Another Police State Liberal Attempts to Subvert the Constitution
The Second and Fourth Amendments?
Toss them out the window.Second Amendment? Just ignore that. But Bill Clinton's former Ambassador to the Congo isn't done yet: now comes the police state. If this liberal has his way, kiss your Fourth Amendment search and seizure rights goodbye as well:
Now, how would one disarm the American population? First of all, federal or state laws would need to make it a crime punishable by a $1,000 fine and one year in prison per weapon to possess a firearm. The population would then be given three months to turn in their guns, without penalty.
Mr. Simpson's staggering suggestion to subvert the Bill of Rights is not the first we've heard in the past weeks, but coming from a former American diplomat who was presumably charged with acting within Constitutional bounds, it is among the most disturbing. Perhaps Simpson doesn't see the obvious irony that the Founders created the Second Amendment not to ensure hunting, but to protect American citizens from men precisely like himself. To dismantle the Second, as John Adams noted in "A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States":
The disarmament process would begin after the initial three-month amnesty. Special squads of police would be formed and trained to carry out the work. Then, on a random basis to permit no advance warning, city blocks and stretches of suburban and rural areas would be cordoned off and searches carried out in every business, dwelling, and empty building. All firearms would be seized. The owners of weapons found in the searches would be prosecuted: $1,000 and one year in prison for each firearm.
Patrick Henry warned:
...is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government.
And not a Founder, but still important, are the words of Supreme Court Associate Justice Joseph Story:
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.
Story is not to subtly noting that would-be tyrants (like Simpson) that attempt to run roughshod over America's Constitution, and attempt to overwhelm the people with the power of the State (in the guise of his noted "special police"), are inviting an armed, violent, and morally just reprisal to restore and retain those hard-won liberties.
The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:44 AM
Comments
1
After a few negative comments in the press (yea-right), Simpson will pull a "Crow" and say it was just a joke.
Posted by: Specter at April 27, 2007 11:13 AM (ybfXM)
2
Bob, this is an excellent post. Thank you. The article is something everyone interested in the prosecution of this war, and Vietnam, should read. I suggest they read Ricks' Fiasco as well.
But I have to disagree with you when you say no specific individuals should be blamed. The list is long, yes, but people must be held accountable for this, what looks to be one of the biggest foreign policy blunders in our history.
(Please pardon the length of this post and any typos. I'm pressed for time but felt the need to respond. The quotes in italics are from the article.)
The greatest error the statesman can make is to commit his nation to a great conflict without mobilizing popular passions to a level commensurate with the stakes of the conflict.
After 9/11, Bush could have asked the American people, indeed the world, to do almost anything. We were ready make any sacrifice, pay any cost. Even the French Le Monde ran the headline "We are all Americans." He could have put us on a moon launch footing to end our dependence on oil within a decade. He could have called up every able-bodied American young man to serve. He could have called to us to rise to our better natures, to think of what we can do for the country. Instead, he squandered this one chance and told us to live as if nothing was different, although we were now at war. He did not mobilize popular passions. He told us to go shopping.
If the policymaker desires ends for which the means he provides are insufficient, the general is responsible for advising the statesman of this incongruence.
Think of Shinseki. Then think of how Rumsfeld's hubris and Bush's criminal lack of intellectual rigor sent Shinseki packing. Why? Because telling the American people this action required a larger commitment was inconvenient to selling the war. In other words, he didn't think we had the stomach for it. He thinks we're sheep. I can assure you, we are not sheep. You'll have to make your own assessment of your own courage for yourself.
Failing to visualize future battlefields represents a lapse in professional competence, but seeing those fields clearly and saying nothing is an even more serious lapse in professional character. Moral courage is often inversely proportional to popularity and this observation in nowhere more true than in the profession of arms.
Ever heard of the Powell Doctrine? Where was Powell when his voice would have carried real weight? Someone else who squandered what he had earned over a lifetime of honorable service.
Despite engaging in numerous stability operations throughout the 1990s, the armed forces did little to bolster their capabilities for civic reconstruction and security force development. Procurement priorities during the 1990s followed the Cold War model, with significant funding devoted to new fighter aircraft and artillery systems.
This blame you can spread around. We need to look at how we procure weapons systems and who profits. We need to stop this revolving door from government to defense industries. Cheney and Halliburton is just the most public example, but it runs deep and is toxic to our system of government.
Alone among America's generals, Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki publicly stated that "several hundred thousand soldiers" would be necessary to stabilize post-Saddam Iraq. Prior to the war, President Bush promised to give field commanders everything necessary for victory. Privately, many senior general officers both active and retired expressed serious misgivings about the insufficiency of forces for Iraq.
Bush had also surrounded himself with incompetents because he values loyalty more than skill. He listens to a small circle of advisors so even if officers had spoken up, he wouldn't have heard them. He would have heard instead from Rumsfeld, Cheney and Rice that the officer who dared go against policy was a McClellan and was best ignored.
Counterinsurgency theory requires strengthening the capability of host-nation institutions to provide security and other essential services to the population.
This is where the administration's actions were most criminal. Bush and the "bushies" installed loyalists in the CPA who had no experience in building a nation's infrastructure, financial and physical. Really, what does an applicant's position on aboprtion have to do with securing a stable economy, yet that was one of the top questions in any interview given any applicant. The stories of incompetence and profiteering are legion.
Indeed, the tendency of the executive branch to seek out mild-mannered team players to serve as senior generals is part of the problem. The services themselves are equally to blame. The system that produces our generals does little to reward creativity and moral courage.
I have more than a passing familiarity with the Army bureaucracy and I know this is true. Traditional combat arms officers looked with suspicion at those who chose to study counterinsurgency and Special Ops. Until recently, the path to promotion was not through Special Warfare but through armor and infantry.
So, while I agree with the larger view of this article that says our generals were unprepared for this war, I disagree that we shouldn't hold individuals accountable for this disaster.
There were dissenting voices, they were just shut out of the debate.
But I have to disagree with you when you say no specific individuals should be blamed. The list is long, yes, but people must be held accountable for this, what looks to be one of the biggest foreign policy blunders in our history.
(Please pardon the length of this post and any typos. I'm pressed for time but felt the need to respond. The quotes in italics are from the article.)
The greatest error the statesman can make is to commit his nation to a great conflict without mobilizing popular passions to a level commensurate with the stakes of the conflict.
After 9/11, Bush could have asked the American people, indeed the world, to do almost anything. We were ready make any sacrifice, pay any cost. Even the French Le Monde ran the headline "We are all Americans." He could have put us on a moon launch footing to end our dependence on oil within a decade. He could have called up every able-bodied American young man to serve. He could have called to us to rise to our better natures, to think of what we can do for the country. Instead, he squandered this one chance and told us to live as if nothing was different, although we were now at war. He did not mobilize popular passions. He told us to go shopping.
If the policymaker desires ends for which the means he provides are insufficient, the general is responsible for advising the statesman of this incongruence.
Think of Shinseki. Then think of how Rumsfeld's hubris and Bush's criminal lack of intellectual rigor sent Shinseki packing. Why? Because telling the American people this action required a larger commitment was inconvenient to selling the war. In other words, he didn't think we had the stomach for it. He thinks we're sheep. I can assure you, we are not sheep. You'll have to make your own assessment of your own courage for yourself.
Failing to visualize future battlefields represents a lapse in professional competence, but seeing those fields clearly and saying nothing is an even more serious lapse in professional character. Moral courage is often inversely proportional to popularity and this observation in nowhere more true than in the profession of arms.
Ever heard of the Powell Doctrine? Where was Powell when his voice would have carried real weight? Someone else who squandered what he had earned over a lifetime of honorable service.
Despite engaging in numerous stability operations throughout the 1990s, the armed forces did little to bolster their capabilities for civic reconstruction and security force development. Procurement priorities during the 1990s followed the Cold War model, with significant funding devoted to new fighter aircraft and artillery systems.
This blame you can spread around. We need to look at how we procure weapons systems and who profits. We need to stop this revolving door from government to defense industries. Cheney and Halliburton is just the most public example, but it runs deep and is toxic to our system of government.
Alone among America's generals, Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki publicly stated that "several hundred thousand soldiers" would be necessary to stabilize post-Saddam Iraq. Prior to the war, President Bush promised to give field commanders everything necessary for victory. Privately, many senior general officers both active and retired expressed serious misgivings about the insufficiency of forces for Iraq.
Bush had also surrounded himself with incompetents because he values loyalty more than skill. He listens to a small circle of advisors so even if officers had spoken up, he wouldn't have heard them. He would have heard instead from Rumsfeld, Cheney and Rice that the officer who dared go against policy was a McClellan and was best ignored.
Counterinsurgency theory requires strengthening the capability of host-nation institutions to provide security and other essential services to the population.
This is where the administration's actions were most criminal. Bush and the "bushies" installed loyalists in the CPA who had no experience in building a nation's infrastructure, financial and physical. Really, what does an applicant's position on aboprtion have to do with securing a stable economy, yet that was one of the top questions in any interview given any applicant. The stories of incompetence and profiteering are legion.
Indeed, the tendency of the executive branch to seek out mild-mannered team players to serve as senior generals is part of the problem. The services themselves are equally to blame. The system that produces our generals does little to reward creativity and moral courage.
I have more than a passing familiarity with the Army bureaucracy and I know this is true. Traditional combat arms officers looked with suspicion at those who chose to study counterinsurgency and Special Ops. Until recently, the path to promotion was not through Special Warfare but through armor and infantry.
So, while I agree with the larger view of this article that says our generals were unprepared for this war, I disagree that we shouldn't hold individuals accountable for this disaster.
There were dissenting voices, they were just shut out of the debate.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 27, 2007 11:35 AM (kxecL)
3
That comment is fine, but doesn't support or refute the topic of the post. Not unless you're refuting it by saying "But Bush is evil too. Look over here."
Posted by: brando at April 27, 2007 11:42 AM (RqbPA)
4
Nice post David, too bad it was on the wrong thread.
Now as for this Simpson character(apt name BTW), all his proposal would do is get a lot of people killed, police and regular folks.
When they pry it from my cold dead hands.
Now as for this Simpson character(apt name BTW), all his proposal would do is get a lot of people killed, police and regular folks.
When they pry it from my cold dead hands.
Posted by: 1sttofight at April 27, 2007 11:43 AM (XWZWX)
5
Sorry for posting in the wrong place. This also illustrates why I love editors.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 27, 2007 11:50 AM (kxecL)
6
I'm gonna take popcorn, cold beer and a lawn chair when the disarmanent team goes to confiscate Kim du Toit's weapons.
Posted by: Actual at April 27, 2007 11:52 AM (NpVyh)
7
This blame you can spread around. We need to look at how we procure weapons systems and who profits. We need to stop this revolving door from government to defense industries. Cheney and Halliburton is just the most public example, but it runs deep and is toxic to our system of government.
You have some good points here. You forgot to add DiFi and her husband though. But it isn't just the revolving door David. It is also the regulations of the government buying (FAR/DAR) and such that cause exorbitant prices. I worked in the Defense Industry for many years. The last few years I was a CAM with a half-a-billion dollar budget I was responsible for under the government's Cost Schedule Control System Criteria (CS-squared). I have seen how certain nonsense works.
Let's take for example the - what were they - $600 hammers? Do your remember that? The reason those were so expensive was that it was required by government regs to place the order with certified government contractors. Now picture - you want several thousand hammers and you go to someone like General Dynamics to get them built. They don't build hammers - but they will take on a project if they can make money. But to build hammers? Design, Tooling, Ordering, Cost Control, manufacture...when you add all that up for a few thousand hammers, you end up with really expensive hammers. What would have been simpler was to got to Sears and buy several thousand Craftsman hammers - about $15 bucks each for the good ones - and guaranteed for life to boot. But, because of government regulations, that was no allowed. Stupidity all around.
You have some good points here. You forgot to add DiFi and her husband though. But it isn't just the revolving door David. It is also the regulations of the government buying (FAR/DAR) and such that cause exorbitant prices. I worked in the Defense Industry for many years. The last few years I was a CAM with a half-a-billion dollar budget I was responsible for under the government's Cost Schedule Control System Criteria (CS-squared). I have seen how certain nonsense works.
Let's take for example the - what were they - $600 hammers? Do your remember that? The reason those were so expensive was that it was required by government regs to place the order with certified government contractors. Now picture - you want several thousand hammers and you go to someone like General Dynamics to get them built. They don't build hammers - but they will take on a project if they can make money. But to build hammers? Design, Tooling, Ordering, Cost Control, manufacture...when you add all that up for a few thousand hammers, you end up with really expensive hammers. What would have been simpler was to got to Sears and buy several thousand Craftsman hammers - about $15 bucks each for the good ones - and guaranteed for life to boot. But, because of government regulations, that was no allowed. Stupidity all around.
