Iraq's Rebuke to the NRA

Slate.com ^ | 03/14/2003 | Timothy Noah

[griffin]

Ah, Dan...now there you go with those verifiable facts. Pitch has never believed in those....sorry.

[Travis McGee]

They'd better pray their side never pushes it far enough to find out.

[Teacher317]

There are currently a number of states that require firearm registration I have yet to hear about criminals using that list to pick victims.
Since I can think of no logical opposition to gun registration from a pure crime/self-defense perspective.

You really are an ego-centric dufus, aren't you. You think that because YOU can't think of something, or YOU haven't heard of it, it doesn't exist, it can't exist, and it doesn't even need to be considered? Incredible... and sad that someone like you is the head of a classroom.

[Teacher317]

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.

There is no need to argue about the societal benefits. It is a guaranteed Constitutional Right, most stingently worded than any other in the document... or did you want to move on to arguments about the societal value of Free Speech and Freedom of Religion?

[Frohickey]

I cannot concieve of the situation GW would turn the military on us.

I can conceive of a situation where Clinton would turn the military on us.

[griffin]

"I wonder, if we were to accept the article's findings as true (for the sake of argument) if that would falsify the proposition...blah, blah, blah"

Yeah jeremiah, if the sky were pink with yellow polka-dots...how would you argue that it is blue? Of course...'only for arguments sake'. What a sophomoric attempt at debate.

Unrealistic questions are a waste of time and bandwidth. Can you say disrupter??

I'd say the real question of this thread is how does one disengage a communist fool who asks nonsensical questions without looking like she is the last one standing on the thread? My guess would be for us all to leave at once and let the sounds of the crickets be her company. I for one am leaving.

[Pitchfork]

I've read Lott's work. It's very well done. However, Lott was primarily concerned with assessing the effectiveness of shall issue laws. Of course you will notice that the shall issue system requires both training and registration (not of guns but of owners) in most (if not all) instances. Such registered owners are almost never involved in criminal activity. I am not opposed to the ownership of guns by registered and trained citizens.
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?

[Dan from Michigan]

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!

How so?

However, most gun deaths are not a result of the activities of organized or habitual criminals. Most gun murders are first time offenses (drunken fights, domestic violence etc.)

I am 99.9% positive that's false. Every prosecutor or cop I've talked to, both pro and anti, said that almost all murderers have priors.

On the Michigan case which has been raised a few times. 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.

It's illegal for me by federal law to buy a gun from another state and transport it. I can buy a gun from Indiana, but then I would have to have it shipped to a local Federal Firearms Dealer, and then pick it up there.

What might fail at a state level could work on a national one. (a testable and falsifiable proposition)
Could......could fail badly too.

For those of you who are thinkers here is a question:

Which is more important to the maintainence of democracy?
1) an armed citizenry?
2) a disarmed government?
In a dream would, there would be 2, but that's a pipe dream. Govts that are disarmed are sitting ducks for their neighbors.

And armed citizenry is a BALANCE to an armed government. The citizenry isn't stronger than the govt, but they don't have to be. 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.

And right now, we thankfully have the ballot box, so we do not have to resort to the cartridge box.

[Pitchfork]

Please! Enlighten me then! Have you heard of such activity?

[Teacher317]

I teach american government! The constitution of course only has power when it is interpreted and implemented by the Court

Bzzt. Another one wrong for the teacher. The Constitution has power, even when it isn't interpreted by the robed ones. It is THE law of the land, and those judges you seem powerless to see past have frequently made unConstitutional decisions (ever hear of Plessy or Dred Scott?), but that did not end the Constitution's power. The Constitution also had power in the years before the courts ever got to so many of its decisions on its wording. In short, your "of course" assertion is entirely baseless, illogical, and empty. I weep for your students.

[Dan from Michigan]

Why don't we do this for all gun owners?

Besides the constitutional questions, It's a waste of tax money.

[Jhoffa_]

Tell me, why are firearms such an issue for you?

Don't you know they are the equalizer between a 90 lbs woman and several 120 lbs attackers?

[Frohickey]

I suspect the number of working firearms in the U.S. exceeds the actual population. It's a completely different situation.

Estimates are 200 million guns, in 50 million households. This is back in 1991. Close. There are 280 million residents in the US, but I think some of those aren't old enough to legally buy guns yet. Thats why all expectant parents should be buying their little bundle of joy a gun when they are born. :)

[mommadooo3]

Why don't we do this for all gun owners?.........

Wellllll, duhhhhh. Do you REALLY think that the criminals will go for it?

It's truly sad that an 'educator' is SOOOO dead-set against learning/expanding horizons.

[Torie]

Have you addressed as to whether there is any evidence that gun registration reduces crime? Generally, the burden of proof is on the party that wants to impose another inconvenience, to give it the most benign spin possible. I personally think that the suggestion that gun registration represents a major step towards a JBT state is way overdone, but even more overdone is the suggestion that registration will accomplish much that is positive in curbing the the Hobbesian condition. It is just one of those iconic cultural issues, that carries a lot of other baggage.

[Pitchfork]

I'm sorry to inform you that in the absence of the judicial system and law enforcment the consitution would be as important to your liberty as the articles of confederation. It is a peice of paper. It has no power. It must be acted on by citizens and institutions.

[EternalVigilance]

Well, actually exercises like this have a use.

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

Those who have the facts on their side have nothing to fear from debate. In this case, the truth is shining through very brightly.

[griffin]

Re:175;

Oh how I wish it were true. I loath people like this. Their logic is defective, they do not understand what they claim to understand, and they turn their back on truth with disdain.

In essence, they are too dim to know they are too dim. 'It' will be back. :(

[Jhoffa_]

I'm sorry to inform you that in the absence of the judicial system and law enforcement the constitution would be as important to your liberty as the articles of confederation. It is a piece of paper. It has no power. It must be acted on by citizens and institutions.

Oh my.. You mean that in the event of a breakdown, you know.. a REALLY, REALLY bad one, where 911 doesn't work... that we might need to defend ourselves with guns (gasp!) as opposed to laws, the "constitution" and other pieces of paper?

Say it ain't so...

[Frohickey]

As a military retiree who only recently hung up his uniform, let me tell you this isn't going to happen via the troops, either. Any one ordering troops to fire upon innocent Americans will probably be fragged rather quickly. Most GI's, and especially NCO's, are country-oriented, conservative, and freedom loving. You won't find a better group of dedicated, patriotic folks. They wouldn't follow such orders

How about that questionaire about firing upon US citizens?

Gotta love FR!