Over at The Faculty Lounge, there are some pictures of sit-ins from the early 1960s. Regarding a 1963 sit-in in Jackson, Mississippi, TFL writes: “By one account, members of the all-White Jackson police force stood guard outside, while several FBI agents (the guys in back wearing shades) ‘observed’ from inside. That White guy at the counter, that’s Tougaloo professor and community activist Hunter Gray (John R. Salter) who helped organize the Jackson sit-ins. And that’s blood on his shirt. All of the protesters had been covered in slop, and some were beaten with brass knuckles and broken bottles.”
The non-violent Civil Rights protesters allowed themselves to be beaten in public while the media watched; the images helped win sympathy for the Civil Rights Movement in the North, and proved to be crucial in developing the political will for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In a limited sense, the media’s presence provided some protection for the protesters; there was never a case in which a civil rights protester was murdered in front of media cameras. At night, when everyone had gone home, things were very different. As Salter later explained:
I was beaten and arrested many times and hospitalized twice. This happened to many, many people in the movement. No one knows what kind of massive racist retaliation would have been directed against grassroots black people had the black community not had a healthy measure of firearms within it.
When the campus of Tougaloo College was fired on by KKK-type racial night-riders, my home was shot up and a bullet missed my infant daughter by inches. We received no help from the Justice Department and we guarded our campus — faculty and students together — on that and subsequent occasions. We let this be known. The racist attacks slackened considerably. Night-riders are cowardly people — in any time and place — and they take advantage of fear and weakness.
Later, I worked for years in the Deep South as a full-time civil rights organizer. Like a martyred friend of mine, NAACP staffer Medgar W. Evers, I, too, was on many Klan death lists and I, too, traveled armed: a .38 special Smith and Wesson revolver and a 44/40 Winchester carbine.
The knowledge that I had these weapons and was willing to use them kept enemies at bay. Years later, in a changed Mississippi, this was confirmed by a former prominent leader of the White Knights of the KKK when we had an interesting dinner together at Jackson.
In the 1970s, I was Southside director of the large, privately-funded Chicago Commons Association. Our primary focus involved assisting minority people in developing sensible community organizations — vis-a-vis schools, city services, anti-crime.
We were opposed by white racist organizations (e.g., Nazi Party) and various youth gangs of many sorts. My staff and I received countless death threats, there were arson attacks on our offices, and, on one occasion, men with weapons came to my home and told my wife and children that they intended to kill me. (I happened to be at work.)
Again, I was glad I had many firearms and, again, we guarded our home and let this be known. We responded to hate calls on the telephone by telling the callers we were quite prepared for them.
For Salter, the right to own a handgun was apparently a crucial part of his ability to exercise his right to defend himself and his family, which was a sine qua non of his ability to stay alive in order to exercise his First Amendment rights to advocate for enforcement of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Yet in modern Chicago, decent law-abiding citizens are forbidden to own handguns. As I detailed in my amicus brief in McDonald v. Chicago (pages 39–45), many people find that a handgun is best choice for family defense, especially in urban areas such as Chicago. As the history of the Civil Rights Movement demonstrates, the denial of the constitutional right to own a handgun could endanger other constitutional rights, particularly the rights of community organizers.
Thurgood Marshall says:
Marshall packed, too.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 3:55 pmRPT says:
Interesting history.
1. Was there any attempt by the southern government officials to limit access to handguns by the victims of the Klan and others?
2. Does it matter for your analysis that Chicago is really a different place and different time?
These are nonsnarky questions asked because DK is clearly an expert in the field.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 3:55 pmArthurKirkland says:
This anecdote indicates some benefit to the availability of guns, but also seems intensely one-sided.
Was there any downside, for victims of that period’s bigotry, to having a bunch of lawless, racist rednecks running around with unregistered, unregulated guns?
Quote
February 8, 2010, 4:07 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Arthur, I’ll take that one.
There would have been no feasible way short of a street-by-street bloodbath to take those unregistered and unregulated guns away.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 4:13 pmPhatty says:
You mean like the local Sheriff and his deputies who wore their uniforms during the day and then threw on their white sheets at night?
Quote
February 8, 2010, 4:18 pmPhatty says:
Chicago has obviously learned the lessons of history and now disarms its citizens so there is no possibility of losing control over its own citizens.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 4:21 pmRoger the Shrubber says:
I’m reminded of the film “Mississippi Burning” and its portrayal of federal law enforcement officers as the saviors and protectors of the Civil Rights workers. Not so much, really.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 4:21 pmSuperSkeptic says:
Well, their guns have subsequently been
unregistered andunregulated — thankfully avoiding “a street-by-street bloodbath — but, has an “infringe[ment]” occurred?Quote
February 8, 2010, 4:27 pmCivil Rights and Armed Self-Defense - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine says:
[...] Go here to read the entire thing. It’s well worth your time. And go here for Kopel’s classic Reason article explaining why gun control was “the Klan’s favorite law.” [...]
Houston Lawyer says:
Gun control laws have often been directed in such a manner as to keep Black people from defending themselves. Even now, people seem to think that people who live in the worst parts of town are exactly the kinds of people that shouldn’t be allowed to own guns.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 4:36 pmJ. Aldridge says:
I wanna exercise my “right” to defend myself with a Gatling gun.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 4:40 pmPintler says:
Mr. Kopel wrote an earlier article that includes instances over a fairly large time period and geographic range, including Chicago. One of those from Detroit is discussed in more detail in this NYT article.
[That one had a tragic ending — Mr. Sweet was arrested, defended by Clarence Darrow, and acquitted, but his wife and child died of TB contracted in jail, and he committed suicide later. But the situation would have been even more tragic if the mob had just killed them that night. His fight was not in vain — the article says:
Quote
February 8, 2010, 4:44 pmMatthew Carberry says:
Go ahead Mr. Aldridge, if you can afford one it’d be perfectly legal; a good shoot is a good shoot, regardless of weapon.
Presuming of course you did so in a responsible manner, being aware of what was behind your lawful target and such. Given its caliber and rate of fire that makes the Gatling at least problematic as a self-defense weapon, although single shots are easily accomplished.
The bigger issue is having it mounted in a place where it is both available in time and pointed in the right direction for when a lawful self-defense circumstance (notoriously hard to predict) arises; or having enough other trained people around to help lay it correctly in a timely manner if out of place.
Personally I find handguns and conventional long guns more convenient and effective as tools to exercise my natural right to self-defense for those reasons.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 4:55 pmAnonsters says:
Of course, the way Kopel says it both in the headline and the detail of his argument, he makes it appear as though “the right to arms” was what allowed the Civil Rights movement to succeed.
And that is ridiculous and discredits much of any point Kopel may have.
What’s more, notice that although Salter owned guns, it did not prevent him from being beaten or harassed by racists. Note also that even though he threatened those who would harass him and his family, they still continued to threaten and harass him and his family. Note further that nowhere in the above quote does Salter indicate that he actually used his guns to protect himself or his family. Note finally that Salter said that Medgar Evers also went around armed, but he was assassinated (despite being armed).
So yeah, real strong case that owning guns was what allowed the Civil Rights movement to succeed.
Unless you’re really arguing that the constitutional right is to own a gun so that you can feel safer than you would without one. Because that’s essentially all the Salter quote shows. He was happy he had guns. He felt safer.
They didn’t make him safer.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 4:56 pmStuart_the_Viking says:
Yes, there was a downside. Like getting shot and killed by said lawless racists. Problem is, even if guns were illegal, being LAWLESS, said racists wouldn’t have just said “Woops! Guns are illegal, guess I can’t go shoot me a negro.” They would have either gotten their guns illegally (easily done) or killed those they wanted to kill by other means. That is a perfect example of the disconnect that the anti-gun crowd can never get past. Making firearms illegal won’t stop criminals from getting them. It will only prevent those who want to live their lives within the law from being able to protect themselves. These lawful people aren’t the ones who go out and commit crimes. Having a gun doesn’t change them from being a law abiding person into a killer, a gun is just a chunk of metal.
On another note. Describing the anti-civil rights people as “racist rednecks” does two things. First: It unfairly paints all rednecks as racists. While I won’t try to say that racism doesn’t exists amongst rednecks, it is far from universal. Second: Trying to say that ALL the anti-civil rights crowd were rednecks couldn’t be further from the truth. Racism covers (and always has covered) a hugely diverse cross-section of society. Everything from Bankers, Preachers, Politicians, Law enforcement officers, to factory workers, and dish washers; People from the big city as well as people from the country. Many of these people could never be described as rednecks.
When you paint a picture of who the “bad guys” are/were. You are merely showing who it is that you dislike. What do you have against rednecks anyway. Some rednecks are amongst the nicest people I have ever met, others... not so much but you can’t judge a person until you know them.
s
Quote
February 8, 2010, 4:59 pmAni says:
For Salter, the right to own a handgun was apparently a crucial part of his ability to exercise his right to defend himself and his family, which was a sine qua non of his ability to stay alive in order to exercise his First Amendment rights to advocate for enforcement of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Don’t forget his right to own private property, which he could defend from everything except eminent domain. And his right to telephone service, so he could receive calls, make counter-threats, order more guns, protest quartering, and request absentee ballots, thereby facilitating his First, Second, Third, etc., etc. rights.
Authoritative anecdotes also demonstrate that where guns were more sharply regulated, the KKK alone was totally unaffected, as they had their weapons smuggled in from Cuba.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 4:59 pmWilliam O. B'Livion says:
Clayton Cramer, “The Racist Roots of Gun Control”:
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html
Quote
February 8, 2010, 5:05 pmJames Craig Ziegler says:
So pay the $200.00 tax and get one...
Quote
February 8, 2010, 5:08 pmSuperSkeptic says:
And because “[t]hey didn’t make him safer[,]” it is permissible to infringe his right, is that it?
That is not what he is arguing, and you likely know that.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 5:08 pmMark Field says:
I guess I don’t understand the point of this post. Is there anyone who doubts that guns would be necessary for self-defense in circumstances in which (a) people are trying to kill you with guns; and (b) the government is making no effort to enforce the law?
As for the CRM itself, that was famously non-violent. Whatever individuals may have done at times, the demonstrations themselves were generally peaceful and certainly conducted without the use or display of guns.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 5:11 pmSuperSkeptic says:
...and don’t forget to also make a “submission of a full set of fingerprints on FBI Form FD-258, certification provided by the local chief of police, sheriff of the county, head of the State police, or State or local district attorney or prosecutor, and approval by the BATF” (wikipedia).
If you don’t get permission, paying the tax won’t take you very far.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 5:15 pmWilliam O. B'Livion says:
My wife has laid down the law. No belt fed guns in the living room, machine or semi-auto.
But just stop for a moment and picture the look on the local constabularies face as he executes that no-knock warrant and comes face to face with a Browning .30cal. In semi auto, of course, and w/out anyone actually at the trigger, but just sitting there facing the door. It would give even the stoutest man pause...
Our Politicians and their instruments SHOULD fear us.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 5:17 pmrmd says:
Even easier than that, just get one. Gatling guns are not machine guns. I could be mistaken but I don’t think they’re even “any other weapons” for purposes of applying NFA ’34. As has been pointed out above though, they make lousy tactical weapons.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 5:18 pmEdward Lunny says:
” What’s more, notice that although Salter owned guns, it did not prevent him from being beaten or harassed by racists. “..Perhaps not, but, he never became a lynching victim either. Living to tell the tale is a very satisfying revenge and ultimately outcome.
” Note also that even though he threatened those who would harass him and his family, they still continued to threaten and harass him and his family.”..You don’t suppose that had it been known that Mr.Salter were unarmed ‚the threats and harassment might have come through the front door as opposed to being hurled from the street ?
”
Note further that nowhere in the above quote does Salter indicate that he actually used his guns to protect himself or his family.” That is inaccurate, the knowledge that he and others were armed provided Mr.Salter with a considerable degree of protection. That he had never fired his weapon is not indicative of a lack of need to be armed. Even today, numerous incidents are decided not by the discharge ‚but by the mere presence of a firearm.
” Note finally that Salter said that Medgar Evers also went around armed, but he was assassinated (despite being armed).” Is there any form of protection that is effective 100% of the time ?
” So yeah, real strong case that owning guns was what allowed the Civil Rights movement to succeed.” Unarmed people confronted by armed assailants aren’t called victims because it sounds nice. Mr.Salter, and many others, are alive and were successful in their endeavours because they were armed ‚not in spite of it.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 5:22 pmSuperSkeptic says:
I’m not David Kopel, Mark Field, but it seems fairly obvious to me that the Post is designed to elicit sympathy for gun-rights from people who might normally be opposed to them but who may also be very sympathetic to the civil rights movement.
Think of it as something like “reaching across the aisle”...
Quote
February 8, 2010, 5:24 pmEdward Lunny says:
” My wife has laid down the law. No belt fed guns in the living room, machine or semi-auto.”..You mean you don’t clean up your own brass and links ? No wonder she laid down the law, you cad you.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 5:25 pmFederal Farmer says:
Gatling guns are quite legal. They are not even considered ‘machineguns’ by the BATFE.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 5:31 pmPhatty says:
You are correct. Here is the ATF’s official ruling on the subject.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 5:36 pmAni says:
And, on that subject, the Gatling gun was essential to ensuring the civil rights of the Zulu and the Bedouin.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 5:40 pmArthurKirkland says:
I believe a citizen is entitled (although not necessarily by the Second Amendment) to possess a reasonable gun for self-defense in the home. I believe the government is entitled to require registration of guns and to impose reasonable restrictions on gun possession.
Had reasonable regulations been in force when American whites were killing, beating and humiliating blacks regularly — registration, restricted possession outside the home — the forces for good might have had an easier time handling the racist rednecks.
Regarding rednecks and racists: A disproportionate number of rednecks were (and to lesser degree are) racists. A disproportionate number of racists were (and to lesser degree are) rednecks. In some areas, the banker and sheriff and lawyer were prone to being rednecks, if one generally associates “redneck” with “backward” and “unsophisticated.”
America has progressed greatly in 50 or 60 years, but the journey is not complete and we can and should continue to learn from it. Proposing that guns are a principal reason for American progress concerning racism and civil rights does not strike me as an important lesson.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 5:41 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
You think that, do you?
Also,
Yes.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 5:42 pmAnonsters says:
It strikes me as an absurd notion that deserves whatever derision it meets.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 5:50 pmorca says:
I thought this was a post about how Gandhi secretly packed heat.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 5:51 pmJimmy says:
I love revisionist history...so guns saved non-violent civil rights protesters? I can’t wait until I see the argument as to how guns saved a woman’s right to an abortion. I mean why not? Both decisions are based on judicial activism. Lets combine them into a law review article. Lets just give it time...
Quote
February 8, 2010, 5:52 pmAnonsters says:
That’s one way of putting it.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 5:52 pmmack says:
It is ridiculous to argue the all or nothing argument — either guns offer total protection or they offer none. Please. Guns have been shown to be the best defense against personal assault — the FBI Uniform Crime report has shown year after year that individuals that use a firearm to defend themselves are less likely to be injured or killed than individuals who resist with any other means, and individuals who do not resist. So it is not just a matter of feeling safer it is a measure of being safer. Research has also shown that criminals are often dissuaded from assault when they fear their victim might be armed, seems they don’t like the idea they might get shot. Might be why all those politicians have armed body guards. Now, if someone would just have taken the time to point out to them that it didn’t make them at all safer, just think of all the money we and they could save.
As far as disarming criminals whether they are racists or just run of the mill murders, muggers, and rapists — seems to have worked real well in Chicago and DC and every other major city where they’ve tried it. Except that only the criminals and police have guns. Seems criminals break the law and get guns anyway. But of course we should have a national prohibition on guns cause that would work — just like the prohibition on alcohol worked — oops skip that — I mean the war on drugs has worked — so that a person can’t even find illegal drugs in this country — oh yeah that hasn’t worked either. But I’m sure it would work for gun because....well I don’t know...well because they would be illegal. Maybe we should pass a law against using a gun in a crime or against felons having guns. I’m sure those would work.
As my brother the police officer likes to say, “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Why do otherwise intelligent people go off the deep end when the topic is guns? They’ve been around for hundreds of years and the technology hasn’t changed significantly in the last 90years. Ninety years ago there were semiauto pistols, shotguns, and rifles; there were submachine guns, assault rifles like the BAR, and small pocket pistols.
I’d worry more about armed governments than armed citizens — they’ve killed millions upon millions of more individuals just in the last century — usually their own citizens. Thank God that could never ever happen here — because.....
Quote
February 8, 2010, 5:53 pmPhatty says:
You’ve mentioned gun registration several times now and I’m curious what benefit you expect to obtain from registering guns.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 5:57 pmPatHMV says:
ArthurKirkland said:
Yes, because the forces for good were having such an easy time of enforcing the reasonable regulations against “killing, beating, and humiliating blacks.” Do you not realize just how moronic that sounds? In the 1960s in the South, it’s not like the local cops didn’t know who did it. It’s not like there weren’t often witnesses to the vicious crimes. It’s simply that the local authorities refused to actually enforce the law. Why in the world do you even begin to believe that the same racist cops who wouldn’t arrest murderers for killing a black man would nevertheless go to the home of the local KKK folks and take their guns away?
Quote
February 8, 2010, 6:00 pmFrank Drackman says:
” A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and arm bears shall not be infringed”
I’m not a lawyer, and I haven’t memorized the 2d Ammendment like I have “Napoleon Dynamite” dialog, but what part of “Infringed” do they not understand??
And I’ve been to Chicago, it makes Early 60’s Mississippi look like Shang-ri-la.
Course, maybe I shouldn’t have worn that Cubs jersey at Comiskey Park...
And I recommend an oldy but goody, Smith & Wesson Model 28 “Highway Patrol” .357 Magnum, uses the “N” frame of the 44 Magnum(Yeah, the one Dirty Harry shot Scorpio with)fires every time you pull the trigger, and if you run out of ammo, you can hit Frankenstein over the head with it, since it weighs almost 4 lbs...
Quote
February 8, 2010, 6:00 pmLarryA says:
Given that many of the night riders were either law enforcement officers or community leaders, they would have had no trouble in registering any firearms they wanted. However, registration would have equaled prohibition for blacks. It works just like the “reasonable” laws requiring a literacy test or payment of a poll tax to vote. Somehow when blacks apply the right forms just aren’t available.
For a modern example, check the New York City gun registration law. Getting a permit is simple if you are politically connected, and nearly impossible if you aren’t. Or you can check New Jersey, or many urban counties in California, or Hawaii, or...
He was beaten in public, in front of TV cameras where an outright murder could not have been disregarded.
But the bigots didn’t come in the night to murder his family.
A firearm that deters night riders from breaking down your door and killing everyone is “in use” even though you never shoot someone with it.
A firearm offers you a chance to protect yourself, it doesn’t guarantee success. Just like wearing a seat belt can help make an automobile accident more survivable even though it doesn’t stop all deaths.
See the comments above. People like the Brady folks will most earnestly tell you that incidents like the recent Fort Hood shooting would only have been worse had the soldiers in the center been armed and able to shoot back.
But the peaceful demonstrations would not have been possible without the protection of firearms when the demonstrators weren’t in public. It’s very simple to overcome a non-violent movement; kill the leaders until there are no more leaders.
Harry Turtledove wrote The Last Article, an illuminating alternate history short story set in 1940’s India, where Germany had won WWII and taken over. Gandhi’s strategy of Satyagraha, applied against a German occupation rather than a British one, ended in disaster with Gandhi and Nehru being taken out back and shot.
It is when many (some here today) are proposing that restricting the ability to be armed would promote “American progress concerning racism and civil rights.”
Quote
February 8, 2010, 6:02 pmmack says:
Yes revisionist history right from the mouths of the people involved in the movements themselves — like the deacons for defense. Kind of hard to protest for the cameras when you were shot, lynched, or beaten to death the night before. Course why should we listen to the people that were there — what the heck do they know.
Gotta hate those judicial activists and the second amendment — quoting the founding fathers and courts and state constitutions going all the way back to the beginning of this country. What idiots trying to incorporate the second amendment like they did the first amendment and so on. It’s not like the second even mentions a right of the people.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 6:05 pmArthurKirkland says:
Facilitating the tracking of transfers of guns, for starters, improving prospects for determining how weapons in improper hands got there.
That line of thinking seemingly would mandate immediate leashing of the drug warriors.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 6:06 pmKirk Parker says:
SuperSkeptic, maybe on some imaginary planet, but in the actual states (e.g. LA, MS, AL, TN) there is no such registration.
Also, sadly, what Phatty said. And Arthur Kirkland need to re-read it, this time with understanding: in too many places, official local law enforcement was part of the problem.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 6:06 pmJames Craig Ziegler says:
Since most of the guns used in crime “got there” by being stolen, what is your next step, prosecution of the victim of the robbery?
Quote
February 8, 2010, 6:09 pmLib says:
So, the “reasonable” regulations would have been enforced by one of the rednecks who was likely a racist and who, in many cases, didn’t make serious attempts to protect blacks from beatings and even killings? What could possibly go wrong?
Quote
February 8, 2010, 6:10 pmmariner says:
William O. B’Livion:
Why do you think it’s so difficult and expensive for plain old folks to have one?
It’s precisely because the constabularies don’t want violent resistance as they invade citizens’ homes at oh-dark-thirty on flimsy pretexts.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 6:16 pmRelic says:
I’m sure I’m asking a stupid question, but how, exactly, would guns be “registered” in a way that wouldn’t involve serious private property violations? How would you know that a house has an unregistered gun? How would you “track the transfer” of guns that are stolen (as James mentioned)? How would you track a sale from, say, a garage sale, or a transfer in the form of a gift?
Quote
February 8, 2010, 6:19 pmAnonsters says:
Interesting that those of us who think some form of regulation of gun ownership is not unreasonable are being accused of being radical anti-gun, anti-rights haters who just want to strip Americans of their natural rights, even though I suspect most of us (though I can’t speak for anyone other than myself) do not, in fact, favor outright prohibition of gun ownership. Consider how nutty, then, it sounds to accuse someone of trying to take away your rights, because they believe the government has a legitimate interest in regulating (note: regulating, not prohibiting) the sale of weapons.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 6:27 pmJames Craig Ziegler says:
1. You confuse “regulating the sale” and “registration”.
2. What is the objective of “registration”? And hopefully not “tracking the source of crime guns”...see my earlier post.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 6:30 pmRelic says:
Anonsters:
Are you referring to me? I seriously want an answer. I can’t see how any gun registration legislation could actually be enforced without serious privacy violations. From where I’m standing, it looks like registration would have to operate on random searches or the honor system. The former would be distinctly totalitarian, the latter would be a farce.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 6:31 pmSuperSkeptic says:
Kirk & Laura, I apologize for my ignorant yankee assumption. You have no CCW permits in the South?
Quote
February 8, 2010, 6:33 pmFederal Farmer says:
Chicago has run registration. Can they point to a single crime solved by the registry? Can they make the claim that police officers are made safer by the gun registry?
The only use of the gun registry of which I am aware is CAGE (Chicago’s gun unit) confiscating the pistol of a man who failed to re-register it on the required yearly basis.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 6:43 pmAnonsters says:
You talkin’ to ME??? :D
I was referring to those who regard as somehow radically anti-rights anyone who thinks that some form of gun regulation (short of prohibiting ownership altogether, of course) is reasonable.
If you think that of those of us who think some form of gun regulation is reasonable, then yes, I was referring to you. Otherwise, no.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 6:54 pmLarryA says:
Yes! Now you’re getting the idea! The War on Drugs is just as much an abject failure as gun control has been.
Visit the NAACP and propose that voters should have to pass a simple literacy test or pay a nominal poll tax. See how they respond. They know the history of such legislation.
The problem is that registration, like a poll tax, can be unequally enforced. As I stated above, go to NYC or LA County and try to register a gun. If you’re a celebrity, or politically connected, it’s a minor process. If you’re a Nigerian taxi driver (with one of the more dangerous professions in the city) it’s impossible.
I had a couple in one of my CHL classes a while back who came from one of the “discretionary” concealed carry states. The county officials who decided whether they “needed” a carry license gave him one, but turned her down because he could protect her. That is typical of the gun licensing process in much of the U.S. today.
Well, there was the Chicago Alderman who neglected to reregister his guns. He had a special amnesty law passed so he could register late.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 6:56 pmFederal Farmer says:
I could have used that window to re-register one of my rifles that I had inadvertantly forgotten to re-register but they wanted $60 per. That is 3x the yearly $20. By the way, it costs me $20/year to register one of my rifles that sells for $80. Can you imagine paying $10,000 to license your Volvo each year?
Quote
February 8, 2010, 7:02 pmAnonsters says:
So you think gun regulation is equivalent to poll taxes and literacy tests in order to vote. Wow.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 7:14 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Yes, we have CCW permits. They’re not that hard to get. Some people actually bother to get them.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 7:23 pmFrank Drackman says:
“NOT” infringed
not “partially” or anyother words with the same meaning, forgive me, I speak English as 2d language. IN german we often leave a prefix at the end of a sentence tht totally changes the sentences meaning. I thnk that was to confuse the French, but English does not share that feature.
Being from Germany i know about the results of gun control.
Anne Frank didn’t have a pistol
George Patton had 2, even though he had a million soldiers with him.
Frank
Quote
February 8, 2010, 7:25 pmFrank Drackman says:
In Alabama you can even carry a machinegun concealed, if you get the proper BATF approval for the machinegun, and list that as your carry weapon on your CCW.
An M-11 9mm packs quite a surprise for any potential attacker, 32 rounds at a cyclic rate of 1200 rpm. You do the math. Even made in America.
Oh, English does have the negating thing, like when you say something, and follow with a quick “NOT”!!!! for example,
John Edwards was a devout Faithful Husband.............NOT!!!!
I don’t see that in my copy of the constitution.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 7:32 pmPintler says:
I think the perceived benefits of registration are:
1)When a crime is committed and examination of the spent case/bullet indicates that it was fired from a rare type of gun, the police can see whether any of those owners might be involved. I think this is likely to be a less persuasive argument — owners of rare guns are likely to have common guns as well, and are thus unlikely to use the oddball one in a crime.
2)Possessing an unregistered gun would be a crime, and this would help in a couple of situations, for example the police pull over a car containing a felon and his non-felon girlfriend and find a gun under the seat. She claims the gun is hers. She is less likely to falsely testify to that if there are penalties for having an unregistered gun. It would also make friends and family of felons a little less willing to buy a gun and give it to the felon. I’m not sure it would make them all that reluctant — they could just report that it was stolen, for example (although, in my limited experience as a juror, they are likely to do a transparently bad job of faking the ‘burglary’).
It is worth noting that some jurisdictions that have tried various registration schemes (Canada, the ballistic fingerprinting efforts in CA and MD) haven’t been found to be particularly efficacious.
I will offer three reasons why gun owners object so strenuously to registration:
1)Many gun owners have encountered bureaucracies that manage to stretch seemingly reasonable laws to unreasonable limits, e.g. many ‘may issue’ CCW states.
2)For the last couple of decades there has been a strong push for laws that seemed to have little to do with crime fighting, advocated by people whose avowed purpose is an outright ban on firearms, which raises fears of the slippery slope.
3)To the extent one believes in private firearms ownership as a deterrent to a future tyrant, one has to balance the crime fighting ability of a current, benign government with a future despotic one. However much one approves of the current government, a future one might use the list for bad ends.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 7:33 pmKevin P. says:
It depends on what the gun regulation in question is. Many regulations involve prior restraint upon the exercise of constitutional rights, particularly licensing and registration before one can possess a gun for self defense. The fees involved in such licensing and registration are also a prior restraint. How is this different from poll taxes and literacy tests? Please tell us.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 7:36 pmRandy says:
” That is a perfect example of the disconnect that the anti-gun crowd can never get past. Making firearms illegal won’t stop criminals from getting them.”
This may very well be true. But if guns had been illegal for, say, the past 100 years at least, then there would certainly be far fewer gun manufacturers. Guns could then only be manufactured by a very small number of tightly regulated companies who guns would be only legally required to go to law enforcement personnel. In short, there would be far fewer guns available, legal or otherwise.
Which, of course, is exactly the case in places where gun ownership is illegal or highly restricted. I’m sure that you could, of you really want to, obtain an illegal gun in Japan, but it would rather difficult, expensive and risky. Not the sort of thing your typical racist red neck would or could do.
I’m not in favor of getting rid of the 2nd amendment, and I believe in reasonable gun control, but if you are going to argue that prohibing guns leads to some sort of outcome, the best situation is to look at countries that have always controlled gun use.
I know this is a pointless argument — we can’t undo the past. But the situation that is being described here, that black civil rights people were able to defend themselves from the racists, might not have been necessary if guns were hard to get for everyone involved.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 7:39 pmSuperSkeptic says:
Now I’m just confused. Perhaps enforcement is more laid-back down south (up here, we have mandatory minimums for carrying without that permit you guys apparently treat so cavalierly), but my assumption was simply that you are being “regulated” and “registered” similarly (if not to the same degree) down there. You and Kirk seemed to disagree with this assumption, but now you confirm for me that I was correct. Perhaps we differ with our definition of “registration” (mine is rather broad: if you have notify the government of anything in any way with regards to you and your gun(s))? What am I missing here?
Quote
February 8, 2010, 7:45 pmFederal Farmer says:
Actually it is far worse than a poll tax or literacy test in order to vote. One interferes with your right to defend your very life. I have yet to cast a vote upon which my life depended. Though that might make elections even more interesting.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 7:51 pmFederal Farmer says:
There are two separate but related things. Permit and Registration.
In IL we have a Firearm Owners ID (FOID) without which you cannot even touch, much less own or purchase a firearm. You can have a FOID and own 0 or any number of guns.
In Chicago we have firearm registration, where each firearm must be individually registered prior to taking possession and annually until you dispose of it.
A CCW is a form of Permit and may or may not have a registration aspect to it (i.e., where you declare your carry weapon).
Quote
February 8, 2010, 7:54 pmFederal Farmer says:
So far the only argument I’ve seen put forward for the efficacy of firearm registration is its use in limiting the gun supply. The only successes shown is pointing to countries that have confiscated firearms.
I fail to see how we are being unreasonably concerned.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 7:57 pmzuch says:
There’s no reason why civil disobedience has to be (or even should be) non-violent. In fact, there are some of the opinion that violent “civil disobedience” is the way to go....
That said, such people as Mahatma Gandhi (and Jesus, anecdotally) were both civilly disobedient and non-violent. And Martin Luther was a follower of both.
And to an extent, success in civil disobedience can be measured by a number of different (and possibly incompatible) metrics; which to choose depends on where you’re coming from, I guess.
Linking the effectiveness of civil disobedience with a willingness to engage in violence is simply not supported.
Cheers,
Quote
February 8, 2010, 7:57 pmFederal Farmer says:
By the way, if you had a magic wand that would make all guns disappear and prevent any further guns being fabricated, would you want to live in that world?
That is the world where the Conan types (and I don’t mean the late night talk show guy) dominate the rest of us by physical force.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 7:58 pmzuch says:
I guess we best get started. ;-)
Cheers,
Quote
February 8, 2010, 8:00 pmFederal Farmer says:
Tell that to a concentration camp survivor. Nothing good comes from allowing a government a monopoly on force.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 8:01 pmmack says:
Well, essentially at point of initial sale all guns are registered since 1968 — since all new guns must go through an FFL and any gun can be traced from the manufacturer — to the wholesaler — then to the local FFL — and then to the original purchaser. States like California require that all private sales go through an FFL, and states like Illinois require the individual in private sales to keep records of the person they sell any gun to — and that person must have an Illinois Foid card. Registration may even be constitutional if the purpose was to be sure that the unorganized militia was equiped with appropriate arms should the government ever require their service. I don’t think the government has any interest in registration for that purpose. The problem with registration is that it doesn’t make any difference in solving crimes. So, what is the purpose of registering guns? Look at Canada — they are talking about repealing their national registration — why — because it hasn’t helped solve crimes — and it has cost millions of dollars for virtually nothing. It has had one significant effect though — it has led to millions of Canadians becoming criminals — since a significant percentage refused to register their guns — or only registered some of their guns. I don’t see how that is a positive.
Do gun owners get paranoid about reasonable gun control and/or registration? I guess that depends what you mean by paranoid — in England registration led to confiscation — and it did in Australia, and in numerous other countries — some states and cities in the US like California and New York have required registration and then banned many types of guns, owners had to sell or otherwise dispose of their formerly legal and registered guns. There are organizations like the Brady Campaign (who have been featured at national party conventions as speakers), who have described reasonable gun control as owning a gun for hunting or similar sporting purposes and having it kept at a secure government approved gun club where one could check it out to hunt or for another approved activity and then immediately return it to be locked up again once the activity was over (per Sarah Brady). Self-defense is not, per them, a reasonable reason to own a gun.
Gun rights advocates have been fighting this war for over forty years now — there are always new “reasonable” laws — smart guns — waiting periods — assualt weapon bans — bans on semi-autos — one gun a month — restrictions on who can own or carry a gun — restrictions on magazine capacity — loss of gun rights for life for a misdemeanor — registration laws — fees for all the above — laws against having guns within 1000 ft of a school (try driving through any city and avoid coming within 1000 ft of a school)- and if they balk at any of the proposed new laws they are labeled unreasonable and paranoid. So maybe gun owners are a little touchy when it comes to new reasonable laws — maybe they tend to be “paranoid” for a reason.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 8:01 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
That’s it.
Several years ago a couple came up from Mississippi to Memphis and ate at Britling’s Cafeteria on American Way, across from the Mall of Memphis (none of this is there anymore) (for those of you who know where these things were). Upon returning to their car, they encounted a Memphian who attempted to rob them. The man pulled out his gun, for which he did not have a permit, and shot and killed the robber, then called the police. When the police came, their reaction was, well, OK then. The man was not charged.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 8:02 pmFederal Farmer says:
When you say we, I take it you are using the royal ‘we’. I don’t imagine you yourself will be kicking down any doors?
Quote
February 8, 2010, 8:04 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
You liked the way Ruby Ridge went down, did you? Want to see that over and over? Why? What do you think will be accomplished?
Quote
February 8, 2010, 8:10 pmzuch says:
The problem with saying that everyone has a right to have a gun is that everyone will then try to get a gun. And for some of these people, this is simply not a good idea. Letting the rest of the people have guns too may ameliorate — but doesn’t cure — this deficiency.
Cheers,
Quote
February 8, 2010, 8:12 pmJasmindad says:
Frank Drackman says:
What part of “well regulated” don’t you understand?
Quote
February 8, 2010, 8:12 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
I suspect that virtually everyone for whom gun ownership is not a good idea, already has a gun, legal or not.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 8:14 pmzuch says:
No. But I don’t think that Weaver should have shot the deputies and the dog either.
BTW, you’re an easy troll. ;-)
Cheers,
Quote
February 8, 2010, 8:14 pmJames Craig Ziegler says:
In context, it meant practiced enough to know what you are doing.....
Quote
February 8, 2010, 8:15 pmzuch says:
Tell what to a concentration camp survivor? Why?
Or any number of other pernicious tendencies. Did someone disagree here? Do you think that Gandhi thought differently? That is a different matter than deciding on how to prevent that.
Cheers,
Quote
February 8, 2010, 8:22 pmzuch says:
I guess we best get started. ;-)
Cheers,
Quote
February 8, 2010, 8:23 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
You get started. I’ll make popcorn.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 8:25 pmGILMORE says:
Thats like arguing that “Police officers dont deter crime by their presence, only when they shoot at/arrest people”
Rather than discredit the argument being made above, you float a non-rebuttal that’s far more ridiculous.
Deterrence is real and measurable, although you seem to want to pop a hole in the idea purely through semantic obfuscation; am I technically “safer” or only *perceiving myself* safer if I am armed? The reality is: if an armed person is attacked, they have options. It doesnt mean they or someone else wont get hurt, but it does mean the potential for self defense exists. In a ‘regulated’ world, only criminals can carry arms by definition. See results at Fort Hood and VTech of “gun free zones”: places where crazed killers can be *sure* no one will start shooting back. Do you think spree killings happen in these places by accident? Are they “safer”, to use your flimsy definition of the word?
You dont see a whole lot of mass shootings at gun ranges, unsurprisingly
Quote
February 8, 2010, 8:28 pmFederal Farmer says:
I’d be more impressed if he was actually going to kick down some doors. I could drop him off in any number of Chicago neighboorhoods where he could start.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 8:30 pmJ. Aldridge says:
I didn’t have the “manually operated” ones in mind.
I may want a A-10 with Mavs since I have 800 acres to protect. I am going to fully exercise my “right” to defend myself :-)
Quote
February 8, 2010, 8:32 pmMark Field says:
Yeah, I got that. It just struck me as pretty low-hanging fruit. If nobody disagrees that the right should be exercised in a given situation, that’s not necessarily very persuasive when it comes to other situations. I assume everybody thinks I can put an “Obama for President” sticker on my car, but that’s hardly an argument for child pornography, nor would it persuade the opponents of child pornography to think more kindly of the 1A.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 8:37 pmFederal Farmer says:
But you aren’t seriously equating firearm ownership to possession of child pornography are you?
Child pornography isn’t simply regulated. It is banned. But you aren’t after our guns.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 8:40 pmJasmindad says:
James Craig Ziegler says:
Why couldn’t it include, say, registration?
Quote
February 8, 2010, 8:41 pmJames Craig Ziegler says:
Why couldn’t it include, say, registration?
As I asked someone else, what do you hope to achieve by “registration”?
Quote
February 8, 2010, 8:44 pmKirk Parker says:
Laura,
Of course people still use them when giving directions, right? :-)
Quote
February 8, 2010, 8:44 pmKirk Parker says:
SuperSkeptic,
All southern states have (essentially if not literally) shall-issue CCW, but if there are any where the permit is tied to specific firearms you own, rather than more generically permitting the person to carry a concealed handgun, well then I guess you’ve exposed my Pacific Northwest ignorance. :-) I guess in Alabama the issueing agency could issue a permit restricted to certain firearms, and maybe they sometimes do, but they certainly aren’t required to by AL law.
I’m not sure where you’re from, but here in WA state our license (officially termed a “Concealed Pistol License”) is issued based on the applicant passing the background check. That’s all–no training requirement of any kind, no listing of any particular arms you may or may not own–heck, we’ll issue a CPL to someone who literally has never seen a handgun in their life.
Randy,
The UK seems to be involved in just such an experiment. So far, the results are profoundly discouraging.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 8:46 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Well, yeah.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 8:47 pmJames Craig Ziegler says:
Why couldn’t it include, say, registration?
Also, BTW, I think the concept of “registration” is “orthogonal” ( ;-) ) to the in context meaning of the term “well regulated”.....
Quote
February 8, 2010, 8:49 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Seems like when my husband got his Tennessee permit several years ago he had to go through safety training, which included legal stuff about when you could and could not shoot or even show your weapon, and he had to go to the range and demonstrate competence. He’s pretty pro-2A but did not consider these things to be onerous.
Here in Florida he doesn’t have a permit and doesn’t carry. Has made noises about looking into it.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 8:49 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
The problem with registration is that there are people who are convinced that the purpose is to make a list of guns that are out there, so that *when* the gov’t moves to disarm us all, they’ll know where they are. Once again, people who will comply with this are not the problem.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 8:51 pmGILMORE says:
If there is any reasonable way to register/regulate gun ownership, it should simply be licensing the owner, not treating every single gun as something that has different laws covering it across all 50 states. Should licensing be restrictive? Sure. No felons, mentally ill, juveniles, whatever. I do not see any constitutional problems with that. But the idea of taxing/annually filing paperwork to track every single weapon and making legal, responsible ownership far more *difficult* is ludicrous, and happens to be what we have today. The definitions of “assault rifle” across states are so variable as to mean “all long guns not meeting certain arbitrary criteria”. You change the flash suppressor on a gun, and suddenly its illegal. Cross state/county lines and you can quickly pull a Plexico Burris and make yourself a felon, when 30mins away you are legal. Sensible regulation has generally gone the way of “more laws are better than fewer laws” — because every politician wants to put their own imprimatur on an issue many Americans are passionate about on both sides. The characterization of gun-rights supporters as being “unwilling/unable” to discuss responsible regulatory frameworks, or being hateful towards reasonable people who believe in more constructive regulation, is absolute fantasy. It is in fact the gun-control activists who by contrast have little to no direct experience with or knowledge about the vast community of gun owners, and blindly describe anyone who say, cheered the Heller decision, as “gun nuts” or “fundamentalists”... this is very very common these days — always characterizing assumed opponents as monolithic and unreasonable, defining them by their fringe. I never cease to be surprised by popular descriptions of, say, ‘9/11 Truthers’ as reasonable skeptics, while Tea Party protesters are full of ‘racists and secessionists’. One can easily concede that some reasonable regulation of guns in America should exist; one should also quickly concede that the current panoply of laws out there already generally suck, and many need repeal. This should not be controversial.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 8:52 pmKirk Parker says:
Laura,
Maybe his tastes run more toward Waco–better TV and all, you know.
zuch,
I don’t know how much longer I can remain polite to someone like you: the dog was shot by a Deputy US Marshal, and Weaver shot no one at all.
Don’t be a *#&$^#@ scumbag.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 8:57 pmRelic says:
Jasmindad:
And in meaning, it had no connection to “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”, being a statement of purpose and not a modifier. Had the framer’s meant that one must be in a militia to keep and bear arms, it would have been very easy to write that. For instance, the entire amendment could have said “The right to keep and bear arms in the service of a militia/in the service of the nation shall not be infringed”.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 9:02 pmFederal Farmer says:
Not to mention that fact that apparently people don’t realize that no militia means no free state.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 9:11 pmzuch says:
I apologise. I was wrong. Yes, deputy Roderick shot the dog. But Harris shot Degan. Ballistics show that both Sammy Weaver and Harris fired weapons.
It was a bollix. Bush’s ATF was not on best behaviour, to say the least.
Waco was a fiasco. But Waco was Koresh Krispy-Krittering his own people.
Cheers,
Quote
February 8, 2010, 9:14 pmFederal Farmer says:
So murdering 2 innocents because their father didn’t pay a $10 tax he inadvertantly failed to pay because he cut the stocks (not the barrels) 7/8ths of an inch too short is a ‘bollix’?
Not to mention they set him up for this because he wouldn’t infiltrate the Aryan Nation?
Quote
February 8, 2010, 9:20 pmJ. Aldridge says:
The 2A isn’t a right. It is a declaration like the 10A. The declaration is the military power belongs to the armed populace of the states and not in any federal standing army or select militia.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 9:44 pmElliot says:
I think simply registering themselves as voters was a significant problem for Blacks. I wonder how well they would have done trying to register their guns, too?
Regulation and registration is done by government, and we can see how that power was abused to benefit one group at the expense of another..
Quote
February 8, 2010, 10:28 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
ArthurKirkland,
A disproportionate number of racists were (and to lesser degree are) rednecks.
I’m not sure I believe even that. Busing in the Boston schools was as nasty as desegregation in Southern schools, and happened much later. The classic line is that white people in the South have no problem with blacks living near them, just can’t stand their having power; whereas white people in the North don’t have any trouble with blacks having power, just so long as they don’t move in next door.
Both those bunches are racists in my book, but only the Northerners get a pass in the public memory.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 10:34 pmFederal Farmer says:
Dang I wish I was a Fairman-Berger water-carrier so I could understand how a ‘right of the people’ is actually a state power! I bet Madison is so embarrassed that he almost put it into the wrong Article and Section! Good thing Congress decided to put all the Amendments at the end!
Quote
February 8, 2010, 10:40 pmRob Crawford says:
I’m not a young man, but in my life, there have been many more race riots by blacks than there have been by whites. By “race riot” I mean a sizable segment of the population has decided to attack others in their community primarily on the basis of the race of the victim.
The world has changed quite a bit since the ‘50s and ‘60s. You might want to try to keep up.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 11:11 pmSteve (CT) says:
“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.”
Mohandas Gandhi
Quote
February 8, 2010, 11:22 pmVisitor Again says:
Nonviolence was a brilliant political strategy that gained huge support from the majority white population for the struggle for civil rights in the U.S.A. The photographs of, for example, white police forces clubbing and hosing unarmed blacks peacefully demonstrating for the right to vote and of the hate-filled faces of white adults spewing venom at black children peacefully trying to attend a predominantly white schools did more for the civil rights movement’s success than anything else.
There was, however, a part of the civil rights movement that regarded nonviolence as nothing more than a political strategy calculated to win the hearts and minds of the majority of the white population. Some prominent civil rights activists did not subscribe to it as a philosophy to be followed devoutly. Still others opposed it and advocated armed defense against violent racists.
A substantial portion of the white population that had supported the peaceful civil rights movement drew the line when the Black Panther Party for Self Defense advocated armed resistance to the violence of racist police forces that occupied the country’s ghettos. Some conservatives who might have been expected to support the right to bear arms in other contexts blew a gasket when Black Panther Party members showed up at the California State Capitol in Sacramento armed with loaded shotguns and rifles, although what they did that day was then entirely lawful. The proposition that black people were entitled to defend themselves with arms against violent white racists even outside the South did not go down well with most whites, particularly if those racists wore a badge.
The late unlamented Los Angeles Police Department Chief William Parker used to recruit a large part of his occupying force from the South. He viewed his mission as protecting the haves, largely white, from the have-nots, largely black, and he went about it with gusto. Los Angeles is still paying the price to this day.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 11:26 pmSteve (CT) says:
The meaning of “well regulated” at the time had nothing to do with passing laws restricting arms. It was related to the proper functioning of the militia regarding the training & equipping of those in the militia. The militia then, as today, is made up of the body of the populace being able to bear arms (with some minor restrictions, felons, etc.).
http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html
Quote
February 8, 2010, 11:28 pmFederal Farmer says:
By the way, I’m still waiting for the evidence of gun registration doing anything good for society.
I think I’m going to be waiting for a long time.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 11:39 pmMark Field says:
Not at all. I was trying to compare the relative persuasiveness of 2 hypothetical arguments. Not very successfully, I guess.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 11:46 pmRKV says:
“Well regulated” is combat capable to meet the three missions of Article 1 Section 8 — “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” You can’t well repel an invasion with a single shot .22.
Current federal law, last revised in 1956 reads in part...
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311
§ 311. Militia: composition and class
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
The militia is effectively all males 17–45 years old under current law, and the only substantial change in that definition since 1792 is the elimination of a racial requirement.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 11:49 pmmack says:
In England, whereas even a year or two ago one would never read an article about people owning guns let alone using them for self-defense — there are now articles in the news actually questioning if people shouldn’t be able to own guns for self-defense. Seems the experiment is going well. Increases in violent crime and gun crimes continue, as the government moves to childproof pint beer glasses and outlaw sharp and pointy knives.
One interesting thing, that old saw, “They can take it from my cold dead hand,” which defines the idea of gun nut to many — means completely different things to a gun rights advocate and a gun ban advocate. I realized after talking to a stanch gun ban advocate who mentioned that phrase, that he saw it as a threat of violence. Whereas, for most gun right advocates it is merely a reminder to those who would ban guns that they need to be prepared and willing to use lethal force against some of their fellow human beings and as a statement of commitment to stand up for ones rights.
Re: Ruby Ridge — I initially thought it was just another anti-government wacko story — anti-government wacko takes on the government and loses. But I was shocked when I got into reading the details — my understanding from what came out — was that the marshalls got caught out by the dog after they decided to make a recon of weaver’s place — sammy and harris were following the dog thinking it was after a deer — the dog was moving towards the marshalls so they shot the dog — sammy the young boy saw a man shoot his dog — reportedly he shot at the man but missed — then heard his father calling him back or maybe thought better or both and turned to run back up the hill — then reportedly sammy was shot in the back by the marshall ending his life — then harris shot the marshall killing him — but was wounded himself in the exchange. Harris make it back to the weaver cabin — later that night weaver retrieved his son’s body. During the standoff weaver went to visit the body of his son in a building near the cabin — an fbi sniper opened fire on him — as he ran back into the cabin — a sniper fired again and instead of hitting weaver — put a bullet through the brain of weavers wife vickie as she stood in the cabin doorway with their baby. All of this happened because weaver cut the stock on a shotgun too short in an entrapment sting the feds worked on him to get him to infiltrate the aryan nation — weaver was given the choice of playing ball and no charges will be brought or don’t play ball and you go to prison — he refused to cooperate and thus the surveilance began — which ultimately led to the whole crisis. Weaver did not fire once on federal authorities throughout the whole crisis. Eventually the federal government paid weaver a large settlement. The only crime weaver was punished for — was for missing a court date. A tragic and sad episode of american history.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 12:11 amTo Hayek With You says:
Yes, because obviously you would be a better judge of whether he was safer than he would be. You also ignored the part where he said that the racist he met with later confirmed that the firearm kept him safer.
Luckily the Founders did not think as you do. In fact they found that type of high handedness and
decision making for otherstyranny you seem to favor vile enough to take up arms against it. And they were wise enough to know that eventually we would have to do so again so they enshrined the right to bear arms in the Constitution.Aren’t you flattered that such great men paid you so much attention Anonster? They knew you better than you even know yourself. And they were so very, very impressed that they devoted an amendment solely to make sure you would NEVER get your way.
I find that quite comforting.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 12:20 amcbinflux says:
It’s gonna save Progressives/Socialists billions when they come to collect the guns.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 12:31 ammack says:
J. Aldridge says:“The 2A isn’t a right. It is a declaration like the 10A. The declaration is the military power belongs to the armed populace of the states and not in any federal standing army or select militia.”
Which is obviously why it is in the bill or rights and why it includes the words, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Just as if they had written — A well educated electorate, being necessary for the functioning of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read literature shall not be infringed — would not mean that people had a right to keep and read books and be free to pursue an education — but rather that only citizens of the states who were registered to vote could read government approved election materials.
Hey if you want a GE minigun there are some privately owned — one owner also has a jet — he might sell you both.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 12:32 amJ. Aldridge says:
You want to tell me the people would have no such right if there was no 2A???????? :-)
That my friend destroys your argument.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 12:44 amravenshrike says:
Horseshit
http://www.markshep.com/nonviolence/Myths.html
Combined with
Shows that while he may have been a practitioner of nonviolence toward a State that bows to the pressure of popular opinion as a means of protest and political change, he had little to no problem with people using firearms to defend themselves.
@Jasmindad — The part where it directly or indirectly modifies “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” under the rules of the English language, either modern or 1700’s style.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 12:48 amRicardo says:
According to the studies that came out of Tuskagee University, there were a total of 4,733 lynch mob victims in the U.S. between the end of the Civil War and the passage of the Civil Rights Act. Most of these occurred in what we call the Deep South and 88% of the victims were reported to be black. That gives us 4,165 black victims of racially motivated murder over a 100-year period.
How many white people were murdered by groups of black people “primarily on the basis of the race of the victim” over this same period?
Quote
February 9, 2010, 12:50 amJohn Skookum says:
Historically, that’s exactly right. Most gun control legislation before the 1960s was overtly, explicitly racist, always de facto and often de jure. See Clayton Cramer’s article referenced above.
Wow indeed.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 12:51 amJ. Aldridge says:
So you would discount any evidence they were murdered for reasons other than being “black”?
Quote
February 9, 2010, 12:58 amzuch says:
Did you read that first sentence of mine you quoted?!?!?
But I’d say your quote establishes his views quite nicely. What’s the “best [way] of all”, again?!?!?
It may be that he thought this was not possible for everyone (or perhaps desirable, but you’d need more evidence than the above), but his preference was plain. And then there’s that other civil dissident.... WGWJC?
So you can take your “horsepuckey” ejaculation and shove it.
Cheers,
Quote
February 9, 2010, 12:59 amravenshrike says:
WTF?!? Waco was the .gov playing with willy pete smokers near a bunch of fuel tanks(which if you know anything about White Phosphorous is a bad idea). Where do you get your info? Not to mention the government managed to lose/destroy all the video tapes set up to record the situation when asked through the FOIA for copies.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 1:03 amFederal Farmer says:
No and not hardly.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 1:10 amzuch says:
ravenshrike:
One more thing from your Mark Shephard link:
Which is what I alluded to in my first comment as well. Kind of hard to “convert” your opponent when you shoot them dead (which is why I also cited that other political philosopher). As I said, what form civil disobedience takes may depend on what your desired ends are. Deterrence or revenge may “work” in some respects ... but it may not be a stable ‘solution’ in the long run.
Cheers,
Quote
February 9, 2010, 1:13 amFederal Farmer says:
We have an ‘unalienable’ right to life, which means also self-defense. In addition, we have a right to defend ourselves against a tyrannical govt, even if that were the federal govt or a state or municipality, or a foreign govt. The right is broadly stated and the security of a free state is one of the reasons for the right.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 1:14 amravenshrike says:
? His views were that the third option was the most courageous and best of all. But then, Ghandi was a very devout follower of a religion that enshrines the personal choice of being nonviolent. I’m about as religious as a patch of dirt however, and so while nonviolence is certainly the optimal course to take up to a point, it is to that point and no further. Also, making an Appeal to Authority of a man who lived 2000 years ago in which the State was the ultimate power and weapons tech made pure physical strength paramount isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement of your argument. Especially since it sure as fuck wasn’t the threat of nonviolence that converted the Roman Empire to Christianity several hundred years later.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 1:15 amzuch says:
A pile’o’horsepuckey. Even a Republican–headed commission (as well as eyewitnesses) say differently. But there’s those that think that Dubya brought down the WTC with interior explosives too....
Cheers,
Quote
February 9, 2010, 1:16 amFederal Farmer says:
Revenge is not a justifiable use of lethal force. Self-defense is what I think you meant.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 1:19 amzuch says:
Firing on federal law officers is — to put it simply — just not a very wise idea. You have a disagreement, take it up in court. That’s my advice to you. You may feel that the courts and law officers of this country are insufficient in handing out the rudiments of justice ... but if that’s your view, you have plenty of other countries to choose from. Please do, and refrain from trying to take this country back to the “Wild, Wild, West”.
Cheers,
Quote
February 9, 2010, 1:22 amzuch says:
So you don’t approve of the death penalty, eh?
Cheers,
Quote
February 9, 2010, 1:24 amDale says:
I’ve enjoyed reading this discussion. If I may, I would like to challenge the following points made by Randy. They seem to have gone unchallenged.
“” That is a perfect example of the disconnect that the anti-gun crowd can never get past. Making firearms illegal won’t stop criminals from getting them.”
This may very well be true. But if guns had been illegal for, say, the past 100 years at least, then there would certainly be far fewer gun manufacturers. Guns could then only be manufactured by a very small number of tightly regulated companies who guns would be only legally required to go to law enforcement personnel. In short, there would be far fewer guns available, legal or otherwise.
Which, of course, is exactly the case in places where gun ownership is illegal or highly restricted. I’m sure that you could, of you really want to, obtain an illegal gun in Japan, but it would rather difficult, expensive and risky. Not the sort of thing your typical racist red neck would or could do.
I’m not in favor of getting rid of the 2nd amendment, and I believe in reasonable gun control, but if you are going to argue that prohibing guns leads to some sort of outcome, the best situation is to look at countries that have always controlled gun use.
I know this is a pointless argument — we can’t undo the past. But the situation that is being described here, that black civil rights people were able to defend themselves from the racists, might not have been necessary if guns were hard to get for everyone involved.
Quote
February 8, 2010, 7:39 pm”
Randy argues that gun control needs to be imposed for a longer period (say 100 years) and then guns will no longer be available. This overlooks the simple truth that guns are easy to manufacture. The gunsmith/blacksmiths of Ghana do a landoffice busines making both handguns and rifles out of common pipe. Admittedly these are of limited range and accuracy but quite powerful and effective at short to medium range. From this I must conclude that even if gun control and confiscation were imposed for 100 years and somehow all modern arms were taken, criminals would still have guns. Law abiding citizens would be at the mercy of those who break the law.
Secondly, I assume that Randy would envision the military and government retaining their guns. Please tell me why the government will be moral and ethical in their use of guns. Men are not angels. Power corrupts.
Third, this country is based on the concept that you can trust the man on the street, the common citizen, to do the right thing. Randy does not appear to believe this and instead blindly places his faith in a wise and beneficent ruling class to be the only one with the power to wield deadly force.
There is such a thing as evil — whether criminals preying on the innocent or corrupt governments that enslave. Gun in the hands of citizens empower them to resist both. Intellectualism, progressiveism or whatever your point of view happens to be will not defeat evil. There is no such thing as “reasonable” gun control.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 1:36 amzuch says:
You didn’t read that Mark Shephard piece you linked to very thoroughly, did you? Otherwise, you might not have emphasized Gandhi’s religious views there (in the part I bolded). Just quote-mining for the stuff you like, eh, and ignoring the rest?
(and a BTW to both you and Steve(CT): That he thought that the Indians should have had arms doesn’t mean he thought they should use them in any specific way).
And you need to (re)read what I said too:
As I said, different strokes for different folks, and I recognise that you may prefer violence at some point. All I said what that it’s not necessary to the effectiveness of civil disobedience, and that a couple of big names were behind a more strictly pacifist route. That is still a fact, despite your petulant “horsesh*t” objections.
Cheers,
Quote
February 9, 2010, 1:42 amzuch says:
Do you think it was the threat of violence?!?!?
... and Jesus wept.
Cheers,
Quote
February 9, 2010, 1:46 amLarryA says:
I’m saying that both have been abused in the process of discriminating against minorities.
Except the theory doesn’t work. Japan’s yakuza gangsters have all the guns they want.
Britain has very strict gun control, yet you can buy a 9mm pistol on the London black market cheaper than you can get the same model at a Texas gun show. And if you only need it for a robbery you can rent one for the evening. British police recently raided the bedroom of a gun-toting 13-year-old.
And, despite the decades-old world-wide war on drugs, how hard is it to score anywhere in the U.S.?
In Texas you can get a concealed handgun license without owning a firearm. What firearms you own or carry are not registered, in that no one but you have a list of them. Once you have a CHL you can carry any legal handgun you want to.
It’s the “the government has a list of my guns” feature of registration we most strenuously object to.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 1:49 amzuch says:
I said this:
earlier. Some of the people that ought not have guns are the folks that buy into crazy Waco theories and such (or even Aryan Nations bovine scat). You do that and the next thing you know, you’re off to OKC with a carload of ANFO, ready to turn a hundred adults and children into bloody pulp....
Even if the gummint were to turn malign, we don’t need every nutcase in the whole country packing big guns in order to bring the gummint back to its senses. Hell, the American Revolution was accomplished with far less than half the populace enlisted....
Cheers,
Quote
February 9, 2010, 1:54 amLarryA says:
The Roman emperor that converted to Christianity and ended persecution was Constantine.
When Constantine and his army were on their march toward Rome — neither the time nor the location is specified — they observed in broad daylight a strange phenomenon in the sky: a cross of light and the words “by this sign you will be victor.” During the next night, so Eusebius’ account continues, Christ appeared to Constantine and instructed him to place the heavenly sign on the battle standards of his army. The new battle standard became known as the labarum.
Whatever vision Constantine may have experienced, he attributed his victory to the power of “the God of the Christians” and committed himself to the Christian faith from that day on, although his understanding of the Christian faith at this time was quite superficial.
So, yeah.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 1:59 amJ. Aldridge says:
The great #1 liberty of this country was self-government. I hardly doubt any historian will take seriously the suggestion the 2A was meant to protect the people against themselves! The jealousy was with the national government exercising powers not given. The great fear against liberty was a national standing army. Hence, why there is a 2A.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 2:00 amTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » How the right to arms saved the non-violent civil rights protesters -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Wanpeirui, Trey Barrineau and Joshua Neikirk, Michael Roy Hollihan. Michael Roy Hollihan said: Right to bear arms and Civil Rights. A little-discussed side of the era. Is this still a part of black Memphis today? http://bit.ly/9pBcCV [...]
La Viro says:
Maybe Jesus wept but the Emporer Constantine didn’t.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 3:05 amKirk Parker says:
zuch buddy,
As much as I appreciate your apology and retraction above, you seem determined to mischaracterize things. How about we make that “firing on unidentified people hidden in the forest outside your rural homestead who are firing at you” and then let’s discuss advisability, OK?
Quote
February 9, 2010, 4:12 amUNRR says:
This post has been linked for the HOT5 Daily 2/9/2010, at The Unreligious Right
Quote
February 9, 2010, 6:31 amKharn says:
Maryland has had complete ballistic registration (MSP gets a fired shell from every new handgun sold in the state) since ~2003. They can’t even prove the system works when they submit one fired shell as a normal purchase and then send in the next shell from that same gun as possible evidence, the system returns at best a probable match. Now they’re just collecting the shell casings and throwing them in 55gal drums which are sent to storage when full, they’re not even processing them.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 6:42 amajacksonian says:
Fun and fascinating is missing that even the draconian USSR did not outlaw the right to make your own weapons for self-defense, including handguns. The improvised or home-made firearm is quintessentially untraceable, unknowable and relatively easy to make with equipment available openly and relatively cheaply... in 1900. Some of the modern high pressure piping is a wonder compared to gun barrels made in the early era of semi-automatic weapons. And that started in 1896.
It is hard to conceive of how any government can stop the production of home-made arms of single shot or even semi-automatic or automatic variety because of that last point. With older blueprints, modern machining equipment and even computer controlled mini-mills now available for the home shop, we now have an entire set of citizens who mill out their own weapons from steel and aluminum stock. Including screws. For under $10k and even under $3k... actually even under $1k if you have a good rig... you can do that in your own basement from blank stock. From barrels to shells and all internal components combined, the idea of trying to stop anyone from making a decent quality, reliable and safe handgun or even rifle is absurd. Too many tinkerers love the new equipment for auto and home use and outlawing computers or CAD software is asinine.
The USSR could not stop weapons via registration and faced a hard problem in Siberia for defense against wild animals in the region. In the US you can make it yourself and put your life in your hands doing so... yet such weapons have been used for Mafia hits as they are untraceable. And in the UK where lovely laws to confiscate handguns went into effect, the police have had to up arm and up armor against criminals supplied by the Red Mafia with lovely automatic weapons that come in on the ever-present coastline of the UK. Thus simple gun crime leaves you with no choice but to be a victim.
I prefer to be a member of a pack, not a herd.
What will we do when the common man has the ability to manufacture his own arms that are untraceable and unregisterable? That era is here, the industrial and manufacturing era is no longer what it once was and has provided the common man with an ability that any arms manufacturer of 1900 would have died for. I welcome responsible gun ownership for the protection of oneself, loved ones and one’s property. I may not succeed in self-protection, but then it will not be for want of trying and being told I should accept death at the hands of the lawless.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 7:16 amTAlexander says:
If you are arguing here for more government regulation, how exactly does that help the situation with, as you said, these lawless racist rednecks are perfectly content to run around with UNregistered firearms? Seems like more regulation only takes guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens who wilfully obey regulation.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 8:04 amYankev says:
Even though the same racist rednecks were the ones in charge of enforcing those laws?
Quote
February 9, 2010, 9:09 amYankev says:
While we’re at it, if we had never slavery in the New World, racism and discrimination would not have caused centuries of trouble in the US.
And if your grandmother had wheels, she’d be a Buick.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 9:25 amFederal Farmer says:
Not for most murderers. I think it appropriate for the truly heinous such as Gacy, Dahmer, etc.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 9:31 amFederal Farmer says:
The states have hardly shown themselves to be the bastion of liberty that you fantasize. We had to fight a brutal civil war and enact several Amendments to the Constitution to ensure that the states and local governments didn’t violate the civil rights of residents and visitors. That’s the focus of the McDonald case, if you didn’t know, not the 2nd Amendment (which was decided in 2008) but the 14th Amendment. And now you can make us all take a drink!
Quote
February 9, 2010, 9:34 amFederal Farmer says:
The great thing about widespread civilian firearm ownership is that it tends to make revolution unnecessary. As long as it is there, it doesn’t need to be used. If it goes away, than we are guaranteed by histiorical precedent to find we truly needed it.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 9:37 amDevilbunny says:
SuperSkeptic, if you’re still here...
In Mississippi, guns are not registered. A concealed-carry license is required to carry a weapon in public, but mere ownership of a gun is no business of the state. I have several guns, only two of which have a paper trail leading to me. Furthermore, the Mississippi Supreme Court has ruled that an automobile is an extension of one’s home, and so has the same protection. For several years I legally kept a gun in my car without a permit. When, post 9/11, I went to the airport, the inspecting police officers asked if I intended to carry it into the airport. I told them no, and they waved me along.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 10:05 amsardonic_sob says:
“God made men. Colonel Colt made them equal.”
Only a multi-shot handgun can provide any security for a single person confronted with multiple assailants. It’s quite possible for several people to beat one person to death with their bare hands. Absent Bruce Lee, it’s very difficult for the reverse to occur.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 10:12 amsetnaffa says:
Runner up for most ludicrous post of the year? Or did the author neglect to point out his satire?
Quote
February 9, 2010, 10:37 amzuch says:
Thank you.
I snipped the mysticism stuff. Unverifiable “victor’s history” and not on point.
WGWJP?
Cheers,
Quote
February 9, 2010, 10:45 amDG says:
It’s probably late to answer this one, but...
Let’s imagine for a moment that there were NO guns involved — despite the number of supposed law-enforcement officers who would STILL be armed among the nightriders.
We’re talking the south. Ready access to clubs, farm implements, etc. Heck, most of this stuff is readily available up north too (you’d be surprised how much rural and farm land are up there.) Or in a “no weapons” zone like a school.
So now you have 5 or 6 burly guys break into a house outnumbering the adults — and more to the point adult males — of the house through strength of numbers and prepared “improvised” weapons and knives and axes.
The odds are now even MORE in favor of the nightriders.
So yes, guns are an equalizer. They allow the weaker, or outnumbered, to have better odds in a situation where reach, strength, or numbers are against them by providing reach, and deadly force that does not depend on strength.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 10:48 amzuch says:
Further, let it be noted that Constantine was not Jesus. Quoting Constantine for the views of Jesus is not persuasive. Even if backed up by threat of force.
Cheers,
Quote
February 9, 2010, 10:53 amzuch says:
OK, let’s go to “Gun Safety 101″. Never fire on a target you can’t identify. That work for ya? Ask the Tillmans....
Cheers,
Quote
February 9, 2010, 10:57 amGary says:
Your IQ must be off the charts to be able to analyze this in the manner that you did. I hope you never have plans to run for public office. Igorance is bliss!
Quote
February 9, 2010, 11:06 amDrWyrm says:
So we should quote Jesus?
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
Luke 22:36
Quote
February 9, 2010, 11:18 amFederal Farmer says:
You don’t need to identify someone that is trying to kill you.
By the way, Zuch, I notice you only snipe around the edges of this discussion. Care to address the meat of the discussion?
So where are all those folks who favor registration been since I asked for anything whatsoever that the Chicago registration system has done that is positive?
Because they got nothin’. Chicago’s registration system has worked well in its only real objective, discourage law-abiding residents from owning firearms or at the least force them to keep their mouths shut on the issue for fear that their otherwise lawful gun will be discovered.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 11:29 ammack says:
Yes, Zuch — the one who arguably made the initial mistake of firing on someone was Sammy Weaver age 14 — who just saw an unidentified man shoot his dog — Sammy missed and then turned to leave only to get a bullet through his back as he ran away. Kevin Harris saw the son of his friend shot, and as it turned out murdered, and came under fire himself — he then ended that assault by killing Marshall Degan.
The aftermath was that the federal government ended up paying Weaver 100,000 dollars, each of this three daughters 1,000,000 dollars, and Kevin Harris 380,000 dollars. One US Marshal was dead, Vickie and Sammy Weaver were dead, and the FBI got called on the carpet for rules of engagement that amounted to sanctioned murder. Kevin Harris who killed the marshal was found to have acted in self defense.
So, the broader lesson might be, giving federal agencies license to play God isn’t a good thing. Or that government shouldn’t go around starting firefights with its citizens for ill thought out reasons.
Also the initial raid at Waco was a huge screw up — incredibly stupid from its inception and even more idiotic in execution. The ATF had visited with Koresh before — he was known by the local sheriff and law enforcement — and there was absolutley no need for a dynamic raid — they could have easily arrested Koresh in town and/or just driven out and inspected the place with a warrant. After the initial raid failed leaving both ATF agents and Davidians dead, the ATF were sitting ducks, huddled behind their vehicles and out of ammo. At that point the Davidians could have easily killed them all — they didn’t — they stopped shooting — and let them withdraw. Then instead of waiting the Davidians out — they assault the place with tear gas and tanks. Evidence later indicated that many of the Davidians probably died even prior to the fire from the gas. What were they thinking? Maybe the adults were culpable, certainly Koresh was crazy, but what did the agents in charge really expect was going to happen? All those children should not have had to die — because the ATF wanted a big bust to justify their budget, because the Feds couldn’t step back and wait it out, and because their parents bought into a crazy man’s messianic fantasy. Those children died because there weren’t any responsible adults around — neither their parents nor amongst the federal agencies involved.
Maybe allowing the average idiot citizen to own arms isn’t such a bad idea. They seem to exercise on average better judgement and more common sense than those that gravitate to government and power. The highly civilized Japanese government perpetrated the rape of Nanking, the highly civilized German government the Holocaust, the Chinese the cultural revolution, the Russians the gulags, the Cambodians the killing fields, the Turkish the Armenain genocide, etc...it is still going on today.
Perhaps reminding people that they have a right to keep and bear arms and that they have the right and the duty to resist and if need be throw off a government that has become destructive to the ends of freedom and liberty is not such a bad thing. Perhaps a government that embraced this concept would be a good thing, perhaps a government that served the people and the idea of liberty would be a better thing than one that tries to protect the interests of entrenched political parties, big money interests, and government hegemony.
Nonviolent protest is a good thing when it is possible for it to be effective — but for it to be effective it requires that the power being protested against is unwillling to use lethal force. With Gandhi and King those in power were not willing to commit to publically using lethal force. In the genocides and actrocities referenced above they were willing.
As Patrick Henry said, “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.”
Quote
February 9, 2010, 1:09 pmzuch says:
Quote-mining, eh? Pick the ones you like (out of context)?....
Considering all this is apocryphal/anecdotal....
WGWJP?
Cheers,
Quote
February 9, 2010, 2:14 pmzuch says:
Yes. Ask the Tillmans.
Cheers,
Quote
February 9, 2010, 2:17 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Nuff said.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 2:25 pmzuch says:
Yes, it was a bollix. I’m no friend of Bush’s ATF here. Gummint agents do tend to use guns a bit too freely (ask Amadou Diallo’s family). Sadly, sometimes the very people who ought least to be carrying a gun are those that are attracted to law enforcement or other situations where they have guns (I think I mentioned this above). My comment is, given this possibility, you are still best advised not to shoot when confronted by armed agents/officers. There’s more of them, and they take such things seriously.
As an aside, we have to consider whether we want to go through the hassle of having a weapon aboard our yacht. Piracy/armed robbery stories are not unheard of in the cruising community (including one not 20 nm for where we were sailing at the time in December). Various countries either prohibit firearms completely, or require they be surrendered on entry to be collected only on exit. Even my flaregun was quarantined in Bonaire for the duration. Off the Horn of Africa, of course, the pirates tend to have greater firepower, and a weapon may just be a suicide note (although, I note, not always).
That being said, I would be silly to fire on a foreign naval vessel seeking to board me even if I had firearms.
Cheers,
Quote
February 9, 2010, 2:29 pmJ. Aldridge says:
Uh, the 14A didn’t touch the local governments but only the organic law of the state (like Oregon). Civil rights was limited to equality in the courts of law and not social equality like many idiots think today.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 2:36 pmJeff Maynard says:
If you have the strength to actually carry one, or the room to place one, then that is your right. Of course, getting ammunition and firing it inside your home, with the mess it would create, is also your responsability.
I fail to see what a Gaitling gun has to do with handgun restrictions.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 3:59 pmCaptainBob says:
In the 1700’s the phrase “well regulated” meant ‘well trained” not “under regulation or constraint.” However, “...not be infringed” meant the same thing then as it does now.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 4:29 pmJ. Aldridge says:
I think the every day working definition was “well disciplined.” The word “infringe” isn’t significant because the arming and discipline of people is a reserved right belonging to them. In other words, the right of the people to keep arms and use them exists without a need of a amendment to the federal constitution.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 6:41 pmAardvark says:
I am certain that had there not been unregistered/unregulated guns available, Molotov cocktails, fertilizer bombs, pipes, knives and all others sorts easily obtained makeshift weapons would have sufficed. The gun was a symptom of the problem, not the cause of the problem.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 8:44 pmGentlemanFromHanover says:
They don’t understand that YOU, not they (arrogantly, in my opinion), determine if you are “infringed”. If you understand that they think they get to decide what is or is not infringement, you can understand their position.. and that it is exactly the same as King George’s. I hope they’d recognize the danger in that thinking... but that may be the root of that thinking after all.
I can’t describe appropriately how much more respectful the police officer became after learning that I was carrying... he was downright polite and I made sure to demonstrate my respect for him by keeping my hands visible while he approached the car to give me a warning.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 9:16 pmRobert Wicks says:
The fact that southern blacks absolutely did prevent attacks. It prevented at least one attack by the KKK against my own family in rural Mississippi. My dad used to talk about it. Having arms is the best defense against a criminal gang.
Quote
February 9, 2010, 10:05 pmJonathan Goldstein says:
The pro-gun group Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (www.jpfo.org) has a solid piece on the racist background of many gun control laws.
It is called “No Guns for Negroes” and can be found here:
http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ngn-download-view.htm
Quote
February 9, 2010, 10:55 pmLarryA says:
That’s reasonable only in mainstream culture. If the “girlfriend” is a drug gangbanger’s “bitch,” you’ve just handed her an opportunity to “stand by her man” by literally “taking a bullet for him” in a culture where being arrested and incarcerated adds to her street cred.
Unintended consequences are a bitch.
The question was how the Roman Empire was converted. That happened when Constantine converted.
I’ll also note that Jesus himself made, carried, and used a weapon (a scourge of small cords) when he threw the moneychangers out of the temple. See the account in Luke.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 12:42 amGentlemanFromHanover says:
Robert Wicks — SECOND!!!! Well said sir, well said!
Quote
February 10, 2010, 12:52 amBringBackJimCrowLawsNow says:
It find it interesting that many commenters here are basically supporting Jim Crow laws. It was o.k. to keep the black folk down, it’s just that the KKK should have been submitted to stringent gun control laws, and everything woulda been fine. Nobody woulda been hurt, or killed. Heck, they coulda all went to the local square dance. Keep the black folk down is a good thing, cause we’ll just bring everybody else down to that level.
So how’s that working out for you in Chicago? That place should be like the Garden of Eden. Nobody can own a gun there.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:00 amRich Rostrom says:
Ricardo wrote: “there were a total of 4,733 lynch mob victims in the U.S. between the end of the Civil War and the passage of the Civil Rights Act...”
apparently not noticing that that Rob Crawford wrote “I’m not a young man, but in my life...”
Mr. Crawford is “not young”, but he is certainly less than 145 years old. So a large part of the period cited was not in his life. The Civil Rights Act passed in 1964, 46 years ago. 46 is definitely not young; it is possible that he was not alive for any part of that period.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:01 amDog Daddy Dave says:
People, you are allowing yourselves to be drawn into pointless discussions with the cheeky radical progressives. Some discipline! Stay on topic. The right to keep and bear arms is not dependent on any man-made constitution. Our founders often commented that our rights predated our Constution, and were natural rights, some asserting they were given by a god. Some reading of the original discussions will reveal there was some opposition to the Bill of Rights. They rightfully feared that such an enumeration of some rights would imply there were no others, notwithstanding the Tenth Amendment. No non-ideological person would argue that any of our rights can be exercised without some rational restrictions. Such restricitons can only be related to obvious situations that would otherwise violate another’s rights. Also, limitations based on age, mental condition, felon-type adjucations, and other demonstrated individual limitations would be constitutional. Leave the Statists to argue nonsense amongst themselves.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:55 amDog Daddy Dave says:
I’m on Pacific Time. Its my bedtime. I’m not going to wait much longer for cheeky responses to ignore, and reasonable discussion for which I would appreciate.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 2:02 amzuch says:
No, that wasn’t the question. Here’s my original comment:
and another one along the same lines:
That’s what led to the O/T discussion of Constantine. I don’t care what Constantine thought, or how he got around to Christianising Rome. That’s irrelevant to my point.
Cheers,
Quote
February 10, 2010, 3:41 amzuch says:
How about propensity to bomb federal buildings? ;-)
As I said above, it seems at times that many of the people most hot on having their own gun are the people that should be last to get them. Any such fanaticism and fondness for deadly instruments does not bode well.
I do not like guns, for the most part. I don’t want to carry one. I may carry one or more on the yacht while sailing ... but it may be a necessary evil on today’s troubled waters, despite the hassle of dealing with gun laws in various foreign countries.
I do not know what the answer is. But handing out guns like popcorn in a movie theatre doesn’t seem like it.
Cheers,
Quote
February 10, 2010, 3:51 amdasing says:
Why can so many people READ an article and not UNDERSTAND it? In the article it stated that ” the protesters ‘let’ the hate groups beat them to gain sympathy for their cause, knowing that no murders happened in front of the media cameras. Also that most of the harrasment was overlooked by local cops,if not directly by the cops.” note: paraphrased. The guns did not stop the death warnings, but stopped the carrying out of the the same.
All I ask is if you can’t understand any article find someone who can, and then form your opinions!
Quote
February 10, 2010, 7:47 amdasing says:
Aparently many people, also, do not understand the Second ammendment. The Milita mentioned in the ammendment is All able-bodied men from 16–60(or 18–80)is the milita. If you don’t believe me read American History(not High School history). “the people” in that ammendment,is the same people as in the preamble! Please enlighten your selvs!
Quote
February 10, 2010, 7:57 amdasing says:
To Stuart the Viking, It is true all rednecks are not bigots, but all bigots are rednecks. Think about it!
Quote
February 10, 2010, 8:05 amdasing says:
To JC Ziegler...next step, prosicution of victoms of gun theft. That is just what many cities are trying to do right now. Making laws to prosicute victoms of theft by making them report the loss or theft of guns, Many people do not clean their gun s every week, in a lot of cases they don’t even look at their guns once a year. How could these people report within 24 hours the loss of their guns? GO TO JAIL! A lot of gun theft in that situation is by family members and usually go undetected for lengths of time.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 8:37 amFederal Farmer says:
Oh sure, anyone that would want a gun must be a closet Timothy McVeigh! Just like all college professors are secretly Unibombers! Since you want a gun on your yacht you must be a pirate! Sorry, but those of us who don’t own yachts want to be safe too!
Quote
February 10, 2010, 9:04 amdasing says:
To Randy...If guns were illegal....Are Military people and law enforcement people immune to theft? Ever see the term “Police State”? In 5 hours I could go into my shop and have a working gun and the ammo to use the gun. Just from common every day materials that anyone can buy. But you have to have some mechanical ability, and some chemical knowledge.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 9:06 amKirk Parker says:
Again with the mischaracterization; we don’t do anything remotely like that now. Can you think of any other object that the average person needs a Federal background check before purchasing? Where it is illegal for me, as a resident of WA visiting neighboring OR to purchase? Come on, all we’re really talking about is some slight run of the ratchet backward for a change...
Quote
February 10, 2010, 10:45 amluv2ski says:
Somehow we’ll all play nicer if only we remove all sharp objects from the room. That is the very essence of the liberal argument for disarming the law abiding public in hell holes like the south side of Chicago.
This foolish public policy proposal is built on quicksand. It completely ignores the black market that imports mountains of drugs into the US despite our best efforts to interdict and aggressively prosecute perpetrators. In the face of a total ban, it assumes that these same criminal networks couldn’t easily import or manufacture firearms for criminal use. This is of course, preposterous.
My personal favorite is the canard that because an activist carried a gun and was killed anyway that this is prima facie proof that carrying a gun provides one with no added protection. Try that theory on the next street cop you meet. Not only would this vacuous, binary logic disarm police, it would reason away the need for seat belts or airbags in cars because people die in accidents in which their use failed to prevent a death.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:17 amzuch says:
Gandhi “let” the British beat (and fire on) him and his followers too. More that “let”, he even provoked this. He was willing to let them murder him as well (in fact, when tried for his civil disobedience, he demanded the maximum sentence). That’s the whole freakin’ point, if you believe in Gandhi/MLKII style stuff (rather different from the Black Panther approach back then, wouldn’t you say?). You are willing to put yourself at risk for your beliefs. If you are not really doing so, you’re a fraud. If you’re lying in wait with a hidden gun in case things get nasty, that’s not CD, that’s the ol’ same old same old. It may ‘work’, but that’s not CD.
All I ask is that you read the comments as well. I’ve explained this before.
Cheers,
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:27 amzuch says:
I didn’t say that. In fact, I pointed out my ambivalence but willingness towards packing in a specific circumstance. Please read for comprehension. Thanks in advance.
Cheers,
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:32 amzuch says:
Of course not (and I recognise you’re being sarcastic). I’m considering having a gun (for certain passages, at least), not because I “want” a gun (all things being equal, I do not, not to mention the considerable hassle or even outright banning of firearms in some countries along with still penalties such as prison time and confiscation of vessel if gun laws are violated). The reason is that there are pirates and armed robbers out there, and “911” is not very effective. Prevention is always the best route, but there’s something to be said for some modicum of self-defence. Note that I have no illusions of the efficacy of Gandhian civil disobedience against pirates, and think that any such attempts would be foolish and unsuccessful. And just a reminder: That was the subject of the post.
Cheers,
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:40 amFederal Farmer says:
I don’t feel I mischaracterized your elitist attitude. Rich guys with yachts are the sort of people that can have guns. The rest, not so much.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:41 amzuch says:
Yes we do. Gun shows.
Cheers,
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:43 amzuch says:
Where did I say that?!?!?
OTOH, ‘militia’ types with wacko grudges against the gummint and hot tempers ought to gain some extra scrutiny. As well as folks like the SLA. I didn’t say the solution was to ban them from such (although that is one approach). I said that such were a problem that needs consideration. There might be other solutions, I don’t know. But shouldn’t we at least talk about it before screaming “... my cold, dead fingers”?
Cheers,
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:49 amFederal Farmer says:
Yes we do. Gun shows.Cheers,
Please. Dealers at gun shows still have to run a NICS check for each sale. Individuals selling at gun shows is no different than if they made the sale outside the show, at home, or wherever. Maybe you should visit a gun show sometime.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:50 amFederal Farmer says:
I didn’t know the SLA were still in existence? I just assumed they all had professorships somewhere.
‘Militia’ types as dangerous ‘gummint’ haters is a false stereotype that betrays an elitist attitude. A great many ‘militia’ types have served their country with distinction and honor.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:54 amzuch says:
No policy needs to be 100% effective to be effective.
In fact, don’t you implicitly say just that in the very next paragraph?:
Cheers,
Quote
February 10, 2010, 11:54 amzuch says:
True. Which is another issue. ;-)
Anyway ... I’m not going to get anywhere with the absolutists (I know this well from experience), so I’ll let this particular sub-thread drop, having said my say.
Cheers,
Quote
February 10, 2010, 12:00 pmKirk Parker says:
zuch,
The exact same logic you apply to high-seas piracy is also at work when walking down the city street: when someone starts to assault or rob you, the police aren’t going to get there in time.
For some reason, you seem determined to stay on the border of trolldom...
Quote
February 10, 2010, 12:08 pmFederal Farmer says:
True. Which is another issue. ;-)Anyway ... I’m not going to get anywhere with the absolutists (I know this well from experience), so I’ll let this particular sub-thread drop, having said my say.Cheers,
It is the same issue. There is no “gun show loophole” as the Brady Campaign and others trumpet. It is a “selling my private property” issue in reality. It occurs both at gun shows and not in gun shows. Of course, the notion that some guy selling guns illegally out of the trunk of his buick is going to stop because he’s supposed to perform a NICS check is ludicrous.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 12:41 pmFederal Farmer says:
Like this guy forced to face felony Unlawful Use of a Weapons charge because he needs to protect his daughters from drug dealers. Now he’s also facing First Degree Murder. Since he has no yacht, he has no business using a firearm to protect his family.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 12:43 pmCarl from Chicago says:
That is a demonstrably false statement.
(forgive me if that’s been said ... lots of comments here)
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:15 pmPintler says:
Zuch, it’s worth remembering the history. May issue CCW, for example, sounds like a great idea — the nice lady who was raped gets a permit, the newly patched motorcycle gang member doesn’t. There were (usually rural) Sheriffs who ran things correctly, but the in the big cities it didn’t work out so well — the police chiefs gave permits to essentially zero people who weren’t the mayor’s buddies, celebrities, or retired cops. That is why the vast majority of states have gone to shall issue CCW, and that’s why there is deep distrust of discretionary licensing schemes.
As an analogy, we might arguably be better off if you couldn’t vote if you couldn’t find Iraq on a map, or name the three branches or whatever — but given the discriminatory history of poll tests, they are a nonstarter today.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:25 pmzuch says:
This was poorly worded on my part (I hope subsequent posts cleared up what I meant).
It might have better been said: “The problem with saying that everyone has a right to have a gun is that all kinds of people (including nutcases) will then try to get a gun.
HTCTU.
Cheers,
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:27 pmFederal Farmer says:
This was poorly worded on my part (I hope subsequent posts cleared up what I meant).It might have better been said: “The problem with saying that everyone has a right to have a gun is that all kinds of people (including nutcases) will then try to get a gun.HTCTU.Cheers,
Poorly worded seems to be your stock-in-trade.
The problem with saying that all people don’t have a right to have a gun is that it exposes one as an elitist windbag.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:39 pmPintler says:
Well, we agree there! And if we can design a working nutcase filter, we can use it for all kinds of things (running for public office comes to mind :-)).
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:42 pmzuch says:
Our existing filter is broken. See this thread.
Cheers,
Quote
February 10, 2010, 1:54 pmAlphonse says:
Let us start over. The U.S Constitution is not a ‘living document”, it is a “legal document”. The 2nd amendment is part of our Bill of Rights (read Civil Rights). This has been reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Any other commentary here is not relevant.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 5:57 pmzuch says:
“Poorly formatted” seems to be yours. You made it seem like I said what Carl from Chicago said, and you said what I said. Learn how to quote, please.
No. It exposes one as someone that recognises reality. For example, felons are not allowed to possess guns (and in some places, ex-felons as well). Even some of your erstwhile ideological companions (too many to bother linking; search “felon”) above recognise that.
Cheers,
Quote
February 10, 2010, 6:56 pmMatthew Carberry says:
zuchs,
Per multiple CDC (notably not gun friendly, “guns are a public health issue”) and DOJ comprehensive studies (as well as dozens of smaller ones) over several decades; no restrictions on purchase, ownership or carry, however “reasonable”, beyond basic existing Federal manufacture, wholesale and retail purchase regulations have been shown to have any statistically significant effect on crime rates or public safety.
Further, gun ownership (both gross and per capita) in the US has steadily increased over the past few decades, quite dramatically just recently, and yet both violent crime and accident rates continue to trend dramatically downward even during this time of economic upheaval.
There’s absolutely zero evidence in the US that more gun restrictions will have any positive effect on crime or safety. How do those facts square with your, understandable, gut feeling that somehow “those people” should be further restricted than they are now?
How much more evidence will it take for you to disassociate your personal preferences for yourself (which no pro-gun person can rationally argue with) from your views on public policy on firearms for others?
Quote
February 10, 2010, 7:17 pmStoneyFF says:
It’s the part you don’t understand... and that would be the context of the phrase in the late 1700’s when the Bill of Rights was written. Read what any of the framers had to say about the populace being armed (they considered it essential to the country’s well being and survival), this includes Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Patrick Henry, and virtually any others who commented on it at all. Learn your history.
Quote
February 10, 2010, 10:01 pmWilliam B. Gilbert says:
I have a photograph of Malcom X standing near a window with an M1 or select fire M2 carbine, equiped with a 30 round “bananna” magazine, flash supressor, and ventelated handguards. Mr. X must have felt that the wide publication of this photograph would cause some “would be killers”, to think twice about atacking him, or his associates. Mr. John R. Salter made it known to would be attackers, that any attempt on his life or his family would be at the peril of those who wanted to cause them harm. I guess it worked for for him.
Quote
February 11, 2010, 4:11 pmScott Williams says:
It has been both a cause for shock, and disappointment regarding the lack of understanding of the important role played by firearms in civil rights in this country.
In fact “gun control” was developed in the south for just that reason to keep guns out of the hand of freed blacks. Protest by Dr. King where protected by armed blacks more than once, and at the request of Dr. King. The first mention of the words “Gun Control” can be traced back to those times.
Why this is a suprise is not a mystery, as so many who are charged with the teaching of history have been so caught up in teaching it covered with a pre-determined agenda. Let history stand on it’s own, the good, the bad, and the ugly!
The founding fathers called for the right to bear arms, not just for the protection against those who would rob from us, steal steal from us, or kill us, but for the those people in power from enslaving the citizens they took an oath to serve.
I can remember my father being threatened by a group of racist as a young teen. I remember my father being asked what he would do if they came to his home and burned a cross on the lawn.
My father without missing a beat said, truthfully, “I would come outside with my hand filled, and when I hit the ground my wife, kids, would cut everything standing in two”. They just turned and walked away.
I have been a cop for 28 years, I have taught people unarmed self-defense for 30 years, and now I provide armed self-defense. This country will be stronger with more people taking advantage of their second amendement rights. Providing responsible security for you or your family requires more than just providing health, care, and life insurance.
There are records of very viable, ecconomicly strong, black communities after the civil war. When one studies the history of those towns will show how being armed created a safety which bred a respect, which caused a willingness of non-blacks to trade and do business with those communities. It has been stated, “God, Guns, Gandi” made them great.
Regarding the comments earlier that stated that the society is more violent inspite of the number of firearms present. You got it wrong, in places where law abiding citizens can carry, crime is down. Funny that is true in each of those areas.
When will you learn that to remove guns from the possession of the lawful, you only make them easy victims for the lawless who will still use firearms against the rest of us?
Quote
February 12, 2010, 1:20 pmMG says:
Guns save lives, phoney challenges to armed self defense were discredited long ago by the 1991 seminal work of Professor Gary Kleck of Florida State University-Point Blank:Guns and violence in America. Kleck’s exhaustive study demonstrated defensive uses of firearms by citizens occurred 2.5 MILLION times per year, a figure far overshadowing criminal uses of guns. Guns are used far more often to defend against crime then to perpertrate crime! If you prefer to be a victim/sheep versus a survivor then continue down your path with your blinders on...
Quote
February 13, 2010, 2:37 pmJonathan O. Heller says:
By definition, “lawless” rednecks are going to have guns, whether the state deems their firearms
“unregistered” or not. So, the real — and only — question is whether this lawless element is going to have a monopoly on those guns. If the answer is yes, then the commununity organizer will likely be murdered. That is especially true, because the police have no legal duty to protect an individual citizen.
Your anti-gun argument would be more persuasive if the police were liable for failing to protect citizens, and if the government could disarm the rednecks. But, since neither of these eventualities will ever come to pass, I will continue to support the Second Amendment, the National Rifle Asociation, and my individual right to keep and bear arms.
Every organizer — and I was one for thirteeen hazardous years — knows that it is better to be tried by twelve than carried by six. Wake up to the real world!
Quote
February 13, 2010, 5:51 pmFuzzy Scout says:
An interesting thread with many well-reasoned, and well-stated comments, albeit some with which I do not agree. I will try not to repeat points already made.
Although there are a lot of posts, the areas of the country represented seem limited. Neither the City of Chicago nor (sadly) the state of Vermont are places that have gun laws typical of the nation.
I live in the northern part of the Commonwealth of Virginia, near the District of Columbia, and the state of Maryland. This area truly is representative of the wide range of laws and attitudes concerning guns.
The District has the most-restrictive gun laws in the US, although less restrictive than they were, and probably less restrictive than they will be. Handguns generally cannot be taken outside the home; all guns must be purchased from, and sold to, a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL); there is only one FFL gun dealer in DC; all guns must be registered through a time-consuming, expensive, and onerous procedure clearly designed to prevent registration; guns in the home are supposed to be unloaded, and locked. (Better than it used to be when the Metropolitan Police refused to register any semi-automatic handgun, and all weapons had to be kept disassembled.)
Across the river is the Commonwealth of Virginia where the only requirement for purchasing a firearm is to be able to pay for it and to pass the federal background check (NICS); there is no system to register firearms; anyone of age and not a felon is permitted to carry a gun openly, and open-carry is widely accepted; where those same people can carry a loaded handgun in their car, as long as it is displayed openly; where shall-issue concealed handgun permits (CHP) have gone from 150,000 a few years ago to 205,000 today, and where any CHP holder can go to the General Assembly Building to visit his elected representative (sitting in the oldest legislative body in the Western Hemisphere) carrying his handgun either concealed or openly. (The representative might just be carrying one, too.)
Let me add an aside about “discretionary” permitting. An acquaintance of mine, USMC LTC Oliver North who was then on active duty, was threatened by a foreign terrorist organization (Abu Nidal’s group) and applied for a handgun permit under Virginia’s then “discretionary” permit system. LTC North was told by a Virginia magistrate that he had insufficient reason to carry a gun.
Maryland is not the most restrictive state in the nation when it comes to guns, but it is close, with no open carry, a discretionary CHP system that issues very few permits, restrictions on transporting firearms, and other impediments to self-defense.
Compare the crime rates of those three jurisdictions. For 2007 (the latest year for which DOJ figures are available) the murder rate in Maryland was almost twice that of Virginia, and the rate in DC was six times that of Virginia. (If memory serves, in 2004, the murder rate in DC was about 1000 times greater than that in Arlington County, just across the Potomac from DC.
Some will argue that shall-issue permit systems reduce crime. I think that is true, but I am not sure that the evidence is conclusive. What I do know is, that contrary to the hand-wringing predictions of “blood running in the streets” that have been made whenever a state switched from a discretionary system to a shall-issue system, in every case there was a reduction in crime, and the rate has not once gone up.
There has been discussion of who should, or should not, possess firearms, and whether there should be licensing or registration. Without repeating arguments already made here, let me refer everyone to a study published by the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. The study, entitled, “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A review of international and some domestic evidence” is available through Amazon and at other places on the internet.
For those without the time to read, the answer is, “No.”
I agree that there should be some restrictions on gun ownership. Felons convicted of a violent crime should be prohibited from possessing firearms. I am not so sure about prohibiting possession for persons who committed non-violent felonies, after they have served their time and any parole or probation time.
Guns are tools that can be used for good or evil. If you misuse a firearm, face the consequences. Let people exercise freedom, and take responsibility for their actions.
Quote
February 25, 2010, 9:26 pmBruce A. Frank says:
You seem to overlook the small fact that registered and regulated guns can be used for illegal acts just as easily as stolen guns. In the racism of the day no black would have qualified to own a “registered” gun. Banning guns would have left the black at the mercy of knife or baseball bat wielding Klan member. As was pointed out, the KKK were, and still are, cowards who depended on intimidation and clandestine murder in attempt to suppress the civil rights movement.
The second amendment was not written to allow hunting and target shooting. If you read the supporting literature of the day you see that the intend was to provide for an armed populace to be call on to defend the country. The other reason was for the people to protect themselves from the criminal element, and that included encroachment on liberty by an overreaching government.
The tree of Liberty needs to be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson
3rd president of US (1743 — 1826)
Quote
February 26, 2010, 8:23 pmAlbertE. says:
“Michelle Dulak Thomson says:
A disproportionate number of racists were (and to lesser degree are) rednecks.”
Michelle, if you are a white person, just try walking through a black neighborhood almost any place in the U.S. and see who the racists are really quick!!
Quote
February 28, 2010, 12:13 amDave Kopel’s Second Amendment Newsletter | The American Jingoist says:
[...] David Kopel The Volokh Conspiracy February 8, 2010 http://volokh.com/2010/02/08/how-the-right-to-arms-saved-the-non-violent-civil-rights-protesters/ [...]
Alpheus says:
I don’t see any problem with that. Of course, you won’t be able to take it with you everywhere you go (Gatling guns are too big for that); nonetheless, if you had to defend your home from a large mob, or your community from rogue soldiers (say, in a time of civil war, or of anarchy), then it would probably be useful to have a Gatling gun, among other possibilities.
Quote
May 11, 2010, 1:46 pm