I don’t agree.

Given a choice between imprisonment and death on one hand, and a slightly more constrained life, all but a tiny handful will chose the latter.

No politician will send police or soldiers confiscating weapons. They’ll just continue to use the Fabian system of making little changes in the law, demonizing those who protest as crackpots, and let time do its trick.

Comment by tarran — May 11, 2007 @ 6:56 am

“We have these rights inherently, as free men.”

Sorry but, as Penn would say, that’s f**kin bullshit!. No i mean, i dont think there’s such a thing as inherently rights, as long as there are lot of thing in our environment that will easily take your life away (other people included).

I can see your point, but ,eventually, going against law is not the solution. Rights develop from a compromise among people, and you will gain from those rights as long as there are enough people who stand for them.

Comment by maelcumx — May 11, 2007 @ 7:07 am

The gun grabbers have learned that gun grabbing is a losing proposition. The defence of RKBA over the past decades has been a political one, not a legal one. What the Supreme Court says on the matter will change little in the political realm. Gun grabbing will still be a loser at the ballot box.

- Josh

Comment by Wild Pegasus — May 11, 2007 @ 9:54 am

Maelcumx; by your logic, if the majority passed a law… or lets say a constitutional amendment even; that said you could kill black people on sight, then that would be OK.

Majority does not make right.

There is NO circumstance under which society can legitmately say, for any reason, that you do not have the right to defend yourself from harm.

Either we are free men, with rights, who grant the state some measure of authority; or we are the property of the state, granted some measure of autonomy by it. There is no middle ground.

Comment by Chris — May 11, 2007 @ 1:13 pm

There is a perspective that is not always considered by is gun enthusiasts: that their interpretation of the second amendment is wrong and that it does not allow for individuals to possess firearms.

I believe the NRA has done a disservice to its community for years by perpetuating “a right to bear arms” by ignoring the first four words: “A well regulated militia” … which implies that a legislative body at least has some right to levy some restrictions on ownership.

If a legislature can restrict some ownership, it’s not a reach to see that all ownership could also be banned.

I believe that the NRA has known this for years, which is why the DC gun law went unchallenged for nearly three decades. The NRA, as I’ve seen them, vehemently opposes restriction at the state level because once enacted, the restrictions pass muster and don’t violate the 2nd Amendment. They’ve had ample opportunity to challenge over the years - a near total ban - and yet did not. Have you ever wondered why not?

I know that remarks such as this are heretical to gun owners but if this case goes to the Supreme Court, it may result in a rude awakening that the gun ‘right’ never existed.

Comment by David T — May 11, 2007 @ 1:49 pm

David,

Two comments, the Constitution does not declare what rights exist and what do not. Even supporters of strong centralized government like Hamilton admitted this.

Secondly, the words regulate and milita in the 18th century had a very different meaning to the one it is now assigned.

Back then, regulate meant to make regular or, in the case of skills, well practiced and a militia was defined as all able bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45 regardless of whether they had been hired by the local government.

So, translating into modern English, in order to ensure that all men are skilled at handling weapons, the right of people to carry weapons will not be interfered with.

Of course, this is an academic argument. Just as I have no right to prohibit you from having sex without a priest’s say so, I have no right to prevent you from carrying a weapon on anything other than my own property. Oh I may have the power to do so, particularly if I have lots of people helping me threaten you, but might makes right is not an acceptable system of morality.

If there is no right to carry weapons, then the most straightforward way that the government can respect this is to unilaterally disarm. No soldier or policeman should be permitted a weapon denied to the meanest of men. Until that day comes, I wish they would stop pretending that their attempts to disarm everyone but those whom government officials approve of is in any way morally defensible.

Comment by tarran — May 11, 2007 @ 2:43 pm

Tarran, I disagree with you. I’ll try to point out precisely how; be patient if I don’t articulate it correctly.

To say “..if there is no right to carry weapons … no soldier or policeman should carry” allows for no middle ground. Soldiers are de facto protectors of our country from invasion. Policemen are de facto enforcers of the law; some folks resist lawful enforcement and the weapon is an enabler for the officer, just as tasers, tear gas, and handcuffs assist in function of his duties.

But, as you stated - there are no rights in the Constitution, which means there is no right to carry a firearm for self-defense. This is distinct from the right to defend oneself - you may defend yourself, but you may not use a firearm to do so. I’ll say it again - no one disagrees with the right to self-defense, but one does not have the right to use a firearm for that purpose, nor are firearms the only method by which one could defend themselves, either.

I completely disagree with your interpretation of ‘well-regulated’ to mean ‘regular’ militia vice irregulars. I lack the time at the moment to delve further into this point, however.

As for ‘the government approving’ - it is not the government approving anything. It is the interpretation of the second amendment that is the crux; does the 2nd amendment allow an unalienable right to possess firearms or not? If that right does not exist, the government isn’t taking away something that was never there at all.

Comment by David T — May 11, 2007 @ 3:12 pm

For the most part I agree. And now for the ‘but’…

If Parker goes to the USSC and they go with the collective view of the 2nd Amendment then the reactionary left gun controllers will take that as a sign to say, “Okay all you gun nuts, time to turn them in.” The proper response will be, “No, you come and take them.”

I have a problem with the insane people should be denied guns argument. It is not that I think insane people should have guns, it is that I know some people will twist with the definition of ‘insane’ in order to grab more guns. Such as someone saying, “It is insane to think you need an assault rifle to deer hunt.” or “It is insane to think you need to carry a conealed hand gun.” and so on. Some people will see the fact that you own a gun as a reason to call you insane. And since insane people can’t have guns, the catch-22 is in place.

Comment by tkc — May 11, 2007 @ 3:16 pm

“We have these rights inherently, as free men.”

Sorry but, as Penn would say, that’s f**kin bullshit!.

A quick reminder: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Comment by tkc — May 11, 2007 @ 3:19 pm

Dave T.

The moral argument advanced to claim that governments are legitimate is that people have consented to the government and delegated to it certain powers.

According to that argument, if a policeman has a gun, it is because he has been granted that power by the citizenry.

If the citizenry do not have the moral right to carry a gun, they cannot delegate it to the police. If you are correct, and no individual has a right to carry one particular class of weapon, than every policeman and soldier is acting immorally by carrying fire-arms.

It does not matter how badly they “need” them, just as it is irrelevant how much a battered woman “needs” a firearm to defend herself. If the battered woman has no right to keep a snubnosed handgun into her bag, then no soldier has the right to lug around an M-16 either, no matter how much they want to have it.

Last but not least, you say that the government is not approving anything, but somehow, passively the constitution is being interpreted. Interpretation is done by human beings. The people whose interpretation matters, the ones whose decrees then are made reality by men with guns, are members of the judiciary. The last I checked, these guys were drawing pay-checks from the United States treasury.

In effect, they are government officials, and when they decree that only people that the government approves of may carry guns, it is precisely the same act as the the head of the Gambino crime family decreeing that only truckers he approves of can make deliveries to the garment district.

Update: I cleaned up the numerous grammatical errors and misspellings in my original posting.

Comment by tarran — May 11, 2007 @ 4:41 pm

I’m tired of the 2nd amendment. I like this one better:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Somehow, the enumeration of rights has had precisely the opposite effect…now we have ten…well, 8 since the last two don’t count…narrowly defined rights.

Comment by Dana — May 14, 2007 @ 1:55 am

Now, what I don’t understand, is why this is thought of as a radical proposition. To my mind, we should all feel this way.

This article (h/t Dr. Helen by way of Instapundit) may shed some light on this. Money quote:

Part of the problem is that our civilized society holds firmly to the notion that violence between people must not be countenanced (except in the commercial media!) This axiom applies even to [law enforcement officers] who use any level of force, and most certainly deadly force, in the line of duty. The individual who must resort to taking the life of another person, even for the protection of self or others, has been reinforced to feel guilty and rendered incapable of finding psychological resolution of the relevant conflicts.

To which Dr. Helen adds:

If even police officers are made to feel guilty for protecting the lives of citizens by our “don’t defend yourself or anyone else” culture and media, I can’t imagine how civilians who had to use force are made to feel after an incident in which they had to protect themselves or others.

Self-defense and preserving liberty… so uncivilized.

Comment by Joshua — May 16, 2007 @ 12:07 am

tarran

Even if the second amendment is not interpreted as guaranteeing a right to keep and bear arms, it does not follow as a logical consequence that you do not have such a right.
As has been pointed out by others, the tenth amendment specifically says the list is not exhaustive, and there are other rights retained by the people that the government cannot infringe. A very convincing argument can be made that historically, regardless of the 2nd amendment, the people have a right to keep and bear arms implied implicitly, by the fact that they did so before the constitution was ratified.
Frankly, I think those pushing the 2nd amendment are barking up the wrong tree. Let them interpret it however they wish (i.e. that the fed cannot interfere with a state militia), and instead push the idea that, having just come out from under what they considered a tyrant, it seems absurd that people would consent to a government that would hamper their ability to do so again. Hence, the right to keep and bear arms was one of the rights that it was felt was unnecessary to explicitly list at the time.

Comment by Daemin — May 16, 2007 @ 12:33 pm

Daemin,
I think you are arguing with David T. and not me. I don’t completely agree with you, but you and I are pretty much on the same page.

Comment by tarran — May 17, 2007 @ 1:26 am

I think they were forced to take the statement off their website.

Comment by Cat — May 10, 2007 @ 10:29 pm

nobody nowere
wants to overthrow the government
they want all the criminals that occupy
the positions of power to follow the law

daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Comment by pat — May 11, 2007 @ 9:34 am

“… the consequences of a victory for gun rights at that level would be felt around the nation.”

The consequences of a defeat would also be felt around the nation, as the antis go on an orgy of gun prohibitions, and the non-activist 98% of gun owners suddenly wake up to the fact that, no, really, they *do* want your target pistol, deer rifle *and* your duck gun!

Comment by Bruce W. Krafft — May 9, 2007 @ 8:30 am

It is entirely possible that the Supreme Court refuses to hear the case, missing an opportunity to offer a conclusive, definitive answer on how the second amendment should be interpreted.

Comment by David T — May 9, 2007 @ 9:33 am

“The consequences of a defeat would also be felt around the nation, as the antis go on an orgy of gun prohibitions” — and it’s nothing but our plain dumb luck that these Cato/Libertarian, as-if/would-be Athenian Philosophers *didn’t* bring this to fruition when the Supreme Court would have clearly dealt us a disaster (as they still may.) Gun rights - indeed, *any* piddling, merely-human concerns - have always run a veeery distant second place to the Cato/Libertarian’s fantasies of Utter Philosophical Purity. Even if their case would clearly have brought disaster to us in the Supreme Court, there would have been no way in which you could have successfully begged them to stop. They would have simply gazed calmly out to their Far Horizon Of Intellectual Perfection and said, “Well, guess you’ll have to get busy with political [etc. etc.]“

Comment by Herman Mankiewicz — May 9, 2007 @ 10:04 am

Herman, what a cowardly outlook you have. At least we would know where we stood, definitively. That is infinitely better than limbo.

Comment by Mike B — May 9, 2007 @ 10:46 am

Bruce & Herman must work for the NRA who have been trying to kill this case from the get-go. If this goes before SCOTUS, the NRA is out of business. Either ruling would eliminate the need for the NRA.

Comment by Nick M. — May 9, 2007 @ 12:50 pm

Nick M,

That’s what I’ve never understood about the NRA. I don’t understand why the NRA hasn’t made itself useful above and beyond being political voice. It seems like they should be positioning themselves for victory even if such a victory never comes. Does the NRA offer gun safety classes? Does the NRA offer any certification for gun handling? These things would prove invaluable for local governments desperately seeking a way to respect the right to bear arms and not appear “soft” on crime to the gun-hater crowd at the same time.

Comment by Bret — May 9, 2007 @ 1:19 pm

Bret,

Yes, the NRA does those things. They do them quite well in fact. There are other organizations (private/for profit) that do these as well. Most gun owners that have a problem with the NRA have problems with their 2A workings. Instead of fighting anti-gun laws, they negotiate to water down the anti-gun laws. I take back what I said abou them being out of business. They could still do all the training courses, and the other positve things that they do. But their main fundraising issue (2A) would be gone.

Nick

Comment by Nick M. — May 9, 2007 @ 1:34 pm

“Herman, what a cowardly outlook you have. At least we would know where we stood, definitively. That is infinitely better than limbo.”

???!!??? Like, we already don’t know, from umpteen votes already, who the antis, are and are not?? Hello …!!?? And, no: disaster is _worse_ than “limbo”. If you don’t believe that the words mean different things, kindly consult the dictionary. And, sorry: characterizing my knowledgable statement (about the Cato/Libertarians) as “cowardly” does not refute my statement: the ocean _is_ wet, and the desert _is_ dry, even if Saddam Hussein’s lawyer says so.

Comment by Herman Mankiewicz — May 9, 2007 @ 1:52 pm

“Instead of fighting anti-gun laws, they [the NRA] negotiate to water down the anti-gun laws.”

Yes … that explains why the NRA has 4 million members, and these other “real” 2A oganizations’ memberships are in the 5-digit range (mostly less even than the number of NRA members who physically attend one NRA Annual Meeting) …

Comment by Herman Mankiewicz — May 9, 2007 @ 1:58 pm

Yes … that explains why the NRA has 4 million members, and these other “real” 2A oganizations’ memberships are in the 5-digit range (mostly less even than the number of NRA members who physically attend one NRA Annual Meeting) …

NO, what explains the NRA’s multi-million membership is the fact they are the oldest organization. They have name recognition. They rely on that to get new members. They are the 300lb gorilla. I won’t deny that. The fact is that the NRA has become complacent. They are more concerned with maintaining the status quo and their bureaucratic structure than actually fighting.

Nick

Comment by Nick M. — May 9, 2007 @ 3:03 pm

I agree with those comments that have noted the risk that taking this case to the Supreme Court would entail but, in reality, it’s not in the hands of the Plaintiffs. If D.C. decides to appeal, and the Court takes the case, then that’s that.

And I think the odds favor the Supreme Court taking this case if it’s offered to them. There is a split among the Circuit Court’s on this issue and that’s usually the biggest reason an appeal is granted.

Comment by Doug Mataconis — May 9, 2007 @ 3:09 pm

Doug -

good point about various circuit courts delivering differing opinions on the matter. After thinking about it, the Supreme Court will probably hear the case.

However, I don’t believe that it will bode well for the plaintiffs; there are already cases that have been before the court that have implied that the states do have it in their purview to legislate or regulate firearms.

Comment by David T — May 9, 2007 @ 3:57 pm

“I agree with those comments that have noted the risk that taking this case to the Supreme Court would entail but, in reality, it’s not in the hands of the Plaintiffs.”

Exactly what I’m saying is, the Plaintiffs *always *wanted** this case to go to the Supreme Court. The fact that it’s headed there now(1) (and, yes, I too think they would take it) is what they aimed for all along. And what I’m criticizing is their (the Plaintiffs) cavalier attitude to the property and situations of more people than they could apologize to in the entire rest of their lives.

As I said, I think we may be lucky. But that’s like saying, “Aww, gee, what’s the fuss? That drunk driver didn’t hit the baby-carriage - he missed it by a whole three feet!” Even if it had been clearly headed for disaster, the C/Ls would have done it anyway. I live in the DC area, I’m in this issue, I know their attitudes (and it comes out plainly in the interviews with the man who bankrolled the suit, anyway. The concerns of the ruck are not on his Oyympian radar.)

(1)(from above) — The only thing that will keep it out of the Supreme Court is if Mayor Fenty and his fellow Democrats yield to very strong, and very private pressure, from some very eminent Democrats at the national level, to not take what _they_ see as the risk. It would be funny if the stakes weren’t so high and if any of the principles gave a hoot about anything but their own egos.

Comment by Herman Mankiewicz — May 9, 2007 @ 4:20 pm

I fail to see how this case would put the NRA out of business.

If the Supreme Court says the Second Amendment is an individual, rather than a collective right, the question of how much regulation is permitted will remain.

If the Court overturns the decision, the amount of regulation will still be a legislative question.

Either way, the NRA would still have work lobbying to limit regulation.