Posted by: Specter at April 27, 2007 11:53 AM (ybfXM)
8
Crud - I did the same thing David did....sorry
Posted by: Specter at April 27, 2007 11:55 AM (ybfXM)
9
Bush is hardly a champion of the Constitution. He personally authorized warrantless wiretaps on citizens. He's complicit in cruel and unusual punishment. (Don't give me any claptrap about it being OK to subject 'enemy combatants' to extra-Constitutional practices. It's supposed to be our belief system.) So much for speedy trials. Jose Padilla is an American citizen was held for years without charges being filed. The Patriot Act runs counter to the Constitution in several ways.
Posted by: Lex Steele at April 27, 2007 11:58 AM (40R2V)
10
Lex,
Can you name other instances of warrantless searches? And why has that whole storm died away except in the minds of those seriously afflicted with BDS?
Can you name other instances of warrantless searches? And why has that whole storm died away except in the minds of those seriously afflicted with BDS?
Posted by: Specter at April 27, 2007 12:02 PM (ybfXM)
11
If you step back and look closely at this, it is the same thing we use for the "war on drugs".
Posted by: David Caskey at April 27, 2007 12:07 PM (G5i3t)
12
Specter,
Even though this is the wrong thread, I'll answer eher and hope readers can follow along. Sorry.
It's not the cost of anything, hammers, toilet seats, etc. that I'm referring to. I understand how mil-specs can inflate prices. No, I'm talking about people who should be regulating arms systems development and procurement who, after a few years, become employees, high-paid employees, of those same corporations they were supposed to oversee as a government employee.
We can see another bit of the problem with weapons systems that are large and complex, like a new fighter. The manufacturer purposely puts elements of its manufacture in as many Congressional districts as possible in order to make it bullet-proof, so to speak.
But that's the way the game works.
I'm more concerned about that revolving door than I am a Congressman who wants to keep his constituents working.
Even though this is the wrong thread, I'll answer eher and hope readers can follow along. Sorry.
It's not the cost of anything, hammers, toilet seats, etc. that I'm referring to. I understand how mil-specs can inflate prices. No, I'm talking about people who should be regulating arms systems development and procurement who, after a few years, become employees, high-paid employees, of those same corporations they were supposed to oversee as a government employee.
We can see another bit of the problem with weapons systems that are large and complex, like a new fighter. The manufacturer purposely puts elements of its manufacture in as many Congressional districts as possible in order to make it bullet-proof, so to speak.
But that's the way the game works.
I'm more concerned about that revolving door than I am a Congressman who wants to keep his constituents working.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 27, 2007 12:10 PM (kxecL)
Posted by: Jack Sparrow at April 27, 2007 12:11 PM (L4HGI)
14
Gentlemen, could you please take the rest of this discussion to the correct thread?
Thanks.
THE MANAGEMENT
Thanks.
THE MANAGEMENT
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 27, 2007 12:35 PM (9y6qg)
15
You are exactly right Jack.
Those nutjobs arrested yesterday lived about 20 miles from me but they are not ordinary folks.
Everyone wanted then caught. simpsons plan is nothing at all like that.
Those nutjobs arrested yesterday lived about 20 miles from me but they are not ordinary folks.
Everyone wanted then caught. simpsons plan is nothing at all like that.
Posted by: 1sttofight at April 27, 2007 12:42 PM (XWZWX)
16
Specter: Can you name other instances of warrantless searches?
Yes.
And why has that whole storm died away except in the minds of those seriously afflicted with BDS?
It is indeed hard to keep up with the scandals of this administration, one wave replaces the next. Of course you will deny this, but you live in a curious cocoon. The wheels have come off of this administration, but you either don't see that or actively ignore it.
Yes.
And why has that whole storm died away except in the minds of those seriously afflicted with BDS?
It is indeed hard to keep up with the scandals of this administration, one wave replaces the next. Of course you will deny this, but you live in a curious cocoon. The wheels have come off of this administration, but you either don't see that or actively ignore it.
Posted by: Lex Steele at April 27, 2007 01:06 PM (40R2V)
Posted by: 1sttofight at April 27, 2007 01:08 PM (XWZWX)
18
1sttofight: Name them.
No. This is dumb. Of course there have been warrantless searches in the history of our country. What difference does it make? If you're genuinely curious, try a search engine.
No. This is dumb. Of course there have been warrantless searches in the history of our country. What difference does it make? If you're genuinely curious, try a search engine.
