Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Iraq's Rebuke to the NRA
Slate.com ^ | 03/14/2003 | Timothy Noah

Posted on 03/14/2003 5:35:36 PM PST by Pitchfork

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 341-346 next last
To: LexBaird; Pitchfork
IIRC, the case was remanded back to the lower court, where the plaintiff died before it could be argued.

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.

201 posted on 03/14/2003 8:46:02 PM PST by supercat (TAG--you're it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Pitchfork
"I've read Lott's work."

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.

202 posted on 03/14/2003 8:46:29 PM PST by Long Cut (ORION Naval Aircrewman!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
"There are many lurkers around this joint, and they are learning a tremendous amount if they are fairminded men and women of goodwill."

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.

203 posted on 03/14/2003 8:47:19 PM PST by griffin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: Pitchfork
Why bother with my opinions? Try the Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, 1982 (or won't they be authoritative enough for you? The panel includes Senators Kennedy, Biden, Byrd, Leahy, Specter, Dole, and Hatch) ISBN 1-58160-254-5. They went back to Alfred the Great (872 AD), the Assize of Arms (1181 and 1253), the Statute of Northampton (1328), Henry VII, The Glorious Revolution, American colonial law, the Federalist Papers, the 2nd and 14th Amendments, all four SCOTUS decisions on the 2nd Amendment, Jim Crow laws, the forming the National Guard, and 10 USC sec 311(a). They concluded that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, to be guaranteed by government...

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.

204 posted on 03/14/2003 8:48:11 PM PST by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: Pitchfork
I wonder, if we were to accept the article's findings as true (for the sake of argument) if that would falsify the proposition that an armed citizenry is a necessary or sufficient condition for the perpetuation of democracy.

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.

205 posted on 03/14/2003 8:48:15 PM PST by CharacterCounts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Pitchfork
The constitution spells out a few, but not nearly all, of the rights that the founders took for granted. Unregulated gun ownership is just a common sense right (and responsibility) that the founders would not debate. Only those with an agenda would consider limiting such a right, or ignoring their responsibility to to defend themselves, their property and their families. Your agenda is simple and obvious and has nothing to do with preventing crime.
206 posted on 03/14/2003 8:50:16 PM PST by palmer (receive this important and informative post - FREE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
"They simply have to make it MORE COSTLY to oppress the citizenry and fight them, and they will not do it, whether the cost is money, time, or blood."

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.

207 posted on 03/14/2003 8:50:27 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: Pitchfork
Sadly this has degenerated into a 2nd ammendment debate where, rather than engage an argument about the societal benefits of guns, the pro side simply assert a right to close the debate.

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?

208 posted on 03/14/2003 8:50:33 PM PST by Double Tap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: CharacterCounts
The second amendment provided pretty much a direct assertion that the individual has the right to keep and bear arms.

And the first part serves to make clear that it isn't about "hunting or sporting" either.

209 posted on 03/14/2003 8:51:05 PM PST by supercat (TAG--you're it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: Torie
You raise a good point. The evidence is ambiguous. I can point to countries like Canada where guns are controlled, and violent crimes are rarer and say yes there is evidence. Of course what works for Canada (or Britain or Australia) may not work in America. Conversely some may note that crime is high in areas of the US with restrictive laws. But establishing the direction of causality is problematic and the transportation of guns across state lines (while it may be illegal) won't stop determined individuals from violating the restrictions.
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.
I'd like to collect data and test hypotheses empirically but 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 and favors the beliefs-rights-constitutional rights debate that so many here seem to favor.
210 posted on 03/14/2003 8:52:09 PM PST by Pitchfork
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
True. Trouble is that I'm thinking rationally, and tyrants don't. However, tyrants don't like losing.
211 posted on 03/14/2003 8:53:18 PM PST by Dan from Michigan ("Don't tread on me")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: griffin
Later, my friend.

Keep up the fight.
212 posted on 03/14/2003 8:54:34 PM PST by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA
Oh...magazines too. They just about lined the walls with magazines.
What sort?

Probably not the Playboy sort... .

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)?

213 posted on 03/14/2003 8:55:17 PM PST by supercat (TAG--you're it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Pitchfork
In #161, I asked you to provide sources, links, articles, facts, etc., to support your claims. So far, I have only seen YOUR claims, YOUR beliefs, YOUR 'teaching statements'. You've NOT provided any 'court rulings', any articles, any links, etc.

"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.

214 posted on 03/14/2003 8:56:43 PM PST by mommadooo3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Pitchfork
You need to correct in your little self study for the nature of the population. In the UK, where guns are largely illegal, crime and gun crime has gone way up. The nature of the population there has changed. In North Dakota, that has unrestricted gun ownership, crime is very low. German farmers tend to have low crime rates. Washington DC has strict gun laws also by the way. Dope is also illegal generally. Odd that those that want it can still obtain it. The dirty little secret is that laws are often disobeyed, and laws restricting possession of personal property seem particularly difficult to enforce.
215 posted on 03/14/2003 8:57:37 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: Pitchfork
Of course what works for Canada (or Britain or Australia)

The latest evidence shows it is not working in Britain.

216 posted on 03/14/2003 8:58:57 PM PST by palmer (receive this important and informative post - FREE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: Pitchfork
Well, I hoped to have a debate regading the veracity--in light of evidence--that an armed citizenry could protect its liberty from a determined tyrant. It seems in the face of a modern army that it could not (only the most obstinant will refute this point).

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.

217 posted on 03/14/2003 8:59:25 PM PST by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Pitchfork
I'd like to collect data and test hypotheses empirically but 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 and favors the beliefs-rights-constitutional rights debate that so many here seem to favor.

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.

218 posted on 03/14/2003 9:00:42 PM PST by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: Pitchfork
There are currently a number of states that require firearm registration I have yet to hear about criminals using that list to pick victims.

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.

219 posted on 03/14/2003 9:00:49 PM PST by supercat (TAG--you're it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Pitchfork; jwalsh07; Jhoffa_; Travis McGee; EternalVigilance; All
Bothy Britain and Australia have experienced skyrocketing crime rates, including GUN crime rates, since they essentially banned private gun ownership a few years ago. Both nations, BTW, are islands. You should certainly consider this.

"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.

220 posted on 03/14/2003 9:01:15 PM PST by Long Cut (ORION Naval Aircrewman!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 341-346 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson