To preempt the tide of angry comments and emails, let me clarify that, despite the ambiguity of the leading clause, I support Second Amendment rights. But one of the favorite arguments used by staunch advocates of the Second Amendment is some variant of the "we don't need more guns laws, we just need to enforce the current laws." Ya think? The recent undercover operation conducted by New York City blows a giant hole in the idea that we're enforcing the current laws.
Commissioned by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the sting operation used hidden cameras to expose the sale of guns by private dealers--who are exempted by the so-called "gun show loophole"--to confederates who presented themselves as people who would not be able to pass a background checks. They have a site where you can view the above video, along with raw footage of the transactions and the commissions' final report. Here's an excerpt from the AP's write-up:Nine states, including New York, have passed laws to close the loophole, requiring background checks on at least all handgun purchases at gun shows. Bloomberg has long campaigned for Congress to close it, and for states to do it on their own if the federal government does not.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms released a terse, noncommittal statement, but may take action in response to the report's release. The ATF, despite seeing its annual budget nearly double during the past decade, from just over a half billion to more than a billion, may simply be overwhelmed: There are thousands of gun shows across the country every year.
Even in states that haven't closed the loophole, federal law bars "occasional sellers" from selling guns to people they have reason to believe would fail background checks.
This is where the Bloomberg operation says 19 out of 30 sellers broke the law during the investigation, in which undercover investigators posing as buyers wore tiny cameras concealed in baseball hats and purses and audio recorders hidden in wristwatches.
In each purchase, the investigator showed interest in buying a gun, agreed on a price and then indicated that he probably could not pass a background check. Most sellers allowed the purchases anyway, responding in some cases by saying, "I couldn't pass one either," or "I don't care," according to the videos.
Two assault rifles and 20 semiautomatic handguns were bought this way, the report said.
"What you just saw was willful disregard of the law, and it happened again and again and again," Bloomberg said, after showing several videos of those sales.
The 11 dealers who refused sales showed they knew the law.
"Once you say that, I'm kind of obligated not to," said one seller on video. "I think that's what the rules are."
Gun sellers in Tennessee were none too pleased with the report. "[Bloomberg] needs to keep his business in New York and let Tennessee deal with Tennessee," said [Stephanie] Rhodes, a Smithville resident who attended a gun show on Sunday in Franklin. Rhodes and her friend Rick Foster, who purchased a rifle at the show, said they've been going to gun shows for years and believe most dealers conduct background checks, or at least ask if someone is a felon before selling him or her a gun.
Most conduct background checks? They at least ask if you are a felon? That's comforting. It's truly amazing how much disconnect there is in post-9/11 America between guns and the monitoring of everything other security-related behavior. I flew two weeks ago and forgot to swap my regular-sized toothpaste for the travel size and had to surrender it at the security gate, of course. But if i just tell a private gun dealer that I'm not a felon--c'mon, dude, do I look like a felon?--I can get myself a semiautomatic.
Of course, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Well, sure, but they're killing a lot more people in red states than blue states. Holding DC aside, the ten states with the lowest per-capital gun death rates all voted for Barack Obama, and seven of the ten high highest voted for John McCain.
10.14.2009
Gun Show Loopholes Gone Wild
by Tom Schaller @ 1:01 PM...see also gun control
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

190 comments
Why isn't Andrew Breitbart's new website all over this sting operation?
It's no bigger of a crime than what the Wall Street first are doing right now.
I mean heck, I want 0% interest on loans to gamble with. If the Govn't would have lent me 5 billion, I could have just placed it on the NASDAQ and made 40% on it. Or, maybe if I had one of those speed trading gizmos doing the nano-trading, I could have made 20 fold profits since you get a step ahead of the rest of the globe on trades. Then paid the 5 billion back, interest free and came up with anywhere from 2 billion to 40 billion in profits!
What a deal!!!
You know what, I'm not greedy though. Just give everyone a 0% interest rate on their home loans, including me. That'll restart the housing market. I mean, the lenders are borrowing on 0% to turn around and lend to us at 5%+, why can't we get that same rate?
Now that's a real crime.
I'll start worrying about the enforcement, or lack thereof, of gun laws, Mr. Schaller, when liberals such as yourself start worrying about out our porous borders and enforcing laws to address our illegal immigration problem.
"Holding DC aside, the ten states with the lowest per-capital gun death rates all voted for Barack Obama, and seven of the ten high highest voted for John McCain."
Maybe the Republican states just have more capital.
first=firms
Holding DC aside, the ten states with the lowest per-capital gun death rates all voted for Barack Obama, and seven of the ten high highest voted for John McCain. (emphasis mine)
This is a misleading statistic, Mr. Schaller, and you intentionally picked it to make red states look more violent than blue states. I'm not going to let you get away with that misrepresentation. Per-capita gun death reates aren't necessarily the result of violence and can include hunting or other accidents that include firearms. There is an element of misuse but it has nothing to do with criminal intent.
A better comparison would be the number of homicides related to gun violence, which is located in another table in the same source you quoted:
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_num_of_hom-crime-gun-violence-number-homicides
It just has absolute totals and isn't broken out on a per-capita basis, but just eye-balling the numbers, it would appear that blue states are much more "competitive" with red states when it comes to firearm deaths related to criminal intent. California has nearly twice as many as Texas. New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Michigan all rank pretty high. Granted, they also have large populations, necessitating the need for a per-capita comparison, but this data is more apropos if you're going to focus on criminal intent.
I'm confused. The article starts out, sounding like you see a need to change gun laws, rather than enforce what already exists. To support this, you discuss a sting of dealers who are violating the existing law. Aren't you giving evidence for better enforcement, rather than changes to what currently exists?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Shall not!!! Not sometimes, like if we think you're a criminal or if you wear funny hats, or any damn thing else. Some things in life are complicated, this aint one of them!
I'm for gun control alright, I use both hands when I shoot!
There needs to be some incentive for private sellers to want to care about who they sell to. If a private seller could be held civilly liable if they had privately sold a gun to someone who committed a crime with it, and the seller hadn't performed any due diligence with respect to making sure the buyer is an upstanding lawful citizen, then there would be a pretty good incentive to perform that diligence. As is, a commercial seller has to do a background check and maintain extensive records of what is sold and who they sell to. If private resellers have a good incentive to continue the chain of checks and record keeping, then so-called loophole will largely close itself, without imposing a broader regulatory regime.
In all fairness, this chart doesn't take into account discrepancies in gun ownership. For example, it's not surprising that there are a lot more gun deaths per resident in Alaska than Hawaii when 58% of Alaskan households had a gun (as of 2001) and only 9% of Hawaiians do.
It would be more interesting to see fatalities per gun or fatalities per gun owner, but even then you'd get into problems estimated illegal gun usage (for instance, I doubt anyone would claim that DC actually has the fewest guns in the country).
Why have background checks at all? I mean, if there is a loophole that would allow any criminal or terrorist to purchase any damn weapon they please at a gun show, why not scrap the background check and allow anyone to buy a gun?
(Hint: If you want to win over the rednecks on this issue, just ask them if suspected terrorists should be allowed to buy guns at a gun show without checking to see if they are wanted on suspicion of terrorism. Personalize the question with a Muslim sounding name. If they still don't want to close the loophole, at least they will be consistent about it.
As you can see from the comments, true believers in gun rights aren't interested in enforcing *any* laws related to gun purchases. They're just fine with felons amassing an arsenal.
Wow. Lot's of defense of guns on this thread, and some attacks on blue states and non-sequiters about immigration, but no one seems willing to oppose closing the gun show loophole. Why not? If you really see this as an assault on the 2nd amendment, tell us why you believe that private gun "collectors" should be able to sell deadly weapons to anyone regardless of criminal history.
@Troy
Yes, this points to laws needing to be enforced. The problem is that the law contains no mechanism for enforcement. That's what needs to be changed.
@Darnell
So the second amendment is absolute? More important than any other law that includes equally strong language? We don't allow felons to vote, and that right is even more important. Face it, guns are an incredibly complicated issue whatever position you take. Like every other issue, their are valid arguments across the board.
If you disagree, then answer this simple question: Should firearms dealers be allowed to purchase ICBMs or nuclear material and then sell it to violent criminals with a history of supporting terrorism?
Everyone (I hope) believes in some common sense limitations on who can possess what weapons. Where we draw that line should be vigorously debated, but there has to be a line somewhere. I'll go on the record to say that EVERYONE who buys a gun ANYWHERE should be subject to a criminal background check.
Ah sorry about the "no one here" comment, did not see the four posts before mine while typing. Excellent points Yokem, Dan, Dan, and Phocion.
Anyway, I think Chris Rock makes the most sense in the gun control argument:
Chris Rock
"You don’t need no gun control, you know what you need? We need some bullet control. Men, we need to control the bullets, that’s right. I think all bullets should cost five thousand dollars… five thousand dollars per bullet… You know why? Cause if a bullet cost five thousand dollars there would be no more innocent bystanders.
Yeah! Every time somebody get shut we’d say, ‘Damn, he must have done something... S**t, he’s got fifty thousand dollars worth of bullets in his @$$."
As you can see from the comments, true believers in gun rights aren't interested in enforcing *any* laws related to gun purchases. They're just fine with felons amassing an arsenal.
Just like true believers in open borders aren't interested in any laws stopping illegal immigration. They're just fine with a quiet takeover of the country by a massive wave of undocumented aliens.
@Jacob,
Your dismissing me as making a "non-sequitur" argument doesn't address a very cogent point I brought up...complaining over loopholes in gun laws that potentially allow felons to accumulate weapons is no more worthy a complaint than those of us who argue that lack oof enforcement of our immigration laws has led to a similarly distressing situation.
About 1 in 100 adults in America are incarcerated, but only a small fraction are related to gun vioelence. Roughly 1 in 15 people living here are doing so illegally. Failing to address this issue has led to numerous economic hardships and unnecessary criminal cases.
Whether a death by gun involves “criminal intent” or is the result of the shooter (and/or shootee) being morons, is immaterial. Eliminating the morons from the equation skews the data in an unhealthy direction.
Blue states contain the biggest cities in the nation, and urban gun violence due to drug wars is the worst there is, and yet blue states still produce fewer gun deaths per capita than red states.
Data can be spun any way and be used to seem to support any illusion, but an illusion remains an illusion no matter how often, or cleverly, it is twisted to resemble fact.
Mule,
Of course immigration is a serious issue. Obviously we do also need to crack down on companies that hire undocumented immigrants in violation of the law. Obviously there needs to be a multinational effort to improve Mexican and Central American economies to diminish the supply of undocumented workers seeking low-wage jobs here.
But the non-sequitur in your argument is the implied notion that because immigration issues have not been properly addressed, there is no need to to expend mental energy on figuring out how to reduce violent crime.
By that logic, why should we worry about 1 in 15 (actually more like 1 in 20) people in this country here illegally when at least 1 in 7 go without health insurance and far more without real affordable coverage? Do you want to table all discussion of immigration until we have universal health care?
@mule
Mule I agree with your points re immigration, but we're talkin' about gun control.
@ Jacob
Hey Jacob, I gotta go with you on this. This is a no-brainer.
I am a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment. However, I don't think the framers intended unlimited rights to own weaponry. We limit access to all sorts of potentially dangerous harmful products. Alcohol dealers are regulated. Tobacco dealers are regulated. The Constitution is a living document and must be interpreted based on the realities of a changing world. When the 2nd amendment was passed, the framers were not thinking about weapons that could fire 1000 rounds per minute and fit in your pocket. They were thinking about long guns and the citizenries ability to defend it self against an armed political or military insurrection.
Whether a death by gun involves “criminal intent” or is the result of the shooter (and/or shootee) being morons, is immaterial.
I disagree. The whole premise behind Mr. Schaller's post is that gun dealers are ineffective at doing a proper background check. Let me clue you in on something. It's not a background check on their IQ or how many courses in gun safety they may have taken. It's a background check on their past criminal history. It's Mr. Schaller who is zeroing in on criminal intent, personified by this statement:
But if i just tell a private gun dealer that I'm not a felon--c'mon, dude, do I look like a felon?--I can get myself a semiautomatic.
He doesn't seem the least bit concerned over this loophole as it pertains to accidental shootings. So if the basis for his post is a counter-offensive to a loophole that might allow more guns to be sold to users more interested in engaging in criminal activity than, say, hunting whitetail deer, then I think the honest thing to do would be to look at gun death statistics as they pertain solely to violence or other criminal acts and not include a broadstrokes "death by firearms" statistic that includes many accidental shootings and equipment malfunctions.
He presented misleading data given the point he was trying to make. There is no disputing that.
Eliminating the morons from the equation skews the data in an unhealthy direction.
I'm all for the right of responsible citizens to have a gun, but the second amendment argument is weak. It states the the "right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." A reasonable definitions of arms by 1789 standards would be armaments of any kind, including the greatest known military technology. This includes swords, muskets, cannons, etc. This appears to be a reasonable interpretation of what the forefathers intended by "arms." Today the definition of arms also includes, rifles, semi-automatic pistols, missiles, chemical and biological weapons, nuclear warheads, etc. If you make the argument that the second amendment still stands as written, then bans on individuals owning their own personal nukes is clearly in violation of the second amendment. If you want to use the late 1700's definition, then rifled weapons utilizing a modern cartridge (virtually all guns sold today) are not included. So either the second amendment is out of date and should be repealed as written, since no sane person wants every citizen, including convicted felons, to have the "right" to their own personal biological warfare armament. Or you leave it in place and agree that it doesn't apply to all modern weapons and agree to draw a line somewhere. Sorry, you can't have it both ways. The second amendment no more or less protects your right to a semi-automatic pistol than it does your right to mustard gas. As a sane person, I'm glad we have laws that prevent my neighbor from storing mustard gas in his garage in case of Armageddon.
A couple major fallacies in the video:
1) The firearms sold in these videos - semi automatic rifles and handguns - are almost certainly protected arms under the definition provided under Heller - the recent case enforcing the Second Amendment. It is more likely tat NY and NYC's firearm bans rather than the firearms in these videos are unlawful.
2) Simply saying "I probably couldn't pass a background check" does not provide reason to believe that the person is a felon, mentally ill or presents a threat of violence, which are the forbidden classes under Heller and the subsequent federal district court cases applying Heller. The NYC buyers were being vague to encourage the sales. If they wanted to really test the law, tell the seller that you have been convicted of a felony and then ask if they will still sell you the gun.
Once the Supremes hold that the 14th Amendment enforces the 2d Amendment against state and local law next spring, NRA needs to target NYC with its next series of law suits.
Yeah, because illegal immigrants are such killers. Sheesh people. If you want to hold up some kind of example, freakin' pick AN EQUIVALENT. Gun laws are there to protect PEOPLE from being KILLED by NUTS. And if you are so worried about immigrants, I'm pretty sure if they wanted to buy a gun, the gun sellers would oblige, even if they said, "Well, I AM here in the country illegally".
Ignorant gits.
@Mule: I think it is very reasonable to disagree on the scope of the problem posed by guns and by illegal aliens. Guns kill people (and animals, in the case of hunting). That is their purpose, and they are very good at accomplishing it. Illegal immigration might have all sorts of consequences, but I think it stretches the imagination somewhat to think that death is a common effect of it (at least, anywhere near as common as gun deaths are). You note economic hardships (and there could be a vigorous debate on that front: do you enjoy lettuce for less than $5?) and unnecessary criminal cases...I simply don't think that monetary costs rise to the level of deaths.
@Darnell
You don't really want to quote the 2nd Amendment as a defense of gun rights. I could just as easily quote the 18th Amendment against alcohol consumption. Something being in the Constitution is not the same as it being a good idea. Moreover, you choose to focus on the part of it that you like: "shall not be infringed" I choose to focus on the first part, in two ways:
1) "well-regulated militia" Would you let an insane person or a person who has problems with authority into your militia? I submit that policing who can get a gun could easily be considered nothing more than BASIC regulation of "the militia." Let us not forget that no kind of military education is necessarily given to people who choose to buy a gun.
2) "being necessary to the security of a free state" Laughable on its face in a world of ICBMs, tanks, planes, submarines, bioweapons, and everything else.
Now, if you want to make the case that gun ownership is something that is an inherent good for society, that's a reasonable debate. I would still disagree with you, but you'd have a leg to stand on. But, citing the 2nd Amendment alone provides no justification of anything besides legality. The Constitution is what governs our country; that doesn't make it perfect, or even good. What makes it good is that many of the ideals it protects are good.
@KIC,
You need to get informed:
http://www.usillegalaliens.com/impacts_of_illegal_immigration_crime.html
Illegal immigration has a direct link to criminal activity. By no means all of it, I'll readily admit, but it is a pervasive problem.
Wow. Just when we europeans think we've plumbed the depths of crazy in the US (i.e. the healthcare debate) you have to go and up the ante.
You have absolutely no idea how batshit this looks outside the US. Seriously, like Ahmadinejad levels of crazy.
@ Bart
Saying "I probably couldn't pass a background check" is absolutely a reason to believe that the person is a felon, mentally ill or is a threat of violence, as these are the categories weeded out by background checks. But if someone who falls into one of those categories somehow neglects to inform the seller, then a person can illegally obtain a weapon without the dealer breaking any laws. That is a serious problem in itself, let alone the lack of enforcement to stop criminally negligent dealers.
@Gatordad
Well said, and a good point that has not yet been addressed about the intent of the 2nd Amendment. I would probably favor more enforcement than you would, but that's what should be debated by reasonable people. Thanks for setting a good parameter for debate on this issue.
It's amazing how easily people can quote the second amendment and then completely ignore the part about "A well regulated Militia". Guys, "well regulated" means *regulations*. That's what we're talking about, regulating and doing it well.
I am a bit confused about this "sting."
Why would NY investigate legal gun shows in other states?
NY shouldn't be policing other states. They may need stricter laws, but it's improper for my state of NY to intrude on the laws of other states.
@Jarv,
Funny you should ask this:
do you enjoy lettuce for less than $5?
From this: http://www.usillegalaliens.com/impacts_of_illegal_immigration
About 1/3rd of the way down:
According to FBI's Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), Crime in the United States (CIUS) 2005, for the Estimated Number of Arrests and applying a straight 5% illegal alien participation component we now get:
CRIMES (actual arrests) Number In USA by illegal aliens
Total 14,094,186 704,709
Murder & non-negligent manslaughter 14,062 703
Forcible rape 25,528 1,276
Offenses against family & children 129,128 6,456
The last column is the estimated criminal collateral damage being inflicted by illegal aliens for 2005 as a straight proportional percentage basis of the population. Similar collateral damage would have been inflicted in 2006 and you can expect about as much in 2007.
Using a simple cost-benefit analysis, is this much crime acceptable to save ten cents on a head of lettuce?
You probably wouldn't think so if you were one of the 704,709 victims. Again, keep in mind, this is the collateral damage being inflicted PER YEAR with a 5% participation rate. If the number of illegal aliens is greater than 15 million the number of crimes goes up. If the participation rate is greater, the number of crimes goes up.
You cannot divorce the link between illegal immigration and violence. To just assume illegal immigration is a victimless crime and move one with your lives is JUST PLAIN WRONG. It is the starting place for a lot of the crime we have here, and that includes gun violence/deaths.
You have absolutely no idea how batshit this looks outside the US. Seriously, like Ahmadinejad levels of crazy.
@Duncan,
Who asked you? Why don't you keep your European trap shut?!
Funny you call us Ahmadinejad-crazy, yet we are the beacon of freedom and prosperity for the entire world while Europe is mostly a third-world socialist backwater.
What, again, is the percent of your population that still wipes their ass with their own bare hands? Pretty damn high for a "developed" part of the world, if I recall correctly. I know you all can't afford a bidet, and I know the use of toilet paper is frowned upon. Think about that the next time you criticize the US.
I find it interesting that people who strongly believe that the Second Amendment means no gun control always studiously ignore the words "well regulated Militia." I guess that was just tossed in there for s**ts and giggles.
Jacob said...
Saying "I probably couldn't pass a background check" is absolutely a reason to believe that the person is a felon, mentally ill or is a threat of violence, as these are the categories weeded out by background checks.
Have you ever undergone a government background check?
I have undergone both a secret and a top secret background check and had to clear up misinformation obtained by the government that could have resulted in a denial.
When I prosecuted in Florida, I had a suspect in a felony driving under restriction case (yes, it was actually a felony to get a 10th DUR) whose brother was running around the state without a DL and then giving the suspect's name when he was stopped. There were also numerous cases where the criminal data base was either incomplete or mistaken.
As a defense attorney, I have worked to clean up bad government records concerning my clients on multiple occasions to avoid minimum mandatory sentences.
It is perfectly reasonable for a person who has had problems with the government bureaucracy in the past to simply assume he will have similar problems in the future.
If NYC was more concerned with the law that in making a propaganda video for Congress, the buyer would have stated up front that he had a felony and then asked to buy the gun. In that case, there would be no intentional vagueness.
"Funny you call us Ahmadinejad-crazy, yet we are the beacon of freedom and prosperity for the entire world while Europe is mostly a third-world socialist backwater."
Funny how you call societies with a higher standard of living "third world socialist backwater" and neglecting to mention their far-lower violent crime rates while insisting that they view us as a "beacon of freedom."
More than 11,000 Americans die annually from gun violence. In most equally developed societies this number is well below 500 (and no, I'm not talking about Luxembourg--nations like France, Germany, Japan, and the UK with 20%-50% of our population). But they should just keep their traps shut because they could never teach us anything about curbing gun violence, right?
@ Duncan
Gonna have to go with mule on this one. European didain for America is rooted in deep seated jealousies. And you might want to be nicer to us, or maybe next time you guys need rescuing from a despot or dictator, we'll be busy.
LFC said...
I find it interesting that people who strongly believe that the Second Amendment means no gun control always studiously ignore the words "well regulated Militia." I guess that was just tossed in there for s**ts and giggles.
The militia at that time and under current statute consists of an armed citizenry. Thus, there is no difference between the People whose rights are being protected and the militia.
disdain- oops
Mule's just trying in a very obvious way to divert attention from the topic itself to any other item. Who cares about immigration, the topic is about gun control.... Just as he would no doubt talk about gun control on an immigration debate, again to muddy the waters. He's a troll, no more, no less.
Now, to the serious point this video raises...all I can say is bloody hell. That's a loophole you can drive a tank through. If it isn't closed, that's entirely down to the lobbying powers of the gun companies.
Re: "well regulated militia"
On the NRA HQ building they have carved into stone (quite literally) the second half of the 2nd amendment (...yadda yadda shall not be infringed). I have often fantasized about going at night and spray painting the first bit (well regulated, etc) on there.
Would be the best prank ever, although I don't think I'd ever be quite drunk enough to do actually do it.
@Gatordad
"Gonna have to go with mule on this one. European disdain for America is rooted in deep seated jealousies. And you might want to be nicer to us, or maybe next time you guys need rescuing from a despot or dictator, we'll be busy."
Two points
1)Hahahahahahahaha.........deep seated jealousies! Lol. With our better educational system, cheaper healthcare and lower rates of homicide and serious crime, my god you can see why we're jealous!
2)Last time I checked, the Uk came in on a war you wanted and we didn't, purely to give your war more legitimacy.
3)Last time there was a World War you didn't do anything until you got attacked. Hardly proactive rescuing....
Lot of hyperventilating and false equivalencies from the gun nut crowd. "Oh ya well immigration is bad to", "oh ya well those guys on wall street are crooks to", like that has anything to do with this thread. Deflection thy name is gun nut.
I say gun nuts and not pro-gun because they seem to find it perfectly reasonable to leave loopholes that allow mentally unstable and criminal people to have access to guns and other weapons.
Why any responsible pro-gun person would defend such reckless policies that help arm criminals and kooks is beyond me.
But hey as long as you get yours right?
Bart,
You don't think that someone saying that they couldn't pass a background check should cause a dealer to suspect that just maybe they had done something to warrant failing a background check? That the dealer shouldn't ask any follow-ups before selling them a deadly weapon? Especially when the dealer is legally obligated to screen out such people?
And Gatordad, I don't know about European disdain in general (and I never really found disdain travelin in Europe--but hey that's just me), but I would suspect that the European view of American gun laws (and statistics on gun violence) is based on a little more than jealousy.
DOW crosses 10k. Galt blushes.
@Dan F,
I would watch out on that prank, man. Remember these are the people who think they have a right to mow down anyone who steps on their property. I suspect the NRA would avail themselves of the second clause to protect their ignorance of the first.
There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences, found in the official documents surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights. One such version was passed by the Congress, which reads:
“ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ”
Another version is found in the copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, which had this capitalization and punctuation:
“ A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. ”
One thing is clear:
the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
A well regulated militia…
I’m a registered gun owner, many I know are too. None, including myself, belong to any well regulated militia. Every time I hear someone quote this I whence, slightly. You see, back in the day, the militia constituted the bulk of the Armed Forces. And they were “well regulated.” By the time of the War of 1812, they were even more “well regulated” with many states having statues banning ownership of firearms unless you registered as a militiaman (to ensure “well regulated” as well as to ensure large numbers of militiamen were available to call up and fight the British). By the time we got to the Civil War, they were even more “well regulated.” This is why often times you’ll read, for example, that the 20th Maine was engaged in battle with the 15th Alabama; these were “well regulated” militias, not regular Army, each called up by their respective state governments.
Then came the Great War. In 1917, the Army organized the 1st Division – known then and now as the “Big Red One” to be a large standing Army force to be deployed overseas (our nation’s first ever… Big Red One). The “well regulated” militias were even more “well regulated” - being organized into what we call the “National Guard.”
Thus, every time I hear some bonehead cite the Second Amendment, I fear, briefly, that someone will realize that we have a “well regulated” militia – and we’re not in it (the National Guard) and therefore there is no Constitutional reason for anyone else to have a firearm.
It's kind of amazing how well George W. Bush has reached across the aisle to build support for gun ownership.
His speeches were particularly convincing to liberals like me.
To all of the condescending Europeans that might be infesting this thread:
If the United States is as much of a shithole as you think, then be glad you are living in a utopian paradise and don't have to put up with all of these "problems."
To all of the condescending assholes here in the US that also insist Europe is a utopian paradise compared to America:
Why don't you move there? From what you describe, the US is a little bit of Iran, sub-saharan Africa, and the shittier parts of Latin America all rolled into one while Rurope is maybe just a step down from heaven on Earth.
You are free to leave if you despise living here so much.
@ peter wolf
Can you seriously deny that western european nations weren't lealous and resentful of the 'colonies'. Please. And a large portion of the world resents our power and our wealth. Care to deny that? Our educational system serves a single country of 330 million. More people than in all of western Europe. And might I mention the most diverse country in the world. And hey, big thanks for legitimizing that war for us. appreciate the hell out of that. And as far as WW2 goes, maybe late to the party, but it's a good thing for you guys and the rest of the world that we showed up. Oh yeah, and then spent American tax dollars to rebuild you. But no thanks is ncessary.
Who cares about immigration, the topic is about gun control....
The irony in this response by Peter Wolf is that was the point I was trying to make in bringing it up.
I don't rate gun control high on my list of priorities, and an exposè on this loophole is hardly titillating. For those of you who are such slaves to the anti-gun movement, I'm sure it arouses a bit of excitement.
But my point is that many of you so passionately anti-gun aren't the least bit interested in letting 20 million illegal immigrants run roughshod across the land and pass off the enforcement of immigration laws with a mere shrug. I'm deeply concerned over where this country is headed if illegal immigration isn't curbed immediately, but most of you simply don't give a damn.
I'm basically returning the favor and saying I don't give a damn about a loophole in our gun laws.
Hey peter wolf questions for you. Who invented the internet that you are using to disparage America? A European product of your extraordinary educational system or Americans? Who developed the technology that you use to connect to the internet? Was that a European or was that Cisco Sytems, an American company? And which country has the most advanced space program? Would that be the ignorant poorly educated Americans or say Belgium?
Well Mule, I've criticized some aspects of American policy and praised some of Europe's policies. Wow I guess I hate my life here.
Right-wingers have been pulling that false equivalency love it or leave it BS for half a century now. Do you honestly think anyone is still impressed by it?
Gatordad, the EU is actually about half a billion people now, which makes it in many respects the third-largest "nation" in the world.
Regardless of WWII, the Marshall Plan, etc, it is false and facetious to claim that European dislike of American gun laws stem from pure jealousy. If they wanted our system of firearm regulation, why they could just enact one like it. Instead they choose to regulate firearms more strictly and have a lower rate of gun violence. People can disagree on whether the trade-offs here are better, but more regulation=less gun violence, that much is clear.
And what exactly do you mean by "most diverse" in terms of the US? Racially diverse? Brazil, Mexico and others have us beat there. Religiously diverse? We got nothing on India. Income diversity? We have a horrible wealth disparity, but not as bad as most of the world. Politically diverse? Not as wide a political spectrum as Europe.
America has done many many things better than most countries in the world, but we are not the shining golden example of every facet of life. Certainly not on gun regulation.
Can you seriously deny that western european nations weren't lealous and resentful of the 'colonies'.
What, the French that gave you a hand up against the British? :)
Even Canadians, who really don't have much to be jealous of and generally like you, think you are figgin' nuts when it comes to guns.
... and when thinking anything negative said about you just about jealousy. It's so arrogantly dismissive that you make the French look absolutely humble. :)
Jacob said...
Bart, You don't think that someone saying that they couldn't pass a background check should cause a dealer to suspect that just maybe they had done something to warrant failing a background check?
Not necessarily, as demonstrated by the seller who also thought that he might not pass the background check.
That the dealer shouldn't ask any follow-ups before selling them a deadly weapon? Especially when the dealer is legally obligated to screen out such people?
The law does not require a private citizen to conduct a background check of the buyer. That is what NYC is bitching about.
Well Bart I agree that the lack of regulation of private dealers is a serious flaw in current law. Glad to hear you're with us on that.
Of course under current law, a dealer of any stripe cannot sell a weapon to someone who indicates that they may not be legally able to purchase a gun (cannot pass a background check).
By casually ignoring those statements, these private vendors were either criminally negligent (if it didn't even cross their minds that failing a background check might be related to legitimate causes), or just plain criminals.
Antietam said...
I’m a registered gun owner, many I know are too. None, including myself, belong to any well regulated militia.
At this time, the term "well regulated" when applied to a military force simply meant disciplined. Congress and the states do indeed have the power to train and discipline the militia. The desire that the militia be "well regulated" / disciplined places no textual limitation on the population included in the term militia or the right to keep and bear arms.
Furthermore, the term "militia" applied to the armed citizenry. Part time army units under the control of the central government like the modern National Guard were termed "special militias" back in the 18th Century and were disfavored in America. The Founders wanted an armed citizenry to be a check on future government tyrants and not be under the tyrant's control.
Well Mule, I've criticized some aspects of American policy and praised some of Europe's policies. Wow I guess I hate my life here.
You did more than that. You painted the US as a backwards, dystopian shithole and held up Europe as a model of excellence. You didn't just "criticize some" of one and "praise some" of the other. You made an overt distinction between the two: that being that the US is a crime-ridden shithole and Europe is a thriving, peaceful utopia.
Right-wingers have been pulling that false equivalency love it or leave it BS for half a century now. Do you honestly think anyone is still impressed by it?
There's no false equivalency when you make your self-loathing and America-hating so plainly clear and obvious. Liberals like you come up with a laundry list of things to lambast the US with and praise Europe. Yes, lambast, not just point out modest differences between the two.
And then when you're called on it, you crawfish and act like you just have some minor policy disagreements and would like to see "some" changes that reflect the European lifestyle. Bullshit! You've made it clear that you think Europe doesn't just have "some" policies right compared to the US, but that you think their entire system is a considerable improvement from ours.
Again, I say, if ours has so little hope and lags so far behind that of Europe's, why don't you friggin' move there? There's no false equivalency. You truly believe that Europe is a much better place to live. Not slightly...much better! So go do it and leave us the hell alone.
@Mule:
(and, by extension, anyone else who says "if you don't like it, you can git out!")
We could just as easily say if you don't like what the majority of the country wants, YOU should get out. Again, a complete non-starter of an argument. The comparison that another country has a policy that we might want to emulate is really one of the key arguments for federalism, as it allows the states to be 50 "laboratories of democracy" (Brandeis). The argument that one should move to a place for its policies rather than seek to change the policies of where you live is the ultimate conservative argument, in that nothing would ever change politically anywhere. Liberal areas would stay liberal and conservative areas conservative. Of course, it also assumes that people have the money and language abilities and professional opportunities to just move anywhere they want.
By the same token, I could just as easily say that those who don't like abortion under any circumstance should move to Chile, El Salvador, or Malta (the only countries on Earth that seem to ban the practice entirely, though many more ban it in all cases except the life of the mother).
Jacob:
I do not have a problem with requiring private citizen sellers to run the name and birth date of of a prospective buyer on an internet government database for an instant check.
I strongly oppose waiting periods or any other undue burden on my right to buy a constitutionally protected firearm.
The militia at that time and under current statute consists of an armed citizenry. Thus, there is no difference between the People whose rights are being protected and the militia.
That's a pretty big pantload, Baghdad. The modern equivalent of a "well regulated militia" is clearly the National Guard.
@mule @etc
Wow - I'm honoured that you rise to the bait so easily!
I'm a great fan of the US btw, but its really great to see how childish you get.
My point was simple: the religious attitude you have towards guns is simply incomprehensible to most europeans. Its like trying to explain communion to a buddhist ("You mean that you think the wine turns into blood???!!").
Anyway, for the record, thanks for letting the Russians save us in World War II ;-)
I'm off to watch state subsidised TV now. Or possibly The Daily Show.
Not necessarily, as demonstrated by the seller who also thought that he might not pass the background check.
lol, I'll admit, once you assume that a gun dealer who says "I wouldn't pass one" is saying it for absolutely no reason whatsoever, I can see how it would make sense to you that a gun buyer who says the same thing also has absolutely no reason whatsoever to think that. For most people, though, if you walk up to them and say, "I don't think I could do X," they'll generally think there's some reason for you to believe that, that you're not just making statements at random to strangers.
Then again, I can certainly see how the ability to hear someone make a definitive statement and ASSUME that it's completely false would help as a defense lawyer (with a top secret clearance). "Yeah I killed that dude!" "Based on your statement, I assume that you did not kill him."
Well Muley, despite your vitriol the only overt comparisons that I've made on this thread are that the US gun regulation system does not work and that Europe's does, in terms of reducing gun violence. It does! And that much of Europe has a higher standard of living than most of the US. Why, that's true also!
Hmm I've been scanning my comments for America-hating remarks. Why, there are none to be found. How could that be when you are so sure that I must hate America?
The real reason your argument is ferkakdeh is that America-loving liberals like me who want to make this country the best it can be aren't going to be persuaded by your insistence that we must secretly despise the land that we live in, while those who would be convinced by your vitriol already believe that everyone to the left of Mussolini automatically hates America.
Mule, the connection to violence has nothing to do with being an illegal immigrant, it has to do with poverty. Violence and poverty go hand in hand and always have. Illigal immigrants, almost by definition, are extremely poor. To stop illegal immigration, to stop violent crime (with or without gun control), the only solution is to seriously fight poverty.
But, my guess is, that you have no interest in doing that.
In case folks didn't get a chance to follow up on Mule's statistics (I can't imagine why you'd think that would be a waste of time...), he actually makes a really good point...
...that we should be far more concerned about guns than we should about illegal immigrants. According to the statistics he linked us to, there were about 14K murders in the US in 2005 and 703 of those were committed by illegal immigrants. Anyone want to venture a guess as to how many of those murders were committed with guns? Over 10K. So maybe we should be just a tad more focused on gun control.. maybe 10 times more focused (it's also worth noting that according to Mule's link about illegal immigrants, they account for 6% of the population and only 5% of the crime in this country. And that doesn't even take into acocunt the fact that they can be arrested just for being here.)
David,
You didn't understand the statistic that was quoted and took it out of context. In that instance they were merely applying the population % of illegals and applied that as a direct ratio to crime statistics in the US.
Their point was to say that if you just assume that illegals are covering their "share" of crime based purely on a population breakdown, there are far too many people victimized by crimes from this segment of the population.
They go on to speculate if illegals make up constitute a much greater share of crime, however, but admit that it isn't easy to extrapolate that information because of the way so many states track crime statistics by demographic and citizenship status, which seems to gloss over some of the impact.
Read it in its entirety before weighing in on the implications it produces.
"But if i just tell a private gun dealer that I'm not a felon--c'mon, dude, do I look like a felon?--I can get myself a semiautomatic"
So what? No law would be broken in the hypothetical case in the above quote. Private individuals do not have to conduct background checks. Your use of the term "private dealer" is a little confusing though. Is the person a private citizen selling a few guns or a full-fledged dealer? Dealers must complete background checks.
And it always amazes me when people do breathless articles
about how easy it is for criminals to buy guns at gun shows, yet do not mention the studies by multiple federal agencies, including the FBI, about the scarcity of crimes committed by guns obtained without background checks at gun shows. Let us look at those statistics, shall we?
1. According to a study by the FBI in 2006, NONE of the weapons used in the United States to attack law enforcement were obtained at gun shows.
2. According to a study conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics in 2000, a whopping 1.7%of felons obtained guns a gun shows.
3. In another study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, an overwhelming number of less than 1%of crimes are committed with guns obtained at gun shows.
A person obviously ignorant of recent Supreme Court rulings wrote:
"Thus, every time I hear some bonehead cite the Second Amendment, I fear, briefly, that someone will realize that we have a “well regulated” militia – and we’re not in it (the National Guard) and therefore there is no Constitutional reason for anyone else to have a firearm."
Another ignorant person wrote:
I"t's amazing how easily people can quote the second amendment and then completely ignore the part about "A well regulated Militia"
You want to know the great thing about Constitutional rights? I don't have to have a "reason" for exercising them. Why in the world do people still bring up the part about a "well regulated militia" when discussing the Second Amendment as if the collective militia argument was not rejected by the Supreme Court in "DC vs. Heller"? ALL NINE JUSTICES INDICATED THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT PROTECTS THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS. It is not wise to call someone a bonehead and then be totally wrong about something.
For the umpteenth fuc@#&ing time, THE MILTIA ARGUMENT HAS BEEN REJECTED by multiple courts. Continuing to cite it makes you look like idiots.
An absolute idiot wrote:
"I say gun nuts and not pro-gun because they seem to find it perfectly reasonable to leave loopholes that allow mentally unstable and criminal people to have access to guns and other weapons. "
Allow? Oh, wait you're right. It is not a violation of federal law for felons and those with certain mental issues to possess guns. Hold on, yeah it is. Which means you have no point.
A snob wrote:
"1)Hahahahahahahaha.........deep seated jealousies! Lol. With our better educational system, cheaper healthcare and lower rates of homicide and serious crime, my god you can see why we're jealous!"
European countries with lower violent crime rates? I hate to break it to you, but you are way wrong about that one.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html
According to stats from the EU and the UN, at least ten European countries have higher violent crime rates than the United States.
Cheaper health care? Yeah, maybe if you don't count the exorbitant taxes you pay. And don't even get us started on your wait lists, filthy hospitals, refusal to pay for a multitude of drugs, complete lack of medical specialists, etc. Seriously, for most Americans, health care in Europe, particularly the UK, is a laughingstock.
"DOW crosses 10k. Galt blushes."
Wow, the DOW crossed 10k. Is Galt blushing about the pending 10% unemployment rate, or are the only people blushing over that one the same geniuses who told us the stimulus would keep it below 8%? The HuffingtonPost, of all places, sums it up best with their headline:
DOW HITS 10,000...
UNEMPLOYMENT NEAR 10%
Mule, the connection to violence has nothing to do with being an illegal immigrant, it has to do with poverty.
For those criticizing me for making a non-sequitur argument, here's a prime example. What does this have to do with what I'm talking about. Yes, I realize that violence is tied to poverty and not just being an illegal immigrant.
The problem is that being poor is NOT a crime. Being an illegal immigrant IS. Let's attack poverty in whatever rational manner we can for our legal citizens, but let's enforce our existing immigrations laws to stop the flood of illegal aliens coming into this country and send the ones already polluting our cities, towns, and rural areas back where they came from OR to go through the proper channels to actually become a legal citizen.
Just wanted to remind everyone that the original thread was a comparison of Americans debating a constitutional issue to ImaDinnerJacket. And hell yeah I find that insulting. And deny that the world resents our power, but you're wrong. I don't deny that we are gun crazy here. I just don't want Europeans wagging their fingers at us. They haven't earned that right.
Bart: Although I am generally sympathetic on this issue, as I believe all individual rights in the Constitution should be read broadly, why would you read this one broadly (and, let's be honest, the whole militia thing isn't exactly the most convincing argument now is it) and then say that the 4th Amendment doesn't even have a substantive component?
I mean, don't you "strict constructionists" or originalists or textualists (sorry, I can't recall whichever one you are) really insist that when something is put in it must mean something? Obviously the writers of the document knew how to say citizens if that's what they meant.
Was this just some commentary by James Madison? Kind of a footnote in there? Where else do we see such a thing in the substantive provisions of the Constitution? (Aside from judicial conservative views of the Ninth, of course).
Americans like to blow things up and start bogus wars, so no surprise "we" worship our guns.
We grow up w/John Wayne/Clint Eastwood, etc. movies. Action/violent movies are always #1 at the box office. Heck, even Sat. morning cartoons are shoot 'em up escapades.
ie we are never giving up our guns even though 40% of murders go unsolved every year. It's a love/hate relationship!
btw, the psychoanalysis is free of charge as BDP, a former platoon leader who is very well armed ;) when he attends his teabagger meetings lol will tell you, Americans love their guns!
p.s. put all the wagons in a circle Pilgrim ...
carry on
>> And deny that the world resents our power, but you're wrong.
The US got unfathomly more powerful with 43rd in office, even as your economy cratered after 9/11? Or was it his asshattery, abuse of position, and arrogant talking down to The World, even those that were friends and allies, that greatly upped the resentment towards the US?
Which seems more likely to you? If you answer, the former, you are part of the problem.
Duncan, thanks for the whiff of good-natured sanity.
Mule, you seem very unhappy here. Maybe you should move to Afghanistan. All the men have AKs there, and since "an armed society is a polite society," it is of course a paradise. Also, at least in the Taliban parts, they are more committed to conservative values than in the US (women in their place, all fer'ners can just git, state-sponsored religion in the schools). They got no problems with illegal immigration, unless you count the NATO troops, and they're working hard to solve that issue.
Bart…
Almost every time you write anything here you reveal incredible ignorance of the law.
The state militia was legally defined as the entire able-bodied male population of any state. Go check the laws by which the draft was instituted during the Civil War for an explanation of this, although you might want to have someone with real legal training with you to interpret.
Please show me, or anyone, the legal opinion whereby “well-regulated” was defined to mean “disciplined”. This is another fantasy digression born of your fantasy legal career. The militias never were under any legal requirement to be “disciplined”—that’s why there was such a useless profusion of them the first time they were called out en masse in 1861. Read up on the situation that prevailed in Missouri at the start of the Civil War, but I must warn you, any decent source will contain a lot of multi-syllable words.
Did you get your degree from My Little Pony Law School?
Remember that guns have played an integral part in the daily fabric of American lives since the founding of the country. They are inextricably interwoven into the history of this country. For the first 150 years or so, people relied on guns for food, for protection. They were common in most households and were looked at as tools. So you have generations of people that relied on and valued their guns. And they (guns) were/are a part of their daily existence. That is the thread that you are pulling when you talk about gun control. And for a lot of people, there is the very real fear that pulling that thread could unravel the whole tapestry that is America. Right or wrong, that is the psychology of the gun folks.
Alaskan27 wrote…
“Mule, you seem very unhappy here. Maybe you should move to Afghanistan.”
Poodles are considered unclean animals in Afghanistan.
Bush made it worse, but it's been around long before he mucked things up. There has been wide spread disenchantment with America by any number of European nations at various times for 200 years. Sometimes deserved, but more often, not.
>> Remember that guns have played an integral part in the daily fabric of American lives since the founding of the country.
I've been around firearms all my life. I was shooting and hunting long before it was legal for me to do so. The firearm was first and foremost a tool.
That is hardly an excuse to be irrational.
That is hardly an excuse to be irrational.
You ejaculate irrationality into these comment streams on a daily basis, though.
Gatordad…
Oxen played an even larger role in the first 150 years of this country’s existence. Do you advocate abolishing all laws which regulate where and how oxen can be kept? Would you think it OK, since it conforms to such illustrious tradition, for the folks next door to keep them?
“Tradition” is the flimsiest argument that can used for keeping anachronisms on the law books. The longest, most enduring tradition from America’s past was slavery.
@Gatordad
You earn a little more every time you dismiss something someone said because they are "jealous".
Stop acting like an ignorant dink and most people will stop treating you like one. It's not going to work with everyone. Some people are going to find a reason to be pissed off at you or not like you. But a little more introspection and a little less finding the fault in others for their opinions of you will do wonders.
Richard said...
Bart: Although I am generally sympathetic on this issue, as I believe all individual rights in the Constitution should be read broadly, why would you read this one broadly (and, let's be honest, the whole militia thing isn't exactly the most convincing argument now is it) and then say that the 4th Amendment doesn't even have a substantive component?
I mean, don't you "strict constructionists" or originalists or textualists (sorry, I can't recall whichever one you are) really insist that when something is put in it must mean something? Obviously the writers of the document knew how to say citizens if that's what they meant.
I use the term textualist to describe myself, but the current moniker for following the law as it was written is "original meaning jurisprudence."
In any case, there is no textual conflict between the what Scalia correctly calls the prefatory militia clause and the guarantee of the right of the people. I pointed out earlier that the militia and the People are the same thing, so the prefatory clause is not in fact narrower that the main clause with the broad guarantee of the right.
There is extensive commentary by the founders equating the militia with an armed citizenry. You need to realize that we are talking about a band of armed revolutionaries here. For crying out loud, Tom Jefferson was writing about the need to water the tree of freedom with the blood of patriots and tyrants every generation. These folks were hardly squeamish about the prospect of the People possessing and using firearms. Rather, they considered and armed citizenry the best defense of their new Republic.
However, even if the militia in the prefatory clause consists of some lesser population that the People, it would still not grammatically limit the broad right because the prefatory commentary about the desirability of a "well regulated militia" is not written in limiting language.
There are multiple state constitutions which expressed the guarantee of freedom of speech using this grammatical structure. The prefatory clause spoke about the importance of political speech and then the main clause provided a broad guarantee for all speech. Courts have without exception interpreted the prefatory clause simply to be commentary and not a limit of the guarantee to only political speech.
Stop acting like an ignorant dink and most people will stop treating you like one.
I see Dwight doesn't just save his grandiose dismissals for just me. Really, Dwight, what do you mean by "most people"? You and the few other liberal apes that beat your chest in the jungle that is the 538 comments section?
I'm sure Gatordad is really heartbroken that he doesn't get your approval or that of the other knuckle-dragging liberals in here. Your inflated sense of self-worth and speaking in condescending terms as if the 538-fantasy land is reality is really quite amusing.
Like myself, I'm sure Gatordad is a hard-working, well-educated, well-liked, and productive person in his community.
No amoung of dismissals as an "ignorant dink" from scum like yourself can ever change that fact, and I know it just kills a psychopath like you that reality - you know, the real non-538 stuff - is far different than your warped concepts in here.
Bart De Palma…
O ye of the “law school education”—
It might interest you to understand that the Supreme Court has only recently begun to chip away at the long held Supreme Court holding that the “prefatory clause” does in fact allow restrictions to be placed on gun ownership by private citizens.
In fact, one of the most conservative Chief Justices of the 20th Century, Warren Burger, wrote in the 1980s that any interpretation of the 2nd Amendment which does not take into consideration that it applies to a state militia “is a fraud”.
You would know this if you had any legal training.
So it IS just commentary (in your opinion)? Insanity. I'll recall that the next time a court applies expressio unius est exclusio alterius, which evidently provides no guidance here.
That still doesn't explain why guns are so special and being secure from search and seizure isn't, especially when one views the militia clause as indifferent at best, and limiting at worst. There's a big historical context behind that one, too (not that I'm personally particularly concerned on that front). Why wouldn't both be interpreted broadly in defense of individual rights against the government?
As an aside, assuming your argument is correct, is there any legitimacy to an argument that guns useful against the government or invasion are protected, but handguns and shotguns, largely useless in warfare, would not be? And wouldn't that also include cannon? And how do we deal with new technology? In light of the purpose of the 2nd Amendment and its lack of limiting language, can I obtain an A-10 warthog?
Now if you told me that those state constitutions said that the militia's right to free speech shall not be abridged, I'd be sold. And like I said before, I think that there is a personal right subject to commonsense regulations, so don't you worry about that.
Pragmatus said...
The state militia was legally defined as the entire able-bodied male population of any state. Go check the laws by which the draft was instituted during the Civil War for an explanation of this, although you might want to have someone with real legal training with you to interpret.
You are free to demonstrate your superior knowledge of Second Amendment and militia law. However, I must warn you that I wrote a nearly 100 page law review article on the subject which pretty much predicted the grounds and holding of the Heller Court. I also litigate firearms issues in Colorado. I am waiting on the Supremes to hold the 14th Amendment applies the 2d Amendment to the states and then I am going after the laws restricting non-violent non-felons from possessing firearms.
As to your not so pertinent point, the militia was originally limited to the white male population of the states to the exclusion of women, African Americans and Indians because only white males were considered to be citizens with the full array of rights. Women, African Americans and Indians also were not permitted to vote even though that was also a right of the People. The right to keep and bear arms today applies to all of the citizenry as does the vote.
