll bet Britain’s criminals probably do have fewer guns per capita than they did before Britain went off the deep end in the gun control department. It just doesn’t do British society any good since everyone else has been disarmed altogether. It’s the micro equivalent of the Cold War, if the U.S. had laid down all its nukes in exchange for the U.S.S.R. surrendering only 10% of theirs. My proposals are not like those, as they target the U.S.S.R.’s 10% only.
Put differently, if you were to ask the average Brit whether he would support a gun law that disarmed the good guys and the bad guys equally, he’d say yes. I’d say hell no. Thus, I’d appreciate you NOT comparing me to the Brits on this issue.
December 11th, 2004 at 5:47 pm
I disagree with a fair amount of this. Actually, I disagree with almost all of this on “slippery slope” grounds. Say what you will about slippery slopes, but when even the gungrabbers — Krauthammer comes to mind — admit that laws like the AWB are good because they desensitize people to broader bans, then I think the slippery slope concern is pretty irrefutable. Nevertheless, I will TRY to leave that mostly aside as I critique your suggestions.
1. Instant background checks make me nervous because of their potential for abuse, but if we stipulate that we will also be reasonable about the VERY small class of people we’re going to prohibit from purchasing firearms, then I am at least willing to consider these. However, when I say “instant”, I mean the same amout of time it takes to process my credit card. If the feds’ “computer is down,” that’s their problem. Sell me my gun. Also, I am not willing to impose background checks on non-dealers. If you’re selling one or two or three guns from your personal collection now and then, you don’t have to suddenly sign up for this system. If I decide to sell you my 1911, X (fat chance), that’s between you and me, not the government. If you’re a felon, that’s between you and the government.
2. I may be open to persuasion on this one, perhaps, but my initial instinct is that I see no good reason to ban plastic guns, even if such a thing did exist. In the first place, this is an invitation to legislative mischief. How much metal must it have? What quality? Etc. This is how they ban a lot of guns, now. If someplace is REALLY so sensitive that you can’t possibly risk a citizen carrying a firearm there, then search him. If the security risk doesn’t justify the search, then it doesn’t justify outlawing platic guns either.
3. CCW licenses. As an Illinois resident, I’d consider it a great leap forward if I could get such a thing. If they were available, I would have one. Nevertheless, I don’t think licensing a constitutional right is reasonable. Prooperly interpreted, it should be presumed under the Constitution that all citizens have a right to bear arms, and the burden should be on the State to prove otherwise.
4. Ban on Gun ownership by felons. This sounds good, until you realize how many crimes are now considered felonies. If someone uses a weapon to commit a crime, then I agree that he should be barred from owning a weapon. However, if someone commits felony mail fraud, I don’t think that justifies revoking his constitutional right to bear arms. Make the sanction fit the crime. If you get convicted of tax evasion, they can’t revote your right to free speech.
December 11th, 2004 at 6:01 pm
Continuing from above…
5. Registration. On this one, I’m not sure what the standard of our argument is. Are we deciding what is constitutional, or what is reasonable? Registration MAY be constitutional, although I have misgivings. As for it being reasonable, I would say that it is not. I cannot think of a legitimate governmental purpose that would be served. If someone passes their insta-check when they buy the gun, I can think of no legitimate reason why the government needs to maintain a record of what that person owns.
6. “High cap” magazines. This may be my strongest point of disagreement with you. There is simply no conceivable justification for such a limitation. What’s “high capacity” anyway. Under recently expired law, it was anything more than 10. Why then, did the most commonly used police firearm, the Glock 17, have a capacity of 17 rounds? How much is too much? High capacity magazines are not appreciably more deadly. Were I to go on a killing spree, I could easily replace the extended 10-rounder in my 1911 with a spare in a fraction of a second (and I’ve had only a weekend’s training in tactical reloads). Is that sufficient reason to ban the mag? The 17-round mag in a Glock 17 is the “normal” round. It doesn’t even extend below the bottom of the grip. Those goofy 30 rounders extend so far below (and are frequently so unreliable), that they’re probably less dangerous).
