Repeal The Second Amendment.
[To our conservative readers (and we do have quite a few believe it or not), bear with us on the introduction because we're going to make you mad at first, but then we're going to make it all better. And then after that, you'll be free to take any left over anger out on Bret Stephens' New York Times Op-Ed. So this will be an emotional rollercoaster for you]
Regular readers know that we make no secret of our ideological bent and/or our partisan leanings.
Regular readers also know (or should kn
The use of guns in “home protection” is shown by the statistics to be if not a complete fantasy, nowhere near prevalent enough to warrant the higher rates of suicides, accidental deaths, mass murders, escalations in police encounters and severity of gang violence. The game theoretic escalation that occurs even in home robbery scenarios is just as likely to increase the probability of a fatality than act as a deterrent. Lets be honest, modern semiautomatic firearms (just like nuclear weapons, rocket launchers and VX nerve gas for example) are not appropriate devices for civilian ownership, and countries that have taken the plunge and banned everything but bolt action hunting rifles and non pump action shotguns have seen dramatic drops in gun violence. I think your so called middle ground on this issue is refuted by the data and really isnt a middle ground at all. (I also think we should remove one nation under god from the pledge of allegiance but that”s a different argument)
good comment and good points, all.
only thing we would say is that again, there is no getting around the fact that if someone breaks into your home armed with a gun, you are at a demonstrable disadvantage if you do not own a gun.
obviously that is an argument that is simplistic. but in part because of its simplicity, it is virtually unassailable.
Let me attempt to assail it: If that person knows that the probability that you have a firearm is basically zero they aren’t going to feel existentially threatened if they encounter you and are therefore more likely to steal your stuff than try and kill you. I would rather live in a country where I have to let someone with a gun steal my stuff than take a roll of the die on the chance of winning a shootout.
I should wonder, what your thoughts would be if the theft turned into a sexual assault of your family members? It is impossible to determine the extent to which a criminal willing to break into your home with a firearm will restrain themselves when given complete power over you and your family.
It’s pretty simple, a bolt action hunting rifle such as a remington 800 series is all you need to serve the purpose of increasing the cost of a totalitarian takeover. The mythology that armed Americans could repel a military coup is farcical but that doesn’t mean that a citizenry with useful hunting rifles doesn’t impose a cost barrier on any would be dictator. They have to be willing to get into a fighting guerilla war. If they do… they ultimately will win but not every dictator can get their supporters to stomach it. Remember that while a dictator has a lot of power, he has to keep a certain group of followers happy including the military.
From a home defense standpoint a shotgun of semi auto pistol is a good tool as they can be setup to fire rounds that are lethal yet do not go through wall after wall while retaining killing power.
From the hunting side. Single, dual, pump and lever actuated weapons are perfectly suitable. After all hunting is about aiming a careful shot. Not mowing down a horde.
So where does that leave weapons like the AK47, AR15 and their like? They are recreational. They exist in the civilian sector for our amusement and as such should have corresponding safety measures taken in the laws. It won’t keep them off the black market and there are already millions out there so they won’t disappear but the least we can do is treat them like driving a semi truck.
amusingly, this just hit:
https://twitter.com/heisenbergrpt/status/916005325362352128
I’m of the opinion that we’re not taking advantage enough of the “well-regulated militia” phrasing of the 2nd A. Fine, gun ownership is an “individual right,” but consistent with the founders written intent gun owning citizens are part of nation’s “militia.” One way to implement this could be to expand each State’s National Guard. Create a new reserve category for all gun owning citizens residing in the state. Compel all gun owners/militia members to be Militia-licensed and for those licenses to be valid contingent upon attending and passing regular training and mental and physical health evaluations. They would also be subject to supporting the National Guard & armed services in such circumstances as the State or Congress would require.
In this scheme, everybody can own as many guns as they like, but the guns and ammo must be kept at a National Guard Armory. If you need a firearm for personal defense, you can check one gun out and a regulated amount of ammo. Needless to say certain classes of weapons, e.g., “assault rifles.” would not be released for home defense purposes; moreover, as long as you have the gun checked out, you have to present it to the Armory for inspection on a regular basis (lest you fail to report it stolen). If you use your ammunition and need more, you check out another small quantity, contingent upon approval from the Armory.
I also like the idea of compelling all gun owners to carry personal firearm liability insurance. If you’re caught with a firearm without insurance or without a valid militia license it’s a Federal offense with appropriately harsh penalties.
