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.
Not quite right. Miller and Layton weren't plaintiffs; they were defendants accused of "firearm" possession. Their indictment was quashed in a lower court; although the government tried to reinstate the indictment in courts up the line, Miller and Layton were under no obligation to appear in such hearings, nor were they entitled to any free representation, because they weren't under indictment.
When the government won its case at the Supreme Court, the only thing it won was the right to present a case in a lower court that short-barreled shotguns had no military usefulness; Miller/Layton would then be free to present a counter-argument that the weapons were militarily useful (and had even been issued to U.S. troops in wartime). Since the Supreme Court held that the issue of military usefulness was relevant to the case, the trial judge or jury would have been instructed that a finding of military usefulness would be grounds for acquittal.
Although Miller was dead when U.S. v. Miller was decided, Jack Layton was still very much alive. For some strange reason, though (gee, wonder why) the government decided to offer him a plea-bargain for time served. Given that GCA'68 hadn't passed yet, he had no reason not to accept the plea bargain, which for all practical purposes simply meant the government dropped its case.
Can anyone identify any other case where the government "won" at the Supreme Court and responded by offering a plea-bargain for time served? Some victory.
My mistake...I believe that the stats on the deterrence and prevention of crime by the lawful use of firearms comes from Dr. Gary Kleck. You are indeed correct about the nature of Lott's work.
You cannot then deny where it leads...and it is NOT to gun confiscation, which registration would bring.
"I am not opposed to the ownership of guns by registered and trained citizens."
Of course not. Such records make your wishes of confiscation that much easier, should some official or other decide to do it. It also makes it much easier for such officials to determine what kind, how many , and what the operating system of such guns will be, should they wish.
"Odd how no one balks at the government maintaining finger prints and other data on CCP holders! Why don't we do this for all gun owners?"
Actually, most of us hate the extra paperwork, expense, and loss of privacy that it requires. Like many laws restricting our rights, however, we simply swallow them as necessary steps to get where we need to be. Trust me, if not for the bleatings of the willing sheep and irrationally terrified gungrabbers out there, those laws would be a damn sight different. See Vermont state laws, for an example.
Yes, that is the only reason I engage in discussions such as this when I know that no matter what one says, the other will maintain their undefendable argument. But then when you get done it is so rewarding! Like beating yourself on the head with a hammer cuz it feels so good when you stop! :)
OK. Now I r going...I see 'it' won't take up my challenge, so my curiosity over the nature of any response is being outweighed by boredom. See you EV.
Not once has the debate in American history even bothered to lower itself to consider societal concerns with crime. Gun ownership has never had anything to do with it, and to even begin to debate the point debases the wisdom, sacrifice, history, and glorious security that the 2nd Amendment has helped America achieve.
The obvious answer is no. An armed citizenry cannot a sufficient condition, by itself. The perpetuation of democracy also rquires several other elements. These include the right to free speech, the right to dominon over private property, the right to peaceably assemble.
All of these items, and others, must work together to perpetuate democracy. Thus, the example of Iraq, is a red herring, because the other rights are not protected and insured. The Constitution is not a collection of after-though amendments but a cohesive document with the varoius parts inter-relating to help insure on another. As Americans we must be vigilant to protect all of these rights, including our right to keep and bear arms.
Additionaly, you have made several reference to the Supreme Court in support of your position. Since judges are human and subject to the same frailities as othe humans it is not expected that they will be perfect. With that in mind let me point out two things:
1. It has long been accepted that when interpreting a legal document that the court should not stretch to give a tortured meaning to the document when a more simple and direct interpretation exists within the plain meaning of the words of the document. The second amendment provided pretty much a direct assertion that the individual has the right to keep and bear arms.
2. Every time the Supreme Court reverses itself on a Constitutional issue, it admits that its prior ruling was essentially unconstitutional. Thus, even though, the court ruling may currently support one side our the other and will be given the effect that the ruling is Constitutional, the ruling still can be at variance with the Constitution.
Tyrants never worry about the costs. They never have to pay them, their subjects do. It is never wise to assume such a benevolence dwells in the mind(s) of a tyrant. History shows that tyrants always go for broke. They are always ruthless. They should never be underestimated and always opposed before it's too late. Appeasing tyrants is a sure course to ruin. They should be made to pay soon after they show their face.
Rightly so, Pitchfork. Inalienable rights are not subject to debates on societal benefits.
If we could prove that it would benefit society to enslave a certain sect of the population, would that be open for debate?
How about killing babies with know defects? That would surely cut down the cost of medical care. That would benefit society. Is that open for debate?
And the first part serves to make clear that it isn't about "hunting or sporting" either.
Yes, but I was curious: do they mean ammunition feeding devices, or do they mean printed periodical publications (which, for that area, probably would all extoll the virtues of Saddam)?
"We' are NOT your students. 'We' do not accept your word on blind faith. 'We' want to SEE your studies, facts, 'proof' that you are correct in what you 'teach'. 'We' want to SEE that you are MORE knowlegeable than our Founding Fathers, than their Constitution.
As an 'educator', you ARE obligated to provide such things.
The latest evidence shows it is not working in Britain.
ROFLMAO!!! You're a government teacher, and you don't know that the colonial farmers were taking on the world's foremost professional army with a determined tyrant (try reading the Declaration of Independence to witness his determination)... FYI, they were successful at securing their liberty, just in case you didn't know.
In 1775, the entire planet (with the sole exception of Switzerland) was ruled by a monach-type of ruler. Because of that single great act of defiance, dozens of nations began ruling themselves within a generation.
Gee, I guess history is "obstinant" as well! LOL!
Your lack of education on the topic is astounding.
Sorry, we are free men and women--Americans--who are not the least bit interested in being test subjects for your 'cost/benefit analysis'.
If you want test cases, study the totalitarian gun-banning regimes who killed a few hundred million human beings in the last century.
That should keep you busy for awhile.
Come on back when you're done, Teach, and give us a report.
It's not terribly common, in part because most crooks who achieve positions in government don't interact too much with the crooks who would break into people's homes, and in part because the places where corruption is worst tend to be places that few people legitimately own firearms anyway. Further, there are enough people who refuse to register their firearms that a home which appears "gun free" may still not be safe.
"Perhaps Hawaii, in its isolation, would serve as an example of how gun restrictions might work in the US since the only way to get there is by plane etc."
See above. Oh, and Hawaii's gun laws are quite restrictive, compared to the rest of the country. Their crime rates are, however, just as high.
" as I've noted the gun lobby doesn't want that to happen. This precluded the kind of cost-benefit debate I'd like to see"
I see you've chosen to ignore my prior post on this very subject, and to simply repeat your "evil gun lobby" talking point, with its companion code words for registration. Very well, then, we have nothing further to discuss.
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.