Please show me, or anyone, the legal opinion whereby “well-regulated” was defined to mean “disciplined”.
Start here: http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html An 18th Century edition of the Oxford dictionary for which I cannot offer a link also discussed this.
The militias never were under any legal requirement to be “discipline."
You are correct. That is why the prefatory commentary of the Second Amendment is expressed in aspirational language.
Pragmatus said...
In fact, one of the most conservative Chief Justices of the 20th Century, Warren Burger, wrote in the 1980s that any interpretation of the 2nd Amendment which does not take into consideration that it applies to a state militia “is a fraud”.
Conservative my ass.
Burger ran one of the worst outlaw courts in the history of the Republic and voted to rewrite the Constitution to create the fictional right to abortion. His desire to write the Second Amendment out of the Constitution was more of the same outlaw behavior.
This what I wrote in an earlier post...
"Hey Jacob, I gotta go with you on this. This is a no-brainer.
I am a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment. However, I don't think the framers intended unlimited rights to own weaponry. We limit access to all sorts of potentially dangerous harmful products. Alcohol dealers are regulated. Tobacco dealers are regulated. The Constitution is a living document and must be interpreted based on the realities of a changing world. When the 2nd amendment was passed, the framers were not thinking about weapons that could fire 1000 rounds per minute and fit in your pocket. They were thinking about long guns and the citizenries ability to defend it self against an armed political or military insurrection." So I hardly think I've been irrational. And I was trying to show the deep-seated mindset that is out there. You can't possibly change something if you don't understand the underlying pathology. I didn't say that the attitude was right just that it is. Also, the EU isn't a country and isn't comprised only of western european countries, so what's your point?
Sounds like Fifi is running for “ignorant dink” himself—
“…grandiose dismissals…”
“…ignorant apes that beat your chest [sic] in the jungle…”
“…knuckle-dragging liberals…”
“Your inflated sense of self-worth … is really quite amusing.”
“…scum like yourself…”
“…a psychopath like you…”
“…your warped concepts…”
The Newt Gingrich playbook says, “When you run out of ideas, change the subject, and when you run out of subjects, belittle your opponent, and when that starts to sound silly just scream.”
Bart DePalma said...
However, I must warn you that I wrote a nearly 100 page law review article on the subject
~~~~~~~~~~
Give it a rest baghdad ...
btw, I must warn you "we're" not impressed by blowhards er liars at a political blog.
take care
@gatorad
"Who invented the internet that you are using to disparage America?"
well that, in its current form, is generally attributed to Tim Berners Lee.
And who said anything about disparaging America? Just the idea of us Europeans being jealous is quite amusing....put it this way, if I wanted to live in America I could do so. I choose not to. Many American's have the opportunity to live in Europe, but choose not to. Does that make either place better? Of course not. But if you take off your blinkers and actually VISIT Europe you'll realise that we really, really, really are not jealous of America as by and large our countries are bloody good.
Bart…
If you’re a lawyer “litigating firearms issues in Colorado” why are you not a member of the Colorado Bar Association? Even when your name is spelled thus you can’t be found.
What was your tuition at the My Little Pony Law School? Are you still paying off your loans?
Maybe they accept poodles there too.
Richard:
2A: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
4A: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
What do you call this phrase if not commentary? - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."
Where do you see any similar commentary in the 4A? The 4A consists of two "shall" commands concerning searches and warrants. To be comparable to the 2A, the 4A would have to read:
"Personal privacy being necessary for a free state, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."
Peter Wolf…
“They must be jealous” is the fallback logic of every ignorant blowhard who can’t figure out why people can’t stand him.
@Peter Wolf, Berniers Lee was part of it but the origin was arapnet and colleges in the US using time sharing. And I've been to London (loved it), Paris (liked it/ a little dirty) and a few others. What set me off was the comparison to Ahmadinejad. That's offensive and ridiculous.
And Pragmatus you know why you're mad at me. Your buddies slapped you down the other day when all you could answer my argument with was name calling. Logic failed you and you got embarassed. Seems you can still only resort to name calling. You want to deny that? The string is still there.
You are free to demonstrate your superior knowledge of Second Amendment and militia law. However, I must warn you that I wrote a nearly 100 page law review article on the subject which pretty much predicted the grounds and holding of the Heller Court.
Well perfect. Can you just cite this article? Seems like it'll be a lot easier to just go check out an article than to try to piece it together from comments on a blog post. Which law review did you publish it in, and when?
The militias never were under any legal requirement to be “discipline."
You are correct. That is why the prefatory commentary of the Second Amendment is expressed in aspirational language.
Hrmmm... That seems odd, given that less than two years after the Second Amendment was ratified, we had the Militia Acts, which "provided for the organization of state militias under the command of the President of the United States."
So they expressed it in aspirational language because they didn't intend the militias to be regulated... but then explicitly regulated them less than a year later?
Indeed, the Militia Act requires all members of the militia to buy their own firearms, specifying the type and caliber. Interesting, then, that today our "militia" is made up of any idiot with a .22 handgun.
@So I hardly think I've been irrational.
No, that wasn't a reference to you. :) It's the collective that you were talking about in that post I quoted.
I do think there is a divide in experiences happening, too. You see it in Canada right now, where a lot of the country (primarily in urban centers) had forgotten that firearms remain a tool for a small portion of the [rural] civilians. Because of that a firearm registry was very poorly handled, and then used as a political proxy.
Dwight the former rural resident, and also the guy still working in a rural setting, had a lot tougher time with it than Dwight the urban resident. Provisions were added but the damage was done. My dad, who's probably far enough 'left' that McCarthy would have dragged him into Congress, is right pissed about it. And it is in effect an unenforced law in a good deal of the country, even after it was peeled back a bit (the $20/person, for an unlimited number of firearms, registration fee if you couldn't show a work need was removed).
But in the US the arguement isn't happening over firearms as a [civilly responsible] tool. Even within the 5 or 6 supposed reasons for the 2nd Ammendment. But those same people are being somehow convinced that it is. *shrug*
That divide, from the other side, is why those folks in TN couldn't get why NYC might be interested in firearms purchased in TN.
@Dwight
There really is a divergence in the whole perspective between rural and urban people. I live in a large city, and a guy with a gun means bad stuff. But if you're in the midwest, a guy with a gun is just your neighbor John. If people want any kind of gun laws then you better understand the mind set of gun owners and work within that framework.
Pragmatus, here he is:
http://www.depalmalaw.com/
Must be a slow afternoon in the law office.
@masanf
A snob wrote:
"1)Hahahahahahahaha.........deep seated jealousies! Lol. With our better educational system, cheaper healthcare and lower rates of homicide and serious crime, my god you can see why we're jealous!"
European countries with lower violent crime rates? I hate to break it to you, but you are way wrong about that one.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html
According to stats from the EU and the UN, at least ten European countries have higher violent crime rates than the United States.
Cheaper health care? Yeah, maybe if you don't count the exorbitant taxes you pay. And don't even get us started on your wait lists, filthy hospitals, refusal to pay for a multitude of drugs, complete lack of medical specialists, etc. Seriously, for most Americans, health care
oh my, you're using figures from the daily mail, collated by the tories (that's the equivalent of me using figures in the daily kos, created by the democrats). Violent crime is not considered equal in each country, the metrics are different. Let's look at some aspects of violent crime which are better defined:
murder per capita
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
US @24, France @40 UK @46, Italy @37, Spain @48, Germany @49
rape per capita (same source, you can view different figures)
US@#9, UK@13 (with under half the US figure), Spain@14, France@15, Germany@24, Italy@46
assaults per capita
US@6, UK@8, Spain@21, France@25, Germany@26, Italy@37
robberies per capita
US@11, Spain@1 (but with a strange number: I would suspect this is one of those things where the classification is different in Spain), UK@8 (more than the US!), Germany@23, Italy@25, France@38
I think I've made my point.
As for health care: you do realise that in the UK, and in most European countries, we have a private health care system in addition to the public one, and that this private system is STILL massively cheaper than the US version even with the extra taxes you pay for the private one?
Put it this way: if I wanted I could be private through work. The cost? $20 a month, with them paying another $20. BUP's most expensive plan from 4 years back (this is enough research for one night) was under $2000 for a family with a $400 excess.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2005/feb/19/insurance.jobsandmoney
"Cost? Market leader BUPA quotes £1,662 for its most comprehensive plan - £1,285 if the family pays the first £250 of any claim. Other, less well-featured, policies can bring the cost below £1,000."
How much would that cover cost in the US?
@ Peter Wolf
And if you're not jealous of us, then for God's sake why did you let McDonalds and Disney come across the pond? What were you thinking? LOL
@gatordad
good question, all I can say is that we may not be jealous of america but some people do love crap burgers and stolen ideas....*
*I must admit I've eaten a maccy d's or two in my time and watched a fair few disney films. Cest la vie.
Of all the possible cultural exchanges, you got "Supersize that for you?". Kinda sucks for you guys.
Gatordad said...
I just don't want Europeans wagging their fingers at us. They haven't earned that right.
And just how do the earn that right?
Be specific as to the actions that they must, Must, MUST take to earn that right.
Mike in Maryland
On today's episode of 'Gun nuts and stupidity' masanf proclaims...
"
An absolute idiot wrote:
"I say gun nuts and not pro-gun because they seem to find it perfectly reasonable to leave loopholes that allow mentally unstable and criminal people to have access to guns and other weapons. "
Allow? Oh, wait you're right. It is not a violation of federal law for felons and those with certain mental issues to possess guns. Hold on, yeah it is. Which means you have no point."
Oh wait it is, but oh wait there is no ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM at gun shows to ensure these people can not buy them from private vendors, which is the entire point of this blog post.
But go on son, keep defending the reckless and indefensible.
They would have to become American citizens. They are certainly entitled to their opinions, but being entitled to an opinion doesn't mean that you are entitled to toss it out wherever and whenever you wish, with no thought to the feelings or sensibilities of those around you. That's crass and shows an utter lack of character. And they have come to an American political discussion board. I would be courteous if I were on a British board, and comparing Americans debating gun control to Ahmadinejad is repugnant and shows absolutely no courtesy or respect.
Gatordad said...
@ Peter Wolf
And if you're not jealous of us, then for God's sake why did you let McDonalds and Disney come across the pond? What were you thinking? LOL
~~~~~~~~~~
They were probably thinkin' since foreign car makers have taken over domination of America's automobile industry ie Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Hyundai, etc. and American car makers had to be bailed out or go belly-up ... that it was the least they could do was drink some Coca-Cola and eat some burgers to help America's economy out, eh.
just sayin'
As GM goes, so goes the nation ...
p.s. went to Paris 1978 and ate at McDonald's :) there were (3) McDonald's in Paris at that time, I digress.
Also ate at a Baskin-Robbins and Long John Silver's in Singapore, 1985 ...
@Gatordad
"They would have to become American citizens. They are certainly entitled to their opinions, but being entitled to an opinion doesn't mean that you are entitled to toss it out wherever and whenever you wish, with no thought to the feelings or sensibilities of those around you."
Comes with free speech sometimes, although people are completely within their right of free speech to bash others for crassness or rudeness...but it comes with the territory.
I swear some of us Americans are too thin skinned when it comes to others criticizing our country...even when they have a point. Probably has something to do with us buying our own hype that we are exceptional and can do no wrong, plus the fact that people naturally get defensive over this stuff, especially in nationalistic countries like ours, but I digress.
Sorry butting out now...
Gatordad…
WTF are you talking about?
This was my comment to you, after you argued that possession of guns needed some dispensation based on “tradition”—
Gatordad…
Oxen played an even larger role in the first 150 years of this country’s existence. Do you advocate abolishing all laws which regulate where and how oxen can be kept? Would you think it OK, since it conforms to such illustrious tradition, for the folks next door to keep them?
“Tradition” is the flimsiest argument that can used for keeping anachronisms on the law books. The longest, most enduring tradition from America’s past was slavery.
So—where do you find “name-calling” in there? Or did you identify with the “ignorant blowhard” remark, which was meant to describe the Mule? If so then perhaps a thinner skin might come in handy for you. You wouldn’t be finding yourself in the insults scattered around the board. As W.C. Fields said,
“It ain’t what they call you, it’s what you answer to.”
Pragmatus I never argued anywhere that guns needed any dispensation. You need to reread what I posted. or maybe what Dwight and I talked about subsuquently. I was talking about the pathology, the mindset of rural gun owners. And you were spraying invective around, so it was difficult to tell who it was aimed at. If it wasn't aimed at me then I certainly accept your heartfelt apology for the misunderstanding.
