Iraq's Rebuke to the NRA

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

[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.

[LexBaird]

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...

Oops, I meant defendant. Oh well, I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.

[supercat]

I happen to be a Second Amendment type who embraces the fact (is obsessed with the idea, from your myopic point of view) that there is no ambiguity whatsoever contained in the Second Amendment.

Actually, there are a couple of ambiguities in the Second Amendment:

• When the Constitution was ratified, many state constitutions had clauses explicitly acknowledging the right to keep and bear arms, but some of them explicitly stated that such right did not extend to the carrying of concealed weapons. I know of nothing in the Second Amendment or writings around that time to suggest that the Second Amendment was designed to override such state constitutions. However, I think it's pretty clear that any state which forbids or restricts concealed carry de jure must allow open carry, both de jure and de facto [though if a state were to only allow concealed carry, that would probably be acceptable as well].
• The Second Amendment does not say what should be done if it (or anything else in the Constitution) is ignored. If it said "Any legislative, judicial, or regulatory effort to impose any tax or other restriction on the manufacture or possession of free persons on private property or on public rights of way shall be construed as treason," that might be a little more clear.

Of course, with regard to things like "assault weapons", I don't think there's any ambiguity...

[Pitchfork]

I haven't the time to fully address you message as much as I would like to let me point out this quote which seems to indicate that Paine in his treatise on Defensive War was not so enamored of arms as he seems:

They supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian;
while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. [This is where you so usefully end your quote] but he goes on! ....The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be
preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not others dare not lay them aside.

Seems Paine's first choice would be total disarmament, while arming is a second best choi
I wonder how may other half accurate quotes have been thrown at me on this message board while the pompous hurler decries my lack of schooling!

[Jeff Head]

Pitchfork, Paine simply makes a statement about what would be the ideal ... he clearly states the obvious realstic state of affairs with the phrase ...

but since some will not others dare not lay them aside

There is nothing unclear or ambiguous about that. There is no half truth or inaccuracy associated with that last statement.

Paine understood that we DARE NOT lay our fireamrs aside. The same holds true today.

Your own attempt to scew a very clear quote from its obvious intent over towards the opposite meaning falls flat of its face, both logically and in fact. Is this how you teach American Government as well?

I am a very strong 2nd amendment advocate. I am also a Christian who is looking forward to the day when my Savior, Jesus Christ, returns to this earth and ushers in that ideal that Paine eluded to. I personally would prefer that the idela was here now, and that no one had, or needed a firearm. However, since historically it is clear that since some will not lay them aside, particularly those seeking mastery and coersion over those who are not disposed to bother anyone, namely institutional and individual tyrants ... therefore I (and we) dare not lay our own aside.

You may be disposed to try harder ... but you still have not answered either Travis McGee's clear quotes from the founders you indicate were ambiguous ... or now Joanie's either for that matter. And you still have not answered my own and several others engagement with you regarding the issue of citezens fighting against modern armies. Particularly the matter of the logistics of modern armies fighting very large, and very well armed populations when there is no hope for them to establish a clear boundary from which to launch their offensives. In other words, when there are no front lines and when millions of insurgents surround them. (Re-read my post number 264 as a refresher).

I believe Travis Mcgee, himself a very qualified former Navy Seal, and officer at that, has been quoted as saying that his money is on the side with the 10,000,000 scoped hunting rifles. He may know something you don't... you think?

[Grampa Dave]

Joanie, thanks for a great reply!

[Grampa Dave]

One other point! Whenever any so called conservative cites the NY Slimes, Washington Compost, any Reuter's BS or ABCNNBCBS to slam something the real conservatives believe in, hesheit ain't a conservative. That is a sign of a DU Troll!

[Pitchfork]

Ah, now we're into the classic double speak I often see in this dueling quote game your type loves to play.

You provide a quote, I then note that in context Paine sets out disarmament as an ideal (an ideal I happen to agree with and believe could be achieved) and you claim I screw a very clear quote from its intent!

