I keep waiting for Portfolio not to be a terrible, terrible magazine, and I keep being disappointed. It's supposed to be aimed at the high-end financier, but it reads more like it was written for women who want to date high-end financiers, and need a little cocktail party chat to keep things going until they can invite him back for some cognac. I bought one in Florida, on the assumption that it really couldn't be as bad as I remembered, but there you are--when you assume, you make an ass out of you and me both. The first half of the magazine is basically New York poorly repackaged via some tenuous connection to business (art criticism is really financial journalism, because heck, people pay money for paintings). The second half is filled with dull and out of date articles about trends that were interesting three years ago. This editorial, though, is probably the worst of the lot:
No one knows what will happen with the case in the Roberts court, but I know what I would do. I have no personal interest in guns, and I'm agnostic as to whether gun bans really do anything to prevent crimes like the one that ended Tim's life. Obviously, the law in D.C. did not save Tim; it seems to have served only to disarm the law-abiding. I believe the District's ban is draconian: It holds that just current and retired police officers can own handguns. You can own a rifle, but it must be disassembled, making it impossible to use for self-defense. It seems crazy that the named litigant in the case, Dick Heller, who carries a handgun for his job as a guard at a courthouse, can't have one in his home because security guards are technically not police officers. It's one thing to regulate gun sales, but a flat-out ban seems like bad policy in terms of its effectiveness and whom it affects.Still, I hope the court upholds the ban. It's overwhelmingly popular here; no D.C. council member wants it repealed. I'm not a lawyer, let alone a scholar, but I see no reason to interpret the Second Amendment as forbidding a jurisdiction from banning a particular weapon, whether it's an assault rifle or a handgun. As Linda Singer, D.C.'s former attorney general, told me, "Banning one particularly dangerous arm does not mean banning the right to bear arms." She notes that handguns are by far the predominant weapon used in murders and suicides in Washington and elsewhere. In 1976, the District's second year of autonomous home rule, the gun ban was one of the first laws passed, in part because all of the city's rapes in 1974 that involved a firearm were committed with a handgun.
In the wake of Tim's murder, it would be easy to give a knee-jerk liberal or conservative response: We need more gun control; we need less gun control. But the most important thing, to me anyway, is who decides. That ought to be the people of D.C., like Tim's grieving family, through their elected representatives. Tim's life is too precious to be reduced to either side's talking point
There is a lot of illogical drivel spilled on the topic of guns, but this particular piece seems to be gunning for some kind of award. The law, he admits, seems to be useless, and perhaps it violates the constitution; hell, maybe it disarms the law-abiding while leaving criminals armed. But what are these things, in comparison with the right of the people of DC to express themselves? Presumably if they wanted to express themselves by banning free speech, making us all wear uniforms, or burning witches at the stake, that too would be their sovereign right as The People, the standard-bearers of Democracy.
Tim's life is too precious to be reduced to either side's talking point
Because we can be confident that our elected legislators will never do such a thing. Such as, for instance, by naming a gun-control bill after a prominent figure incapacitated by a crazed gunman.
The comment about banning particular types of guns being not equivalent to banning arms is absurd, as the district's requirement that long guns be kept disassembled in effect bans them, as well as handguns, for home defense. And the comment about "particularly dangerous" arms--apparently meaning handguns--is silly. I tend to favor shotguns over handguns for home defense, but one argument for handguns being better is that, at least with small-caliber handguns, errant shots are less likely to go through walls and hit people in other rooms or on the street than if they had used things like your average hunting rifle, which is legal (if disassembled).
The author of that quote seems to have all the literary precision of a puppy turned loose in a feed lot. Sure, the basic subject is consistent, but it zig-zags everywhere and has a funny odor about it when it finally returns.
In any case, how does the editorial relate to the magazine's nominal theme? Is their financial advice centered around robbbing banks?
In any case, how does the editorial relate to the magazine's nominal theme?
No, but if you're trying to date a financier, you need something intelligible (not necessarily intelligent) to say when you discover he shoots trap at his country club, or collects WWII memorabilia, or whatever. This is wishy-washy enough not to spoil the mood, and dumb enough to make him think you're an easy mark, which you probably are.
lol @ whole concept of a magazine intended to help women chat up rich men at cocktail parties long enough to get impregnated and gain a share of his wealth
“It's supposed to be aimed at the high-end financier, but it reads more like it was written for women who want to date high-end financiers...”
Their circulation department must be on the ball, at least. What do you suppose the ratio of high-end financiers to women who want to date them is?
I here the First Amendment trope all the time. A slightly different question: Would the editorialist be willing to let DC citizens vote on Fourth or Fifth Amendment rights? What about the rights of Guantanamo detainees?
the district's requirement that long guns be kept disassembled in effect bans them
Huh? The 2nd Amendment doesn't say people need the right to bear arms on the street in order to defend themselves against muggers. It says they need the right to bear arms because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State. Keeping long guns disassembled doesn't "in effect ban them" if you're going to use them during militia drills, or for hunting -- which is illegal inside the District for the same reason it's presumably illegal inside Dallas city limits.