Gatordad…
OK, I apologize that you think any derogatory comment here must refer to you.
“It ain’t what they call you, it’s what you answer to.”
“They must be jealous” is the fallback logic of every ignorant blowhard who can’t figure out why people can’t stand him.
That was actually your comment, so forgive me if it seemed to be directed at me, but my string was the one that started the jealousy thing. Seemed at the time to be pretty evident who it was aimed at. And if you want to sleep with an ox, it's ok with me. I won't judge.
Gatordad…
“It ain’t what they call you, it’s what you answer to.”
Maybe bigger typeface AND bold And italics. Keep trying there little fellow.
Or ma'am. Kinda hard to tell.
Just to set some erroneous statements made here in a different light these are political essays on the subject of anti Americanism in Europe and are written by European scholars. Argue with them if you wish
Vinocur describes two recent books on French views of America written by Jean-Francois Revel and Philippe Roger. The French resentment goes back a long way:
Scholars of the French Enlightenment considered American plant and animal life degenerate, inferior to that in Europe. Children born in the New World were incapable of prolonged thought. Venereal disease had its home there. At the same time as the creation of the United States, and while a part of fashionable Paris was titillated by the Yankee insurgents, Roger writes, by 1778 in France a "a globally negative image of America was anchored in the literate public."
That French disdain for the US translates into real world consequences - at least if you consider events in the UN Security Council as consequential:
UNITED NATIONS, New York The impasse between the United States and France over military action in Iraq has deepened in recent days after an effort to reach a compromise stalled, with the French insisting that the Americans must come back to the UN Security Council before they can use force, according to diplomats.
http://www.parapundit.com/archives/000355.html
Frenchman Jean-Francois Revel has written another essay on European anti-Americanism.
The real cause of September 11 unquestionably lies in the resentment against the United States, which grew apace after the collapse of the USSR, and America's emergence as the "sole global superpower." This resentment is particularly marked in the Islamic lands, where the existence of Israel, which is blamed on America, is an important motivator. But the resentment is also more quietly present over the entire planet. In some European capitals, the sense of grievance has been raised to the status of an idée fixe, virtually the guiding principle of foreign policy. Thus the U.S. is charged with all the evils, real or imagined, that afflict humanity, from the falling price of beef in France to AIDS in Africa and global warming everywhere. The result is a widespread refusal to accept responsibility for one's own actions.
As for the American "hyperpower" that causes Europeans so many sleepless nights, they should look to their own history and ask how far they themselves are responsible for that predominance. For it was they who made the twentieth century into the grimmest in history. It was they who brought about the two apocalypses of the World Wars and invented the two most absurd and criminal political regimes ever inflicted on the human race. If Western Europe in 1945 and Eastern Europe in 1990 were ruined, whose fault was it? American "unilateralism" is the consequence--not the cause--of the diminished power of the other nations. Yet it has become habitual to turn the situation around and constantly indict the United States. Is it surprising when such an atmosphere of accumulated hate ends in pushing fanatics to compensate for their failures by engaging in carnage?
On Globalization And The Psychological Visibility Of America
In the comments section of a post on Winds of Change.NET's Hushoor's Korea Briefing Robert Koehler of the Marmot's Hole blog makes an interesting set of observations about the Korean people and anti-Americanism.
Even among "pro-American" Koreans, the depth to which these feelings exhibit themselves can be truly astonishing; when Koreans discuss among themselves the (perceived) need for the US military in South Korea, little is ever mentioned of the historic ties between the two countries, or the common interests between Seoul and Washington. Rather, the arguments run something like this - Korea is a small, weak country, and it has no choice but to rely on the US. If the USFK leaves, then foreign investors will run away and our economy will be destroyed. If the US leaves, then Japan will re-arm, and we'll once again be a "shrimp between two whales." Poor, helpless Korea! Of course, the reality is much different - South Korea possesses the world's 13th largest economy, one of the world's largest (and toughest!) militaries, and is a major foreign investor abroad. Still, the feelings are there, buttressed by an education system that indoctrinates "victimization" from a very early age.
It should be pointed out, however, that in the Korean context, there are very few "Marxists," per say. "Progressive" Korean students simply use the language of Marxism to cover an intellectual system that, at its base, is really quite reactionary and disturbingly similar to the racial theories expoused by Japanese militarists during the 1930s. Despite recourse to such terms as imperialism and the "masses," the Korean "Left"'s beef with capitalism, globalization, and the US has nothing to do with its concern for the international working class, and everything to do with globalization's "assault" on Korea's (supposedly uniquely unique) cultural identity. The work "minjok," which most closely corresponds to the German word "volk," is one of the most oft-used in Korean radical student discourse (and in North Korea, as well). It's used all the time; in fact, one almost never hears referrences made to "class struggle." "Struggle," when the term is used, is almost always used in a racial context. The Japanese have the same work - minjoku - except that in the Japanese context, the word carries strong connotations of the 1930s, and only re-entered common use in Japan after Nakasone's prime ministership in the 1980s (the term was actually banned by American occupational authorities).
I think there is an important idea here that relates to the effect that globalization is having. As more influences come into each culture from other cultures lots of people around the world feel, to varying degrees, like their culture is being attacked by outside influences. Local racial and ethnic prejudices still have a force and legitimacy in other parts of the world that most Americans would find astonishing given current American attitudes about such matters. Therefore there is a tendency to miss just how much these prejudices motivate the complaints that come from various cultures.
I got more, lots more. What ya' got? Cuz I had several people tell me I was wrong about this, so now what ya' got?
Gatordad?
Did you buy Freedom Fries a few years ago?
Freedom Toast?
Did you throw all your French wine down the drain (oh - never mind, you're so 'America First', you only buy domestic wine, don't you?)?
I can find a lot of quotes from Americans defending Adolf Hitler (Henry Ford, Charles A. Lindbergh), so stuff your anti-American quotes by Europeans, Koreans and others where the sun don't shine.
After all, if you have to be an American to comment about America, didn't you just violate your own 'rule'?
Ah, the hallmark of a Conservatard - inconsistency.
Mike in Maryland
I'm a European living in the US, and I do find a touch crazy that if I wanted to kill myself say by, heaven forfend, eating unpasteurized imported cheese or driving faster than 60 mph on the freeway, I would find it very, very difficult. However, if I wanted to kill myself and most of my neighbours using a semi-automatic weapon, it appears that it would be piss easy to do so.
Don't drink wine but i do like Stella Artois. And Patron. Those aren't quotes they are treatise and a blog from Korea. Here's one from th liberal bible, the NYT :
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/opinion/03miller.html
and another
http://powellhistory.wordpress.com/2008/02/25/europism-collectivisms-failure-and-the-resentment-of-america-part-1/
Europism: Collectivism’s Failure and the Resentment of America (Part 1)
February 25, 2008 by Scott Powell
so you say "I can find lots of quotes" and yet you fail to provide even one. While I on the other hand, have cited numerous independent sources. And you've cited... you. Wya to win a debate moron.
Gettin' tired. Meant to say ... way to win a debate moron.
Gatordad said...
Those aren't quotes they are treatise and a blog from Korea.
Those are not quotes?
Do you even know what a quote is?
Maybe an additional signpost of a Conservatard should be added:
Stupidity.
Mike in Maryland
And Mike in Maryland I think the White House had some excellent advice for you the other day... take off the jammies and come up out of the basement. But for the love of God put something on between steps 1 & 2.
Again with the name calling and absolutely no facts at your disposal. I'll say to you what I would say to any obnoxious 6 year old..."That's nice, now run along and play with your little friends. the adults are talking". Moron.
Hey MiM still not seein' those quotes refuting my numerous independent pieces of documentation supporting my exact position and rebutting everyone who said I was wrong. Hey Mike here's a challenge for you-
who said 'I will not bow to the tyranny of the small minded or the petty!' Check back tomorrow and see if you win the prize.
Whats this? Yet another thread where the multi-account trolls blow their load by misdirecting the topic, changing the subject, devolving into character-bashing generalities, lambasting Europeans, and even throwing poorly-feigned 'Love It Or LEAVE It' temper-tantrums? And yet, like yesterday and the hundreds before (and to come)...the suckers just keep taking the bait from the twisted, under-the-bridge deviants. One can hear it now: "Feed me 538...FEED ME!!!!"
On this subject, I find it extremely interesting that the party of LAW AND ORDER! LOCK 'EM UP, DANNO is all for certain individuals slapping the law in the face, and telling those who call those law-breakers out to either "Love America or leave it".
Oh well, Conservatards are notorious for not being consistent, nor having logic to back up their screams that they imagine to be arguments.
Mike in Maryland
Actually, if you want to get technical, the 2nd amendment says nothing about the right to obtain guns, only the right to keep them and bear once they are obtained.
Seems to me the government can make it as difficult as it likes to buy a gun; if you want to shoot your friend in the face once you get your gun, that's your business.
@emonokari
yeh, you're right about the trolls.
still think this whole topic is nuts
@Gatordad
I didn't see anything about jealousy there. ;) But again, look at the time this was written. It's an excuse for an disagreement.
P.S. The French disdain everyone. Welcome to the club. ;)
Typical. I made a statement yesterday and was castigated for it. I prove my assertion correct and all you pussies can do is call names. No facts to refute me. Just name calling and whining about off topic. I notice the discussion wasn't "off topic" until you were proven to be idiots.
What I see is a bunch of people who were proven to be wrong. People who like to spout opinions as if they were facts and then get their panties in a knot when they're shown to be fools. Instead of calling me names, why don't you have the intellectual integrity to admit you were WRONG? Or do a modicum of research and find anything that even resembles a fact. Ah, but then you couldn't spew your stupidity around like it was the gospel.
@ dwight
Substitute envy for jealousy.
No Gatordad, you have not proved any deep-seated Europe-wide loathing of all that is American. Step down off your high horse.
That said, your articles on historical dismissal of the New World and S Korean nativism were certainly interesting. Every "national psyche" has its pathologies, so to speak, including both the US and the nations of western Europe.
While I would not deny that there is anger toward the US in the world community (some deserved and some undeserved), to say that all outside criticism of the US stems from "jealousy." It's an interesting theory, but not one that can really be proved in any real way. Much like the idea that many in the Muslim world oppose US intervention there because "they hate our freedoms."
And when this vague notion is directed at views of guns specifically, it just seems absurd. Perhaps people in other nations oppose our gun laws not out of jealousy but because theirs work better. Perhaps American progressives oppose our gun laws not out of some deep-seated desire for self-immolation but because we are tired of seeing people murdered by guns.
Gatordad said...
@ dwight
Substitute envy for jealousy.
That still brings it to a grand total of zero. :)
sorry meant to say:
To say that all outside criticism of the US stems from "jealousy" seems like a way of dodging the nature of any criticism, whether such criticism is meritorious or fallacious.
Come on Gatordad. Do you really think that the editorials that you posted 'proved' anything? What you’ve offered is a very round about version of G-Dub’s gem “they hate us for our freedoms.” The problem with that argument is that it ignores the plethora of real reasons for people to hate us and more importantly, stops us from truly examining our role as a global citizen and making policies that respect other nations.
Surely there are people who hate how smug Americans are and surely there are people who are jealous of our money and power. But there are also a lot of people bothered by how we dump our grain on other countries and destroy the value of their crops to help our farmers; there are people that are upset by how much we talk about peace compared to how much we spend on bombs; people that hate the way we meddle with foreign governments and provide weapons and training for insurgent groups when it suits our political and economic purposes.
The United States is an amazing country that has a done a lot of great things and has been home to amazing people and ideas. But we’ve done some pretty heinous things too and pretending like there are no legitimate criticisms of our policy and actions is childish and unpatriotic.
Of course, your position is the core of gun debate, so it’s not really off topic. I don’t like hunting, I think it’s weird. However, if you think it’s part of your culture and a valuable part of society, I’m at least willing to listen. But their needs to be reciprocation. You need to listen to the people that are saying that guns are tearing apart their neighborhoods and their tired of it. Sure the constitution has some protection for the right to bear arms, but it doesn’t mean that you have to exercise it. And if not exercising that right can help save some lives and make your fellow citizens feel safe, maybe that’s worth considering.
Morning Jacob
I never said all criticism of America was pathological. What I said was that Europeans resent our power and it tarnishes their thinking. And that this antiAmericanism is endemic to most countries. And then I provided numerous supporting documents. And I can give you a hundred more. And I've seen not one piece of contradictory eveidence. And even you are still arguing against my point and yet have no, none, zero supporting info. So I'll say again... I am right, those who disagreed are wrong. If not, then quit spouting OPINIONS and show me refutation. Oh yeah, you can't.
