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.
So, your point is moot. They don't have this power regardless, even if it is a "good idea" and "not necessary"
Period.
Ah, a professor! Well, why didn't you say from the beginning? I've never encountered a professor who wasn't a die-hard statist, and you've kept the traditional alive quite nicely.
Incidentally, are you familiar with the concept of natural rights? Well, the right to self defense is one of them. The 2nd Amendment does not grant these rights; it helps protect them. The right itself, however, cannot be taken away.
No offense, but what the hell are you doing on this conservative website?
You are being disingenuous again.
You haven't thrown back a single quotation from the founding era which backs up your rhetoric.
Now, consider how much more the BTKBA would be protected. As it is enumerated specifically.
Um, no it didn't. I suggest you revisit the ruling and see what was actually said, not what the Brady bunch spin is. The case was about sawn-off shotguns being allowed to citizens. The claim was that they could be regulated because they were NOT military grade weapons, thus not useful to a "militia". Under this argument, private ownership of military assault rifles would be protected, much to the dismay of DiFi.
IIRC, the case was remanded back to the lower court, where the plaintiff died before it could be argued.
But, I notice you ignore my argument regarding the registration issue.
At a key-cutting shop the owners – Bashim Talib Hassun and Mahar Kardim Ali – make the usual noises about fighting American aggression, and making sure the enemy suffer. But with what? The government had been saying every Iraqi has his own gun, as the US and British forces will find to their cost. "They are after our oil", said Mr Ali, a former infantry officer. "They want to dominate everyone. They will find 25 million Iraqis ready to defy them".
Note that no Iraqi has been taking reporters in to see their gun collection, showing off their stacked and packed calendars, heading out for skeet or a day of paintball, or are behaving in any way like gun owners. As if the photos of gun-toting Iraqis we've been treated to lately show anything resembling the enthusiasm of the palestinians, nor do they look like they even know how to handle the weapons they have been loaned for the duration of the photo op.
When asked, Mr Hassun, 29, and Mr Ali, 33, insisted they had weapons. When pressed, they claimed they had "machine-guns". But they did not appear to have any further details on the make, the type or the calibre. Mr Hassun said they were Russian-made, while Mr Ali thought they were Iraqi.
They don't sound like gun owners to me...
It is difficult, if not impossible, to debate the role of firearms in society WITHOUT also discussing the relevant Constitutional Amendment which legalizes them, but very well, then.
Some points, in the interest of debate:
1. Privately owned firearms are used, annually, to thwart over two million crimes. This is a "win", by any account.
2. Of military-styled firearms, which we are discussing, only one half of one percent are ever used in any crimes. This is, to most, scant reason for their confiscation. Or else, all cars, knives, ropes, and ciggarette lighters must also be confiscated. They are used in more crimes, after all.
3. The most important point: the Bad Guys have guns already, and always will. Denying them to the Good Guys only renders the Good Guys helpless. Far from increasing "peace", prohibition of firearms would result in a bloodbath, as those villains the courts have seen fit to set upon us in their "wisdom" would have even less deterrent than they now do.
"gun tracking in the interest of law enforcement and crime prevention might be defeted by a reasoned argument."
Allow me: The tracking of firearms by means of registration has an absolutely DISMAL record of "solving crimes", as most criminally-used firearms are beyond the reach of any registration, by one means or another.
Besides, the purpose of registration, as you alluded to earlier, is most certainly NOT "crime control", as if the Left ever really cared about that. No, every recent registration scheme in every state and nation it has been implemented in has led directly to confiscation, as it always will. You stated that we were easy to "rile up". TRUE, and no mea culpas at all. After all, you propose the confiscation of our chattel property, by force, with absolutely NO real reasons beyond your, and others', FEAR of inanimate objects. The vast, overwhelming majority of firearm owners commit NO crimes at all. They should NOT be made to pay for the actions of a few criminals (who should have been locked up anyway) with their rights.
"I wanted to see how long it would take: Less than 100 posts! Congratulations to you open minded freepers!"
If you are going to exhalt in your self-assumed greatness, please tell us so we can don our sunglasses, that we might be shielded from the Light of all that is you. /sarcasm
Let's say you get your wish. A Federal Firearms Registration Act is passed and signed into law.
How would this reduce the level of violent criminal activity in the United States?
I bet every gunowner knows the type of gun they have. I got a pistol....don't know the make or caliber though...riiiiiight. Oh yeah! It's a .45, 1911 Rock Island(Registered...grrrr)
About the same as it has in Michigan the past 75 or so years......
