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.

[jwalsh07]

Nah, he's gone to the history rewrite armory, he's out of ammo and his mind exploded.

[Dan from Michigan]

I always thought the "we need guns to defend ourselves from the government" argument was a load of nonsense

James Madison disagrees. Federalist 46.

-------------------

The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made.

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone 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. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.

[DAnconia55]

I teach american government!

Where? In France??

[EternalVigilance]

Has his/her own agenda.

Yeah, I thought of that. I was too nice...my choices only encompassed stupidity and laziness...I should have included malice.

[Pitchfork]

Jwalsh, if only the real world were as simple as you seem to comprehend it to be! We could play the dueling political scriptures game for days and resolve nothing.

Second ammendment types seem obsessed with the idea that they might find in some document the 'slam dunk' quote that will somehow alter the fact that the constitution is--for all its quality--an ambiguous document. The number of areas where it is unclear (particularly in areas like war power) nearly match those where it is explicit. The second ammendment is one of those unclear points. Is it an individual right? A state right? How important is the militia clause? What constitutes a militia? None of these questions has a diffinitive answer.

Here is the reality: The meaning of consitution is, was, and always will be contested. Constitutional interpretation is not an act of Hermeneutics it is a political contest. Some time your side will win, sometimes it won't!

[jwalsh07]

Good one D.

[Long Cut]

"I frankly doubt he's a teacher.. I frankly doubt he's an American..."

Sadly, nowadays it's possible that he's both.

Oh, and PING!!!!!! to those mentioned. This is right up their alley.

[jwalsh07]

It's all in black and white Pitch, you have just failed to read it. I'll ask you again.

Have you read the Federalist Papers?

[LexBaird]

Sadly while your barrage of responses may be intense, the aren't very intelligent. Try harder!

Not that I think I can make a dent in your dogma, but I shall reply to one of your initial statements:

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

Besides being not only an incomplete sentence, but an incomplete paragraph, your logic itself appears to be incomplete. I suppose we should consider it lucky you don't teach grammar.

Nevertheless, here is a logical argument in opposition to gun registration: it serves no function in detering crime, because criminals don't use duly registered firearms. It does serve as a deterrent to self-defense by making gun ownership increasingly more costly and onerous. It punishes the law abiding and fails to punish the criminals. It has also been historically a first step that governments use in gun seizure from their citizens.

I teach american government! The constitution of course only has power when it is interpreted and implemented by the Court. The court doesn't appear to share the NRA's veiw on the second ammendment at this time. So to claim I am in error is to only reveal an alarming lack of attention on your part.

If you're an American Government teacher, I hope it isn't in my school district.

The Constitution derives its power from the consent of the governed. I believe that President Jackson had a comment regarding the Court's power to enforce anything. Furthermore, I'd be willing to wager that the people on this thread know far more about court rulings on gun issues than you apparently do. The SCOTUS has not made any rulings on the 2A since the Thirties, and the current rulings of lesser Circuit Courts are in direct disagreement.

[Pitchfork]

Yes I have! But they are certainly not the only documents to which one might seek consultation when it comes to constitutional interpretation! You may need to read more widely.

[Jhoffa_]

Of course it will be contested.. probably till the end of time.

However, the tenth is very clear.

There is no power granted to the federal government to regulate firearms. None!

Look at prohibition for crying out loud, they got an amendment to prohibit booze on the federal level, and it's not even enumerated in the BOR. (And I applaud this strict adherence, btw.. they say a problem and they fixed it properly. Not with end runs, but with an amendment.)

Thus, how much more protected is the RKBA?

[Travis McGee]

You teach "American Government?" That is the actual course title? Well lets's assume you are telling the truth. Certainly you must be familiar with what the founding fathers of our American government wrote about the right to keep and bear arms. In case you need a refresher, here are a few well know quotes.

I encourage you now to post the anti right to keep and bear arms arguements of your own selected list of founding fathers, and then we shall compare them.

**********************************************************************

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater … confidence than an armed man." Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and punishment (1764).

"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property . . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." Thomas Paine, Thoughts on Defensive War (1775).

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution (1776).

"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution Proposed BV the Late Convention (1787).

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense or by partial orders of towns...is a dissolution of the government." John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America (1787-1788).

"Americans need not fear the federal government because they enjoy the advantage of being armed, which you possess over the people of almost every other nation." James Madison.

"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms …To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms . . . " Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters From the Federal Farmer 53 (1788).

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788).

"…The said Constitution be never construed …to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." Samuel Adams, during Massachusetts's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788).

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." Patrick Henry, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788)

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." --James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

[spunkets]

"Obviously that isn't the case in Iraq."

Well it mustn't be that obvious since you missed the relevant observations completely. One of those would be that the ammo is controlled by sodom's butt boys. The other is that the relevant war is over and sodom's rule reigns. The proagandists that wrote this piece also failed to count how many homes have gas masks and antibiotics.

The fundamental question you're attempting to gloss over is whether, or not folks will rise to the occassion and fight for their Freedom and the Freedom of their fellows. Their will always be those that strive to gain supremacy in the drive for authoritarian rule, but that will never be found in the soul of the Free. They have no desire to rule over their fellows. See Freedom is the only valid justification for warfare. All else is nothing more than a struggle to exert some arbitrary will on those they can subjugate by force.

In Iraq, and that part of the world in general, there exists various and similar authoritarian worldviews and political mechanics that have established themselves. Freedom for the most part is a foreign concept. In this country it's not. Their is still a good percentage of the population that firmly believes that enduring Freedom is the only valid way of life to live, and the only valid cause to fight for. In other places, the question is always, "which moron is a worthy of our obedience, or which bozo has the most loot to offer?"

You may think that the announcement, "MOLON LABE", is nothing more than the cry of a crackpot, but the Free do not and they will fight. The question the gun grabbers should ask is not whether they command sufficient combat power, but-"DO THEY FEEL LUCKY?"

[jwalsh07]

As Prof. Lawrence Tribe of Harvard University notes, "The people's 'right' to be armed cannot be trumped by the [Second] Amendment's preamble."

Lawrence Tribe came to this conclusion reluctantly and with great sadness. Perhaps you will also.

In Tribes case truth triumphed over ideology, I hope that it does in yours as well.

[Pitchfork]

You are exactly correct. The SCOTUS hasn't ruled since the 30's and that rulling held advanced a state's right position. In the absence of further rulings that is the precedent and so you have neatly supported my contention that--as it stands--the Court's position is contrary to the NRA's.

[jwalsh07]

Yes I have! But they are certainly not the only documents to which one might seek consultation when it comes to constitutional interpretation! You may need to read more widely.

I've already read the Communist Manifesto and it didn't change my views on the RTKABA.

[Jhoffa_]

I will say this, you're one of the more polite disrupters we have had in some time.

Now, please.. The part of the Constitution that grants fedgov this power to control firearms?

[griffin]

"Second ammendment"

LOL! Yes, this DU socialist is a teacher. Lucky it isn't english...she'd be fired. (Psst...only one 'm' in amendment...)

[jwalsh07]

United States vs Emerson

Here's the bad news Pitch. Now take this to class and engage your students in an honest discussion of the ruling.

Of course you should read it first. We wouldn't want you to appear , shall we say, less than well read?

[Navy Patriot]

I teach american government!

Let me guess, public school?

The constitution of course only has power when it is interpreted and implemented by the Court.

As we all know the Court is always wise, just, never political, supports the spirit of the Constitution, and absolutely never has an agenda. Therefore, the final decision validates the means. (Example: O.J. really didn't do it because he was judged not guilty.)