So I guess no matter how much supporting documentation I provide, no matter how miserably you fail to provide even one piece of refutation, I'm wrong and you're right. Really. You guys are intellectually bankrupt.
@dwight- ya' just hate it when I'm right. oh well, get used to it LOL
@ david
Again, this was my first post yesterday on this subject... I was responding to Jacob and no one seems to notice, I'm not against gun regulation
@ Jacob
Hey Jacob, I gotta go with you on this. This is a no-brainer.
I am a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment. However, I don't think the framers intended unlimited rights to own weaponry. We limit access to all sorts of potentially dangerous harmful products. Alcohol dealers are regulated. Tobacco dealers are regulated. The Constitution is a living document and must be interpreted based on the realities of a changing world. When the 2nd amendment was passed, the framers were not thinking about weapons that could fire 1000 rounds per minute and fit in your pocket. They were thinking about long guns and the citizenries ability to defend it self against an armed political or military insurrection.
G'morning Gatordad,
Again this argument stemmed from your assertion that Europeans criticized American gun laws out of jealousy. Most of the refutation here (and certainly mine) has been aimed at countering that ridiculous assertion.
Actually I agree that there is some anti-American attitude throughout the world, but it's not so much of the "hate our freedoms" variety as the "admonish the superpower" sort. Like it or not, most (though certainly not all) criticism of America that you hear from non-extremists relates to actual harms with which America has played a pivotal role, whether or not we are totally to blame (see David's post above). Is that fair? Maybe, maybe not. But it's certainly the price of being the superpower.
The charge was never about whether there is resentment of the US or opposition to its policies worldwide. Of course there is. But that doesn't make the criticism of gun nuts any less genuine.
Let's stick to the point, okay?
Jacob you misconstrued my point. I didn't say their opinions on gun laws were derived from jealousy. My point was that (and Dwight this is for you too) Europe = systemic resentment arising from envy or jealousy of our postion and power. Given that it's systemic, the opinions of Europeans on all things American is skewed. Ergo Eurpoean opinions are automatically assumed to be biased (see systemic pervasiveness of ant-Americanism) and therfore their opinions are without merit. Plus I don't appreciate some limey bastard comparing us with ImaDinnerJacket.
Gatordad said...
@dwight- ya' just hate it when I'm right. oh well, get used to it LOL
No, actually I hate it when people that should know better get illogical stuff stuck in their head that creates a negative cycle like the one you are perpetuating. :/
And Jacob, I didn't get off point until my position on Europeans not having a say in our gun debate was trashed. I then decided to show the supporting docs for THAT position and now that I have shown my detractors to be completely innaccurate and wrong, I hear 'stay on topic'. Where was that call when I was being trashed by fools yesterday?
Gatordad,
I understand your position on guns… what I’m trying to point out is the parallel between your position on criticism of the US and the position that people take in the gun debate. The way that you refuse to admit that there are a multitude of legitimate reasons for people to criticize the US and instead pretend that they are all just jealous of us is the exact same attitude that pro-gun advocates take: they ignore that there are a multitude of legitimate reasons for limiting access to guns and claim that anybody that criticizes gun rights is jealous and doesn’t understand or care about their culture. Not only are those arguments foolish, they also prevent real change from taking place that could be really beneficial to both parties.
I get that you’re upset that someone would compare anything American to Ahmadinejad, but if you stop and think about it for a second, it makes sense. Ahmadinejad denies that the Holocaust occurred and says so proudly and knows that it plays well with his ‘constituents’. Anybody that can get on the internet knows that he’s full of shit and it would seem weird to be proud of such blatant ignorance. Now imagine that you’re watching TV in Europe and some American politician is talking about how guns make everybody safer and save lives. He talks about how proud his of the many guns that he owns and he knows that it plays well with his constituents. If I lived in a country with strict gun controls and low murder rates, I’d call bullshit. Where in the world have you seen an increase in guns lead t a decrease in violence? It’s blatantly ignorant and we should be ashamed that our politicians get up and say things like that like they make sense… the same way we expect the Iranians to hear Ahmadinejad and be ashamed of his craziness.
And please stop saying that the editorials that you posted are proof of your opinion. They are opinions that support your current belief and as such, carry little weight. No one is providing any counter evidence because you haven’t presented any evidence to counter, only more opinion.
Gatordad,
"Europe = systemic resentment arising from envy or jealousy of our postion and power. Given that it's systemic, the opinions of Europeans on all things American is skewed. Ergo Eurpoean opinions are automatically assumed to be biased (see systemic pervasiveness of ant-Americanism) and therfore their opinions are without merit."
If you want to make that point fine (and it still isn't proven to that extent), but then you can dismiss all opinions from anyone due to cultural pathologies. Every culture without exception has them. You don't think Americans' convictions of our own inerrancy skews our positions?
Really though, I think this whole idea is ferkakdeh. Pointing out and accounting for bias is fine, but automatically dismissing an argument because it comes from someone whose culture has biases? That is beyond disturbing.
I have no problem with reasoned criticism of the US, even by Europeans. But a comparison to that asshole is not reasoned, it's provocative. And if europeans want to have an opinion, the least they can do is acknowledge that the pervasive anti Americanism in europe might, just might have affected their thinking. Intellectual honesty is what I want. And the immediate attacks on my position with no validation is the purview of small minded people. If you want to debate, have a few facts at your disposal. Unfortunately there is a serious dearth of facts and an overabundance of ignorant opinion.
C'mon Jacob, I provide scholarly positions, and an abundance of further info backing my position. Reports, books articles from me. From you "i think this is ferkakdeh". Way to put me in my place.
Jacob said - "Really though, I think this whole idea is ferkakdeh. Pointing out and accounting for bias is fine, but automatically dismissing an argument because it comes from someone whose culture has biases? That is beyond disturbing."
What argument Jacob. The guy didn't post a reasoned opinion. He compared us to Ahmadinejad. And yeah I'll dismiss that sort of ridiculous invective every time. And I don't care whether you chide me for it or not. In fact if you find that comparison to be reasonable, you might want to examine your own point of reference.
@gatordad
I never said all criticism of America was pathological. What I said was that Europeans resent our power and it tarnishes their thinking. And that this antiAmericanism is endemic to most countries. And then I provided numerous supporting documents. And I can give you a hundred more. And I've seen not one piece of contradictory eveidence.
I can give you a piece of contradictory evidence - me, and the people I know. Speaking personally, it isn't envy or jealousy that makes me question your gun laws, education and health systems. In fact, completely the reverse - I think our systems of those are better. Does considering Europe to be better at some things make me "Anti-American". Does considering ANY other country to be better at something than Europe make me "Anti-European"? Or are you just talking nonsense?
David,
There is ample proof of this. It is an observed and verified cultural position and has been demonstrated in study after study. And if you'd like I can certainly post those as well. I assumed that the dissertations, articles and books concerning this known pathology that I referenced would suffice, particularly since no one has posted anything to counter the position. And let's be honest, if any of you had anything that supported you, it would be up just to put me in my place. So why isn't there anything?
Peter Wolf as I said to MiM, I cite numerous studies, you cite...you. Really is there no one on here who understands the difference between documented supporting facts, and personal opinion? And as I said if you want to have a reasoned debate don't start with comparing someone to Ahmadinejad. I know it wasn't you, but that's where this began. And in my world, to use a colloquialism
"Them's fightin' words."
Prag:
Check the Colorado Bar site under my legal name Harold DePalma. I practice under my nickname Bart because that is how everyone but the government knows me.
I do not use the internet for anonymity. I am proud of what I post and want them correctly attributed.
You can click my name here and link back to my blogger profile, which in turn links to my blog Citizen Pamphleteer and to my firm website www.depalamalaw.com. If you even travel to my neck of the woods and get in trouble with the law, give me a call. I will not hold your snide remarks against you.
@gatordad
except that the first person didn't compare anyone to ahmadinejad. Ooops.
"You have absolutely no idea how batshit this looks outside the US. Seriously, like Ahmadinejad levels of crazy."
You said you had not seen one piece of contradictory evidence. I'm a Primary Source in evidence terms.
@ Peter Wolf you're right he didn't attach that to an individual. That might have been reasonable. What he did was attach it to Americans. And that is stupid, narrow-minded and provocative. And you might want to bone up on evidenciary guidelines. Personal opinions from someone not an expert in the field carry no evidenciary value. Opinions and studies from experts in the field, particularly when there is a great preponderence of testimony from said expert sources equates to extremely high evidenciary value. Come up with anything that even remotely smells like a fact and then we'll talk.
You might want to check out sourcing as well. For instance, in historical terms something written by someone at the time and place carries weight, even if they weren't an expert. Now if you, as an american, talk about european beliefs about americans, that opinion carries no weight: but if I talk about it, it carries weight. Because it ISN'T an opinion, it is a personal statement. Seriously, check up this stuff. The reason I'm not bothering to source stuff against your position is because I know you're wrong about it and don't care enough to waste my time proving what I already know is true from my primary source perspective.
And no, he didn't attach it to americans. He attached it to the video.
C'mon Peter admit it. You guys are really pissed off because we got architecture, art, fashion and culture from Europe, and you guys got junk food and theme parks. I'm tired of this argument. Onward and upward.
Hey Peter, I feel bad about the whole cultural exchange inequity, so in the service of improving international relations here is the refutation of my assertions. Won't make up for Pizza Hut, but I do what I can. LMAO
"Anti-Americanism In Europe: An Update"
A Panel Discussion
November 4, 2002
The Nixon Center, Washington DC
Four specialists on transatlantic relations and European issues argued during a Nixon Center seminar that many American commentators have substantially overstated the levels of anti-American sentiment in European nations today. They emphasized that while there is palpable European opposition to American policies, this opposition is much weaker than earlier concerns about US missile deployments in the 1980’s or the Vietnam War. The panel included Rosemary Hollis, Head of Middle East Programs at the Royal Institute for International Affairs, Craig Kennedy, President of the German Marshall Fund, Christopher Makins, President of the Atlantic Counsel of the United States, and Simon Serfaty, Director of European Programs at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The Nixon Center’s Director of Regional Strategic Programs, Geoffrey Kemp, moderated the discussion.
Craig Kennedy began the discussion by stating that while there are strong, critical feelings in Europe about the United States, grouping these sentiments under the general heading of anti-Americanism belies the nuances and complexities that in fact characterize the European perceptions of American policies. Historically, there have been three types of anti-Americanism held by Europeans. The first of these is cultural and manifests itself in the distaste of many Europeans for what they perceive to be the mass-media-influenced, empty culture of America. The second is an economic anti-Americanism which is based on the perception of American dominance of the global economy. The third is political, stemming from the belief that as the world’s sole superpower, America imposes its will and ideology on whomever it pleases.
Again, w/out France's help during the Revolutionary war, there would be no America. Served on the USS Comte de Grasse (DD-974) named after a French Admiral who helped America win the war for independence.
Also, the French gave America the Statue of Liberty and their descendants appear to have a good time during Mardi Gras down in New Orleans, eh as America is and always will be the melting pot. So much for envy/jealousy ...
Whereas some French folk can be standoffish and stubborn and rude and misinformed, much like many of the posters in this thread! ;)
take care
p.s. highly recommend a visit to France for their food, hospitality, historical sites ... oh yea, the topless/nude beaches are the pièce de résistance er crème de la crème! ie mighty fine too, I digress.
Hey shiloh, I know that. I believe the french naval victory at chesapeake was a decisive factor in ending the war. I just like to stir some shit. Plus it's intellectually lazy for people to spout off and then not bother to verify or confirm anything. so I bust chops.
However shiloh, you have to acknowledge that France and by proxy Spain and Portugal didn't come to our defense out of a particular fondness for the colonies, but rather as an extension of the colonialistic rivalry with Great Britian. That coupled with the crushing defeat of the Spanish armada was the true motivation. Just sayin'. ;) God I love politics.
Very true, Gatordad. Though the US also did not invade Iraq out of a great love for its people or go to war with Japan over the plight of the besieged Chinese. Every war of every nation has been out of self interest.
Yeah, politics is too much fun sometimes.
Hey Jacob
You know the scariest thing? We probably don't know the REAL reasons for most of the conflicts we're involved in. Governments are nothing if not obtuse. And I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I'm just saying there are always undercurrents that we (the public) aren't made privy to.
Gatordad said...
God I love politics.
~~~~~~~~~~
Indeed, if this thread is any indication, you do love politics! ;)
Also, the enemy of my enemy is my friend and like myself, you do appear to enjoy being a devil's advocate. Which of course can be fun as there are very few absolutes in life ...