Posted by: Lex Steele at April 27, 2007 01:35 PM (40R2V)
19
No. This is dumb. Of course there have been warrantless searches in the history of our country. What difference does it make? If you're genuinely curious, try a search engine.
So you can name even one? Not surprised.
So you can name even one? Not surprised.
Posted by: 1sttofight at April 27, 2007 02:52 PM (XWZWX)
20
Why stop at two Amendments?
When Mr. Simpson gets his law passed, it should also prohibit public complaints against the law, allow troops being used for the searches to be housed in our private residences against our will, carry automatic jail sentences without trial, and public floggings of violators. Then we can throw the whole Bill of Rights into the trash.
When Mr. Simpson gets his law passed, it should also prohibit public complaints against the law, allow troops being used for the searches to be housed in our private residences against our will, carry automatic jail sentences without trial, and public floggings of violators. Then we can throw the whole Bill of Rights into the trash.
Posted by: Bram at April 27, 2007 03:00 PM (x82LV)
21
Hey Lex,
Still waiting on that ONE example.
Still waiting on that ONE example.
Posted by: 1sttofight at April 27, 2007 03:08 PM (XWZWX)
22
1sttofight: Google for "warrantless search" and you can find as many as you want. Cases are dismissed every year upon a judge ruling that a given search was unlawful without a warrant (as you know the police can perform involuntary searches under certain conditions). For the life of me I can't imagine what you are trying to demonstrate though. Are you saying that Bush was the first to perform warrantless searches?
Posted by: Lex Steele at April 27, 2007 03:19 PM (40R2V)
23
For the life of me I can't imagine what you are trying to demonstrate though. Are you saying that Bush was the first to perform warrantless searches?
That a now high-profile democrat advocates throwing the constitution out the window to a degree that is unprecedented?
That a now high-profile democrat advocates throwing the constitution out the window to a degree that is unprecedented?
Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 27, 2007 03:57 PM (DvLHg)
24
Oh, I went back and re-read the original post. I misunderstood what you all were saying. No, I don't agree that police should be able to search residences without a permit. Nor do I believe the government has the right to issue a permit to search swathes of homes for firearms.
Posted by: Lex Steele at April 27, 2007 04:33 PM (40R2V)
25
Oh, I went back and re-read the original post.
Are you admiting your response was a joke or that you are now going into rehab?
Or that you are just stupid?
Are you admiting your response was a joke or that you are now going into rehab?
Or that you are just stupid?
Posted by: 1sttofight at April 27, 2007 04:45 PM (XWZWX)
26
Though I don't necessarily believe that the Second Amendment really gives individuals the right to own firearms for personal protection, I would like to go on the record here, for what it's worth, as saying that such a policy is bad craziness.
This is stupid politics, impossible as a practical matter, and most importantly a serious abridgement of liberty. I would be standing right next to you in the resistance if our government tried to do this.
That said, anyone who reads this essay can see that Ambassador Simpson is not proposing that the government confiscate privately owned weapons. He is simply arguing that it would be possible (an argument that does not convince me, by the way), and suggesting one method for doing so.
Relax. Your government is not coming after your guns.
This is stupid politics, impossible as a practical matter, and most importantly a serious abridgement of liberty. I would be standing right next to you in the resistance if our government tried to do this.
That said, anyone who reads this essay can see that Ambassador Simpson is not proposing that the government confiscate privately owned weapons. He is simply arguing that it would be possible (an argument that does not convince me, by the way), and suggesting one method for doing so.
Relax. Your government is not coming after your guns.
Posted by: R. Stanton Scott at April 27, 2007 05:04 PM (y4+dQ)
27
Lex,
What about seat-belt stops, and of course drunk driving checkpoints? They are search and seizure with not warrant and no probable cause. You get stopped because you are driving. What about those?
What about seat-belt stops, and of course drunk driving checkpoints? They are search and seizure with not warrant and no probable cause. You get stopped because you are driving. What about those?
Posted by: Specter at April 27, 2007 06:02 PM (ybfXM)
28
1sttofight: Are you admiting your response was a joke or that you are now going into rehab? Or that you are just stupid?
I thought you were disagreeing about my characterization of Bush's anti-constitutional tendencies in my original comment on this thread. As I said, I agree that the 'rounding up firearms' thing is unconstitutional.
If you're the first to fight than how come you're stateside? Is that a whiff of chickenhawk I smell?