I don't think this is a particularly smart editorial, but it's not ridiculous. First of all, Megan seems to misstate the writer's views: he apparently believes the District's ban does not violate the constitution at all, and quotes a lawyer who says it doesn't. So, Premise 1: banning certain types of weapons is not unconstitutional; private citizens aren't allowed to own self-propelled howitzers or cluster bombs. Premise 2: given that such bans are not unconstitutional, the people who should decide what to ban are the elected legislators of the polity, not people outside the polity, be they judges, writers of editorials, or bloggers. The writer is saying he personally disagrees with the District's ban on the merits, but doesn't think his views should override those of the District's citizens. What's illogical there?
Incidentally, I am curious as to whether 2nd Amendment enthusiasts who do not believe the government can ban particular types of weapons also believe that private citizens have the right to own chemical and biological weapons. Treaties banning such weapons might apply to the US government, but barring private citizens from possessing them would, on this maximalist view, represent an impermissible infringement of the right to bear arms.
brooksfoe wrote: It says they need the right to bear arms because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State.
If it said that, we wouldn't have been arguing about it for a large portion of the past 230ish years. What it actually says is,
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
--National Archives
We could spend the next 230 years arguing over the position of commas as is popular in some scholarly quarters, but at the very least, it's pretty hard to confuse the distinction between "keeping" and "bearing". Yours is a point about "keeping".
anony-mouse, what you're saying only applies to a maximalist interpretation which would argue the amendment means you can walk down the street holding a bazooka. The point I'm making is addressed to the claim that a rule that says you have to keep your long guns disassembled within District limits "in effect bans them". It doesn't ban them. It limits the way you're allowed to keep them within District limits. To say it "in effect" bans them makes an assumption that the purpose of having them is to use them in a particular way -- a way that's not mentioned, moreover, in the 2nd Amendment. Obviously if you think no regulation of firearms whatsoever is permissible, and that citizens should be allowed to carry bazookas in publicly owned spaces like the US Capitol, then such a regulation is unconstitutional, but no more so than any other type of regulation.
Brooksfoe wrote: Incidentally, I am curious as to whether 2nd Amendment enthusiasts who do not believe the government can ban particular types of weapons also believe that private citizens have the right to own chemical and biological weapons.
Speaking for myself as a 2A supporter, I think that bans of, or onerous ownership restrictions on, weapons suitable to an individual rifleman in a body of infantry cannot be constitutional.
Furthermore, if the police can have it, I can too.
Beyond that, I'm willing to consider regulations.
-m@
weapons suitable to an individual rifleman in a body of infantry
LAW rockets? Hand grenades? RPGs?
Eh, at least he's honest. I mean, it's not like most people advocating one position or the other are doing it purely for the sake of the Constitution--they're doing it because they feel a certain way about guns. There's lots of issues like this. For the most part, we're not even arguing about what the Constitution says, we're arguing about what it should say.
The post you link to is not an editorial. It's written by Matt Cooper, the former Time correspondent who was involved in the Valerie Plame affair, almost going to jail over it. An "editorial" is always unsigned and is the product and opinion of a publication's "editorial board." The New York Times and almost all other papers run these things every day. An op-ed, on the other hand, is a signed opinion piece that appears on the "opposite" page from where the "editorials" are. Since this piece is signed, and does not reflect the thinking of the publication it ran in, it's not an editorial. If anything I might call it an opinion piece or maybe an essay, maybe even a blog post. But it's not an editorial.
And another thing. Megan, you know absolutely nothing about constitutional law and should stop writing about it. I have no idea what the Second Amendment means and neither do you. Hell, ask any Constitution Law professor and you'll get pretty much the same admission. That's why the Supreme Court has never really interpreted it before. It's ambiguous, just like your writing:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Does it apply to militias or to everyone? You tell me. Until you can answer that question, stop writing like you know the answer and that it's obvious to everyone.
LAW rockets? Hand grenades? RPGs?
Assuming someone made me the grand arbiter of the meaning of the second amendment (where should I send my application?), I would say:
LAW, RPG: No, squad weapon not individual weapon.
Grenades: yes.
And by No, I mean only with a background check and licensing akin to what is now required for machine gun ownership.
But since I'm neither the G.A.M.2A, nor a lawyer, nor a legislator, nor a judge, I'll just say that wherever the line gets drawn, ordinary infantry rifles and handguns are on one side, and weapons of mass destruction are on the other, and leave the fine details to people who argue for a living.
-m@
weapons suitable to an individual rifleman in a body of infantry
LAW rockets? Hand grenades? RPGs?
I'd use the infantryman model with the modificaiton that weapons must not be overly indiscriminate in ordinary self-defense use, which is the sort that a militiaman might be expected to put them. That wipes out the three you mention, which pose an unreasonable danger in any except a full army-meets-army battlefield situation.
A militia, after all, can't (and couldn't, back in the day) be expected to do much more than discourage random raids, do a bit of guerilla sniping, or fight a rearguard action while the women and children flee. The weapons suitable to that sort of thing--assault rifles, pistols, scoped hunting/sniper rifles--are all they need.
Having handguns be illegal means that if you are caught with a handgun that is a significant crime. It is imperfect but this is a powerful law enforcement tool. The vast majority of people in dc including those who live in the worst neighborhoods would rather not indulge libertarian wild west fantasies by carrying a fire arm for self defense and instead prefer to leave the police with the important tool for fighting gun violence. If DC voters want to carry firearms in numbers significant to deter criminals then it will be legal to do so.