This is why I won't respond to 'quote' challenges!

1. Quotes are often taken out of context or misrepresented

FYI: regarding your 319 post If you check Federalist 46:
http://memory.loc.gov/const/fed/fed_46.html
you will find no passage resembling the quote you attributed to Madison. You need to be more discerning regarding the websites you rip-off for your evidence.

Interestingly--and as an aside--you should look at Federalist 29. You will find a discussion of the training of the militia in which Hamilton argues that while extensive training would be too heavy a burden on the economy...
http://memory.loc.gov/const/fed/fed_29.html

"Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."

I'd be all for a system of private arms ownership that would require weapon holders to muster twice a year! Moreover ensuring that the citizens are "properly armed and equipped" would require an accounting of weapons owned! Hamilton was effectivley advocating an arms/citizen registry in this passage. Its amazing how little you read about this Federalist from you gun nuts.

2. The second reason I oppose 'quotes as evidence' is the issue of sampling. Quoters never provide a 'representative' sample (i.e. randomly obtained) always offering a purposive and therefore biased one. I could easily find a sampling of quotes taken from today's newpapers, state and local officials and even the Congress which would make it look like the preponderance of the country's leader were opposed to war in Iraq. That would, of course, prove nothing except my capacity to cull favorable quotes from the internet.


Looking back on this debate it seem ironic to me that so much effort is expended by you gun nuts on the question of WHETHER the federal government can regulate arms when in reality the question is HOW MUCH can the FG regulate.

Regular citizens are not able to bear any arm they desire. Try building or buying a chemical or biological weapon, a surface to air missile, or an attack submarine and you'll find substantial federal resistance (to put it mildly) and your 'God given right' argument will end up on the trash heap where it belongs.

The debate is really about where we draw the line between 'complete disarmament' (Paine's ideal) and 'everything goes' (where you could own a howitzer if you wanted). Clearly neither end of the spectrum is realistically achievable. Guns for hunting will be--and should always be--fully available; cruise missiles never will be (and I would say should never be either).

Currently we ALREADY draw the line at semi-automatic center-fire rifles and handguns (with some extra leeway toward fully auto for those with the requisite license -- i.e. registration. You may even be able to buy a tank if you go through the right background checks). But having drawn a line, why couldn't we just as easily draw the 'registration-needed' line so that it included handguns or semi-automatic rifles or, for that matter, ANY weapon?

Again I have seen no cogent response to this line of reasoning. Asserting one's right to bear arms, or to self-defense, is meaningless when it is clear that a single-shot .22 cal pistol, or a pocket knife may satisfy this 'right' depending on the level of armament of your assailant.

[Pitchfork]

Let me make one more observation about quotes:

Looking at the lists that have been provided you will note that many come from newspaper editorials and floor debates in Congress and in State Houses. The fact that one side was ARGUING the particular position that citizens should be free to bear arms presupposes that there was opposition (however large is an empirical question) which DISAGREED with the statements being made. How can we then make the conceptual leap to say: Given the presence of these ARGUMENTS it is clear that the founding fathers and the whole of the American population supported this interpretation of the Second Ammendment. Clearly if this were the case THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO ARGUMENT!!!

The second ammendment was as contested and controvertial a point then as it is today. Of course the controversy typically centered on the need for a 'well regulated' milita instead of, or as a check on, a federal army.

Which brings me back to the original point of my post:
Does the presence of a substantial armed portion of the Iraqi population disprove the notion that an armed citizenry can resist tyranny?
Federalist 49 seems to argue that parity in equipment and training would be required

"if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms"

Madison argues that Arms alone would be insufficient
"...it is not certain, that with this aid alone [arms] they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."

[Jeff Head]

There is no double speak. I clearly indicated that I in fact agreed with the ideal of which Paine spoke. I simply pointed out your attempt to try and either negate, or ignore, Paine's clear assertion, after the end of idealizing, that we DARE NOT LAY ASIDE OUR WEAPONS.

No double speak there, unless you want to try and attribute it to Paine himself. His quote is clearly a charge to stay armed.

IMHO, the biggest reason you will not use quotes as a postion to argue from as respects the founders of this nation, is that you have no basis to do so ... there aren't any. Therefore, you wish, through your own wordsmithing, to negate the clear intent of those same founders and proceed with your own ... a classic method of propogandizing.

... you still have not answered the issues regarding your other assertion, that is that armed citizens are powerless against modern armies. That is an assertion that has been refuted by a number of individuals, many of them very experienced with the very modern armies you speak of ... see my 264

[joanie-f]

Paine in his treatise on Defensive War was not so enamored of arms as he seems: ‘The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. [This is where you so usefully end your quote] but he goes on! ....The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not others dare not lay them aside' .... Pitchfork

I believe I speak for most Second Amendment types (your term) when I say that we are not enamored of arms (and neither was Thomas Paine). What we are enamored of -- and dedicated to preserving, at all costs -- is the concept of the right of self defense against a government which has the potential (and makes frequent use of it) to usurp our individual liberties. And to that end, our final, no-other-option-remaining defense will be the (reluctant, but no less determined) use of arms. All of us hope we will never have to use that defense against agents of our own government, but we will – if pushed to do so.

As for Paine’s comment that .... the balance of power is the scale of peace .... the same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike, I believe you would be hard-pressed to find a Second Amendment type who would disagree with that statement. We are not enemies of peace (far from it). We dream of it just as much as the current crop of useful idiot protestors do. The only difference is that we are realists. They are generally either hopeless idealists, or dupes.

As Paine asserts, if we lived in a world ‘destitute of arms,’ owning a gun for self defense would be all but unnecessary. But would mankind, and its governments, then be able to settle all disputes, and claim all territory, through rational, logical, common sense debate and dialogue? I think not.

As sure as you and I are breathing, there would be those in this world who would seek to use clubs and stones in order to dictate to, or enslave, others. History is replete with such examples. It’s the nature of man – some are inherently more domineering, and see themselves as destined to wield power over others. (In Paine’s own words: ‘The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian.’) And it is the natural right of those good men to retain the means to preserve their liberties against such types. In such a world [barren of guns], we realistic, Second Amendment types would no doubt be determined to preserve our God-given right to keep and bear clubs and stones, because the power-hungry type would be just as determined to use them to enslave us.

So, choose your degree of defensive weapons: clubs and stones, firearms, nuclear/chemical/biological weapons of mass destruction …. there will always be men, and civilizations, ready and willing to use them to enslave others. And there will always be others (your Second Amendment types) who will fight to their dying breath to retain their ability to defend themselves against the power-mongers – with commensurate weaponry.

History has proven that any attempt to remove defensive weapons from a free populace simply results in that populace’s enslavement, because the scoundrels who deem it their destiny to control the common man then gain the upper hand.

Tom Paine was waxing utopian philosophical -- as we all do, now and then -- in his 'a world destitute of arms' statement. But note that he comes back down to earth in its conclusion: ‘but since some will [possess arms], others dare not lay them aside.’

In not giving credence, or emphasis, to that last all-important portion of his statement, it seems to me that you [inadvertently, I am sure] have also made the same case that we Second Amendment types have been trying to get you to acknowledge. (I thank you for that ... and so would Mr. Paine.)

[harpseal]

Clearly there are many who could well be subject to rule .308. I not ein a local school district the head of the students drama department (who is himself basically a failed actor) wrote his own play detailing and romanticising an anti-war protest incident. This play inspired a number of the high-school student actors to want to participate in anti-war demonstrations. Rule .308 or proposition 5.56 or even RSA .45 might well be in order here.

As a side note, I do believe that the old British rule of law could even be applied Rule Three Oh Three. As a young man Winston Curchill wrote of this rule and it really is the source of our comments.

[Travis McGee]

When are you going to answer 307 et al, you gutless fraud?

[Travis McGee]

'complete disarmament' (Paine's ideal)

You are a lying fraud. You know it, we know it, and you know that we know it.

"Paine's ideal" as you put it is in the nature of "if all men were angels". It is meant to lead to his point, that since all men cannot ever be disarmed, good men MUST remain armed. You are twisting his words 180* from his meaning. You know it, we know it, and you know that we know it.

Now, WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO TACKLE #307, YOU GUTLESS FRAUD?

[Noumenon]

Spare me your Jesuitry. We'll settle this and many other questions in the next American Civil War. Look in the mirror for one of its proximate causes. In your last moments, you may even get some idea of how it feels to be on the wrong side of the oldest conflict in the history of human civilization.

[Noumenon]

It amuses me to think that so many of these post-modern academic frauds think that it's all about guns. Firearms are merely one tool among many that one muight find useful in the pursuit of liberty. I've got an extensive toolkit, and I know that many others do as well. It's amazing what can accomplished with a bit of surgical tape, a razor blade and quick reflexes.

[spunkets]

"The second ammendment was as contested and controvertial a point then as it is today. Of course the controversy typically centered on the need for a 'well regulated' milita instead of, or as a check on, a federal army.

The only controversial part was the how the right should not and did not apply to slaves and the freed slaves after the war. That's because hte only reason for gun control and registration is total control of those who might rebel.

" Which brings me back to the original point of my post: Does the presence of a substantial armed portion of the Iraqi population disprove the notion that an armed citizenry can resist tyranny?"

Seems you not only ignored the truth, but you continue to ignore it and even promote the falsehood that Iraqi citizens are armed. They are not. Not only are they w/o ammo, but house to house searches have been going on for several weeks now to confiscate any arms in the hands of those who show no great loyalty to sodom. Those stuck in his army that have been issued guns, with a small allotment of ammo, are overseen by sodom's butt boy guard. They will kill anyone who attempts surrender, or fails to effectively confront the allies intent on liberating them from sodom's grasp.

[dirtboy]

I always thought the "we need guns to defend ourselves from the government" argument was a load of nonsense and a refuge for those who wanted to avoid a cost-benefit discussion centered on the real issues of crime and violence.

Uh, lots of people in Iraq own guns. But Saddam tightly controls ammo - a pet wish of the gun control crowd. Nice company you keep here, Salon and Saddam.

Since I can think of no logical opposition to gun registration from a pure crime/self-defense perspective.

Try the ample historical examples of government gun registration leading to confiscation and get back to me. In fact, start your entire higher education over and get back to me, there obviously was a massive, systemic failure somewhere.

[spunkets]

"that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."

Madison did not think this out very well. DeTocqueville did. He noted that the driving force behind the electorate would eventually be dominated by those that are in effect raiding the public treasury. IOWs the people would soon learn how to rob folks and force their will with the power of a vote. A vote backed by the Federal Army. Madison and the other founders, noted only that in order for the Constitution, including those of the states required a moral people to sustain justice.

Gun grabbers are those that are afraid of the people holding their own arms. Their goal is to have them disarmed, not because thay are a threat to the peace, but are a threat to the reign of injustice the grabbers desire.

[spunkets]

""Paine's ideal" as you put it is in the nature of "if all men were angels"."

Pitchfork ignores the nature of man only as it applies to his enlightened crowd. He's one of those that promotes the idea that there are people that can make socialism work. What he ignores is that it takes a force of arms to do that, because only his crowd will be interested in their selfish little plan. Only his crew should be allowed to ahve arms, because after all they aren't the least bit honest in their dealings with others. The truth eludes them and they deny it when it presents itself.

[dirtboy]

What he ignores is that it takes a force of arms to do that, because only his crowd will be interested in their selfish little plan.

Yep, the problem with equality is that no one wants to be equal. That's why equality of opportunity is possible under law, but equality of condition requires force...