The Patriot Act allows for some warrantless searches. Google for 'patriot act warrantless search'.
I thought you were disagreeing about my characterization of Bush's anti-constitutional tendencies in my original comment on this thread. As I said, I agree that the 'rounding up firearms' thing is unconstitutional.
If you're the first to fight than how come you're stateside? Is that a whiff of chickenhawk I smell?
The Patriot Act allows for some warrantless searches. Google for 'patriot act warrantless search'.
Posted by: Lex Steele at April 27, 2007 06:03 PM (40R2V)
29
When they pry it from my cold dead hands ...
Posted by: Bill Faith at April 27, 2007 06:38 PM (n7SaI)
30
Relax. Your government is not coming after your guns.
Many congressional democrats are though. Chuckie & DiFi being very notable.
Many congressional democrats are though. Chuckie & DiFi being very notable.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 27, 2007 07:29 PM (DvLHg)
31
Dan Simpson, a retired diplomat, is a member of the editorial boards of The Blade and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
'Nuff said, right? This guy's nobody except a dude with a forum of his own. Shouldn't we all be focusing on something more substantial?
'Nuff said, right? This guy's nobody except a dude with a forum of his own. Shouldn't we all be focusing on something more substantial?
Posted by: Doc Washboard at April 27, 2007 07:44 PM (OmGSu)
.
Posted by: Jonney_wdt at April 27, 2007 07:52 PM (Iu3ch)
33
If you're the first to fight than how come you're stateside? Is that a whiff of chickenhawk I smell?
Ahhh, The old chickenhawk slur. What took you so long?
Ahhh, The old chickenhawk slur. What took you so long?
Posted by: 1sttofight at April 27, 2007 08:52 PM (XWZWX)
34
This guy's nobody except...
A former Clinton administration official. Apparently his views were acceptable to Clinton at the time.
Curiously, there is a Clinton running for the presidency.
A former Clinton administration official. Apparently his views were acceptable to Clinton at the time.
Curiously, there is a Clinton running for the presidency.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 27, 2007 10:20 PM (DvLHg)
35
1sttofight:
Ahhh, The old chickenhawk slur. What took you so long?
Maybe you should change to 2ndtofight, or perhaps talkbig?
Who do you fear more, Al Qaeda or Colonel Sanders?
Ahhh, The old chickenhawk slur. What took you so long?
Maybe you should change to 2ndtofight, or perhaps talkbig?
Who do you fear more, Al Qaeda or Colonel Sanders?
Posted by: Lex Steele at April 27, 2007 11:53 PM (40R2V)
36
Purple Avenger: Schumer and Feinstein--as well as other political leaders--may prefer a gun control policy that confiscates guns. But they will never get it enacted. Just won't happen--there is not enough support for this even in the Democratic Party. They need support from Democrats like me, for instance, and would not have it.
The best they will get is more regulation, and this may in fact be the best thing for people like CY and myself. It does gun owners no good, for example, when lax regulation (or lax enforcement) allows someone like the VT shooter to obtain two firearms. Widespread ownership, if it means incidents like the one at VT are more likely, creates support for new gun control laws from people who have little knowledge of the issue. We are better off with regulations that permit you and CY and myself to carry but limit possession by those who have no business arming themselves.
The problem is drawing the line, and figuring out how to decide who belongs on which side.
Gun owners should worry less about confiscation and more about how to educate people who don't understand why it is important for a certain cohort of citizens to be armed. They will never take your guns away--and won't ever try--but they will demonize owners as long as some people are killing teenagers by the dozens.
The best they will get is more regulation, and this may in fact be the best thing for people like CY and myself. It does gun owners no good, for example, when lax regulation (or lax enforcement) allows someone like the VT shooter to obtain two firearms. Widespread ownership, if it means incidents like the one at VT are more likely, creates support for new gun control laws from people who have little knowledge of the issue. We are better off with regulations that permit you and CY and myself to carry but limit possession by those who have no business arming themselves.
The problem is drawing the line, and figuring out how to decide who belongs on which side.
Gun owners should worry less about confiscation and more about how to educate people who don't understand why it is important for a certain cohort of citizens to be armed. They will never take your guns away--and won't ever try--but they will demonize owners as long as some people are killing teenagers by the dozens.