7. Assault rifles. If I understand you correctly that you mean select-fire or full-auto weapons, then this is tricky. A select fire weapon isn’t really a spray-and-pray weapon. I don’t think someone with a select-fire M16 is appreciably more dangerous than someone with an M1 Garand, or even a .30-06 bolty. Full-auto is a bit different. Here, I’ll confess that while I want to own one, it’d make me nervous if others could, AND we still lived in a society where guns were rare. However, under the laws I would envision, well-trained, responsible men and women with guns would be everywhere. In that world, a psycho with a machine gun would rarely last long. Remember, though, in a disarmed society, one maniac with a Glock and a pocketful of 10-round “Clinton” mags could kill dozens in just about the same time.
8. Though it pains me to say it, I’d even give those crazy enough to live in D.C. the right to bear arms. After all, if anyone needs to protect themselves, it’s them.
December 11th, 2004 at 7:27 pm
1. As far as I’m concerned, instant means instant. I agree that if the government can’t keep its system running, that’s their problem, except maybe if there is evidence a crime network has sabotaged the system or something. I don’t agree that private transactions should necessarily be exempt, however. That makes about as much sense as requiring licensed liquor store owners to “card” teenagers, while allowing private parties to sell beer at a garage sale to anyone who wants to buy it. As gun transactions go, running a check on the buyer is a minor inconvenience. In California, it adds about $25 to the cost of the transaction, and that’s about it. It should add $0 to the transaction, of course, but that’s another matter.
3. “Properly interpreted, it should be presumed under the Constitution that all citizens have a right to bear arms, and the burden should be on the State to prove otherwise.” I agree, but isn’t that pretty much how right-to-carry works? Yes, you need a license to exercise a right. No, the state can’t deny that right arbitrarily. Either it can prove one or more specific reasons why you shouldn’t get your license, or you get your license. Contrast that with every “may issue” state except Connecticut, where the burden is on you to show that you should be allowed to carry.
4. I think we’re basically in agreement on this one. I don’t want a lifetime ban for anyone sentenced to less than life imprisonment, or any post-sentence ban for nonviolent felons. But if an ex-rapist loses his right to defend himself for 10 years after he completes his sentence, I won’t lose any sleep over that.
5. I’m not saying registration is a good idea; in fact, I think it is not. What I am saying is that it is not inherently unreasonable. Of course law enforcement has a legitimate reason to want to know who the last legal owner of each gun was. Sometimes, that’s the person who did the crime. More often, it’s not, but it may nevertheless be a person who knows something about how the gun disappeared, who may have absconded with it, etc. So it’s not an inherently irrational idea, even if at the end of the day, it’s not the right thing to do, either. Maybe it creates more red tape than it’s worth, maybe it has too much potential for abuse, etc. But that’s not the same as saying it is inherently unreasonable, on a par with the 1994-2004 Ugly Gun Ban.
6. I don’t support ban on high-cap mags. I do think there is a rational element to these bans that is absent from 99% of the gun laws that come down the pike. There’s no question that a person on a killing spree can kill fewer people with lower-capacity mags. Here’s an example: a few years back, an idiot high school student shot up a schoolyard in Oregon, only to get tackled by some gun savvy students who had counted the rounds, knew when he was likely to run out of ammo and have to swap mags, and pounced on him right then. Another, more recent example: if Chai Vang had had a more conventional firearm, his hunting experience wouldn’t have been impacted in the least, but his killing spree would almost certainly have claimed fewer victims. So there’s certainly a rational reason to limit magazine capacity. That doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do.
7. Yes, I meant full auto or select-fire, not ugly guns like the one I got done shooting less than an hour ago. I was also being factetious on this one, along with 6 and 8. I guess I assumed my sarcasm was more obvious than it really was.
December 11th, 2004 at 8:48 pm
I think it’s instructive to see how the tobacco bans proceeded. You may think tobacco NEEDS to be restricted but gun-banners feel the same or worse about guns. What started out as very reasonable restrictions (no smoking in hospitals) moved to most stores, then to all inside places. Now they’re banning smoking at stadiums, the beach and parks, on public sidewalks, or within X feet of a doorway. “Slippery slope” indeed.
When the machine gun ban was being argued in the 1930′s, the NRA initially opposed it, fearing it was the start of a slippery slope. In particular, the NRA was worried about handgun bans, as many of the machine gun proponents also wanted to ban handguns. The NRA received solemn promises from Congressmen that if they dropped their objections, handgun bans would be permanently off the table. The NRA relented and the machine gun ban was passed. A few years later some of the same people introduced a handgun ban bill and the NRA never ever again accepted any “reasonable restriction” argument. Or at least so goes the oral history.
December 11th, 2004 at 11:02 pm
I disagree with all of it for the reasons so aptly stated by those before me.
I will take the liberty to point out that the gas operated semi-automatic firearms that we are most familiar with today were FIRST placed on the civilian market Years before the military and law enforcement actually saw any use for them.
These were not firearms designed exclusively for the military and law enforcement. Even the “Tommy Gun was first utilized in the civilian world because the military either didn’t want it or saw no need for it after WWI.
In fact the proper reading of Miller should convince anyone that the 2nd amd. specifically meant that the civilian population posess both the knowledge to use and the actual firearms suitable for combat.
For anyone that understands the Constitution it is hard to see how anyone can favor these kinds of “harmless infringements”.
December 11th, 2004 at 11:22 pm
Spoons and Kevin: slippery slope arguments are of questionable validity, and in any event, they don’t go to the reasonableness issues I raised. Even if I bought the slippery slope argument in toto (and I do buy it to a limited extent), that would be an argument in favor of opposing moderate, otherwise reasonable restrictions on guns. It would not be an argument that those restrictions are themselves unreasonable. Even if we assume early smoking bans in hospitals are part of the reason for more sweeping bans today, it doesn’t follow that hospitals should allow smoking. Few slopes, if any, are so friggin’ slippery that we can’t go down a certain distance, then draw a line in the sand and say “this is as far as we’ll go, and no further.”
Spoons raised Charles Krauthammer as an example. I’m not sure why. For one thing, the context was the uncommonly silly 1994 “assault” weapons ban, which Krauthammer conceded served no purpose other than to get the American people more used to gun control, with more restrictive and more meaningful laws to follow. That didn’t happen. Instead, during the decade that ensued, the nation has if anything slipped uphill down that allegedly slippery slope, having passed right-to-carry laws in almost every state except Spoons’s and mine, and ultimately allwoing even the 1994 act itself to expire.
Gunscribe: color me dense, but I fail to see what your points about fully automatic and semiautomatic weapons have to do with anything I wrote. I didn’t say a word about semiautos, and the only bad thing I said about their full auto counterparts is that they run through your bullet supply too quickly. Don’t they?
December 12th, 2004 at 12:32 am
XRLQ–what are your thoughts on .50 BMG sniper rifles and rotary-magazine shotguns (eg Striker 12)? The former might pose a danger to aviation, trucks, etc. that a less powerful round wouldn’t. While I’m not going to lead the charge against them–and I certainly wouldn’t complain if a Barrett M2 were waiting under the Christmas tree– they do seem to be on the edge of the permissible.
December 12th, 2004 at 8:51 am
Oddly, if the 2nd Amendment were clearly amd firmly recognized by the courts as an individual right much of the “paranoia” on this subject and slippery-slope argument would disappear. One is not worried about restrictions on the press or speech (e.g. libel/slander laws) because THERE CAN BE NO SLIPPERY SLOPE as long as the first amendment holds. So, if people were serious about wanting reasonable restrictions on guns, they would be well advised to support the individual-right interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
December 12th, 2004 at 11:29 am
“Nevertheless, I do believe there are a few types of gun control that really do make sense, or at least should be given credit for not being inherently unreasonable. Below is a (potentially) complete list.”