Hey shiloh good job. You get it. These boards end up being circle jerks if everybody has the same perspective. And I won't even argue with name callers. If all you got is "Your a stupid head, poo poo pants" it isn't worth my time. If you can't be informed, at least be clever. BTW, I was referring to the third party you. Not you. Or something.
Tom, Thanks for a wonderful article which provides a slightly different take on the issue. I used it on my blog today.
@Mule:
"Roughly 1 in 15 people living here are doing so illegally."
If you do elementary math the way you read tables, you can't be credible dude.
There are an estimated 12 million illegals in this country and the total population is 370 million inhabitants.
Now, 12/370 = 1/15?
Take a hike, Tyrone!
@gatordad
fair play for giving the rebuttal as well!
@ peter wolf
I just like a robust debate. And as I said I've been to several countries in western Europe and I enjoyed it. My mother, sisters and daghters go to London at least once a year, and usually hit Paris as well. In fact one of my daughters and my son marched (both musicians) in the London New Years parade this past holidays.
he reason we're not worried about 'closing a loophole' is that THERE IS NO SUCH THING.
Please follow closely: under federal law, licensed firearm dealers (i.e. FFL's) are required to run background checks any time they make a sale, whether at a gun show, their place of business, or elsewhere.
Private citizens selling a personally-owned firearm are NOT required to perform a background check when they make a sale, whether at a gun show, at their home, or anywhere else.
Got that? There IS indeed a difference between what licensed dealers and private citizens are required to do, but it has NOTHING to do with gun shows.
And maybe (just maybe) if we scaled back on the unconstitutional crap that's on the ATF's plate, they'd have plenty of budget to carry out their reasonable tasks.
Kirk Parker, Thanks for educating us on what these basic concepts mean.
When I hear someone in the gun debate refer to the "gun show loophole," unless I have some evidence to the contrary, I presume they know what it means.
What guys like you do is keep making believe the people who use that expression, as bad a choice of words as it is, are people who are so ignorant about the subject that they need your simplistic explanation, parts of it capitalized.
You could keep doing that. In this way you prevent the discussion from progressing any further than the very first step. Or you could participate in the debate.
"We need to close the gun show loophole" means we need to have background checks on all transfers, not just those from licensed FFL guys.
"Holding DC aside, the ten states with the lowest per-capital gun death rates all voted for Barack Obama, and seven of the ten high highest voted for John McCain. "
Meanwhile, a number of those blue states have the loosest gun control laws in the country (Vermont and New Hampshire, for instance).
"Europe = systemic resentment arising from envy or jealousy of our postion and power. Given that it's systemic, the opinions of Europeans on all things American is skewed. Ergo Eurpoean opinions are automatically assumed to be biased (see systemic pervasiveness of ant-Americanism) and therfore their opinions are without merit."
Wow, Gatordad, if that's your argument, you've demonstrated so much cultural arrogance that comparisons to Ahmadinejad are completely appropriate. Similar in type and tenor to his statements. So, others may be right that no one, until now, actually compared you to him, but you've certainly gone right out and earned it. Well done!
Oh, yeah, I'm an American. But I suppose because it disgusts me to share citizenship with you, that must make me just another America-hater?
@ my friends, first read all the pertinent posts before you respond.
1. I supported that position with multiple sources
2. I also refuted the position as well
3. If a blog post can make you have such a serious and unwarranted reaction, you aren't that bright or in control, are you?
4. repeat- read all the posts before you respond and you won't come off looking like a dumbass.
@ my friends
To follow up on my earlier post here are the subsequent posts since you are apparently too lazy or intellectually bankrupt to have bothered to read them...
Peter Wolf said...
@gatordad
fair play for giving the rebuttal as well!
Above is the post from the Brit that I had been having the debate with.
shiloh said...
Gatordad said...
God I love politics.
~~~~~~~~~~
Indeed, if this thread is any indication, you do love politics! ;)
Also, the enemy of my enemy is my friend and like myself, you do appear to enjoy being a devil's advocate. Which of course can be fun as there are very few absolutes in life ...
Above is shiloh remarking on the exchange
Gatordad said...
Hey Peter, I feel bad about the whole cultural exchange inequity, so in the service of improving international relations here is the refutation of my assertions. Won't make up for Pizza Hut, but I do what I can. LMAO
and here is the rebuttal to my own position that I posted. Instead of actually following the discussion, you grabbed onto one statement, got your panties in a bunch, and went off like cheap fireworks. Idiot.
"Anti-Americanism In Europe: An Update"
A Panel Discussion
November 4, 2002
The Nixon Center, Washington DC
Four specialists on transatlantic relations and European issues argued during a Nixon Center seminar that many American commentators have substantially overstated the levels of anti-American sentiment in European nations today. They emphasized that while there is palpable European opposition to American policies, this opposition is much weaker than earlier concerns about US missile deployments in the 1980’s or the Vietnam War. The panel included Rosemary Hollis, Head of Middle East Programs at the Royal Institute for International Affairs, Craig Kennedy, President of the German Marshall Fund, Christopher Makins, President of the Atlantic Counsel of the United States, and Simon Serfaty, Director of European Programs at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The Nixon Center’s Director of Regional Strategic Programs, Geoffrey Kemp, moderated the discussion.
Craig Kennedy began the discussion by stating that while there are strong, critical feelings in Europe about the United States, grouping these sentiments under the general heading of anti-Americanism belies the nuances and complexities that in fact characterize the European perceptions of American policies. Historically, there have been three types of anti-Americanism held by Europeans. The first of these is cultural and manifests itself in the distaste of many Europeans for what they perceive to be the mass-media-influenced, empty culture of America. The second is an economic anti-Americanism which is based on the perception of American dominance of the global economy. The third is political, stemming from the belief that as the world’s sole superpower, America imposes its will and ideology on whomever it pleases.
@my friends
since I've been on a quote run, here's one that is particularly apropos to you now...
Abraham Lincoln (attributed):
'Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.
Gatordad,
Read every single comment, my little American Ahmadinejad. Creationists, eugenics supporters and Holocaust deniers can also find articles to support their ignorant rants, "authorities" to cite, "science" to prove their point.
"I just like to stir some shit." And that excuses your morally reprehensible posts, and then allows you to claim to have also refuted them?
The pride with which you assert your ignorance is probably my least favorite, and one of the most common, of American attributes. Carry on, little American Ahmadinejad.
@My friends,
Ironic how you are berating me for painting European attitudes with a broad brush, and yet you see nothing wrong with doing that to America and Americans...
'The pride with which you assert your ignorance is probably my least favorite, and one of the most common, of American attributes. Carry on, little American Ahmadinejad.'
Can you say hypocritical irony.
And I find it interesting that the European that I was debating with wasn't offended, didn't resort to name calling, and gave me props for being fair, and yet you find this so offensive. Odd.
Lastly, for you to take one position I took in one string and presume to believe that you know who I am, what my postions are, is the ultimate in arrogance. And obviously anyone who doesn't fall in lockstep with you is contemptible. Do you even realize how narrow minded that is. So feel free to continue calling me names rather than presenting arguments. And really, lighten the fuck up.
"My point was that.. Europe = systemic resentment arising from envy or jealousy of our postion and power. Given that it's systemic, the opinions of Europeans on all things American is skewed. Ergo Eurpoean opinions are automatically assumed to be biased (see systemic pervasiveness of ant-Americanism) and therfore their opinions are without merit."
That was your "point," was it not? Care to explicitly renounce? To at least distance yourself a bit from those words?
As a start, you might note, for instance, that I refer to common American attributes, but never suggest that all Americans have these attributes, nor that all Americans are ignorant, nor that all Americans display massive cultural arrogance. No, I am talking about you, and express some sadness that you are unfortunately not alone in these attributes. You might note I avoid all-encompassing sentiments, I don't handwave away the opinions of every single resident of a continent as being "without merit," Again, that was you, I believe. Oh, wait, wait, let me check... yeah, still you.
So, reconsider those words and I'll reconsider you. Until then, I know all I need to know about you, my little American Ahmadinejad.
@ my friends
You did exactly what you chastised me for, and now you try to back away from that. And I notice a much more civil tone and no name calling. If you were so sure of your moral highground, why did you resort to the weapons of the small minded in the first place? I don't need to recant as I have already made plain in subsequent postings that I like Europe. I also, as I have aleardy pointed out, found and posted a rebuttal to my earlier position. The only rebuttal from an independent source. You say you read all the posts. Does that include the one wherein I acknowledged our cultural elements taken from Europe. Lastly, I don't give a shit what you think of me. You can withhold judgemnet until you have more to go on. Or you can be narrowminded and arrogant and base your opinion on your own biases. Your choice.
Not backing away from a single word I've posted in this thread. Words do matter. And I base my opinion entirely on your words, your "point, " and your seeming lack of mortification or sheer embarrassment for having posted them. Au revoir, my little AA.
So we're clear. Your opinion has as much validity and worth as the teaspoonful of shit between your ears that pass for brains. And really, are you so insipid and dull that you can only repeat the same insult ad nauseum. It's like you've got tourettes. American Ahma, American Ahma, over and over again. Really, that's the best you can do. Pathetic.
The whole per capita thing is pretty misleading. If you look at homicide rates by the state you'd find that California has a slightly higher murder rate than Texas, despite Texas having roughly the same population and looser gun laws. Let me make this clear, I believe the 2nd amendment protects individual possession of a firearm within certain parameters (lack of a criminal record, that the gun isn't an RPG, age, etc.), I also believe loopholes like this should be closed even though they are quite legal.
I'm a democratic pinko-commie-fag, and using basic logic like you claim to do I can tell you that gun prohibition isn't the answer to violence. Poverty aid and actually tracking down illegal gun sales(as a lot of felons seem to be able to get them despite laws prohibiting it) are what will crack down on crime.
The Second Amendment wasn't designed for Americans to have a right to "hunt" or be "sportsmen." It was specifically debated by our Founding Fathers. There is ZERO ambiguity about the purpose. The Second Amendment was drafted so that the government could not impose itself on American citizens. This means that the American populace was intended to be sufficiently armed as to protect its collective self from the tyranny of an invasive government - yes, even our own. George Mason, Alexander Hamilton, Samuel Adams, James Madison, Noah Webster, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry all declared that it was imperative that citizens own and keep weapons to protect our collective selves from tyranny (not just our families from criminals - - that didn't even require comment!)
@Bart -
Sorry to jump in so late. "Militia" was always intended to mean the citizenry. The debate and ratification of the 2nd Amendment clearly showed the Founders' intent.
Alexander Hamilton - "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -- The Federalist Papers at 184-188
George Mason - I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." — in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Tenche Coxe - "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American." --The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
That's all well and good, Steve, but in the modern world owning a few guns won't protect anyone from the tyranny of a government that has weapons of mass destruction. So unless you're arguing that everyone should be able to possess nuclear warheads, you should admit that you favor at least some commonsense restrictions on arms.
Arguments that illegal immigration is oh-so-dangerous often appeal to the emotions by citing one or two horrifying examples of crime, then noting that the perpetrators were illegal immigrants, and so therefore, of course, illegal immigration is a menace and must be stopped! Never mind I can think of dozens or maybe hundreds of equally shocking cases (Phillip Garrido anyone? How about Drew Peterson? Casey Anthony?) involving perps born and raised in the US. What really matters is the numbers: which category has proportionally MORE crimes. So let's have a look at the numbers (courtesy of Mule):
CRIMES (actual arrests) Number In USA by illegal aliens
Total 14,094,186 704,709
Murder & non-negligent manslaughter 14,062 703
Forcible rape 25,528 1,276
Offenses against family & children 129,128 6,456
The last column is the estimated criminal collateral damage being inflicted by illegal aliens for 2005 as a straight proportional percentage basis of the population. Similar collateral damage would have been inflicted in 2006 and you can expect about as much in 2007.
Using a simple cost-benefit analysis, is this much crime acceptable to save ten cents on a head of lettuce?
You probably wouldn't think so if you were one of the 704,709 victims.
Since nobody else seems to want to debunk Mule's use of statistics, I'll take a stab. It is often claimed (as it was in the link Mule posted, containing the above chart, in a more readable format) that illegal immigrants are disproportionately criminal. Yet in each of the categories above, illegal immigrants commit about 5% (or 1 in 20) of the crimes, if as Mule asserts, "1 in 15 people living here are doing so illegally" then we ought to expect them to commit at least 1/15 = 6.67% of all crime. Since they are committing LESS than that, according to the statistics Mule himself cites, we are actually proportionally SAFER the more illegal immigrants we let in. I think it's worth it to have BOTH cheaper lettuce AND a lower violent crime rate.
Post a Comment