Posted by: R. Stanton Scott at April 28, 2007 06:23 AM (E4OF/)
37
Yes, Avenger, he was a former Clinton official, but so what? As he himself writes, "...I have little or no power to influence the "if" part of the issue." He's just a guy with an idea. Lots of people have ideas and are, like him, in no position to do anything about them.
This is making a mountain out of a molehill.
I'm guessing that plenty of former Bush officials have ideas that I wouldn't like, but is it worth using up bandwidth to complain about them?
This is making a mountain out of a molehill.
I'm guessing that plenty of former Bush officials have ideas that I wouldn't like, but is it worth using up bandwidth to complain about them?
Posted by: Doc Washboard at April 28, 2007 07:09 AM (yNAVW)
38
But they will never get it enacted. Just won't happen...
It happened in Australia and Britain. For some reason I simply don't believe you.
It happened in Australia and Britain. For some reason I simply don't believe you.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 28, 2007 07:26 AM (DvLHg)
39
Purple Avenger: First of all, you are incorrect as a factual matter if you think that the governments of Britain and Australia simply decided one day to ban gun ownership and then went around confiscating them from owners. Gun ownership is heavily regulated there--arguably too heavily regulated--but it is not illegal across the board. Suggesting that it is sounds like something straight out of an NRA fundraising appeal.
Even if these other countries had banned guns and confiscated them, it says little about the possibilities of implementing the same policy here. Gun control regulations in Britain and Australila are the result of very old political battles that have no analog here. Differences in political systems, political culture, populations, and history make apples of one and oranges of the other.
You can be paranoid about this if you wish, but I'll pass.
Even if these other countries had banned guns and confiscated them, it says little about the possibilities of implementing the same policy here. Gun control regulations in Britain and Australila are the result of very old political battles that have no analog here. Differences in political systems, political culture, populations, and history make apples of one and oranges of the other.
You can be paranoid about this if you wish, but I'll pass.
Posted by: R. Stanton Scott at April 28, 2007 10:12 AM (xqhmc)
40
R. Stanton Scott,
I agree with most of what you said. Very logical. The point really comes down to how do we prevent a seriously disturbed individual from legally purchasing a firearm? Setting aside the fact that there are ways to purchase guns on the illegal side of things that is. However, I suspect that there needs to be tighter coordination between the state and federal databases - which brings up a whole new issue of the feds overtaking state's rights. Still - I think that is the way we should be moving.
I agree with most of what you said. Very logical. The point really comes down to how do we prevent a seriously disturbed individual from legally purchasing a firearm? Setting aside the fact that there are ways to purchase guns on the illegal side of things that is. However, I suspect that there needs to be tighter coordination between the state and federal databases - which brings up a whole new issue of the feds overtaking state's rights. Still - I think that is the way we should be moving.
Posted by: Specter at April 28, 2007 12:46 PM (ybfXM)
41
Bob, did I step over the line?
Posted by: CoRev at April 28, 2007 03:19 PM (0U8Ob)
42
Ignore that last comment. Wrong thread.
Posted by: CoRev at April 28, 2007 04:52 PM (0U8Ob)
43
Gun ownership is heavily regulated there--arguably too heavily regulated--but it is not illegal across the board.
When your own Olympic pistol team can't practice in your own country, as is the case in England, that's some pretty heavy "regulation". The casual observer might even be tempted to "mistake it" for a defacto ban.
When your own Olympic pistol team can't practice in your own country, as is the case in England, that's some pretty heavy "regulation". The casual observer might even be tempted to "mistake it" for a defacto ban.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 28, 2007 05:58 PM (2pqvd)
44
Well, what are the gun death statistics in England? I've always heard that they're much lower than here, but I've never seen any actual numbers.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at April 28, 2007 06:04 PM (yNAVW)
45
PA: I realize that the British government banned handguns in 1997--this is what I mean by "heavily regulated." Longer weapons are legal, but heavily controlled. The point is that this was not difficult there because of the political system (no constitutional barrier), political culture (few citizens owned them except for nefarious ones), and other factors (the citizenry demanded this action). None of these conditions is met in the US, so the British experience does not really apply to the question of whether the same policy could be implemented here.
Doc: British crime statistics can be found here: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb702.pdf
Use caution when interpreting these--the British changed their reporting and tracking methods since they changed their gun laws, so it looks at first glance as if crime increased after the new policy was implemented.