“7. Assault Rifles. Real ones”
It only makes sense if you do not recognize the Constitution for what it says.
Since the Second Amendment was written at a time when nearly every household was probably in posession of the premier assault weapon of the time (the Brown Bess), and the fact that there is no mention of specific firearms to be excluded the Founding Fathers (in the context of an individual Right) intended private persons ownership of these kinds of firearms.
Too many people (not saying your one) fail to recognize the intellegence of those men and their vision. They can not accept the premise that the Fathers were farsighted enough to know that there would be improvements therefore anything other than certain sporting arms could not have meant to be owned by the populace.
As to the “slippery slope theory” it is real and just not on firearms issues either. On countless other subjects it has played itsself out over time.
i.e. A law is passed in a certain year with the declaration (by the enactors) that “we” will never enact legislation past this point. Of course the “we” is true to their word, but they have opened the door and long after the “we” are out of office or dead and gone, the next group of “control freaks” passes even stricter standards along with the same disclaimer that “we” won’t let it go any farther. This incrimentalism can play out over a century, a decade or even a few short years, but it does play out. “Slippery Slope” is a not so gentle euphemism for the incrimentalism that has been a constant part of our history.
December 12th, 2004 at 12:28 pm
CW, I don’t buy the arguments about .50 BMG. A hail of .50 gunfire from a small WW II fighter plane may be enough to take another down at close range, but a single .50 BMG from the ground would pose only a minor inconvenience to any modern airplane, in the unlikely event that the guy was a good enough shot to hit the plane at all. I’ve generally been supportive of the Governator, but not on that.
December 12th, 2004 at 12:47 pm
GS: I think the slippery slope argument is grossly overstated. The argument makes the most sense in situations where we all agree that a little X may be good, but a lot of X is bad. Most examples of a little gun control leading to a lot happened in societies that did not share this assumption, e.g., almost all Brits agreed that widespread civilian gun ownership was bad, and that widespread confiscation was good. The only question was a tactical one: should we go after everybody’s guns at once, or move more slowly and methodically. That is the mentality among the Sarah Brady types in our society, but it is not representative of society as a whole. Boiled frog theory isn’t even true of frogs, and it certainly isn’t true of Americans, much to the chagrin of the Charles Krauthammers of the world.
December 12th, 2004 at 4:27 pm
Well, to quote you but it was not this subject…Neener!
December 12th, 2004 at 4:52 pm
Huh?
December 13th, 2004 at 6:25 am
Weekly Check on the Bias
Welcome to the December 13th edition of my (nearly) weekly check on the bias in media against guns and the Second Amendment. I’d like to start off by issueing a… Press Release: From: Alphecca International To: All members of the…
December 13th, 2004 at 12:41 pm
POINTS 1&2:
INANE points.
#1
These are the type of gun control arguments that pro-2A people get sucked in to. Instant backround checks serve only one purpose; to position the state as the arbitor of a RIGHT given by God. Using original intent, the Founders never intended the individual to ask for what was/is a given under the laws of nature and God! I ultimately don’t care who has a gun because an individual with the intent to commit violence will not be stopped by a background check at a gun shop; is the gun shop owner going to make the arrest?! Will the prospective buyer wait for the authorities? Of course not. We saw this under the Clinton administration; numerous examples of BATF NOT arresting felons for attempting to purchase a firearm at an authorized dealer.
#2 Plastic Gun: Who Cares! What a non-issue.
#3 CCW Licensing:
I thought we had a permit alreadt called the 2nd Amend?! I know that is considered a cliche, but it’s true. Why must I ask permission to excerise my rights. Also, the car analogy is the WORST. Please quit using it because it doesn’t apply; you don’t have a constitutional right to drive. You don’t have to pay fees, tag, licenses, etc., to drive on your private property. The same can’t be said of firearms in all 50 states. Licensing is just a way for the state to enhance revenue. It is a jobs protection racket for various tradesmen (lawyers, plumbers, electricians) to impose a “standard” that will keep competition from “un-licensed” practitioners away.