DC has too much gun violence but I doubt very much that the legality of fire arms has much anything to do with it.
If you live in dc and want to carry a firearm so badly and believe the ban unconstitutional and the enforcement ineffective then do so. After all you would be in the right. If you are scared of getting caught then there is a deterrent effect that is probably more pronounced if you are actually interested in using a firearm to commit crimes.
Michael,
Only people who have something to lose by going to jail fear jail as a punishment. Why should a person with a job and a family to support be subject to MORE deterrence in exercising the fundamental right of self defense than a mugger?
Rob Lyman,
The militia in the founding father's time might only be expected to do some guerilla sniping, but in modern warfare the guerilla is largely ineffective without RPGs or the like (see Chechnya, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.). If the 2a is aimed at effective militias, you would think RPGs would be included.
Now I don't believe the 2nd amendment is absolute - that one may privately own a nuclear device, or other military weapons - and neither does anyone else. Reasonable restrictions are put on other rights as well...speech, religion, assembly. Why does everyone have a "take it or leave it" policy when it comes to arguing about the 2nd amendment?
If a well regulated (but armed) militia is "necessary to the security of a free State," then why wouldn't a well regulated (but armed) gun owner be necessary for the security of his own freedom and life?
If the purpose of having the guns is self-defense in one's home, then the current law does in effect ban them for this reason as it removes the ability of the owner to use ("bear") them in a timely fashion. Lots of us believe this to be at least unreasonable, if not unconstitutional.
Ok. Everyone. The Bill of Rights was intended to safeguard personal rights, as several states would not ratify the Constitution without more reassurance than it provided by itself.
James Madison: "I believe that the great mass of the people who opposed [the Constitution], disliked it because it did not contain effectual provision against encroachments on particular rights, and those safeguards which they have been long accustomed to have interposed between them and the magistrate who exercised the sovereign power: nor ought we to consider them safe, while a great number of our fellow citizens think these securities necessary."
Patrick Henry: "Is it necessary for your liberty that you should abandon those great rights by the adoption of this system? Is the relinquishment of the trial by jury and the liberty of the press necessary for your liberty? Will the abandonment of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty? Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings—give us that precious jewel, and you may take every thing else!"
Try telling that to the British, circa 1780.
But isn't the legal contest more about being able to defend yourself in you own home rather than being able to "carry" on the street?
I just read your post and can only say that I'm glad to find external confirmation of how bad Portfolio is; I just posted my response. I've been getting it free and stopped reading it.
"But isn't the legal contest more about being able to defend yourself in you own home rather than being able to "carry" on the street?"
Indeed. Brooksfoe quoted a sentence that said the district had effectively banned long guns "for home defense" but left out the reference to home defense, then said that it was silly to say the district had in effect banned long guns. Kind of like the old movie posters that would quote a review calling a picture "stupendously bad" as saying "stupendous."
Alan, after including "for home defense", the claim still makes no sense. "The comment about banning particular types of guns being not equivalent to banning arms is absurd, as the district's requirement that long guns be kept disassembled in effect bans them, as well as handguns, for home defense" -- "banning" long guns or handguns "for home defense" is not "banning" them. It is regulating their use such that they can't be used for one purpose. You can still own them, and use them for other purposes. Your contention rests on the assumption that using guns "for home defense" must have been the use intended in the 2nd Amendment. But the 2nd Amendment doesn't say that; "well-regulated militias" for "the security of a free State" don't necessarily have anything to do with "home defense". The Schutterijs of Dutch cities such as Amsterdam were "well-regulated militias" whose guns were intended to defend the city against Spanish or English invasion; they wielded them at drills and when called up for service. This had nothing to do with "home defense" and it would have been no contradiction if the guns were required to be kept disassembled at home, or to be kept in a public armory for that matter.
Try telling that to the British, circa 1780.
One should not confuse the rag-tag but nonetheless regular army raised by the Continental Congress with a militia that occasionally drilled on the town green. Washington was famously doubtful about the reliability of militia units against the orderly British lines and their devastating volleys.
in modern warfare the guerilla is largely ineffective without RPGs or the like (see Chechnya, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.).
It's possible that this is true; certainly you need some kind of HE to meaningfully defeat armor. But I think this view reflects excessively tactical thinking (keep in mind the goals of a rearguard or an insurgency do not generally include total battlefield defeat of the enemy) and neglects the essential role of dismounted (and therefore vulnerable) infantry in protecting armor from fanatics armed only with rifles.
I also think you're forgetting an essential logistical lesson: it's much easier to steal heavy weapons from the enemy than try to stockpile them in advance.
One should not confuse the rag-tag but nonetheless regular army raised by the Continental Congress with a militia that occasionally drilled on the town green.
Well, I guess it's all in how you define "militia," but I still think that the frontiersmen in the battle of King's Mountain in 1780 and the various forces under Andrew Jackson (including pirates, Indians, and "men of color") at New Orleans in 1815 hardly qualify as "regular army".