FWIW: I suggest all of this as a concealed handgun license carrier and a gun owner.
That is NOT what the 2nd amendment says..read it sometimes. The Founders placed a comma between “well regulated militia..” “the right of the people to keep and bear arms..” The two are separate.
The framers of the Bill of Rights were very likely, pound for pound, the best educated and most intelligent group that’s ever occupied this ground..So explain to me why they didn’t say..”.Only civilians constituting a States well regulated militia shall have the right to bear arms…”?
You know why they didn’t say it..because they didn’t intend it.
So lets cut to the bottom line..thru heisenberg’s fuzzy emotionalism and constant backtracking.
1. The Framers did NOT say anyone has a right to bear automatic weapons or machine guns..grandfathered in or not..Those weapons didn’t exist in the 18th century..so what? Neither did tanks..you don’t get those mounted with canon or machine guns either. If you need that kind of protection you’re in a hell of a lot more trouble than you know.
2. The essence of the Amendment is self defense..based on the universal Natural Rights principle of a right to life and the Constitutional one of self determination…
3. Have our gutless Congress pass legislation that allows for handguns and bolt action weapons for self defense..and not allow for either rapid semi-automatic fire or single depression machine gun like fire. Can’t protect you house without a semi or machine gun…tough shit.
We need to face the fact that even if we p[ass that kind of Legislation..and we should, if for no other reason than to make a statement of what our ethic is…all those horrible, mass killing things can easily come across a border (ours) without any problem. Brought in by groups who dislike us as much as any home grown psychopath..all they have to do is put them into the right hands.
H that was a great introduction. I agree we have a lot of ham in our refrigerator. In fact, ham has been stuffed into it since its existence and far more than it is practical to record or that can be effectively removed. Like it or not, that makes in impossible to rule out getting choked on once in a while. We can imagine a perfect world where we can logically and precisely regulate away complex problems, but the fact is we have an absolutely horrible record in do so.
You can make supposed “logical” arguments all day long for gun regulation and not. Unfortunately, as “logical” as they might seem to be – they won’t stand up against similar model attempts at regulating human pathological behavior or even standup at or near the highest priorities of threats to the people of our society. However, there are models that definitively show that ineffective tinkering has made our problems with firearms violence worse (i.e. the pronounced increase in firearms sales every time there is a firearms related tragedy and the uninformed hand wringing and the political self-interest leveraging that always follows.
Far more people are killed each year by people driving under the influence of mental physical capacity altering drugs (i.e. alcohol and other drugs – legal and illegal) and or predictable lethal related health issues (tobacco) than are killed by firearms. Yet, those substances have been highly regulated with billions of dollars spent every year on their totally and demonstrably ineffective policing. We are great at ineffective regulation. It seems we have some bacteriophage horizontal genetic transfer such that all Americans think that we can legislate and or litigate all our problems away.
Attempting to remove and or control firearms of any specific type – or in total would only accomplish (review the increase sales of assault weapons each time the threats of bans were imposed or temporarily imposed) what the “War on Drugs” has accomplished – an undeniably vast an hugely profitable (and therefore influential) black market on banned substances. There is no rational argument that can say that such a huge gun black market – would not absolutely follow an appeal of the “Second Amendment” – in part or whole. And, this doesn’t even consider the existing firearms black market that already exists in the US. Its not like there isn’t an existent an effective firearms market to benefit from legal prohibition of some types or all firearms.
What I generously described as a “logical” argument regarding firearms regulation and restriction in the US – falls completely apart when compared to remarkably similar “bans”, restrictions, and prohibitions in the US. The failure of what should be “logical,” is the incomplete consideration in that logic of the fact that we humans are not completely logical creatures. The illogical part of the firearms regulation argument rests in our inability to demonstrate that we can effectively regulate other forms of bad and illogical behavior – from mild quirks or harmless aberrations to those completely self-destructive, or socio-destructive pathologies. We have an existing and horrible record since Regan of dealing with the mental health issues of our citizens.
I’m sure some portion of the illogical argument thinks its better to do “something” than “nothing.” Of course their reasoning doesn’t recognize that the more than 10,000 ineffective firearms laws of municipal, state and federal governments are already the “do-something” part of their argument. We live in a society that wants and thinks that their government can provide them a risk free existence. Ironically, its that thinking that is the greatest risk to them. While no one can deny that we can do better at a nation at controlling senseless violence, we should closely and first examine and controlling the causes of that violence rather than confusing the causes with inanimate enablers.