#4 Gun Ownership & Felons:
We agree; non-violent offenders have not sacrificed their right to their lives and self-defense. Those that prey on their fellow man with weapons have no rights. Individuals adjutacated as mentally ill and criminally dangerous shouldn’t have weapons, but, I have Orwellian fears with the American psychiatry and making them the aribitors of something as complex as the human mind…???
#5 Registration:
See comments above regarding permits & licenses…no way.
#6 High Capacity Magazines:
Another “tar baby” issue. It is no one elses business how many rounds are in a gun, not to mention irrelevent. Too many people think a shooting, whether a rifle or handgun, is like a movie. In real life a person does not go flying backwards and burst with blood from 1 bullet. There are so many factors in the application of lethal force that to proscribe a suitable number of rounds in a confrontation is ludicrous. It may only take 1 round, but what if a threat doesn’t go down with 1, 2, 3, or 10 rounds? What if the threat is chemically altered? What about multiple threats? I respectfully, suggest you get some additional firearms/lethal force engagement training. Also, did you ever think that what might help a “mass killer” might help the poor SOB next to him that IS armed? Why are high-cap mags and assault weapons only used in context of the harm they cause with criminal use? Is it not possible for that same tool to be used by a sane person with honorable intentions?
#7 Assault Weapons:
Now we are at the heart of the issue. I could write forever on this aspect of gun-control, but I’ll keep it short and sweet. These are the weaponse the founders wanted in the hands of the populace! If we read the constitution the way we read it with regards to “right to privacy” the federal government would be issuing them to each household. If the ACLU, et al, did not “cherry pick” the Bill of Rights the way they do, there wouldn’t be a single gun statute on the books. Again, we’re talking about inanimate objects, tools, if you will, that can and will be used based upon the character of individual. Let’s use your car example; they kill and maime more people than guns ever did. It’s all in how they are used.
#8 DC
Other than their status as a district and voting; they are US citizens and human beings created by God, too. When did they forfeit their right to self-defense? Other than that, I care very little about DC.
I say all of this most respectfully. I do not know how you intended your words to be interpreted, whether tongue-in-cheek or serious thoughts. I perceive most of your comments as “arranging deck chairs on the Titanic”.
I appreciate your enthusiasm for shooting, but remember, the constitution says nothing about hunting or sport shooting. I am a little confused by your preocupation with the cost of shooting as an argument for certain restrictions on gun ownership. I am afraid that much of your argument is irresponsible at best, and pernicious at worst. Perhaps I misunderstood your tone.
There is no negotiating with the anti-2A people because they lie and are not interested in safety or reason.
Sincerely
December 13th, 2004 at 12:49 pm
Final thought; please forgive my spelling. Now that I have read my posting I am truly embarrased. There is nothing like writing with your passions inflamed. OOOPS.
December 13th, 2004 at 11:22 pm
#1 – It’s one thing to note that the ATF failed to arrest felons for attempting to purchase firearms, and quite another to argue that they can’t, or shouldn’t. And if God gave us any of the rights spelled out in the Constitution, he certainly isn’t talking much about what they mean, how they should be applied, etc. That’s our job.
#2 – Who cares? Oh, I don’t know, maybe just 100% of all people who sometimes board airplanes and would prefer not to see them hijacked. For now, at least, undetectable guns don’t exist. Let’s keep it that way.
#3 – The Constitution is not a substitute for a license for anything. You say there’s no right to drive; I disagree, and so does God. See, two can play that game. Seriously, though, a right to drive doesn’t mean a right to drive without a license, although it does mean that if there is a licensing system it must be fair, evenhanded, etc. Similarly, while the First Amendment may prevent the FCC from denying a radio station a license on account of its political content, it doesn’t prevent it from requiring a license at all. Thus, while it is reasonable to argue that the Second Amendment should require “right to carry,” it almost certainly does not require Vermont-style carry.