They always skimp here.. Why is that?
It's like Skyline and the cheese that's supposed to come on a "cheese cony"
Come on.. That's important, you can't leave it out and act like no one will notice it's missing.
I'm guess I'm surprised you haven't been engaged on this point, yet. That premise is weak from the outset, and the NY Times speculation that "nearly every household has a gun" in Iraq is *precisely* that.
Of course civilian gun ownership has a deterrent effect. Realizing this does not require obstinance, but familiarity with both modern military operations, and the nature of guerilla warfare.
Americans are resourceful and independent by nature. Combine that with the availability of firearms and ammunition, a daunting level of skill for the most part, vast amounts of unpatrolled real estate, and an innate, visceral hatred of tyranny, and you've made the job of any invading enemy - foreign or domestic - exceedingly costly.
Regarding the NRA's jewel in the crown, the word "keep," some read "keep and bear" conjunctively, rather than disjuntively. Even if read disjunctively, Garry Wills in his book "A Necessary Evil," wrote thusly:
"The private ownership schoold cotinues to think that plural "arms" means nothing but a singular "gun" for each individual, that every militiaman has his own gun, and that 'keep arms' would be restricted to storing the gun at home. If the Congress had meant anything so outlandish, it could with greate verbal economy have said 'keep at home and bear ... .' But it would have collapsed with laughter at its own absurdity. The militias had common stores of arms - not only guns but bayonets, artillery, ammunition, flags, drums, and all the arma (equipage) of war."
"History, philology, and logic furnish no solid basis for thinking the Second Amendment has anything to do with the private ownership of guns."
The dirty little secret frankly, is that no one really knows what the 2nd Amendment text means exactly, or was meant to mean. Thus SCOTUS has wide latitude here.
And there you have it.
(Sound of crickets chirping.)
***
Now to the issue of whether an armed citizenry can prevent the imposition of a totalitarian regime: most certainly. It is virtually impossibe for such a takeover to succeed in a nation where there are ten million (minimum) scoped deer rifles capable of hitting a person at 400-1000 yards. It is not possible to put POTUS level security around an entire dictatorial regime. Not possible.
***
But can some arms be tolerated in Ba'athist Party hands in Iraq? Certainly. The level of repression already in place is such that husbands do not whisper their true thoughts even to their wives. The secret police run constant loyalty tests, and the price of "failure" is death by torture.
The secret police order some poor schmuck to whisper disloyal words to a dear friend. He is not sure that his dear friend is not already under secret police orders to inform on HIM if he fails to whisper the disloyal words. So he does so whisper.
The friend then MUST report his whispering friend to the sectret police. If he fails to do so, the secret police, who set the entire thing up, will know that he heard disloyal words and did not report it. Punishment: death by torture.
In such a society, with a harshness that Stalin would have envied, a few guns don't matter. They pose no threat to Saddam, he is insulated behind miles of layers of security, and conspiracies are impossible, for the reasoons (constant loyalty testing) that I outlined. Hell, if a sniper could get Saddam, SAS, Delta or SEALs would have gotten him years ago.
***
If a president of the USA tried to overthrow the constitution and become a dictator, he would have to do so quite alone. All of his henchmen would get their heads blown off from 600 yards every time they left their bunkers.
As you see, there is no similarity between the situation in Iraq and the USA regarding firearms.
But nice try, and thanks for provoking a stimulating discussion.
***
Now, please post your own list of founding fathers' anti RKBA quotes. I'll wait. Since you are a teacher, I know you can find them quickly, say in one hour or less.
If you continue to post to this thread without posting your list of our founding fathers' anti RKBA quotes, then we will all have certain proof that you are just another gutless liberal liar, and we will know to simply scroll past your lies in the future.
One hour. We are waiting.
I read and then that tenth amendment keeps coming up again.
Again, we can tell by going back and reading the writings of the ones who wrote the amendment in the first place.
Is that too complicated for ya?
Or are you being deliberately obtuse?
I haven't heard that name in a long time. The longer the better.
While difficult for the liberal mind to grasp, criminals do not follow rules, or obey laws...thus...
Laws are for people who have reason to fear the consequences of breaking them..thus
Following a paper trail of legally registered firearms is, by definition, futile. Legal guns don't get used in crimes, because they are maintained by the law abiding. Thus....
Your best bet is to ask all the criminals to come forward with their firearms presented for registration. That should work LIKE A CHARM.
My guess is she also thinks that Iraqi declarations about their arsenal are accurate and the UN inspections are working.
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.