While I have never been a member of the NRA, based on past experience – no matter if the NRA makes some reasonable firearms regulations concessions, Congress will still not be able agree, much less write them into a law that in its final draft – the NRA will accept. The cycle will be completed once again. More money will be made.
Bravo, DMD! I have a question for James above. Would you feel the same about letting an armed intruder have his way if he were a rapist and/or child molester and your wife and kids were in the house? How would you know if he was just there to steal some stuff? One for you Heisenberg. Back in your drinking days, if Prohibition had passed, would you have gave it up because it was illegal? Didn’t think so. No matter how hard you try, you can’t legislate morality by banning the tools people use to be immoral. Never has worked, never will.
So are you suggesting that having laws is useless and we should legalize/deregulate everything as long as it doesn’t directly injure another person? Crack, meth and heroine are all illegal and yet people continue to indulge, so by the gun lobby’s logic we should just legalize them all.
Note: I’m for legalization and regulation of all drugs, however I do find the dissonance from the gun lobby on this issue strange as the overlap of those who believe in legalization of hard drugs and no gun control because of the “you can’t legislate away crime” argument is quite low.
The problem is that the actual incidence rate of the event you are alluding to is vanishingly small, versus all the obvious and statistically verifiable harm. Lets put it this way, the rates of rape and child abuse in Australia, the UK and the US are broadly comparable yet the rates of gun crime are not I am at the end of the day an empiricist on this subject. If the evidence suggested that my ownership of a gun would reduce the probability of my child being raped, and the increase in probability of my child accidentally killing themselves were tolerable I would accept that and support a pro gun stance, the data however does not support your conclusion. The world is a muddy set of statistical tradeoffs, the stats where they pertain to the gun debate however seem to reliably point in one direction. Ideology seems to be the only counterargument and I am not a supporter of ideological conclusions where they oppose empirical conclusions.
Let’s prohibit NRA contributions to any political campaign. Perhaps there may also be other entities that should be prohibited from ‘buying’ candidates! Wouldn’t hurt to have democrats and republican candidates from having access to millions of dollars to finance those long years of constant campaigning! Lowering the amount of money it takes to run for office would encourage the other 75% of the humans who are not rich white men to throw their hat into the ring. As it is now, only the super rich can afford to run for president or ones that are willing to sell out! That’s how you drain the swamp! Not to mention you would have candidates well below 70 years old!
I also think there should be minimum requirements (above the moron and imbecile intelligent levels!), include a transparent physical health exam and a thorough mental health analysis! Maybe a candidate that has a history of literally thousands of lawsuits should be avoided. Do we currently even do a background check on candidates or do just assume they are not hiding an unsavory history?
I recall trump bragging about “always carrying a gun”. nice. Oh, and then he said he “sometimes carries a gun”. And then he actually said he “sometimes carries a gun a lot”. Some interesting short pieces follow, focused on his opinion on guns. from 2012, 2015, 2016, and only 3 days ago 2017
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2012/nov/14/miller-donald-trumps-guns/
Nov 2012: Trump says he owns a couple of guns. “H&K .45 and a .38 Smith & Wesson.” The Donald is a true Second Amendment enthusiast.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/videos/donald-trump-on-when-he-carries-a-gun-i-like-to-be-unpredictable-20151028
Oct 2015, CNBC Presidential Debate; New York gun permit. “I do carry on occasion. Sometimes a lot. I like to be unpredictable.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/25/donald-trump-aims-to-carry-on-presidents-tradition/
Sept 2016: His campaign website says he would “enforce the laws on the books” and wants to appoint Supreme Court justices who will uphold the Second Amendment. He also wants to create a “national right to carry” law that would make such permits valid in all 50 states. He says he would get rid of “gun-free zones” and would emphasize enforcement of existing gun laws.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-gun-control-las-vegas-shooting-stephen-paddock-firearms-open-carry-a7979566.html
Oct. 2017: Donald Trump has repeatedly declared he loves the Second Amendment. And since becoming president, he has begun rolling back Obama-era restrictions on gun ownership. The ways Trump is trying to make it easier for Americans to access guns: What he has done and said so far. All you need to know about Trump’s stances on gun ownership.