#6 – It’s one thing to say magazine size is no one else’s business, and quite another to claim it is irrelevant. It is very relevant whether or not a nut shooting up a school yard can go 10 rounds without reloading, vs. 20, 30, etc. And yes, it did occur to me that an armed citizen nearby can be the one to save the day. In his case, the magazine capacity probably is irrelevant, as he has only one target to go after – the gunman. A typical handgun will hold plenty of rounds for that.
#7 – I agree with your comments about the ACLU; however, I’m not convinced that would be a good thing. I don’t want a right to falsely yell fire in a crowded theater, a ban on any public display of anything arguably religious, taxpayer-funded partial birth abortion on demand for teenagers without their parents’ knowledge, or any of the other crap the ACLU wants. I don’t see why a Second Amendment ACLU would be any better than the one we have now.
#8 – This one was sarcastic. I thought my sarcasm was obvious, but apparently not.
December 14th, 2004 at 7:56 am
X:
This is a viewpoint issue. You might as well go ask MoveOn.Org why they don’t support the President in Iraq…….
I don’t have a huge problem with instant checks. But your rationale is utterly insane. And that rationale (“So it’s a minor inconvience, so what?”) *is* a slippery slope, as the “A”WB was supposed to start us sliding down.
“Sure, this bothers YOU (not me), but so what?”
So when those of us who it bothers speak up, you say “Well, you shouldn’t be bothered”.
After all, who would be bothered if we outlawed pit bulls?
Sure, it’s a minor inconvience to those who have them in the family, but, hey, the public good and all that. After all, *some* are dangerous.
Basically, that’s the perfect analogy that I can think of. If you’re not willing to live with registration of your pit bull, perhaps we have to monitor your training with a government official (if you can have them), and they can sieze it, or outlaw any over a certain size, weight… Then why do you not see the identical problem we have when you start saying that SOME guns are OK (for civilians), some magazines are OK (for civilians)?
It’s 2 sides of the same coin.
As to outlawing “undectectable” guns (which how would we detect them?), this is also incredibly contrary to the whole concept of the 2nd Amendment. The CIA doesn’t have to bother with US Law, that’s a red herring. But by making sure nobody in the US is working on it, it means the CIA probably won’t have one (notice almost every personal weapon system in the US military, and all the refinements in the last 40 years are out of the US civilian market.. AR-15, Barrett .50, sniper optics…).
Basically, you have a list of things that don’t bother you, and anybody they do bother, well, what do they know?
Luckily for you I’ve got a 1/2 pit bull in the family, else, well, heck, who the hell needs a pit bull?
December 14th, 2004 at 8:33 am
So many comments, X. I’ll try to respond to what you said in comment number 10, above.
1. We agree about instant. We don’t necessarily agree about private checks. The alcohol analogy is an interesting one, really, because private sellers aren’t required to card, but can be liable if they sell to an underaged person. There are a few differences as I see it. First, if you’re selling booze to a minor, you’ve got a pretty good chance that you know it from looking at the guy. With a felon, that won’t usually be true. Here’s another thought: It is my understanding that if I want to sell my used car, I am under no obligation to verify that the purchaser has a valid driver’s license. In my world, there would be a lot fewer people prohibited from owning guns than prohibited from driving. I also have some nervousness about how a private insta-check would work. I suppose if it could be done relilably and safely, I’d at least be willing to talk about it, but I’d still take a lot of convincing.
3. I think that states that issue CCWs are better than states where carry is illegal, but the proper governmental approach, in my view, is the one used in Vermont and Alaska. No permit is needed to carry.
5. I’m one of those reactionaries who still believes in the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment – i.e., as a bullwark against tyranny. I think we’re better off if the government doesn’t know who (among law abiding citizens) is armed, nor what they have.