By the way, my admittedly cursory reading of the case doesn’t show it to be all that earth shaking. I read it to say that the DC regs were/are excessive, but it doesn’t offer a good guide as to what is acceptable.

Comment by Tom — May 10, 2007 @ 2:06 pm

Now, if only we could salvage the 5th, 9th, and 10th Amendments and Article II of the Constitution (which, despite Administration lawyers’ claims, does not give the President the authority to ignore law passed by the Congress and signed by the President himself.)

Comment by Jesse — May 7, 2007 @ 12:47 pm

Did you notice what was going on before that?

Comment by VRB — May 4, 2007 @ 1:59 pm

While I agree that it’s better for the Somali people to keep their weapons as the government won’t protect them, you’re basing much of your argument on the idea that the Somali government and their Ethiopian allies are somehow worse than the Islamist warlords they pushed out (they aren’t).

Frankly, the people are better off in the long run with the Somali government and the Ethiopians…although they’d be foolish to give up their weapons as you’ve said. But you’re stretching if you’re trying to draw parallels between Somalia’s situation and the battle for gun rights in our country.

Comment by UCrawford — May 4, 2007 @ 2:27 pm

Somalia was in far better shape than what they are showing on the evening news prior to the American intervention.

The islamic courts were composed officials froma a broad range of idealogies ranging from talibanesque to very liberal. Their support came more from keeping people happy with their law enforcement rather than by intimidation.

Unfortunately, it is hard to get good data; most of the publicly available data is gathered by governments, which tend to
a) overestimate the degree of violence - mainly as a form of P.R.
b) underestimate the degree of violence by aggregating northern somalia with southern somalia - northern somalia has a state which is not recognized by any government whereas the south used to be nominally stateless.

These two opposing biases make it very difficult to filter out junk from the data.

Someday when I have time, I would like to write about Somalia, since there are some interesting lessons to be drawn from it.

Comment by tarran — May 4, 2007 @ 3:09 pm

tarran,
There are a lot of blogs out of Africa. this might be a place to start, the Sokwanele blog. Check out their blog roll. Unfortunately the one from Somalia is not in English, but the news stories are.

Comment by VRB — May 4, 2007 @ 5:07 pm

The current situation in Somalia is another example of a failed intervention in Somalia, only this time the intervention is labelled “Fighting Terrorism”. The current Somali “government” is nothing but the same blood thirsty warlords who have destroyed Somalia. The man who was named the mayor of Mogadishu is a notorious warlord whose infamy stretches throughout southern Somalia. His militias looted, raped and oppressed the minority clans of southern Somalia.

Most of the members of the Somali “government” are war criminals who have killed thousands, where is justice for Somalia? Instead the U.S. and the West endorse these same murderers as law men? Talk about hypocrisy. The U.S. government beats the U.N. security council table and shouts “Genocide in Darfur” all the while endorsing genocide in Somalia. The world is not blind or dumb, we all see and we all know the truth, Somalia’s failure is the fault of Western countries.

Comment by ALH — May 4, 2007 @ 11:51 pm

Sure, muggers might give up. Or, they might just start carrying guns themselves and shooting any victim they feel might use a gun against them before the victim has a chance to pull it out.

Also, little old ladies might start shooting at every passerby that startles them.

Comment by Ryan — May 4, 2007 @ 2:00 pm

Also, little old ladies might start shooting at every passerby that startles them.

Ah yes, the old “put guns in the hands of otherwise normal, law abiding citizens and they will start shooting anyone who looks at them funny” argument.

Sure, muggers might give up. Or, they might just start carrying guns themselves and shooting any victim they feel might use a gun against them before the victim has a chance to pull it out.

True, they might, it depends on how much the criminal values his life. Of course, a good samaritan may shoot the mugger. When you don’t know who’s armed, it makes harder to pick a mark.

Comment by Nick M. — May 4, 2007 @ 2:16 pm

Sure, muggers might give up. Or, they might just start carrying guns themselves and shooting any victim they feel might use a gun against them before the victim has a chance to pull it out.

Then again, muggers are already using guns. Recall the case in Ohio where the 15 year old mugger was shot by his would-be victim since they BOTH had a gun. (Discussed here.)

Comment by trumpetbob15 — May 4, 2007 @ 2:33 pm

Or, they might just start carrying guns themselves and shooting any victim they feel might use a gun against them before the victim has a chance to pull it out.

Then we are not talking about a mugger, but a straight up murderer, for whom theft is an afterthought. Given the far stiffer penalties assigned to a murder over a mugger, I would suggest that the economics principle still applies. I would suggest that murder w/looting is less common than mugging because of that economic principle already in effect.

Obviously the mentally impaired might not consider the economics of the situation, but that is precisely why those designated mentally impaired, or who have shown a propensity toward violent crime, are generally forbidden the lawful possession of firearms.

Even this restriction may not stop such a person from acquiring a weapon of any kind (fist, stick, knife, gun), and this is all the more reason that citizens should have at their means the ability to defend themselves and others against such threats.

Comment by lib — May 23, 2007 @ 3:43 pm

I was stunned by it. I’m still not convinced that this guy is not just yanking chains. It is completely over the top and then some.

Comment by tkc — April 27, 2007 @ 3:32 pm

We need more guys like this writing articles so people will know how these anti-gun people think. It only makes people more pro 2nd amendment.

Comment by LLR — April 27, 2007 @ 3:36 pm

Virginia tech was gun free. In fact they made such a big deal about how they created a new law that banned all guns on the campus.

I’m sure the students followed this rule especially the injured and dead. It was supposed to be a hippie like commune of non violent non gun free safety zone.