"The British then tried to infiltrate the heartlands, but were met with heavy resistance from the townsfolk. Armed with whatever weapons they could find, the locals refused to give up their town to the invading British troops, which caused the British to withdraw to the town of Madison."
Change the above scene to Afghanistan, change "British" to "Russians," and it still has a lot of validity today....
Wikipedia indicates that King's mountain (about which I have no idependant knowledge) was a battle between Loyalist American milita led by a Brit and Patriot militia.
Consider, for instance, the Battle of Bunker Hill, which was a victory for the colonists only because of the substantial topographical advantage they held; had the British held that hill, no militia could have taken it, nor inflicted the damage that the British regulars did on the defenders (at great cost to themselves, of course). The discipline just isn't there.
The role of militia in NO appears to have been limited to protecting Jackson's flank; the regular army (with the benefit of artillery and some degree of fortification) did the heavy lifting.
But stepping back from the details for a moment, if you're right and I'm wrong, it only strengthens my broader point that an militia does not require private ownership of heavy weapons to be effective as a militia. Therefore, I feel no qualms about excluding RPGs from 2A protection.
Wikipedia indicates that King's mountain (about which I have no idependant knowledge) was a battle between Loyalist American milita led by a Brit and Patriot militia.
It was, but the win by the Patriots caused Cornwallis to retreat from North Carolina. Same in N'Orleans (British retreat), though they were contributors and weren't the main force. They were obviously less effective against the Giants. ;)
the Battle of Bunker Hill, which was a victory for the colonists only because of the substantial topographical advantage they held; had the British held that hill, no militia could have taken it
No dispute there. My point isn't that militia can stand toe-to-toe with a regular army force, but rather that there have been occasions where it has been more than competent in making further intrusion too costly for the enemy to continue. And IMHO deserving of a little more than "can fire a few shots while the women and children flee."
But we're completely digressing now....
Bunker hill was a defeat. For the British, it was a pyrrhic victory.
and, with reference to earlier in the thread, for most of US history, infantryman did not carry sidearms. They were much more likely to carry grenades.
The truth is that technology has made nonsense of the second amendment, nonsense that is not even salvageable when resorting to the underlying writings in the Federalist or antifederalist papaers (indeed, the original intent of the founders makes the amendment more inane). Even worse though would be stting the precedent of ignoring an existing amendment. We should really remove and clarify it, but that is impossible in the current political climate.
Njorl, you're right, my bad. But my point remains: only regular infantry would have continued to charge the hill in the face of devastating losses. Militia lacks the discipline for that sort of assault. On the other hand, it fights rather more ferociously in retreat, having, after all, something to lose.
We should really remove and clarify it, but that is impossible in the current political climate.
Yes, that's why we've asked to magicians of the Supreme Court, who unlike the rest of us can see the emanations of penumbras, to do it on our behalf.
"Militia lacks the discipline for that sort of assault. "
I agree, just wanted to clarify, or possibly nitpick.
I remember hearing an account of one of Washington's earlier battles. At the time, he had few trained regulars and large numbers of militia. He stationed the regulars at the rear, and very loudly ordered them to be prepared to shoot the militia if they retreated. He did not give the order even though they did rout. He just wanted to get a few good minutes of fighting from them. And this was in a battle he won.
"Yes, that's why we've asked to magicians of the Supreme Court, who unlike the rest of us can see the emanations of penumbras, to do it on our behalf."
I'm a firm believer of emanations and penumbras when they fall on empty space. But gun control is not empty space. The second amendment is there. Nullifying amendments is a bit more serious than finding implied rights. I think it is archaic, but I don't like the idea of the supreme court nullifying amendments just because they are archaic. I might not think the next one they nullify is so.
The truth is that technology has made nonsense of the second amendment, nonsense that is not even salvageable when resorting to the underlying writings in the Federalist or antifederalist papaers
Only if you accept that the militia clause is the dominant one, which is a shaky premise at best given both the debate that went into the writing of the ammendment, the social position of gun ownership at the time, and the positioning of the commas in the 2nd Ammendment sentence structure.
But try this scenario on for size: In 2008, Anystate, USA has experienced a series of bank robberies and two tellers and a civilian have been shot in the heists, one fatally. A federal manhunt is in progress but no arrests so far. Finally, at a local branch of Bank3 in Smalltown, the robbers show up again, but this time, two armed citizens are nearby when the robbery occurs. They draw their own weapons and hold the robbers at bay until the police are able to respond.
The exact scenario is fictitious, but similar events have happened regularly. Your challenge: What part of "technology" made "nonesense" out of this 2nd Amendment exercise?
brooksfoe wrote: anony-mouse, what you're saying only applies to a maximalist interpretation which would argue the amendment means you can walk down the street holding a bazooka.
That's an awful lot of tangential sputtering for such a simple refutation based primarily on a quote of the actual amendment under discussion. Notably, your attempt to divert to unrestricted HE weapon ownership is a foolish red herring, and you and I are both smart enough to know it. "Arms" in a 2A context would refer to the types of individual weapons anyone could reasonably be expected to access, own, service, and purchase ammunition for: things that fire bullets or buckshot, namely simple rifles, shotguns, and sidearms.
Reading the 2A in its appropriate context is not a call for unrestricted access to any weapon man can possibly imagine, but nor is it license to restrict any gun you don't like into oblivion. But okay, I'll play along:
brooksfoe continues: The point I'm making is addressed to the claim that a rule that says you have to keep your long guns disassembled within District limits "in effect bans them". It doesn't ban them. It limits the way you're allowed to keep them within District limits. To say it "in effect" bans them makes an assumption that the purpose of having them is to use them in a particular way -- a way that's not mentioned, moreover, in the 2nd Amendment.
So in other words, it's okay to ignore the plain meanings of words such as "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" provided we're not, you know, outright banning something. Because cutting off 7/10s of the Arms you can legally own in this country from the beginning until now, and relegating the remaining 3/10s to essentially museum pieces, isn't -- you know -- banning them.
Since I'd like to be able to place reasonable restrictions on your ability to speak such cartoonish nonsense in public...I reserve the right to examine the First Amendment on the grounds of this exact same logic. You would be okay with that, right? I mean, it's only a small and reasonable step from Fire In A Crowded Theater to declaring that all of your opinions on Topic X are legally permitted only in your own home and only if every word is printed on a separate sheet of paper and placed in secure storage, right?
And for good measure, I'll even make sure that a branch of the DC city government is your backup option if you ever have a problem involving these words. We can call them the Thought Police, and I can assure you, their only and incorruptible ojective is to serve a loyal citizen-taxpayer such as yourself.
Because cutting off 7/10s of the Arms you can legally own in this country from the beginning until now,
The District's firearms laws have been on the books ever since the District was a self-governing body. There is no national settled pattern of what kinds of guns you can or can't own or carry. Each area has its own rules. This may not make a lot of sense, but you can't make the argument you're making here -- that there is a settled national tradition of legal gun ownership which the District's gun laws are now suddenly overturning. It's more like the opposite: the courts are threatening to suddenly overturn the settled tradition of gun laws in the District.
This is the basic problem with your argument: you define "reasonable" to mean "what I think, and not what anybody who disagrees thinks". See e.g. here: ""Arms" in a 2A context would refer to the types of individual weapons anyone could reasonably be expected to access, own, service, and purchase ammunition for." Well, in the District, that means no handguns, and it means keeping your long gun disassembled, because that is the settled law of the District for the past 34 years, ever since it gained the right to make its own laws; so one would have to be quite unreasonable indeed to expect to own a handgun in DC.
The exact scenario is fictitious, but similar events have happened regularly.
And yet for some reason they're a bit too hard to find to use an actual one instead of making one up. Whereas numerous incidents in which intensely frustrated or psychotic young men use semi-automatic weapons to kill dozens of innocents are within an instant's Google search.
Must be media bias.
Brooksfoe: That's cute, particularly the part where you claim that my assertion of "reasonable" is something I invented out of whole cloth (rather than an ongoing and widely studied portion of this debate), but beyond that, the entire substance of your post rests on the assumption that because DC has held an extremely restrictive gun law for many years, it is "settled law". Wrong. That's not how judicial review works and its certainly not how constitutional law works.
To date the Supreme Court has heard less than a half-dozen cases involving the 2A, and in none of them was the individual-right interpretation confirmed or denied. That's why the ongoing DC v. Heller is attracting so much attention -- we may finally get an SC ruling that answers the question from a genuinely "settling" point of view. Interestingly, Members of Congress have filed two noteworthy amicus briefs in this case: in January, 18 members of the House sided with DC; last week, 250 members of the House, 55 Senators, and Cheney sided with Heller, and cited various pieces of Congressional legislation that have supported the individual rights view.
Amicus briefs are obviously not binding on the court, but given that disparity, here's something very spooky for you to contemplate: If the final decision in this case upholds that the DC ban is not infringing upon the 2A, what do you want to bet that there's enough political momentum right now to get 38 states' worth of votes for an amendment that says it explicitly?
And yet for some reason they're a bit too hard to find to use an actual one instead of making one up.
Actually, there was that instance at an Appalachian college (forget the name just now, but it was within the past two years IIRC) where two students retrieved weapons from their vehicles in order to successfully confront a gunman about to go on a spree. I also read about incidents of the type described in varying degrees on my local news sites, but because the impending doom is shut down before it can start, they don't stay in the news very long while mass tragedies generate lots of immediate and follow-up news, discussion on message boards, etc.; and are thus readily retrievable on, e.g., Google.
Whereas numerous incidents in which intensely frustrated or psychotic young men use semi-automatic weapons to kill dozens of innocents are within an instant's Google search.
You must mean cases like Virginia Tech, where the psychotic young man had entire rooms of defenseless targets at his disposal because it was explicitly a gun free zone.
Seriously, do you really want to play this card? We can break down DC crime statistics and trends, and see how well "gun free" legilation scores in preventing the criminals from fulfilling their evil desires with guns. Or, if you want an example of an entire nation with gun bans, a weak form of civil liberties, and water borders, the UK is readily available as a test subject.
Personally, I have my doubts that you've got an honest answer to this, since a truly honest answer would involve three components that are anathema to one's pride (and, in the US, politically fatal to admit openly):
1. "I don't like guns, and nothing you say can change my mind."
2. "I don't now have a plausible means of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, and am unlikely to produce one in light of the logistical difficulties."
3. "Persuant to (1), I accept no conditions under which guns should be freely available and usabe by the law abiding, in spite of (2)."
I should add that I own no firearms now and have no plans to purchase any, and have never fired any weapons other than a bow and a CO2 pistol, although there's a small possibility I might inherit a single-shot .22 rifle and a shotgun someday. But that's no reason to abandon all logic and reason when dealing with the fact of guns, their prevelence, and the law on the matter starting with the constitution, and working downward from there (not the other way around as you seem to have it bejiggered).
Must be media bias.
Well, yes and no. If it bleeds, it leads, but if some dude trying to kill people gets shot early on, then local coverage at best. That's Media 101, and requires no assumptions about bias than are necessary to observe that hot blond chicks get more missing-persons coverage than old black men.
As an aside, Appalachian College of Law shooting did, in fact, receive considerable media attention which, conveniently, left out the fact that the students who "subdued" the gunman did so by pointing guns at him. I don't claim to know the motivation behind this omission.
If you're interested to read about guns used in self-defense, The Armed Citizen column published in all the NRA magazines has 5-10 stories a month, complete with newspaper names and dates, which you could try to confirm if you were so inclined.
None of this has anything to do with the constitutional question, of course; I spend very little time worshiping idols my neighbors abhor, but I reserve the right to start anytime, whether you like it or not.
But try this scenario on for size: In 2008, Anystate, USA has experienced a series of bank robberies and two tellers and a civilian have been shot in the heists, one fatally. A federal manhunt is in progress but no arrests so far. Finally, at a local branch of Bank3 in Smalltown, the robbers show up again, but this time, two armed citizens are nearby when the robbery occurs. They draw their own weapons and hold the robbers at bay until the police are able to respond.
The exact scenario is fictitious, but similar events have happened regularly. Your challenge: What part of "technology" made "nonesense" out of this 2nd Amendment exercise?
The part where the bank robbers' back up team blew up all of the police cars that responded with RPGs, and mines then extracted their pinned down team by walking through the front door of the bank in ballistic armor and killing the armed good citizens with fully automatic weapons.
The part where the bank robbers' back up team blew up all of the police cars that responded with RPGs, and mines then extracted their pinned down team by walking through the front door of the bank in ballistic armor and killing the armed good citizens with fully automatic weapons.
This, kids, is what happens when you confuse movies with real life. In practice, incidents of this type almost invariably involve criminals with guns and citizens with guns.
Although, it is worth commenting that a very small number of events like yours have occurred in real life, in spite of the strict regulations that theoretically prevent criminals from having access to any such gear. IIRC at least one such incident was the primary motivation behind Los Angeles forming the nation's first SWAT team.
You might also note that it is possible to have a strong individual rights interpretation of the 2A based on the "militia" clause without stipulating unconditional access to any weapon ever devised.
Got any more softballs?
'You might also note that it is possible to have a strong individual rights interpretation of the 2A based on the "militia" clause without stipulating unconditional access to any weapon ever devised.'
Yeah, you ignore what it says. That works. It also works for people who want to ban guns altogether. I have never seen any argument for the 2nd amendment that allows hand guns but does not allow RPGs. They get made. They just aren't any good.
The point of the amendment is so that a militia can resist the armed forces of the federal government and thereby prevent tyranny. For that, modern weapons are necessary. RPGs, mines and automatic weapons are a bare minimum now for what the amendment was designed to do.
The most common result of an at-bat in fast pitch softball is a strike out.
The point of the amendment is so that a militia can resist the armed forces of the federal government and thereby prevent tyranny. For that, modern weapons are necessary.
If by modern you mean "breach loading," then OK, but I don't see why private possession of RPGs is necessary to resist tyranny. Again, this belief rests on excessively tactical thinking. No army on Earth can stand against the might of the US armed forces. Certainly no militia can. But the only requirement for resisting tyranny is to cause enough havoc that either the tyrants relent or their army refuses to participate.
You don't need heavy weapons to make an area ungovernable, and you don't need any weapons at all to make US soldiers queasy about driving armor down Main Street USA. We see in Iraq how much damage an improvised insurgency can cause; try drumming up Congressional/Pentagon support for a "surge" into a US city.
And to the extent that HE based weapons are truly essential, there's no reason to think they couldn't be improvised or stolen by a band of fanatics who start only with rifles. Doing so is much, much cheaper than trying to stockpile them in advance.
anony-mouse: I am proud to state that I embrace all 3 of the propositions you list. On point 2, I think that the efforts of gun proponents in the US over the last 30 years have gotten things to the point where there is no plausible short- or medium-term way to get guns out of the hands of American criminals anymore. I believe that gun proponents should be reviled and despised for the role they have played in subjecting Americans to greater gun violence. I think that tighter regulation of handguns may play a marginal role in increasing their price and thus perhaps reducing availability and use, so I support that wherever possible. Another good proposal would be a sharp tax on handgun sales that would raise the price of over-the-counter guns and thus, via good old supply and demand, of under-the-counter guns as well.
How have gun proponents helped get guns into the hands of criminals? They have primarily opposed idiotic gun restrictions like bans on "assault weapons" (including a ban on the dreaded bayonet) and "plastic guns" and "cop killer" bullets.
The biggest success of "gun proponents" is probably the prevalence of concealed carry laws... and those have had a positive effect, if anything, on gun violence.
Handguns are small and easy to make. Good luck getting them off the streets short of a massive government intervention that tramples all over the Bill of Rights.
The War on Drugs has probably done more to increase gun violence than anything else... along with other harm to lives and civil rights. Instead of passing laws that will disproportionately affect the law-abiding, how about let's focus on stopping the War on Drugs?
How "idiotic", trying to "ban" "plastic" "weapons" that "terrorists" can "sneak" past "metal detectors" to "kill" "innocent people" on "airplanes", or "ammunition" that is "specifically" "designed" to "pierce" "body armor" worn by "police".
When I was 8, we used to play a game at recess called "mall ball", which was essentially full-contact, no-hits-barred rugby. After we'd been playing it a few weeks, teachers spotted us and banned it, out of the entirely reasonable concern that someone was going to break his neck. We protested their decision with an utterly righteous fury, ridiculing what we considered their absurd nannying. Gun owners' attitudes towards regulations which bar those of their toys clearly designed to commit acts of terrorism or kill officers of the law remind me of what my own behavior as an 8-year-old must have looked like to a responsible adult.
Another good proposal would be a sharp tax on handgun sales that would raise the price of over-the-counter guns and thus, via good old supply and demand, of under-the-counter guns as well.
I question how true this would be. I would think the two markets are almost entirely independent. A person looking to legally own a weapon simply isn't going to purchase one of the black market and someone who wants a weapon for criminal reasons isn't going to want a paper trail. I wouldn't be surprised is legal weapons and illegal weapons are for all practical purposes different products.
The so-called plastic guns had plastic in the frame. The barrel and slide are still metal and other parts (springs, levers) are also metal. The plastic is used to lighten the gun. They can't sneak past metal detectors. I own a Glock, which is one of the guns help up as an example of the so-called plastic guns. I can assure you that the barrel and slide are still quite metallic.
"Cop Killer" bullets were requested by police to penetrate doors and windshields. They used a solid brass core (instead of lead) and did actually penetrate vests slightly better than standard lead bullets. They were coated with teflon to reduce barrel wear (the brass did not deform to the barrel like led). Some places still ban "coated bullets" on the mistaken assumption that the coating had something to do with the armor-piercing-ness.
As an aside, I used to shoot cheap steel core ammunition from my SKS. It cost about $0.10 per round in bulk. Someone chambered a target pistol in the same round (7.62x39mm) and the steel core ammunition suddenly became illegal since it was technicall an "armor piercing" bullet that could be fired from a pistol (most-likely a single-shot target pistol). Now I have to use hunting rounds, which are hollow-points designed to expand in flesh, causing more damage than a steel-core bullet would.
The whole "assault weapon" thing was just silly. There is no such thing as an assault weapon. I bought a cheap Chinese made SKS chambered in 7.62x39. It's relatively low powered and not all that accurate. It's very good for target shooting. it is military surplus, though, and has a military-style stock and a bayonet lug. it actually came with a bayonet. it's semi-automatic and had an integral 10-round magazine. when target shooting, I like to use 20-round detachable magazines. I was not allowed to use them with my rifle unless I replaced the stock with a "sporting style" stock and filed off the bayonet lug (btw, it was a felony to attach the bayonet). I did these two things and used 20-round detachable magazines. Don't you feel safer, though?
My friend by a Ruger sport rifle also chambered in7.62x39mm. It was not an "assault weapon" so it came with 20-round detachable magazines. It was probably more accurate than my SKS. But it wasn't regulated by the "assault weapon' ban because it was . . . um? No good reason, they were functionally identical.
Gun laws are often irrational and based on emotion, not logic. Anti-gun groups explicitly desire to ban guns altogether and look at each new law as another step down the slippery slope. if these anti-gun gropus weren't so aggressive, many sensible gun owners would be more willing to accept reasonable limitations. When the person pushing for the limitations tells you that this is only the first stop to confiscating all your guns, though, we get a little nervous about compromising.
You don't need heavy weapons to make an area ungovernable,
Yes, you do. What successful insurgencies don't have them?
and you don't need any weapons at all to make US soldiers queasy about driving armor down Main Street USA.
Excellent! So the second amendment can be repealed.
We see in Iraq how much damage an improvised insurgency can cause;
One that started with automatic weapons and more high explosives than they can find uses for.
It's not that hard to convert semi-automatic weapons into fully automatic weapons, but fully automatic weapons aren't that useful. Single shot rifles would be pretty useful, especially in the hands of hunters hiding out in the woods. It would be hard to track down ALL the hunters in the US...
Explosives are also not that hard to make.
What are you arguing, anyway? We have a second amendment... as written, it at least applies to small arms (pistols, rifles, shotguns) since they had those when it was written. We can argue about drawing the line somewhere, but are you arguing that it must cover no weapons or all weapons and that there's no room for debate or line-drawing?
are you arguing that it must cover no weapons or all weapons and that there's no room for debate or line-drawing?
No, EI, that's exactly what I'm not arguing. I think precisely that "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed" does not mean that every individual has an inalienable constitutional right to carry any type of weapon whatsoever, whenever and wherever they want to. I think there's clearly a general intent behind the amendment that citizens cannot be barred from owning firearms tout court. But I think that debate over the rational rules of what kinds of arms private citizens should be allowed to own and when and where they should be allowed to carry and use them is exactly what should be engaged in, and it should proceed along rational lines: what are the benefits and harms of permitting or forbidding any citizen to carry and use deadly weapons of different kinds under different circumstances.
Similarly, if there were a constitutional amendment that said "the ability to travel being essential to the development of citizens in a free state, the right of the people to drive cars shall not be infringed", it wouldn't mean you could build a 20-foot-tall siege tower with a 400 hp Camaro engine and spears sticking out the sides and drive it the wrong way up Lexington Avenue at 90 mph. Setting rules about what vehicles are street-legal, and requiring licensing tests, doesn't mean that the right of the people to drive cars has been infringed. Saudi Arabia saying women can't drive -- THAT's infringing on the right to drive cars.
Does this make sense?
I see where you are coming from... but it IS an Amendment to the Constitution and so carries more weight than a suggestion. There should be a line or the Constitution is meaningless. The government should not make it difficult for a law abiding citizen to arm himself in some fashion under most circumstances. I don't have a problem with disarming felons or requiring some training as long as it's something that anyone can do.
I don't want everyone wandering around with an RPG and a bandoleer of hand grenades but I also don't want cities to put "reasonable restrictions" on gun ownership to the point where citizens essentially can't own guns. D.C. has made it impossible to own guns in any useful sense by restricting the right to own guns.
The 2nd Amendment says "keep" and "bear". You can't "bear arms" if they are disassembled, locked up, and in a safe buried in your backyard. A shall-issue concealed carry permit seems more reasonable. Anyone who meets minimal requirements (not blind, reasonable sane, not a felon) must be given a permit. I would even like to see open carry laws where you can openly carry a rifle or shotgun... but you run the risk of incurring assault charges if you menace people with them or reckless endangerment charges if you wave them around a mall or let preschoolers handle them.
Gun owners' attitudes towards regulations which bar those of their toys clearly designed to commit acts of terrorism or kill officers of the law
brooksfoe, which weapons are those again, exactly?
Part of the problem here is that you're arguing with people who know a lot about guns, and while its possible you know a lot yourself, so far you haven't show it. EI put quotes around his examples because they represent totally bogus terms used to frighten people who don't know that much about guns.
So long as we're using a cars analogy, how would you feel about baning "racing cars" from the streets? Sounds reasonable...unless "racing cars" means "any car with room for fewer than 5 occupants" or "any car with a gas tank larger than 10 gallons" or "any car painted red." Such regulations would be completely idiotic and accomplish nothing for highway safety. So it is with gun owners when confronted with people screaming about weapons "intended" to commit terrorism or kill police officers. More often than not the characteristics under attack by the poorly-informed are either a) cosmetic or b) essential to the usefulness of the gun for legitimate purposes.
For instance, you could ban all weapons firing bullets capable of penetrating Type III body armor. Oops! No more deer hunting rifles, or for that matter rifles other than .22 and perhaps some carbines chambered for pistol rounds. You could ban all weapons that look like machine guns (that would be the rough purpose of the "assault weapons" ban) but what exactly is the point of banning the way something looks? Really, you expect us gun owners to go along with people who are plainly legislating either from total ignorance or in bad faith? Would you?
So while I can understand that you believe restrictions on legal handgun availability will reduce the murder rate (I disagree, but whatever), I don't know which of my "toys" you think "designed" for terrorism or murder, which do not also have perfectly legitimate purposes, or which are not functionally equivalent to weapons you would consider acceptable. And the thing is, I suspect you don't know either.
But feel free to prove me wrong. and provide a list.
Yes, you do. What successful insurgencies don't have [HE]?
Well, the gangs which control chunks of the French suburbs seem to get on OK without them. They could be crushed by a show of French political will and armor, but my point all along has been that the purpose of a domestic US insurgency would be to break political will for continued tyranny, not turn back the US army in a conventional tanks-and-infantry battle. Nobody can do the latter; lots of rag-tag losers have managed to do the former.
Excellent! So the second amendment can be repealed.
Um, part of what makes American soldiers queasy about driving tanks down main street is the possibility of having to fire on Americans, or being fired on by same. The mere driving of the tanks isn't the issue; the morale of soldiers turned against their own population is. Furthermore, the image of tanks on main street is not going to be popular with the rest of the country; lots of people are still pissed by the APCs at Waco, and David Koresh wasn't exactly George Washington. If the population can't shoot back, there is 1) no need for armor, or 2) far less of a "turning against" problem.
I'm sorry if my allusion to the essential role of morale and popular opinion was to subtle for you.
One that started with automatic weapons and more high explosives than they can find uses for
So, ordinary Iraqis were stockpiling HE in their homes? Or was it maybe stolen by rifle-wielding insurgents? If you really, really, need HE--and I doubt that you do, or even that it would be all that desirable as a tool if what we're talking about is an American civil war--theft, mixing in the basement, and the cultivation of military/NG turncoats are all ways to get it without stockpiling in advance.
this doesn't help me at all for my project