| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/24 |
| 2000/10/27 [Reference/Military] UID:19579 Activity:insanely high |
10/26 Replying to peace-loving caste member who loves gun freedom:
\_ I don't buy that having
guns available would make
a difference in controlling
government abuses in a
established democracy
like the US, with a
mature system of checks
and balances and a free
press.
\_ Except the press is bought
off and biased. People
are people. Nothing
magical about the press.
As for carrying out the
laws and controlling
crimes, that's what
governments are for, or
would you rather have
mob justice and blood
revenges like they have
Azerbajian or some other
3rd world hell hole?
\_ Governments don't always
"get it right".
As a matter of fact, I do
not believe in banning
guns totally in the US.
I believe that, given the
wide availability of guns,
people should have the
choice to have a gun for
personal protection.
\_ "As a matter of fact, I
do not believe in banning
murder totally in the US.
I believe that, given the
high murder rate, people
should have the choice to
murder or not."
But if you believe that
having guns available to
the general populace have
helped reduce crime or
helped curb government
abuses, I think you are
very much misguided.
\_ URL, please. Don't put
your opinion as fact on
the motd without a URL
to back up your statements.
It only annoys people who
are intelligent and want
a discussion rather than
a rant.
Here are a few quotes to support my point _/
These are men who knew first hand the
effect of disarming the populace:
Thomas Jefferson:
"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 Paine:
"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."
\_ As much as I repect Tom and Tom, these are also just opinions,
not facts. They do not "prove [any] point". No "Horrid mischief"
happened in the many European democracies that banned the general
populace from owning guns.
\_ changed to support. I should not have said proved.
\_ You mean like Germany, 1930s? Or England since they started
their war vs the IRA?
\_ It's lucky they do not have guns in Northern Ireland.
They would have started a civil war.
\_ changed to support. I should not have said proved. And which
european democracies have as much freedom as we do? None.
\_ Netherlands? France? What kind of freedoms do we have
that they don't have?
America is the last best hope of man on earth.
\_ American is the first, last, and only hope for free thinking
free willed people on this planet.
\_ Does that mean it also has to hve the highest homicide rate
\_ Does that mean it also has to have the highest homicide rate
in the world?
\_ This isn't Europe. I wouldn't want this country to be like Europe.
The whole point of this country was to *not* be like Europe. Stop
using Europe as some magic faery land of wonderment and joy and
\_ We also shouldn't misapply the lessons of other cultures. Been
to Europe? They're nothing like Americans. Totally different
place. It was like walking in an alternate universe.
\_ Huh? Visited disneyland, ate at McDonald's, shopped at
Walmart, feels just like home to me.
perfection in government. It isn't. As far as Tom/Tom quotes go,
these aren't facts but they make sense if you bothered to read them.
Who is a criminal more likely to attack? The man with the gun or
universe", the Americ of Jefferson's time is what I would
without the gun? Apply some common sense.
\_ We also shouldn't misapply the lessons of other cultures. Been
to Europe? They're nothing like Americans. Totally different
place. It was like walking in an alternate universe.
\_ Huh? Visited disneyland, ate at McDonald's, shopped at
Walmart, feels just like home to me.
Western Europe, Australia and Canada are the countries that
are culturally, and political and economic system wise the
closest to the US. If you want to talk about "alternate
universe", the America of Jefferson's time is what I would
call an "alternate universe".
\_ You are wrong. In America we value individual liberties
and live in a representative republic that was founded
to preserve those liberties and freedoms. We are not
a *socialist* welfare state like the countries you
named.
\_ High taxes and individual liberties don't
necessarily have an inversee relationship.
Fucking Singapore and Hongkong has less taxes
move liberty.
percentage wise than the US. Doesn't mean they have
more liberty.
\_ Can't you just stick to the issue? Nobody is asking you to make
the country like Europe. American exceptionalism is great, but
it does not mean we should rule out learning from others'
experience. Who do you fear more, a criminal with a knife,
or a criminal with a gun?
\_ I fear either if I'm not allowed to carry a gun, which
I'm not in California. But in answer to your question,
a knife wound is quite easily fatal, even if a ER was
right next door. Bullets make cleaner holes and usually
don't take out a vital organ. Knife wounds bleed badly.
\_ Do you seriously believe it is not easier to kill a
Why do mankind ven fucking invented the gun for?
person with a gun as compared to a knife? Why do
police and criminals use guns rather than knives then.
Why do mankind even fucking invented the gun for?
\_ Okay consider Australia's problems after banning guns.
As discussed in this article, contrary to popular belief
violence has increased rather than decreased.
<DEAD>www.sas-aim.org/news/australia.htm<DEAD>
\_ Ya, sure, quote a page from "Second Amendment Sisters,
Inc." I will give you a counter page then from
"Million Mom March" then:
http://www.millionmommarch.com/home/index.cfm
\_ Okay, show me the numbers. At least the SAS has
factual support for thier claims.
So, when law-abiding citizens who were law-abiding when they purchased
their weapons turn into criminals by using the gun against another
law abiding citizen, are they counted as "law-abiding gun owners"
or "criminals who were able to obtain the guns anyways."?