How did the gun get there then? A criminal didn’t follow the law. Criminals do this by their very nature. A thousand dollar fine and year in jail for both guns wouldn’t have mattered to CHO and it is meaningless to the dead.

This is where the bliss that is a gun free society falls apart. A criminal who doesnt follow the law. This concept no matter how simple to the worlds people becomes lost when you become a politician who knows whats bets for the rest of us.

The facts dont lie. The worst crime rates, both violent and non violent, are in American cities that have complete or nearly complete bans on guns, either one type or all. If you look to Australia you will see and explosion of crime since they disarmed the complete population. The same goes for the UK.

Another thing perplexes me. the number of people killed by a gun during any given year is extremely small when compared to other death causes. Guns kill way under 100000 people a year. We arent counting suicides or legitimate justified shootings, only accidental and criminal gun deaths.

Compare this to deaths caused by cars which is over half a million. Then deaths caused by accidents other than cars . What about deaths caused by knives clubs screw drivers food and air. these deaths add up to several million a year.

Taking away cars, tools, baseball bats, knives, certain foods, alcohol and rocks, lamps, belts and rope would be much easier. None of these things are listed in the constitution and are not considered rights but privileges.

Hell a signature by the president could make some or much of these things illegal and also enact a police force to do searches to make the country safe.

Of course this wont happen as the country realised that these things dont hurt kill or do anything. They are inanimate objects that just sit there till a human decides he needs to kill.

So we have determined that inanimate objects dont do anything they just are. We also see that if we really want to stop millions of deaths we can get rid of almost everything a human can use to hurt. Were talking stopping millions of deaths just by giving up cars tools and game pieces. It seems that the greater good would be served by getting rid of objects used most by killers.

Just like every where that people think banning something will protect the uk is having extremely high numbers of stabbings beatings and killings by impact forces in addition to the guns.

What! you mean people will just find something else to kill with. You got it.

where is the police when you need them. Damn they dont have to raise a finger to protect us either. so says the law of the land.

now your sitting naked in a rubber room with no sun light[ light causes cancer, come on you know that] eating vegetable matter cause meat is banned as it kills also.

You look up and another naked person is there and he wants to kill you. You laugh and say “you cant hurt me every object that can be used to hurt or kill me is banned”

he then slips his hands around you neck and is slowly choking you to death. you call for help and hear a recording say “911 can you please hold”. your almost blacking out when you hear a person say “911 what is your emergency” You choke out “im being killed” the operator says “sir we banned everything that can kill you. Making false police reports is a crime. we cant get an officer out to take the report on false reporting and give you a summons case they are all busy elsewhere” she continues “Sir i estimate 10 minutes till an officer gets there please dont waste 911 resources there are real crimes and our officers are taking reports all over the city”

it is in this minute you realise how completely stupid the country has become. you then feel the grip on you throat relaxing as your attacker is tireing and think you might live only to see the murderer pull out his gun and shoot you.

the last thought you have, as blood and brain is running out of your head, he cant shoot me we banned guns in 2010.

Comment by chris — April 28, 2007 @ 2:55 am

What a frightening article. All the more frightening because Mr. Simpson’s description is not too far off from what could really happen someday, but probably not as quickly as he says. Every time the anti-gun activists get another measure through is one more step.

We need more people to stop fretting about their safety and start worrying about their freedom. The latter is far more valuable, because the former is protected and, more importantly, made valuable by the latter.

There’s very little point to living completely under the thumb of another, and revoking a person’s right to defend himself from those who would infringe upon his other rights makes him an easy target for those who would put him there.

Comment by Rudy Kohn — April 28, 2007 @ 8:39 am

This may be a little off topic, but every time I read one of these “suggestions” that specify some prison sentence for breaking a gun law, I always think back to debates I have had with people over the death penalty. For some reason, opponents of the death penalty say that the threat of execution is not a deterrent, yet then most of these people turn around and say, “If we only had one more gun law, that would have stopped the shooter.” Must be me not being a criminal, but I have always thought the death penalty was a lot scarier than a minor prison sentence. Why else would convicts appeal so often and choose prison over death?

By the way, I would actually hope Mr. Simpson was at the head of the gun finding Gestapo groups. Well, the first one at least since I don’t think he would survive for a second raid, even if he has shot a gun before.

Comment by trumpetbob15 — April 28, 2007 @ 12:02 pm

See, the gun laws stop them before they stop caring about death. It’s a preemtive(hyphen?) measure. Try to follow the math:

Normal person + gun = psycho killer who doesn’t care about life or death.

Obviously, the gun laws take out an essential part of the equation and keep an otherwise normal person from being transormed into a monster. The death penalty isn’t a deterrent because the evil magic of the gun has already poisoned them.[/sarc]

Nick

Comment by Nick M. — April 28, 2007 @ 12:17 pm

Thanks Nick. I should have known the gun was the problem. I mean, I went to public school! Could I really have not learned that simple lesson? [/sarcasm]

Comment by trumpetbob15 — April 28, 2007 @ 12:21 pm

trumpetbob,

Don’t worry, it’s not your fault(nothing is). You probably had some non-union teachers. We’ve had some problems with them before. Why don’t you go ahead and send me your real name, address, and the names and addresses of your teachers. We will send some people to pick you up and take y’all to re-educaction centers to remove these thoughts about choice and responsibility.

Comment by Nick M. — April 28, 2007 @ 12:37 pm

Among the many asinine assumptions this jackass makes is the one that I am incapable of building my own guns. If you melted down every firearm on the planet, even those owned by the military of every nation, they would soon exist again. They just aren’t that hard to make.

Comment by Wulf — April 28, 2007 @ 10:11 pm

i’m in the coast guard, do you have any idea how large the oceans are! do you have any idea how much we do stop. i would much rather being up in alaska fishing fisherman back out of the freezing water than sitting of the coast of central america stopping everything that comes our way, then trying to find some place to off load our detainees, without them getting shot in the head for getting caught. it happens all the time trust me in this.

probation never works, where there is a demand, there will be those who will fill that need. make drugs legal then tax it. hold people for responsible for their actions.

i’m reminded of the Warsaw ghettos, i for one am fighting for my liberty and will continue too, no matter the coat.

Sic Vis Pacem Parabellum - if you want peace prepare for war

Comment by notmellow — April 29, 2007 @ 12:30 am

Quote:”‘gun lobby’ would no doubt try to head off in the courts the new laws”

The problem implementing this Nazi state would not be the gun lobbby, it would be the gun I would put in the face of every policeman that tried to take my gun away. I honestly don’t know any gun owners that would do differently.

Plus, how many policeman are going to be willing to disarm people (many of which are gun enthusiasts themselves)?

They can have my guns…. they can pry them from my cold dead hands.

Comment by Steve — April 30, 2007 @ 10:12 am

Such a vigorous dialog amongst the gun lovers on these pages! Such a diverse set of views! Such an interest in entertaining and considering a full range of opinions on the issue of gun control! Such a committed belief in the intelligence and integrity of those who don’t agree with them! Such a broad and deep view of freedom!

Let’s see. Do I detect a current of paranoia consistently running through your comments? A rigid sense of boundaries - that freedom is about what’s mine, and anything that is mine cannot be yours? Is it possible that your guns represent extensions of your own bravado - give me my own shallow, car- and beer- and hunting-crazed freedoms, or give me death! Is it possible that your anger - at what? who the hell knows - has consumed your souls?

Here is what I suggest. Invite some guests to post on your pages who do not agree with you. Engage them in debate. Careful now. Keep it polite and respectful! Can you do that? Good. You’re good boys. Good GI Joes. Maybe some day you’ll grow up and put away your foolish toys.

Comment by Peter — May 5, 2007 @ 1:48 pm

No peter, you’re actually just projecting, but thanks for stopping by. Also, thank you for not typing in all capital letters too.

Comment by tarran — May 5, 2007 @ 3:08 pm

Do I detect a current of paranoia consistently running through your comments?

It is not paranoia if they are really out to get you.

Heh.

Such a committed belief in the intelligence and integrity of those who don’t agree with them! Such a broad and deep view of freedom!

Freedom does not mean I have to agree with what you say. It does not mean that I have to believe you are intelligent because you oppose my views. Instead, you have to prove your views in an intelligent manner for me to be swayed.

I have my views for a reason.

And if you are intelligent, and make a good argument, I’ll listen to it. I have been swayed before by elegant argument and divine prose.

As for integrity, it depends where you disagree with me. I have a hard time believing in the integrity of anyone who would take away my rights, or the ability to defend those rights.

I am not saying you are one of those people. I have not spoken to you enough to know what your beliefs are. All I know is that you seem to attack through sarcastic remarks, without actually laying down what you believe.

So lay it down, and lay it bare, and we’ll see where it goes…

Comment by Ted — May 5, 2007 @ 6:02 pm

Peter, does my honesty scare you?

The reason I will never lay down my arms is because once the people lay down their arms, the true power of the government will no longer lie with its people. I’m not a crazy anarchist, but I firmly believe that the rise of a Police State can only be accomplished once the citizenry lay down their own personal firearms.

What is freedom to you? You act as though a sense of personal possession is bad. My definition of freedom is a personal one, the right to choose, or own, or act, or feel in whatever manner I decide.

I say YES anything that is mine cannot be yours!!!! I believe in personal responsibility, personal reward, and personal ownership. What is free in sharing everything?

guns represent extensions of your own bravado - give me my own shallow, car- and beer- and hunting-crazed freedoms

What!? Who said anything about Cars or Beer or Hunting? Pull your pants up, your BIAS is showing.

And by the way, who is angry? I was being honest, and honestly I do believe that the largest problem to implementing the plan in the original article are people like me who would not willingly hand over their guns along with their own personal freedoms.

Here is what I suggest. Invite some guests to post on your pages who do not agree with you. Engage them in debate. Careful now. Keep it polite and respectful! Can you do that? Good. You’re good boys. Good GI Joes. Maybe some day you’ll grow up and put away your foolish toys.

I invite you Peter to come back and debate me. As far as polite and respectful goes, the largest flamer in this thread is you, throwing around names and gun toting biases (ie drunk driving hunters as you so cleverly disguised before).

Governments want to eliminate guns because it allows for the rights of the citizens to be infringed or destroyed without fear of uprising. Governments that later enslave or kill portions of their citizens typically start by banning or registering guns “for the common good.”

True freedom has no limits. There must be laws. Laws are not meant to restrict or regulate freedom, but to establish civility between people. Laws are not meant to be broken, but a truly free man should be free to break them if they are prepared to take responsibility for the consequences. Because this freedom exists, for man to break the laws that society has established, is reason enough to allow the individual to defend themselves.

What common good can come out of confiscating all firearms and, in the same motion, establishing a police state that destroys the bill of rights?

I’ll be checking back for your response Peter, I hope you accept my invitation.

Comment by Steve — May 10, 2007 @ 4:31 pm

Mike,

Being an arm chair critic is easy. The rules, regulatons and SOP’s are set up to prevent loss of life, for citizens in a dangerous situation as well as police officers. Try putting on “the blue” and going by the book, then see if you have the same knee jerk opinion. The rules, regulatons and SOP’s are set up to prevent loss of life, for citizens in a dangerous situation as well as for the police officers.

Comment by T F Stern — April 26, 2007 @ 8:21 pm

Mike,

I think you’ve seen a few too many action movies. A dead cop can’t protect anyone. And adding officers to the body count doesn’t help either.

Firemen secure doors before opening, check stairs before climbing, and vent buildings for safety when battling fires. EMT’s wait for police escort before entering dangerous buildings to help hurt people. The Secret Service, whose job it REALLY is to throw themselves in front of danger, go to enormous trouble to ensure it doesn’t ever come to that. There isn’t anything wrong with taking steps to minimize the risks involved with dangerous jobs.

It doesn’t do police any good to blindly rush into a building, guns blazing. Hindsight is always 20/20. We know now it was one lunatic with two guns at VT, but all they could do was guess. For them, at that moment, it could’ve just as easily been a gang of 10 badguys, armed to the teeth.

Comment by trav.is — April 26, 2007 @ 8:52 pm

That’s largely my problem. The rules, regulations, and SOP supposedly changed after Columbine, where they were found to be completely inadequate. In the case of this police department, they obviously did not, with tragic results.

I didn’t mean to imply that police should charge in like the Lone Ranger without any regard for their procedures and training. I’m saying that the police training for an active school shooting (or any active group shooting, for that matter) should have something more than to “wait for SWAT.”

Comment by mike — April 26, 2007 @ 8:53 pm

“And adding officers to the body count doesn’t help either.”

If the officer is able to take down one or more of the shooters in the process, yes, it helps. Part of their job is to put their lives on the line so others don’t have to. To go with your hypothetical of 10 heavily armed bad guys, you’re saying that instead of advancing into the building and at least attempting to engage the bad guys, the police should stand idly by while the shooters continue to massacre innocent civilians?

Look, if you read closely, you’ll see I don’t advocate police running in willy-nilly.

“These officers didn’t have the training or mindset to respond to this type of a situation. You take the first four officers that arrive on scene and go in.”

You have to change the training and mindset so that officers have the skills to go in and deal with this situation. You don’t go in by yourself, but neither do you sit back and wait for SWAT.

From the article I linked to above:

“Some police and security experts question the five-minute delay, saying authorities should have charged straight into the melee.

“You don’t have time to wait,” said Aaron Cohen, president of IMS Security of Los Angeles, who has trained SWAT teams around the country since 2003. “You don’t have time to pre-plan a response. Even if you have a few guys, you go.”

After the Columbine massacre in 1999, police around the country adopted new policies for so-called “active shooters.” Police would no longer respond to emergencies such as school shootings by surrounding a building and waiting for the SWAT team.

Instead, the first four officers rush into the building and attempt to immediately end the threat. This system was used to end a 2003 school hostage standoff in Spokane, Wash.

At Columbine, no officers entered the building until about 40 minutes after the first 911 call from the school. Critics have said that decision might have contributed to the death of a teacher who bled to death from gunshot wounds.”

There’s no excuse for that. As far as I’m concerned, if the shooter is able to kill himself, the police have failed.

Comment by mike — April 26, 2007 @ 9:13 pm

“Advance to the sound of the guns.”

I’m with you, Mike. No cheez, no bullshit: you’re right.

Comment by Billy Beck — April 26, 2007 @ 9:47 pm

I think you’re absolutley right on this one Mike. If this were strictly a hostage situation, then I would say the police should stay outside and wait the man out. But this wasn’t a hostage situation. Once a person starts opening fire on civilians, its time for the police to break down doors and get into the battle. I can think of no good reason for the cops to be sitting outside while the people they are charged to serve and protect are neither being served or protected.

Comment by Stephen Littau — April 26, 2007 @ 10:58 pm

“Once a person starts opening fire on civilians, its time for the police to break down doors and get into the battle.”

Exactly. If it was a hostage situation, that’s when SWAT would storm the building. But that’s a crucial difference. A school shooting is an active shooting situation. Completely different from a hostage situation.

Like I’ve said before, it’s about training. I don’t fault the individual officers who responded to the shooting too much. As T.F. and travis have pointed out, officers are expected to follow their training and SOP. Unfortunately, in this case, their training and SOP was completely inadequate.

Comment by mike — April 26, 2007 @ 11:17 pm

I’m with “trav.is” when he said, “I think you’ve seen a few too many action movies.” Tell you what, you duck your head in the door first and let me know where the bad guy is. No, sorry, but cops are not paid to “take one for the public”. Where that comes from I’m not sure; but there is no job that stipulates being that stupid or gung ho. Even in the military, those on the front lines are taught to be smart enough to make it home. Those who charge into a situation that is unknown might be considered heroes; unfortunately many of those never get to talk about how it feels since they don’t live to talk about it. Glad I retired from the police department and get to leave comments to educate the misguided citizenry.

Comment by T F Stern — April 27, 2007 @ 2:00 pm

“Tell you what, you duck your head in the door first and let me know where the bad guy is.”

If I had been an officer responding to the scene, you can bet your ass I would’ve. Hell, if I’d just been an armed bystander I might have. What I actually probably would’ve done was push ahead of time for the police force to have an appropriate SOP that doesn’t train officers to stand around while a gunman is loose among the sheep. Sheepdogs have a duty. Maybe it’s just me, but the idea of having the means to stop the slaughter of innocent people and standing by doing nothing is repulsive.

Just so we’re clear…even though several police departments around the country already do this, police departments should not change their SOP in an active shooting situation to go in with an adequate number of officers (say, 4) and instead should wait for overwhelming force/SWAT to arrive, even if it means several more civilians could and probably will be killed.

Wow. I guess “To Protect and Serve” doesn’t really mean much of anything anymore.

Comment by mike — April 27, 2007 @ 2:18 pm

On the other hand, Mr Stern, the police had a monopoly on defense in the VT massacre; Virginia had outlawed anybody who wasn’t a police officer from carrying a weapons on campus.

Imagine if you lived in a town that outlawed septic systems or any sewage system other than the municipal one. Wouldn’t you expect the town to actually attempt to pipe away sewage from your home? What would your answer be if you called to complain about backed up pipes and the town replied that their policy was to wait for a few months before repairing the pipes?

If the Virgina government hadn’t similarly outlawed competition with its protective services, you would have a convincing point. however when the state takes such a position, then for the police to delay is profoundly immoral.

Comment by tarran — April 27, 2007 @ 2:25 pm

I had intented to leave a short additional comment; instead I wrote my own article which I titled “Guns, Police and Fantasy Land - A Rant in Progress. Feel free to stop by. I respect your comment section enough not to put such a long rambling of thoughts.

Comment by T F Stern — April 27, 2007 @ 8:15 pm

Guns, Police and Fantasy Land – A Rant in Progress…

Police Departments all over the place often use catchy phrases; “To Protect and Serve” is one. “Fresh Donuts Served Here”; maybe thatÂ’s going a little too far….

Trackback by http://www.tfsternsrantings.blogspot.com/ — April 27, 2007 @ 8:18 pm

TF:

Even in the military, those on the front lines are taught to be smart enough to make it home.

Well, as a combat veteran and corporate security manager, I have to say that I don’t agree with you TF. Usually, I find your comments pretty on as regards police forces. This time, though, a couple of observations.

Yes, in the military I was trained to keep my soldiers, and myself, alive while achieving the mission. That’s a concept called “force preservation”. That said, when the time came to put your life in jeopardy to accomplish the mission, you did. And we were trained to deal with chaotic situations where we didn’t know all the answers. The less we knew, the higher the odds we would be wounded or killed. It’s part of the job.

There are times where cops put their life on the line, just as firefighters, EMT’s and soldiers do. One of those times is when unarmed civilians are being shot and killed by the bad guys. While it’s true that a dead cop would be a bad thing, it’s even worse to have live cops stand in place while more civilians die.

And yes, it is part of what the civilians expect, that cops sometimes give their life to defend civilians.

I find the perspective that cops should do otherwise a disturbing comment on the state of police forces in this country.

Comment by Eric — April 27, 2007 @ 9:43 pm

Am I wrong in thinking that the ultimate reason for the existence of a police force, and their monopoly on the use of force, is to protect my right to life, liberty and property? If that’s the case, and the police do nothing while I am shot and killed ….. then what?

Comment by Eric — April 27, 2007 @ 9:50 pm

When a monopoly provides a service poorly or refuses to provide it at all, the customer is screwed.

That is true whether one is talking about a monopoly on sugar sales, or a monopoly in security services.

I actually agree with TF that it is unrealistic to expect police services to provide protection. I just wish they would stop trying to establish a monopoly by violently suppressing competition.

Comment by tarran — April 27, 2007 @ 10:12 pm

According to the time frame offered, 8 minutes; three of which were for arrival and 4 minutes to gain access past the chained doors, leaving 1 whole minute to “stand around doing little or nothing”; maybe it would be unrealistic claming that 5 minutes was wasted. Maybe I read that wrong.

Eric, the reality of today’s world would suggest that it is unreasonable to expect anything at all from a police officer other than that he/she look pretty in their uniform. Citizen complaints, lawsuits and Internal Affairs have destroyed any hope of permitting officers to do what at one time was called police work.

There is no monopoly, an interesting choice of words, or suppressing competition in the field of security. Such a perception while accurate in some cities; New Orleans and San Francisco come to mind, such a perception hopefully is not accurate as a general rule across America.

Those rights which the public gives up willingly in the name of security or for having a safer world are lost, not because the rights were not of value; but because they were not given their proper value when purchasing the false promise of security or a safer world. It’s a little like the story of the dog looking into the water from atop the bridge and seeing the reflection of the steak that he had in his mouth. Upon dropping the real steak in exchange for the illusion, both were lost.

Comment by T F Stern — April 27, 2007 @ 11:11 pm

Mr Stearn,

I am extremely unsympathetic:

Citizen complaints, lawsuits and Internal Affairs have destroyed any hope of permitting officers to do what at one time was called police work.

That is pure, unadulterated BS. That statement is Basil Fawlty saying “This hotel would be perfect if it weren’t for the guests.” Those are your customers complaining about poor service, a poor service that is the inevitable result of socialist systems of law enforcement.

As to there not being a monopoly, have you ever arrested anyone for having a weapon - and nothing else? I believe you work in Houston - What would your reaction be if I set up a rival police force in Houston competing with yours? What would your reaction be if my police arrested a shop lifter and refused to turn him over to your jails?

Why do I need to get permission from these guys first before setting up a highly “circumscribed” security service in Houston?

Before you protest that a monopoly is a situation wherein one organization dominates some market, I should point out that the proper definit