Or, what the Democratic Party is still getting wrong about guns.
I'm, I think, pretty middle-of-the-road on guns.Most people, of course, do, and have considerable differing views from each other. Even if they don't, they know that, of course, their view is the correct one. I differ in that I believe my view is the correct one.
:-)
I understand the fears of those greatly concerned about the Second Amendment, although I think they're ultimately a bit irrational, and unhelpful in preventing reasonable compromise. (Yes, of course I'm wrong about that, as it's an inevitable slippery slope to confiscation, and the line must never be crossed; I've heard; yes, I know what happened in Britain and elsewhere; really, I'm not unfamiliar with the arguments, thanks.)
I'm also glad that the Democrats, at a national level, to a fair degree, recognized after 2000 that the urban Gun Control Uber Alles stance was politically more harmful than helpful. If you want to win elections in America only in big cities, all sorts of gun control laws are winners; elsewhere, however, not.
But so long as Kerry keeps going around saying things like this, he's not helping himself with anyone.
"You know, I'm a hunter and a fisherman," he said on a ranch in Smithville, Mo., on Friday. "I've been a hunter since I was about 12 years old. I'm a gun owner. I believe in the Second Amendment. I know it matters out here in parts of the world. But we've got to have a habitat if we're going to hunt."This completely fails to get that the concern of the Second Amendment folks isn't remotely about hunting. It's about the right to protect themselves. Period. End of paragraph, end of story, end of book, end of serial.
So long as Kerry, or any other politician, goes on about "understanding" your "need to hunt," they might as well be wearing a flashing neon blimp on their head that screams "I'm a clueless urban git who doesn't get the gun issue!"
It's. Not. About. Hunting.
What needs to be said is something along the lines of "I pledge my party will never confiscate any weapon you legitimately need to protect yourself and your loved ones; that right is guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution, and cannot be taken away, and it never will! Small arms in the hands of responsible owners can save lives, and have many times. I understand that, even though my Party hasn't always; a vote for me is a vote for your right to keep your gun! A vote for me is a vote to keep us safe by enforcing our present gun laws! God bless America!"
I've never owned a gun, by the way, and I don't presently expect I ever will. I simply understand, I think, the issues.
(I also support right-to-carry laws that also mandate licensing, registration, and training; if we license you to drive, and require you to register your care, it's legitimate to do that for your gun. And being for that no more means intending to confiscate your gun that that the government intends to confiscate your car. Unless you violate the law. That, in my view, is the sensible moderate position.)
Read The Rest Scale: 2 out of 5 if it's a relevation to you that Kerry is now playing to the center.
Gary Farber's home blog is Amygdala.
Gary, I believe you when you say that. But what of the folks who are pushing gun control (oh, say, things like the AWB extension) who have said they are ultimately for a complete prohibition? Should we not extend them the same respect we extend you, in taking them at their word?
I don't own a gun, never have owned a gun, and find it hard to imagine circumstances under which I'd buy a gun. Nonetheless I have no problems with other people who do want to own guns.
I recently wrote about the 2nd Amendment on my blog and Joe was kind enough to link to my post. Your're right—it's not just about hunting. And it's not just about self-defense.
There are plenty of extremists to go 'round, and there will be for the forseeable future. My point was what I thought Senator Kerry and Democratic leaders should do; that some anti-gun fanatics will object is inevitable; that they'd make policy is not at all.
Resisting what moderates will do because of fear of what extremists might do -- whether it's gun-haters wanting to ban all guns because some bad people will misuse them, or it's gun-lovers wanting to never ever allow laws regarding guns because it's a step towards confiscation -- is not a sensible approach to policy, but simply acting rigidly on fear.
It's also another version of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, and winding up with something bad.
Gary,
I understand your point-of-view, but let's address this as a simple question.
Why should I willingly give up or mitigate an inalienable right?
You're correct. It's not about hunting. It's also not about crime.
It's about ensuring citizens are able to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. So, we allow the government to control the means by which we defend ourselves from the government? Doesn't make sense.
The government can only take rights away or recognize them - it cannot grant them. If you want the right to free speech, you'd better have a way to ensure it. It is the 2nd amendment (rather than, say, the 21st) for a very good reason.
Warning: I'm not going to go much further down the road of a gun control/rights debate; it's not as if the Internet lacks for discussion of it, nor as if there's anything left to say that hasn't been said.
But: "It's about ensuring citizens are able to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. So, we allow the government to control the means by which we defend ourselves from the government?"
They already do. This line of argument ends either two ways: you join with a militia and prepare to defend yourself against the 82nd Airborne, if necessary -- and lose -- or you decide to engage in a pre-emptive strike against the tyranny that already has plenty of gun control laws, and you wind up Timothy McVeigh.
In no scenario do you win against the armed force of the government, save for fantasies of overthrowing the government by force. I'd wish you lots of luck with that, except that I wouldn't.
Therefore this line of argument is pointless and silly; it doesn't connect to reality. It will make sense, at best, when you have the power of an armored division, and I don't urge anyone to go down that road.
If the government actually becomes "tyranical" (and that doesn't mean making you pay taxes), you lose. End of story.
"If you want the right to free speech, you'd better have a way to ensure it."
I would like to believe the right to vote is the way. If it's insufficient, things are pretty bad.
You're correct in stating that no amount of personal firearms are going to prevent a tyrannical government from taking over in a physical fight. Matching my neighbors against a squad of regular infantry will only empty the neighborhood.
You're wrong in stating that 2nd amendment rights will not prevent a tyrannical government from taking over. It has nothing to do with the ability to prevent the government from doing so and everything to do with the willingness, or maybe the attitude.
The heart of the conflict over the second amendment really has nothing to do with guns. It has to do with the idea of citizenship. Those who push gun control believe the it is the government that has first responsibility for security, and the citizen who is to be protected by the government.
Those who oppose gun control believe that citizens are the government and therefore every citizen is the first defense and has the duty of providing to security for yourself and as many others as you can.
Gun control proponents really don't believe that people, as a whole, are capable of the responsibility to defend themselves, and that government must do it for them. Opponents to gun control, of course, believe that people not only can be capable, that they must be capable.
You are correct in stating that currently we are running just fine on a split system where urban areas take a passive approach to security and rural the active. But I don't believe that approach can last much longer. Technological trends are pushing increasing power into the hands of those with the knowledge.
The passive approach will, I think, require a tyrannical government to function in a world where anyone with an axe to grind will soon be able to whip up a chemical weapon, computer virus, biological weapon, nano-weapon, etc.
I think we need to encourage the active approach, the pack not the herd paradigm. A good first step would be to get citizens used to the idea that passivity is not the answer, that it's their duty to get involved in the world around them. That every citizen should have a gun and know how to use it. That every citizen should have basic medical training. That every citizen should know what to do in a variety of disasters, both individually and as part of a group plan.
All it requires is acceptance of personal freedom and responsibility, which is of course both the point and the problem.
What do you think?
"What do you think?"
That while I suspect we'd disagree about some specific legal propositions, that there's only one satement I'd disagree with in your comment. That is "That every citizen should have a gun and know how to use it."
I think there are great many citizens of dubious mental health who shouldn't have guns, and others who are unsuited for reasons of emotional stability or personality or inclination. Many people would simply be too nervous or inclined to exercise bad judgment. I think it would be a very bad idea to attempt to force everyone into one mold. Your statement is reasonable as a Platonic ideal, but not as an absolute applied to reality.
There were two statements I'm not sure I'd sign up for, but that's different than disagreeing with, and may merely be a matter of emphasis and degree.
They were "You're wrong in stating that 2nd amendment rights will not prevent a tyrannical government from taking over," and "The passive approach will, I think, require a tyrannical government...."
Gary,
First, I hope the tone of your response was not purposely patronizing. I was responding to an article you wrote exactly about the gun control debate - I did so in a way I felt was respectful and was not inciting you personally. The point of my comment is not atypical of gun owners - so "pointless and silly" seemed a bit strong in response.
You said you thought you understood the issues. I was providing a view that perhaps you hadn't thought of, since you didn't cover it.
It is important to understand why the second amendment exists in order to understand why it is so important. We have a tendency to change the meaning of things as time passes.
I am not sure if you mean to, but you are contending that the government provides me my rights. That would contradict the meaning of inalienable. The line of your response is exactly the line that was taken by those supporting the Crown just before the Revolutionary War. "Just be good little citizens and do what the government says. The option is to be snuffed out by the British army."
I am in no way advocating the overthrow of the government. I have served the government most of my adult life. I believe we have a great thing happening here. I caution, however, the importance of placing our rights in their correct context. The reason we have them is as important as the rights themselves.
The amended Constitution and the documents that led up to it were "radical" because they supposed that man has rights endowed by an entity much higher than any government. The amended Constitution is not a granting of those rights, but a recognition of them.
The question remains:
Why should I willingly give up or mitigate an inalienable right? ANY inalienable right?
The question is rhetorical, since there is only one correct answer.
Treefrog,
well said - better than I.
"First, I hope the tone of your response was not purposely patronizing."
No.
"I was providing a view that perhaps you hadn't thought of, since you didn't cover it."
Thank you. However, I wasn't writing a treatise attempting to cover all views. Thank you nonetheless.
"I think there are great many citizens of dubious mental health who shouldn't have guns, and others who are unsuited for reasons of emotional stability or personality or inclination. Many people would simply be too nervous or inclined to exercise bad judgment."
You prove my point. I'm not saying we should stick guns in these people's hands. I'm saying that the natural flow of technological progression is going to put weapons of far greater power into these people's hands. Like it or not. Better we as a society learn to deal with it now. After all, a nut with a gun can only kill as many people as they have ammo for. How many people will someone whipping up home-made explosives kill?
Or try this another way, how many people have those brewing up home-made meth, and other drugs in basement labs already killed? The drug war is pretty much a disaster from any angle, but we go with it because no one wants to incur the costs more rational approaches would take. Either enforce against users, all users, or make drug use legal. It's only a matter of time before we face the drug war question again applied to a much larger set of technologies.
None of this stands alone, all these attitudes and philosophies interrelate.
I agree in point that some people shouldn't be granted power. But how do we decide which people? Who decides?
One of the big problems facing this country is that we are turning into a tyranny of the inept. Those with abilites are limited because we always write beauracratic rules assuming the worst case. Better to deny all then let a few potentially abuse things.
Now you will tell me that this is a case where pure ideals cannot reasonable, practically function. Err, actually you already have. I even, FROM THE PLACE WE ARE NOW, agree with you.
Here's the question though...can you continue to hold your beliefs knowing that in a relatively short period of time (historically speaking 50-100 years) the arguments you use to justify gun control now, will almost certainly be used to advocate government control of essentially all science?
To paraphrase Heinlein, it's not the tool that's the weapon, it's the man. A gun after all is just a linear accelerator for hunks of metal. There are far more elegant weapon possibilites out there. Right now if I wanted to, using some off the shelf R/C aircraft kits, a handheld GPS, some cheap chips from any electronics supplier, and some chemicals from Wal-Mart and whip up a cheap cruise missile with a chemical warhead. Crash it into a parade/marketplace/random gathering of people, and presto I kill dozens, injure hundreds, and it'll be difficult for law enforcement to figure anything out.
And the knowledge barrier to entry is going to get lower and lower as information technology improves, tools improve (particularly computer aided manufacturing), and off the shelf hardware gets better.
This isn't a problem we can stick our heads in the sand and ignore. Although I suspect that's exactly what we will do until someone does something like I just described and kills a lot of people and law enforcement proves worthless (remember the anthrax attack? Near miss there). Then what do we do? Chemistry control? Physics control? Outlaw wireless communication? The Internet?
That's what I meant about the soft approach requiring a tyranny. People will never put up with random screwballs slaughtering hundreds from time to time, never going to happen. If they believe the government is supposed to protect them they will vote in progressively harsher governments in order to stop the problem until it goes away. Eventually we'll end up under a tyranny since the only way, for government, to end people using everyday methods to kill other people is to monitor and control every day methods. Ergo tyranny.
On the other hand, if people believe it is their responsibility to protect themselves, and government serves only as convenient, trusted (in the computing sense of the word, i.e. one whose authority cannot be spoofed) communication hub, then tyranny is not a problem. Vigilantism, yes, tyranny no. That is why second amendment rights avoid the problem of tyranny, it's not the guns, it's the attitude.
And really that's why Kerry and the Democrats are being silly if they think mouthing phrases about hunting are going to get themselves anywhere with pro-gun America. Those with reputations as nanny-staters are running against the core belief sets of the pro-gun crowd regardless of where they stand on gun control, even if they were completely genuine.
I'm just hoping to make it through to the Singularity, myself.
Seriously, you make good points, and I have no fifty-years-from-now (or necessarily sooner, beyond the next few years) solutions.
"And really that's why Kerry and the Democrats are being silly if they think mouthing phrases about hunting are going to get themselves anywhere with pro-gun America. Those with reputations as nanny-staters are running against the core belief sets of the pro-gun crowd regardless of where they stand on gun control, even if they were completely genuine."
Which was my starting point, however badly or not I may have put it.
I've never understood the sacredness of this issue, as it seems to defy reason to me. So I will keep my trap shut.
I'm on board. This is, in fact, the very core of the issue. To those 2nd Amendment advocates who believe they can resist armies consider the Warsaw Uprising. Absent an effective alliance with the military power capable of providing assistance (Stalinist USSR) the uprising against the Nazis failed. It failed not for want of weapons or determination, but because it simply couldn't match the might of a national army. The episode indicts the Soviets, but it suggests that we need to take claims of "parity" with rising totalitarianism with a grain of salt.
The true defense involves the establishment of the principle that citizens are at least partly responsible for their own defense. This is the theory that lies behind the burgeoning "shall issue" revolution regarding concealed carry. It is now possible to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon in about two-thirds of the states in the US, by applying for a concealed carry permit in your home state plus an out-of-state permit in a number of others. The greatest bang for the buck, by the way, is an out-of-state permit it Florida. The application fee is about $125 but entitles you to carry in approximately half of the states in the US. To make a successful application, however, you'll need to have already acquired a permit in your home state. It's rare for Florida to grant a permit to someone who hasn't received a permit in their home state. The permit also requires the submission of fingerprints, and allows an extensive background check taking up to three months.
I was involved in an "open carry" incident recently, that was reported in the Washington Post. The reporter who covered that incident interviewed me for a follow-up, but so far the follow-up article hasn't appeared. My impression of the interviewer was that he was sympathetic to the "state of mind" paradigm expressed in the above quote, which may explain why he hasn't been allowed to submit a follow-up. There is enormous depth to the acceptance of this argument, and when confronted with it most of the "gun grabber" lobby will simply shut up and wait for a better day. But they will suppress the exposition of the p.o.v. because they recognize its power.
"....shall not be infringed." Simple & perfect.
If you believe they don't do much good and are often irrational, then why believe in having the "moderate and reasonable" laws?
From reading your responses to others in this comments thread, I suspect that you're closer in spirit to the 2nd Ammendment absolutists than you state. And I agree with you on Kerry: his statements so far on 2nd Ammendment rights miss the point and are not winning any of us to support him.
You know, calls for politicians to "say this" or "say that" need to be realistic about what politicians can get away with. If Kerry were to say "the 2nd amendment guarantees you the right to carry guns so that you can challenge the government in a Waco-like showdown," people would think "you want another Waco!? Are you nuts!?" If instead, he says "you deserve the right to hunt," he achieves the same thing: he makes it clear that he supports reasonable levels of gun ownership. In short, don't expect him to list every one of his reasons for supporting a position, expect him to list the reasons that are least controversial. If it bothers you that a politician would shy away from controversy where possible, then I don't know what to tell you... that's politics.
Personally, I think the right to hold guns so that you can pressure the government isn't as dumb as it initially appears. It's not about defeating the Army (impossible). It's about putting Janet Reno in the unfortunate position of choosing: do we send in the army, guns a-blazing, and slaughter a bunch of citizens, or do we negotiate with nut jobs? In the end, there's a 99% chance you'll end up on the bad end of a massacre or outwitted and in jail, but there's a 1% chance you'll draw enough national attention to an issue that you'll be able to force some change. Of course, whether we want the David Koreshes of the world to be able to shape our government is debatable.
To massacre a Ghandi quote:
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they shoot you dead, then you win!"
Gary,
Are you ignoring my question in my earlier comment? If so, keep ignoring away; but if it's just due to oversight I'd really like you to explalin how your moderation in terms of registration somehow determines the motivations and ultimate goals of folks like Dianne Feinstein.
Thanks!
Gary --
I think it's remarkably easy to say that you're for "moderate and sensible" gun control in the abstract. Who isn't?
The hard problem is actually defining what is moderate and what is sensible, and building an electoral consensus around that. Take something like the "assault weapon" ban, for instance; it may be moderate insofar as a broad cross-section of American voters appear to think it's a good idea, but once you get down to examining what the law actually does, it has a rather more difficult relationship with the word "sensible". The same is true for many gun control laws; indeed, you appear to acknowledge this by noting that many are irrational and are unlikely to affect crime rates.
At any rate, I substantively agree with you: I'd prefer to have a Democrat Party that would cease demagoging gun control in order to earn urban votes. Of course, I'd also like to have a Republican Party that would pay more than lip service to the Second Amendment. A man can dream, can't he?
"Warning: I'm not going to go much further down the road of a gun control/rights debate; it's not as if the Internet lacks for discussion of it, nor as if there's anything left to say that hasn't been said."
I'm done now. Thanks.
(Except to say that people who can't spell "Gandhi" drive me crazy.)
> people who can't spell "Gandhi" drive me crazy
Ack! Well, I guess you learn something new every day.