\_ You didn't find the stats? Ok, here you are:
http://www.millionmommarch.com/home/index.cfm?page=uk_laws&action=info
\_ I can show many examples of HCI/MMM lying.
For example, only 100,000 moms showed up.
\_ Uh, no it was more like 10,000 moms. And
here is a page that refutes what MMM says:
http://spot.colorado.edu/~tiemann/guns.html
\_ Both are equally deadly.
\_ what a ridiculous statement. A gunshot wound is
far more likely to kill than a knife wound. A
gunshot wound can be delievered from a distance,
a knife wound normally can't.
The "hear-no-evil" world view of the NRA-types is
amazing. -tom
\_ Yeah, the thug in a dark alley draws a knife
and puts it to your throat, or he draws a gun
puts it to your head, which is deadlier? They
are equally deadly.
And when the feds come to your house with thier
M16s, your puny little knife is going to be
enough to stop them from infringing on your
rights. Yeah. I'd rather live free than live
as a slave.
And if you think that no guns == safer society
you are dead wrong and will be dead wrong.
\_ A man with a gun can kill a few people, then is
out of ammo and must reload and can only carry
just so many rounds. A man with a knife can
kill you, your family, your neighbors, your dog,
slash your tires, and then make dinner with it.
A weapon is a weapon is a weapon. Each has a
different purpose and ideal use. A knife is not
less deadly than a gun, merely different. The
other poster who said they are equally deadly was
not in any way being ridiculous. The world
view of the "gub'ment will protect me" types
are simply amazing.
\_ I can take on a criminal with a knife. Unless knives
are banned.
\_ Yup. We all get lucky sometimes. Lets ban knives.
\_ Here are some URLS:
http://www.saf.org/journal/4_costs.html
http://www.saf.org/journal/4_Franklin.htm
http://www.saf.org/journal/4_Bordenet.html
http://www.saf.org/journal/5_Kopel.htm
http://http://www.rkba.org/comment/cowards.html
In short, having a gun
may be beneficial to
an individual in
specific circumstances,
but the wide spread
availability of guns
has been detrimental
to the US populace in
general.
\_ So a good thing for one
person becomes a bad thing
when many individuals
benefit from that same
thing? Hello?
\_ It's called "the
tragedy of the commons" and
it's a well-understood
phenomenon. Obvious example;
880 South at 8:00 AM. -tom
\_ So if we all have guns then
suddenly Something Terrible
will happen? Thanks for
the scare tactics.
\_ If I stand up to get
a better view in the
movie theater it is
good for me. If
everyone stands up
it is bad for all.
-!original poster
\_ it's bad for the
short people.
\_ Apples/Oranges.
Gun use is not a
limited resource.
LOS to the screen
in a theatre is.
Nice try, though.
As it relates to gun ownership this does _/
not apply as the entire populace needs to
be armed or at least have the ability to
be armed in order to preseve freedom.
Given the above, I
think it is right
to call for tougher
gun laws, but not to
ban it altogether.
\_ Tougher gun laws? Like?
This is the phrase a lot
of the gun ban lobby use
to cover the writing of
laws which chip away at
the 2nd amendment until
there's isn't one.
Registering guns annually (or some reasonable _/
time period). Penalty and responsibility if
gun registered under you is stolen or used to
commit a crime.
\_ Oh, THAT'S just. Someone steals your gun, and commits murder
and YOU'RE in trouble. Regardless of how well you protected it.
REAL fair. I want the same rules applied to your car. --PeterM
\_ That's what happens when you lose your rifle in the army.
\_ So you agree with registering guns annually (or some
reasonable time frame)?
\_ No. The government ought not know how many guns I have,
otherwise they can use that information against me.
\_ Are you against registering motor vehicles too.
I am sure the government can use that against you too.
\_ Of course penalty will vary depending on circumstance under
which the gun is stolen.
\_ Theft should be reported as soon as possible.
\_ Ever watch Red Dawn? That's what happens to people
who register their guns.
\_ So, when law-abiding citizens who were law-abiding when they purchased
their weapons turn into criminals by using the gun against another
law abiding citizen, are they counted as "law-abiding gun owners"
or "criminals who were able to obtain the guns anyways."?
\_ Depends on the circumstances. If you are attacking me, and I
pull out my gun and defend myself, then it is justified. If
a gun owner pulls out his gun and wacks someone its homocide,
but there are laws to deal with that. And if you say that its
easy to get a gun and kill many people, consider how easy it
is to make a bomb with household chemicals. Perhaps they should
all be banned too?
\_ everyone should own a submachine gun (either H&K UMP in
.40S&W or .45ACP or Steyr TMP), a machine gun (Russian An-94
or OICW), a hi-cap side arm (Para Ordance P-14-45 LDA or Glock 17),
a hi-cap shotgun (Franchi SPAS 12, or Benelli M3 Super 90), and
an anti-aircraft machine gun (naturally a M-2BMG).
\_ No thanks! I will just have a good ol' AK-47 and a Hitler
Jugend dagger with "Blut und Ehre" engraved. -neocommienazi
\_ The 7.62mm x 39mm cartridge of an AK-47 has been proven
to be inferior to that of it's successor the 5.45mm x 39mm
used in the current standard rifle of the Russian military,
the AK-74. The AK-47 is also grossly inaccurate. |
| 5/24 |
|
| www.millionmommarch.com/home/index.cfm If you entered the URL manually please check your spelling and try again. |
| www.millionmommarch.com/home/index.cfm?page=uk_laws&action=info If you entered the URL manually please check your spelling and try again. |
| spot.colorado.edu/~tiemann/guns.html Port 80 References 1. |
| www.saf.org/journal/4_costs.html THE COSTS OF USING GUN CONTROL TO REDUCE HOMICIDE Alan A. This paper evaluates some of the costs of using gun control to reduce the homicide rate. However, gun control did not have to be the medium to carry the theme of the paper. Any social policy would have sufficed because any social policy to affect any behavior in society will have costs associated with it. I would like to discuss what some of those costs might be to pursue gun control as a social policy. I choose gun control as a policy to discuss for two reasons. First, I am familiar with the literature and research on gun control. But second and more important, gun control seems to be a sacred cow. For many it seems to be a policy with many benefits and few if any costs. Of course, gun control like any other policy, has its costs. It is just that until very recently we have not attempted to evaluate those costs and to examine this sacred cow. As suggested in other presentations at this conference, there is no quick fix in the policy realm. Policy initiatives take time, they have costs and they frequently fail. Because of this, a policy analyst must think through any policy, evaluate possible costs and outcomes regardless of how appealing the policy might seem at first glance. Once costs and possible outcomes have been evaluated, we can decide if we are willing to pay the costs necessary to pursue the policy. Or we may wish to abandon the policy because the possible outcomes, which were initially hidden, are unacceptable. If a person committed a crime with a gun, that person was, without exception, to be sentenced to serve a two-year prison sentence. One would think that a law like this could be instituted rela- tively easily. After exhaustive research they concluded that the law simply was not used in Detroit. To some it means tough laws to deal with criminals who commit crimes with guns. To many it is a vague notion about controlling something that they know little about. Interestingly, if one knows little about something and wants to control it, that person probably knows little about how to, or the cost of, con- trol. This is, of course, part of the point of this discussion. Because space and specificity preclude full discussion of the Topic, I shall consider some possible costs of pursuing some types of gun control. Before any policy is pursued, however, these sorts of costs should be evaluated. If we ignore this warning for any proposed policy we could create a disaster. SOME PUBLIC HEALTH COSTS OF HANDGUN ONLY CONTROL Let us begin by considering the possible effects of gun control on the homicide rate. Many people assume or posit that gun control would reduce the homicide rate. In specific, many people argue that since handguns are the weapon of choice for those committing homicide, we should confiscate handguns. This research was conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States military. Kleck reports that the research suggests that as firearm caliber in-- creases, the lethality of the weapon increases. That is, if 20% of handgun criminals shifted to clubs and knives, or something less deadly than a handgun, and no deaths occurred for that 80%, the death rate would still double because of the 20% shifting to more deadly weapons! Let us assume that Kleck's findings are roughly correct. One might respond to Kleck by arguing that fewer than 20% of handgun criminals would shift to more deadly long guns. Wright and Rossi asked these felons what they would do if they could not obtain a handgun to commit a crime. About 75% of them responded that they would saw off a rifle or shotgun in substitution for the handgun! One might respond to Wright and Rossi that these felons would not have the motivation or technical skill actually to saw off a long gun to make it as concealable as a handgun. However, they also asked these felons if they had ever done this when they could not obtain a handgun. Surprisingly, about 75% of those saying that they would saw off a long gun if they could not obtain a handgun also said that they had done this in the past! This means that if Kleck's 20% substi- tution leading to a doubling in death rates is correct and Wright and Rossi's felons are accurate, then we might expect a quintu-- pling in the death rate with handgun only control. To the ex- tent that their estimates are high we might only expect a four-- fold, or three-fold or maybe no increase in the death rate. This implies that handgun only control is not a good idea. However, death rates in gun attacks are higher than in knife attacks. This means that some proportion of the criminals who shift from handguns would turn to knives, and this increase in knife usage would increase the injury rate. So if Kleck, Wright, Rossi and Cook are correct, handgun only control might result in the paradox of an increase in the death rate and an increase in the injury rate! This body of research suggests that handgun only control could result in costs which we are not willing to pay. If we are not willing to pay these costs we might wish to pursue a differ- ent form of gun control. Perhaps a bigger, more encompassing policy would be in order, or perhaps, a smaller more easily managed policy alternative. Whatever the choice, these alter- native policies would have costs and benefits associated with them. These new costs and benefits would have to be evaluated. And we would have to decide whether or not we would be willing to pay the price. SOME RELATED PUBLIC HEALTH COSTS OF HANDGUN CONTROL In an earlier presentation, Professor Zahn reported that young black urban women are not violence prone. Yet, young black urban men do tend to have high rates of violent crime. She suggested that we, as social scientists, investigate the reasons for these differences. Professor Bordua and I also noticed these differ- ences. In part, we addressed this issue with data from the state of Illinois. In order legally to own guns in Illinois, one must have a Firearms Owners Identification Card. We found that the rate of male gun ownership is uncorrelated with the crime rate. However, the rate of female gun ownership is positively correlated with the rate of violent crime. In fact, the research