6. I just disagree that a lower capacity mag is inherently less dangerous any appreciable amount of the time. Again, using myself as an example (and I consider myself only very modestly skilled), were I to go on a shooting spree with 10 round mags, no unarmed person would be able to take advantage of my need to switch magazines. I can reload faster than you can get anywhere near me. And I am NOT exceptionally skilled.
December 14th, 2004 at 9:14 am
As I read over this a day later, X, I think that we’re all making the classic conservative blunder (I’ll skip the Princess Bride quote for brevity’s sake). We’re being serious and factual and theoretical, rather than political. Plastic guns are a perfect example.
It is not possible in the United States to have a legitimate political debate about plastic guns. I know that you are aware of the history of this debate, but not all of your readers are. The initial plastic-gun debate started when Glocks were just starting to come to market. These polymer framed guns (which still have steel barrels and some other parts), were denounced as inevitable tools of terrorists. Planes would be dropping from the skies like flies. Courthouses and kindergardens would become shooting galleries. In fact, the Glock (it even sounded evil) was so dangerous and deadly that it would surely lead to the end of all life on this planet.
Of course, today, Glocks are considered a fairly mundane, non-exotic weapon. Practically a “beginner’s gun”, if such a thing exists. They’re also the sidearm of something like 80% of all law enforcement in the country.
The point is, it’s impossible to have a real discussion about plastic guns. A true “plastic gun” (or more likely ceramic), is likely to be an expensive, one-shot only, assassins-type tool that will never be a major factor in crime in this country. If we could ban such a thing, it might be a reasonable thing to do, but we could never ban such a thing. We’d ban that, and the Glock, and the Benelli polymer receiver shotgun, and the Crimston Trace Lasergrip, and the Federal Hydrashok bullet, and the….
See my point? Lawmakers don’t know bupkes about guns, and they don’t want to know. They just want to “do something for the children.” That’s why we can’t ever get involved in discussions about plastic guns, except perhaps in the most highly theoretical sense.
Slippery slope argments may sometimes be overused, but if there’s one area where they’ve been proven valid again and again, it’s the area of firearms legislation.
December 15th, 2004 at 8:10 am
With regard to your rebuttle of my points #1-8, I’ll address it this way. On the “technical” nature of this debate regarding permits, magazines, bayonet lugs on AWs, etc., my point is that we are in a blackhole. We are dogs chasing our tales and the anti-2A crowd slowly but surely wins. The central argument is the individual right to self-defense as envisioned by our Founders.
It is my belief that by engaging these issues that we surrender the entire principal of the argument. I simply do not believe that any state (by that I mean any government, not an individual US state) has the monopoly on force as it pertains to individual self-defense.
I agree, society must construct itself in a way that permits maximume individual freedom while preventing anarchy. Yes, there are limits to freedoms. We all agree that a free society must be a responsible one. I do not wish to live by the law of the jungle. That said, it is not only a philosophical imperitive, but a practical one, too. Whatever authority you submit yourself to cannot protect you.
Therefore, I, and you, have every right to arm ourselves for the preservation of our lives, family’s lives, and our property.
To your point #3 rebuttal: I most emphatically disagree. That is exactly what the founders intended. Now, I will conceded that in today’s society it would be quite unnerving to many citizens as their neighbors went to work with long guns and pistols in plain view. Again, I have fallen into the trap of arguing details rather than principal. The type of individual firearms I own, be it full-auto, semi-auto,or high-cap magazines are irrelevent. What I do with those tools IS the issue. If I missuse the object, then punish me accordingly.
I would also caution you about your logic of what you would/could do in a heated, life and death situation and exactly how many rounds you would “need” from the comfort of your office chair. This is very dangerous thinking. To make assumptions like this not only leads to individual complacency, but this type of “logic” leads to laws that create this argument (…”the road to hell is paved with good intentions…”).
Keep the discussion going, I enjoy the mental jumping jacks!
:grin: