Posted on 03/14/2003 5:35:36 PM PST by Pitchfork
In the March 11 New York Times, Neil MacFarquhar notes in passing, "Most Iraqi households own at least one gun." This comes as a shock to those of us who've been hearing for years from the gun lobby that widespread firearms ownership is necessary to prevent the United States from becoming a police state. Here, via the National Rifle Association's Web site, is Bill Pryor, attorney general of Alabama, decrying the "war on guns": "In a republic that promotes a free society, as opposed to a police state, one of the basic organizing principles is that individuals have a right of self-defense and a right to acquire the means for that defense." The basic Jeffersonian idea is that you never know when you'll need to organize a militia against your government. In director John Milius' camp Cold War classic Red Dawn, Russians and Nicaraguan commies take over the United States in part by throwing gun owners in jail. In one memorable scene, the camera pans from a bumper sticker that says "You'll Take My Gun Away When You Pry It From My Cold, Dead Fingers" to a Russian soldier prying a gun from the car owner's … you get the idea.
The obvious question raised by MacFarquhar's piece is how Iraq got to be, and remains, one of the world's most repressive police states when just about everyone is packing heat. Chatterbox invites gun advocates (and Iraq experts) to e-mail (to chatterbox@slate.com) plausible reasons. The best of these will be examined in a follow-up item.
Please post your sources...links...etc.
So, you recommend the disarming of law-abiding Americans to stop drunken fights and domestic violence. Okey-dokey.
Pray tell me has Michgan closed its borders? Does it search cars for imported guns? Selecting a single state or municipality and predicating an argument on its failure ignores the fact that guns are transportable. What might fail at a state level could work on a national one. (a testable and falsifiable proposition)
So, you propose closing all of our national borders? Won't get too many arguments here on that one, but not for the same reasons. You also want to search all cars nationally looking for firearms. Sounds like a fascist police state to me.
The argument has been made that the reason Britain democratized in the 1800's while Germany didn't is that Britain was a naval power with a small standing army. Germany a land power has a big army that was used to suppress the masses. Costa Rica a bastion of constitutional government in Central America may have achieved it success by getting rid of its standing army.
So, are you positing that we should rid ourselves of our army?...and stay armed personally?
I think you are very confused.
Roger that.
In the US, there is a ABSURDLY high correlation between the restrictions placed on gun ownership, and the crime rate. The most dangerous places in the US are the MOST RESTRICTIVE in terms of gun ownership. This correlation is dismissed by the left as a result of "easy availability of guns" ELSEWHERE.
Complete BS. The correlation is high because the criminal KNOWS his victims are less likely to be armed. The criminal is UNCONCERNED about gun laws, which add little to the already stiff penalties for assault, robbery, homocide..pick your transgression.
Criminals seek disarmed victims and avoid high risk, armed populations. A brief review of violent crime stats in states where CCW is allowed will confirm this trend.
More Guns - Less Crime.
I'm also familiar with Andrew Herz on the anti-side, and with Don Kates, Dave Kopel, and Joyce Malcolm among many others on the pro. Kates and Kopel are the once I've read most often.
Miss Cleo would be hard pressed to explain this I think.
Ok. You're a communist.
I've known guys who've just decided to buy a gun and never really fully familiarize themselves with it let alone guns in general. If you haven't grown up with guns it can be kind of hard to know where to turn for information.
But not the reverse.
He says original 2A intent is merely "interpretational", and I have called him on it.
We can post the founding fathers in clear language all night on their intent regarding the 2A and the RKBA, he can't post ANYBODY against it from early America, because there was NO ONE against it.
He's just a lying cur, and now that he has outed himself as a liar, he won't be in a hurry to come back and get another whuppin'.
And you are generally quite successful! ;-)
But my point stands; you are a liberal lawyer...and one who in your first post was completely wrong.
There is no possible way that the Second Amendment can be misconstrued without twisting simple words and clear history out of all recognition.
Regards back.
Dr. Lott's work has stood up to some TOUGH scrutiny. The gun banners, however, in case after case have lied or twisted data to suit their position. I am left to conclude that if Lott is incorrect, it is by mistake, and THEN only by a few percentage points. The antis, however, by resorting to DELIBERATE, CONTINUOUS, and KNOWN distortions, lies, and "spin", have utterly demolished any credibility they might have had.
"Unfortunatley the NRA has been one of the biggest impediments to the collection by government of accurate firearms ownership data that could be used to test these hypothese!"
Ahh, what would a civilian disarmament debate be without the mandatory slam of the EEEVVVIL "gun lobby NRA". However, let us be clear...the "collection of data" you speak of is, in fact, registration. The NRA better damn sure oppose it! As I've pointed out, it leads to confiscation, and from there, to bloodbaths as the now-helpless sheep are slaughtered.
"We would never be able to stop determined criminals (gangs, the mob etc.) from owning guns."
Glad you agree. That's why we need to be able to defend ourselves!
"However, most gun deaths are not a result of the activities of organized or habitual criminals."
It doesn't matter whether they are organized or not...a Bad Guy is a Bad Guy, and it scarcely matters if he is or is not a gang member when he is attacking YOU.
"Most gun murders are first time offenses (drunken fights, domestic violence etc.)"
Okay, then put the perps away, or better yet, kill them. But do NOT use some drunken trailer-dwelling fool or inner-city crackhead as an excuse to harm or remove the rights and property of millions of honest, law-abiding citizens.
There are some publications which have engaged in Libel. Should we then register, ban, and confiscate all newspapers? Should all public gatherings be subject to government control, simply because some turn into riots? Should licenses be required for public oratory, based upon the fact that some speakers have incited violence against some groups? Where does this stop?
Dang! beat me too it!
Yeah...again....one of those fundamental human principles of intelligence recognition and care for accuracy and truth in one's statements...caring enough to be truthful in your statements and present them with correct spelling.
I can see it now...Pitch is in class teaching her 1st graders about 'American Government'....as she gets to the part about where the White House is exactly located in the state of Ohio on the globe....she ax's one of her pupils to...."hold mu beer and watch this!"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.