suggests that young black urban women are the most likely group to own guns. Yet, Professor Zuhn reminds us that young black urban women are not likely to commit violent crimes. Women in general are not likely to commit violent crimes. No serious criminologist would argue that significant num-- bers of black women buy guns to commit crimes. Therefore, we can only conclude that significant numbers of young black urban women do buy guns to protect themselves from crime. In an earlier presentation Professor Loftin used a burning building analogy to make a point. He said that if a building were on fire the crowd in the building could be thought as being ar- rayed in a queue. If there were no panic, people at the end of the line may or may not escape from the building. However, people at the end of the line might panic because they would realize that their probability of survival is the lowest: This panic could result in more death and injury, but it is a natural re- sponse to a dangerous situation. Young black urban women may see themselves at the back of the line in the burning building. They are the least likely to receive adequate protection from the criminal justice system and the most likely to be victimized. They may reason that a handgun puts them at the front of the line. More re- search needs to be done to determine the efficacy of using a gun for protection. The gun could increase the probability of injury to the victim. Or, more likely, if it is widely known that a certain social category of people on the street is armed, criminals may avoid that group. If criminals are informed, all this suggests that handgun control or confiscation may increase the death and injury rates for these women. The point is that policies can have unintended negative and posi- tive outcomes. SOME OTHER COSTS OF SOCIAL POLICIES To this point we have only considered the possible costs of handgun control in terms of death and suffering. The... |
| www.saf.org/journal/4_Franklin.htm Everywhere else in the country, there is a fairly realistic approach to crime. Gun laws are part of that approach, but they are not emphasized as a cure-all, nor are they maliciously enforced to deny people firearms for sport or self-defense. David Dinkins at first called for stricter gun laws in New York City, until he realized they could get no worse unless he called for gun confiscation and that would affect his rich friends and businessmen. Bowers stated there was a substitution of "a bar stool or something" rather than a gun during a conflict. I would pose the following questions: if people are being assaulted at the same rate, but with different weapons, does it really matter? Is there really much difference between being assaulted with a gun and being assaulted with a club if the end result is the same? The only possible benefit of a decrease in gun assaults is that less assaults will end in homicide because guns are more deadly than bar stools. If that is not occurring, however, why does it matter what people assault each other with? Are we suddenly "more civilized" because we are wounding and robbing each other with rocks and sticks rather than guns? Something very much like a natural instinct tells the honest householder that to make him ask anybodys Page 106 permission to have a revolver in his bureau drawer, or even under his pillow, is a hardship tinged with absurdity. A weapons law, to be enforceable, must be as considerate as possible of this feeling, and it was a grave weakness of the Sullivan law that it didnt do it. According to the Presidents Commission on Crime in the District of Columbia: New York City administers the Sullivan Laws licensing provisions restrictively with the apparent goal of making private ownership of handguns as uncommon as possible; According to Kates: Page 107 This policy of progressively limiting permits given ordinary citizens had reduced premises permits to one-seventh the number issued in London England . When New York appellate courts held that applicants could only be rejected if found unfit, New York City simply ignored the rulings. When the gun lobby obtained injunctions forcing the city to comply, it did, but only after establishing a two-year waft to obtain the gun permit form. In other words, in the robbery capital of the United States, only 34,740 people out of 7 million have lives that are officially worth protecting. As Krug points out, the firearms homicide rate is much higher in New York City than in the rest of the state: Both the 1966 firearms murder rate and firearms aggravated assault rate were substantially greater in New York City than in the New York State area outside of the city. See, for example, Ruth, Daniel, "Every red-blooded hunter needs an AK-47," Chicago Sun-Times, January 21, 1989, p. Similarly, the Wall Street Journal editorialized: The assault rifle issue, it seems to us, is less a public policy debate than a cultural clash. The cosmopolitan culture doesnt know one kind of weapon from the other and doesnt much care. Basically, it believes that guns are nasty and duck hunting is barbaric. The bedrock culture may not like white wine and Brie, but it is plenty smart enough to recognize Men it is under attack. Wolfgang, Marvin, Patterns in Criminal Homicide (University of Pennsylvania), 1958, p. A Study of Armed Crime and Firearms Control in England and Wales, (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul) 1972; Howell, "Handguns and Homicide: minimizing losses and the costs of control," J. Aft, "The effect of Massachusetts gun control law on gun-related crime in the City of Boston," Evaluation Quarterly, 1977, 1:543-568. First, the study uses cross-cultural comparisons, between Vancouver, British Columbia (Canada) and Seattle, Washington (United States). Third, the study makes the egregious error of comparing two cites with enormous cultural differences. The law was meant to strengthen penalties for violations of New York States Sullivan Law, adopted in 1911, at the urging of politician Tim Sullivan. The law requires a police permit for the possession of a weapon. The most notable case is that of Bernard Goetz, who was acquitted of all criminal charges by a jury -- with the exception of the gun charge, which the jury also wanted to drop. The judge instructed the jury that Goetz had to be found guilty of the illegal weapons charge. Several other recent cases are reported by the New York Daily News. Yvesnande Bureau, 20, who was mugged three times last year, fires an unlicensed gun at a man who tries to rob her at a Brooklyn traffic light. Permits to possess a firearm are extremely difficult to obtain. According to the New York Daily News, "About 25 percent of those who apply are approved. Applicants must prove they regularly carry large amounts of cash or operate a robbery-prone business in a high-crime area. Goetz did not demonstrate a "need" for a permit - although he had previously been mugged. For example, one ad read: "New York has the toughest gun law In America, If you get caught carrying an illegal handgun In New York, youll go to jail for one year. The Citizens Crime Commission concurred, arguing the law could save 200 lives in a two-year period. The New York Daily News, New York Post, and many other dailies ran continual editorials and stories throughout February, 1980 supporting the adoption of the new law. For example, Earlville, New York, adopted a resolution which stated: "Every adult citizen, being of good character, sound mind, and legal age, is hereby recognized as having the right to keep and bear arms. Interestingly, Bartley-Fox was scarcely enforced, especially in 1975, the year analyzed by Deutsch and Aft. McCleary, "Box-Tiao time series models for impact assessment: A comment on the recent work of Deutsch and Alt," Evaluation Quarterly, vol. This commentary was refuted by Deutsch in "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics: A rejoinder to the comment by Hay and McCleary," Evaluation Quarterly, vol. Bowers, "The Bartley-Fox Gun Laws Short-Term Impact On Crime," The Annals, May, 1981, pp. Loftin, Colin, Milton Heumann, and David McDowall, "Mandatory Sentencing and Firearms Violence: Evaluating an Alternative to Gun Control," Law and Society Review, Spring, 1983, pp. Loftin, Colin, and David McDowall, "One with a gun gets you two: Mandatory Sentencing and Firearms Violence in Detroit, " Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, May, 1981, pp. Department of Justice, The Nations Toughest Drug Law, supra, p. The Debate Over Crime Statistics," Sense and Nonsense about Crime: A Policy Guide, supra, p. Quoted in Shields, Pete, Guns Dont Die, People Do, supra, pp. However, the Massachusetts law was not strictly enforced. New York State is included in US-NYC because the procedure to obtain a permit is different. However, this method does have the advantage of minimizing measurement error through a use of only a small number of variables. One possible source of error is in using population estimates for non-census years. The notable exception is Massachusetts, which enacted the Bartley-Fox handgun law in 1975. For an analysis of the Bartley-Fox law, see Deutsch and Aft, supra, note 10; Bowers, "The impact of the Bartley-Fox crime law in Massachusetts," unpublished paper, Northeastern University: Center for Applied Social Research; Bowers, "The impact of the mandatory gun law in Massachusetts," Boston University School of Law: Center for Criminal Justice. Benenson writes: "If Fingerhut and Kleinman are right that more handguns mean more murders, then adding 50 million pistols to the national supply ought to have markedly increased both homicide rates and the risk of being a victim. The New York Times, for example, attributes the rise in firearms homicides to more sophisticated weaponry. The most popular is the 9-millimeter semi-automatic pistol, capable of firing clips of a dozen bullets or more, in rapid succession and with great penetrating power. Wolfgang, Marvin, Patterns in Criminal Homicide (University of Pennsylvania), 1958, p. Centerwall, Brandon, "Exposure to Television as a Cause of Violence," Public Communication and Behavior, Vol. This view ... |
| www.saf.org/journal/4_Bordenet.html Historical Background of the Second Amendment During the Revolutionary War the colonies established a confederation of states under Articles of Confederation without conferring real power on the United States Congress to solve national problems. Lack of independent power in Congress to raise revenue, to control interstate and foreign commerce, to establish effective international relations, and to provide effective internal and external defense were among its chief deficiencies in meeting national needs. The Constitution was drafted by representatives of the states in the 1787 Constitutional Convention to provide a national government adequate to meet those needs. Mindful of the hostility of the people to standing armies the Founding Fathers provided safeguards against large standing armies. There was widespread and powerful opposition to the Constitution, which was to become effective only if ratified by at least nine state conventions elected by the people. Among the stated objections were the absence of a national Bill of Rights and the alleged destruction of the power of the states over their militia. One of the strategies of opponents of ratification was to condition ratification upon the adoption of previous amendments, thereby delaying ratification until after a new convention could make desired amendments and add a Bill of Rights. The proponents of ratification regarded such course of action as probably fatal to the Constitution, and in order to obtain unconditional ratification promised to propose appropriate amendments and a Bill of Rights once the Constitution was adopted. Some of the ratifying conventions and the minorities of Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Maryland recommended Bills of Rights and amendments to the Constitution. The main battle over the militia was fought in the Virginia convention with James Madison, the principal author of the first ten amendments, one of the chief proponents of the Constitution. The Virginia proposals were the most comprehensive and included two separate and distinct recommendations relating to the militia. The wording of the Second Amendment proposed by Madison and slightly rephrased by the First Congress is in substance practically identical to one of the Virginia recommendations. The Virginia opponents of ratification, led by George Mason and Patrick Henry, did indeed argue the need for such a guarantee, but James Madison, John Marshall, George Nicholas, Edmund Pendleton, and Governor Edmond Randolph were adamant in their assertion that the states retained their preexisting powers over their militia and needed no such guarantee. The basic premise of Mason and Henry was that the Constitution established a sovereign national government and that a sovereign government possesses all powers not specifically denied to it, particularly since the Constitution contained no express provision indicating that the national government was to possess only delegated powers and failed specifically to reserve to the states their powers, such as those contained in the Articles of Confederation. It expressly empowers Congress to govern them when in the service of the United States. Could any man say this power was not retained by the states, as they had not given it away? But the power given to the states by the people is not taken away; The power of the general government to provide for arming and organizing the militia is to introduce a uniform system of discipline to pervade the United States of America. But the power of governing the militia, so far as it is in Congress, extends only to such parts of them as may be employed in the service of the United States. When not in their service, Congress has no power to govern them. But there is nothing to preclude them from arming and disciplining them should Congress neglect to do it. As to calling the militia to execute the laws of the Union, I think the fair construction is directly opposite to what the honorable member says. This is a restraint on the general government not to interpose. The state is in full possession of the power of using its own militia to protect itself against domestic violence; Should Congress neglect to arm or discipline the militia, the states are fully possessed of the power of doing it; Gentlemen were repeatedly called upon to show where the power of the states over the militia was taken away, but they could not point it out. We wish this amendment to be introduced to remove our apprehensions. Not only did Madison fail to include it in his proposed amendments, but both the House of Representatives and the Senate of the First Congress refused to recommend it to the states for ratification. It should be noted that recommendation sought such guarantee of state power over their militia only if Congress should neglect the militia. The Pennsylvania minority, however, sought a guaranteed absolute and independent right of the states to maintain their militia. Supreme Court has been in full agreement with the views of Madison, Marshall, Pendleton, Nicholas, and Randolph. Moore,60 it observed that the power of the states to maintain their militia existed prior to the adoption of the Constitution, but under the Constitution such state power is subordinate to the paramount power of the federal government to call the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions. However, as the Supreme Court observed in 1939 in United States v. No command in the Constitution was considered necessary. The claim that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to guarantee the right of the states to maintain armed militia, That is the right to bear arms belongs only to the militia itself is not only contrary to historical fact, but demonstrates flawed reasoning or theory. The constitutional function of the federal militia is to suppress insurrections and repel invasions, which necessitate an armed response. An absolute right of the states to maintain militia would mean that the states have a right to maintain at least two militia: that called into active federal service and the militia retained, and therefore is contrary to the Constitutional prohibition against keeping troops without the consent of Congress65 (since the right to keep an armed militia riot subject to federal requisition would be independent of the consent of Congress). Nothing in the Second Amendment or its history warrants such a theory. Both Virginia and the Pennsylvania minority67 suggested a specific provision for that purpose, without a right of the people to bear arms provision, but both suggestions were rejected by Madison and the First Congress. Constitution clearly implied that the state should maintain a state militia. Since the states retained their powers over their militia, the right of the states to maintain and govern their militia, which the Constitution presupposed they would do, is guaranteed by the Constitution as originally adopted and by the Tenth Amendment. The above-quoted statement of the Supreme Court in Miller may have given rise to the state militia protection theory. However, immediately following that statement is a lengthy reference to the history of colonial and early state laws requiring all able-bodied free male citizens to perform militia duty and provide their own arms and ammunition. That discussion would have been irrelevant if the purpose of the Second Amendment was viewed merely as protection of the right of the states to maintain militia without federal interference. Had that been the purpose of the framers, in order to render possible the effectiveness of federal militia it would have been more appropriate to protect federal militiamen against state and federal infringement, otherwise the states could frustrate federal use of militia by failing to maintain state militia or by prohibiting their citizens to keep arms. Furthermore the state retained their rights over their militia. To determine the framers' intent, we should be mindful of the following: having emphasized the inherent right of the states to maintain and use state militia for state purposes, doubtless being aware of complete federal dependence on sta... |
| www.saf.org/journal/5_Kopel.htm Kopel is a fellow at the Independence Institute in Golden Colorado. Kopel graduated from the University of Michigan Law School where he served on the Michigan Law Review. His book about gun control, The Samurai, the Mountie and the Cowboy was published in 1992 by Prometheous Books. Kopel's presentation was based in large part on his article, The Assault Weapon Panic: "Political Correctness" Takes Aim at the Constitution published by the Independence Institute. Persons who claim that the Second Amendment protects only "sporting guns" implicitly assert that protection of recreational hunting and target shooting was seen by the authors of the Bill of Rights as some particularly important activity to a free society. The framers, as the "sporting gun" theory goes, apparently intended to exalt sports equipment used in recreational hunting to a level of protection not enjoyed by equipment for any other sport. It is true that the framers did see sport hunting as an activity better suited for building good character than other sports. Moreover, to the extent that there is a real conflict between public safety and sports equipment, public safety should win. Except for shooting in Department of Civilian Marksmanship programs, which have been created to enhance civil preparedness, recreational use of "assault weapons" does not directly enhance public safety. One reason that "assault weapon" bans are improper is that government statistics prove that "assault weapons" are no more threat to public safety than any other gun; Reflecting a sports-based theory of gun ownership, "assault weapon" prohibitionists claim that these guns have no purpose except to kill. The guns, as detailed in this section, are frequently used for sports. And ironically, the guns have the distinction of being the only firearms ever designed to wound rather than to kill. But even if the gun prohibitions' claim were correct, it would do nothing to militate for a ban on the guns. Only if all killing were wrong would a gun made for killing be illegitimate. Semiautomatics do not deserve Constitutional protection because they are sometimes used for hunting. Rather, they deserve protection because they are militia guns _ because they are made for personal and national defense, as the next section elaborates. Under this theory, the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is infringed by laws which disarm states, but not laws which disarm people. The "right of the people" is said to be a "collective right," which (like "collective property" in Communist nations) can never be possessed by any individual because it belongs to everyone at once. In contrast, the theory which has been accepted six times by the Supreme Court, 5 is compelled by the text of the Second Amendment itself, 6 is held by approximately 89% of the American people, 7 is supported by the large majority of scholarship, 8 and which comports with original intent 9 is the individual rights theory. Under this theory, the "right of the people" to bear arms recognizes a right of individual people to own guns. If this Paper's contention is correct, then an "assault weapon" ban would violate the right to bear arms because it would ban certain guns which are not logically different from other guns. The ban would also violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which requires that legislative classifications be rational, and based on real differences, rather than on hysteria or misinformation. The history and evolution of the Second Amendment clearly shows that weapons of war _ and not sports equipment _ are at the heart of the right to bear arms. In 1982, the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution evaluated the historical record, and unanimously concluded that the Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to bear arms. The English colonies in America quickly established an individual right and duty to bear arms that paralleled the developments in England. Instead, the purpose was to have a citizenry which could be called to militia duty to fight in numerous Indian wars. Lastly, as a practical matter, citizens had to possess arms for their own personal protection from Indians or criminals, since public safety agencies were few and far between. The weapons that were most useful for these colonial purposes were weapons of war, and not guns designed for sports (although in practice there was no distinction, and almost all guns served multiple purposes). Colonial recognition of the right and duty to bear arms helped precipitate the break with England. When the number of British soldiers increased in the colonies, colonists asserted their right to own firearms in order to defend their liberties. As the New York Journal Supplement proclaimed in 1769, "It is a national right which the people have reserved for themselves, confirmed by their Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defense. The outbreak of hostilities came at Lexington and Concord, when the British commander from Boston was informed that the Americans owned cannons, and the British marched on Concord to seize the American armory there. When Mexican dictator Santa Ana's forces attempted to confiscate a small cannon from settlers in Gonzales, the settlers raised a flag that said "Come and Take It," and the Texas Revolution began. Thus, the American side developed a tactical mobility to match the British mobility at sea. After seven years of winning most of the battles but getting no closer to winning the war, the British simply gave up. The guns with which the American militia helped win the American Revolution were weapons of war. Particularly effective was the long-range Kentucky Rifle, which enabled American sharpshooters to snipe at British officers. After the successful revolution the maintenance of a citizen militia was a primary concern of the framers of the Constitution. They reasoned that Americans would have nothing to fear from federal power since American citizens were universally armed. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. The first Congress delegated the duty of writing a Bill of Rights to James Madison. Madison obtained copies of state proposals and attempted to combine them in a succinct passage that all state delegates would accept. Madison's use of the phrase "well-regulated militia" was not a code word for the National Guard (which did not even exist). The phrase was not esoteric, but had a commonly-accepted meaning. That act enrolled all able-bodied white males in the militia and required them to own arms. Although the requirement to arm no longer exists, the definition of the militia has stayed the same; The Second Amendment was written to secure an individual right to bear arms that provided an ultimate check on government and any of its "select" militias. The weapons that would be most suited to overthrow a dictatorial federal government would, of course, be weapons of war, and not sports equipment. To persons accustomed to think of the "right to bear arms" as a privilege to own sporting goods, it must seem incredible that the authors of the Second Amendment meant to ensure that the American people would always own weapons of war. But that is precisely what the historical record demonstrates. The only commentary available to Congress when it ratified the Second Amendment was written by Tench Coxe, one of James Madison's friends. Coxe explained: The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. The text of the Second Amendment itself highlights the implausibility of the claim that the Amendment refers to sporting equipment rather than to devices made for injuring or killing other persons. The weapons best suited for this purpose are not weapons particularly suited for duck hunting; Under some theories of Constitutional interpretation, the language, common understanding, and intent of Constitutional provisions may be ignored by courts... |
| www.rkba.org/comment/cowards.html This habit of mind has nowhere been better explored than in The Republic. There, Plato argues that the perfectly just society is one in which an unarmed people exhibit virtue by minding their own business in the performance of their assigned functions, while the government of philosopher-kings, above the law and protected by armed guardians unquestioning in their loyalty to the state, engineers, implements, and fine-tunes the creation of that society, aided and abetted by myths that both hide and justify their totalitarian manipulation. The Unarmed Life When columnist Carl Rowan preaches gun control and uses a gun to defend his home, when Maryland Gov. William Donald Schaefer seeks legislation year after year to ban semiautomatic "assault weapons" whose only purpose, we are told, is to kill people, while he is at the same time escorted by state police armed with large-capacity 9mm semiautomatic pistols, it is not simple hypocrisy. It is the workings of that habit of mind possessed by all superior beings who have taken upon themselves the terrible burden of civilizing the masses and who understand, like our Congress, that laws are for other people. They are going to help us live the good and just life, even if they have to lie to us and force us to do