Specter: It would seem to make sense to keep crazy people from buying firearms, and I agree that illegal (or legal but unofficial--gun show) purchases are possible. Someone will fall through the cracks, and the question is whether we can prevent more of them than we do, and at a cost in money and freedom that makes sense. I am not particularly confident in our government's ability to do this, but it probably should try.
Doc: British crime statistics can be found here: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb702.pdf
Use caution when interpreting these--the British changed their reporting and tracking methods since they changed their gun laws, so it looks at first glance as if crime increased after the new policy was implemented.
Specter: It would seem to make sense to keep crazy people from buying firearms, and I agree that illegal (or legal but unofficial--gun show) purchases are possible. Someone will fall through the cracks, and the question is whether we can prevent more of them than we do, and at a cost in money and freedom that makes sense. I am not particularly confident in our government's ability to do this, but it probably should try.
Posted by: R. Stanton Scott at April 28, 2007 06:45 PM (VCT3D)
46
Doc: see here. US per capita firearm homicides are about 34 the rate of England's, and 186 times Japan's.
I presume however that if England and Japan had more guns, a greater percentage of their non-firearm homicides would instead be firearm homicides.
I presume however that if England and Japan had more guns, a greater percentage of their non-firearm homicides would instead be firearm homicides.
Posted by: Lex Steele at April 28, 2007 06:46 PM (40R2V)
47
My life's history with firearms over the last 41 years: shotgun hunting with dad, .22 rifles at the YMCA and a summer camp, all at the age of 11. My non-military private high-school had an indoor range, never a single incident. I picked up handguns and centerfire rifles at the same time. If the VT school allowed students and faculty to carry concealed, a nut like Cho would have to find another target. More guns=Less crime.
Posted by: Tom TB at April 29, 2007 12:06 PM (NM32E)
48
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a WELL ARMED lamb contesting their decision.
Benjamin Franklin
Liberty is a WELL ARMED lamb contesting their decision.
Benjamin Franklin
Posted by: Michael at April 29, 2007 03:42 PM (v8h2M)
49
None of these conditions is met in the US, so the British experience does not really apply to the question of whether the same policy could be implemented here.
It was/is defacto implemented in several large US cities already. The gun banners are very patient. They've got the congress they need right now. All they need is an executive.
It was/is defacto implemented in several large US cities already. The gun banners are very patient. They've got the congress they need right now. All they need is an executive.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 30, 2007 02:07 AM (ivi7/)
50
Lex Steele, the Patriot Act extended already existing forms of warrantless "searches" that law enforcement had already been practicing ( and the Supreme Court had already found constitutional ) since the Clinton administration into the realm of terrorism investigations. Your heavy breathing not withstanding, the Patriot Act did not introduce any actual new forms of such.
All of the excitement over the Patriot Act was over areas where the Federal govt would be able to obtain records from third parties - itself not a constitutionally protected search.
All of the excitement over the Patriot Act was over areas where the Federal govt would be able to obtain records from third parties - itself not a constitutionally protected search.
Posted by: Robin Roberts at April 30, 2007 04:09 PM (lb5ht)
51
Robin Roberts: how utterly flaccid. Your argument is, in the end, that it's OK to extend otherwise constitutional laws.
You have freedom of speech except for slander, public menace, obscenity, etc. How about if we extend those restrictions to include criticism of the president? That's merely an extension, so it's cool there in clown world, right?
All of the excitement over the Patriot Act was over areas where the Federal govt would be able to obtain records from third parties
No. Consider sneak and peak searches, for instance. You can read more about Patriot here at Cato for instance.
You have freedom of speech except for slander, public menace, obscenity, etc. How about if we extend those restrictions to include criticism of the president? That's merely an extension, so it's cool there in clown world, right?
All of the excitement over the Patriot Act was over areas where the Federal govt would be able to obtain records from third parties
No. Consider sneak and peak searches, for instance. You can read more about Patriot here at Cato for instance.
Posted by: Lex Steele at April 30, 2007 10:29 PM (ep6YT)
52
While most of the staff in the Congo lived in sub standard housing Simpson lived in a palace that was illuminated like Yankee stadium at night. The post was considered to be the worst in Africa. Nuff said about Simpson. By the way, police mugged embassy employees and rarely had more than six rounds. Had they more they would have been a true menace. The ambassador never went anywhere without his body guards.
Posted by: Thomas Jackson at April 30, 2007 10:52 PM (YXXuO)
Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0153 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0091 seconds, 60 records returned.
Page size 40 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.