it. The private ownership of firearms is a rebuke to this utopian zeal. To own firearms is to affirm that freedom and liberty are not gifts from the state. It is to reserve final judgment about whether the state is encroaching on freedom and liberty, to stand ready to defend that freedom with more than mere words, and to stand outside the state's totalitarian reach. The Florida Experience The elitist distrust of the people underlying the gun control movement is illustrated beautifully in HCI's campaign against a new concealed-carry law in Florida. Prior to 1987, the Florida law permitting the issuance of concealed-carry permits was administered at the county level. The law was vague, and, as a result, was subject to conflicting interpretation and political manipulation. Permits were issued principally to security personnel and the privileged few with political connections. In 1987, however, Florida enacted a uniform concealed-carry law which mandates that county authorities issue a permit to anyone who satisfies certain objective criteria. The law requires that a permit be issued to any applicant who is a resident, at least twenty-one years of age, has no criminal record, no record of alcohol or drug abuse, no history of mental illness, and provides evidence of having satisfactorily completed a firearms safety course offered by the NRA or other competent instructor. The applicant must provide a set of fingerprints, after which the authorities make a background check. The permit must be issued or denied within ninety days, is valid throughout the state, and must be renewed every three years, which provides authorities a regular means of reevaluating whether the permit holder still qualifies. Passage of this legislation was vehemently opposed by HCI and the media. The law, they said, would lead to citizens shooting each other over everyday disputes involving fender benders, impolite behavior, and other slights to their dignity. Terms like "Florida, the Gunshine State" and "Dodge City East" were coined to suggest that the state, and those seeking passage of the law, were encouraging individuals to act as judge, jury, and executioner in a "Death Wish" society. No HCI campaign more clearly demonstrates the elitist beliefs underlying the campaign to eradicate gun ownership. Given the qualifications required of permit holders, HCI and the media can only believe that common, law-abiding citizens are seething cauldrons of homicidal rage, ready to kill to avenge any slight to their dignity, eager to seek out and summarily execute the lawless. Only lack of immediate access to a gun restrains them and prevents the blood from flowing in the streets. They are so mentally and morally deficient that they would mistake a permit to carry a weapon in self-defense as a state-sanctioned license to kill at will. Despite the fact that Miami and Dade County have severe problems with the drug trade, the homicide rate fell in Florida following enactment of this law, as it did in Oregon following enactment of similar legislation there. There are, in addition, several documented cases of new permit holders successfully using their weapons to defend themselves. Only 16 permits, less than 1/100th of 1 percent, have been revoked due to the post-issuance commission of a crime involving a firearm. The Florida legislation has been used as a model for legislation adopted by Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and Mississippi. There are, in addition, seven other states (Maine, North and South Dakota, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, and, with the exception of cities with a population in excess of 1 million, Pennsylvania) which provide that concealed-carry permits must be issued to law-abiding citizens who satisfy various objective criteria. Altogether, then, there are thirteen states in which law-abiding citizens who wish to carry arms to defend themselves may do so. While no one appears to have compiled the statistics from all of these jurisdictions, there is certainly an ample data base for those seeking the truth about the trustworthiness of law-abiding citizens who carry firearms. Other evidence also suggests that armed citizens are very responsible in using guns to defend themselves. Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, using surveys and other data, has determined that armed citizens defend their lives or property with firearms against criminals approximately 1 million times a year. In 98 percent of these instances, the citizen merely brandishes the weapon or fires a warning shot. Only in 2 percent of the cases do citizens actually shoot their assailants. In defending themselves with their firearms, armed citizens kill 2,000 to 3,000 criminals each year, three times the number killed by the police. A nationwide study by Kates, the constitutional lawyer and criminologist, found that only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The "error rate" for the police, however, was 11 percent, over five times as high. It is simply not possible to square the numbers above and the experience of Florida with the notions that honest, law-abiding gun owners are borderline psychopaths itching for an excuse to shoot someone, vigilantes eager to seek out and summarily execute the lawless, or incompetent fools incapable of determining when it is proper to use lethal force in defense of their lives. Nor upon reflection should these results seem surprising. Rape, robbery, and attempted murder are not typically actions rife with ambiguity or subtlety, requiring special powers of observation and great book-learning to discern. When a man pulls a knife on a woman and says, "You're coming with me," her judgment that a crime is being committed is not likely to be in error. There is little chance that she is going to shoot the wrong person. It is the police, because they are rarely at the scene of the crime when it occurs, who are more likely to find themselves in circumstances where guilt and innocence are not so clear-cut, and in which the probability for mistakes is higher. Arms and Liberty Classical republican philosophy has long recognized the critical relationship between personal liberty and the possession of arms by a people ready and willing to use them. Political theorists as dissimilar as Niccolo Machiavelli, Sir Thomas More, James Harrington, Algernon Sidney, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau all shared the view that the possession of arms is vital for resisting tyranny, and that to be disarmed by one's government is tantamount to being enslaved by it. The possession of arms by the people is the ultimate warrant that government governs only with the consent of the governed. As Kates has shown, the Second Amendment is as much a product of this political philosophy as it is of the American experience in the Revolutionary War. Yet our conservative elite has abandoned this as... |