Would it surprise you that one of the proposals for the Second Amendment was:
That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power.
Not that I am making this up Elbridge Gerry said during the ratification debates:
This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the maladministration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.
What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.
Usually, when people discuss this they neglect things like this from Joseph Story's Commentaries on the US Constitution:
. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people.
Patrick Henry's response to the Constitution Article I, Section 8 was "A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny." Which then led to this great quote which has been taken out of context ""The great object is that every man [of the militia] be armed.--But can the people to afford to pay for double sets of arms &c.? Every one who is able may have a gun. But have we not learned by experience, that necessary as it is to have arms, and though our assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case. When this power is given up to Congress without limitation or bounds, how will your militia be armed? You trust to chance....""
Now, I know it's a popular belief that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep a gun, but why has this stuff about Standing Armies and congress's power over the militia been left out of the debate?
Even more salient, why has all this individual's right nonsense come up in the last 50 years? I mean up until the 1980s, the Second Amendment was pretty much a dead issue as far as scholarship goes. Then, there came all this "new scholarship" in the 1990s.
Actually, the confusion probably began back in the 50s and 60s when the term "citizen soldiers" came to mean draftees.
Excuse me. Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, Book V, Ch. 1, contains an extended account of the Militia. It is there said: "Men of republican principles have been jealous of a standing army as dangerous to liberty." "In a militia, the character of the labourer, artificer, or tradesman, predominates over that of the soldier: in a standing army, that of the soldier predominates over every other character; and in this distinction seems to consist the essential difference between those two different species of military force."
That is the standing army v. the militia, the professional soldiers v. the amateurs. The militias are the citizen soldiers, as distinguished from those trained to arms as a profession, and who constitute elements of a standing army. Since both the States and Congress shared concurrent authorities over the militia, it was essential to protect the people who made up the militias from any pretense of Congress in disarming them for the establishment of a standing army.
Now, with Iraq, which is a perfect example of what the founders were afraid of in the debates, an out of control leader with a standing army running amuck, and Virginia Tech, which isn't what the founders had in mind, doesn't this seem particularly germane?
I mean who stands to gain from all this if the Second Amendment is not an individual right to bear anything, but a security of the people to keep and bear arms for purposes of maintaining public militias as a guard against a standing army?
I mean everybody comes off looking like dickheads if what all this means is that Iraq shouldn't have happened, because we should have been demanding a Swiss style military instead of screaming about how having more guns in the streets makes us "safe".
So, while we are scared shitless of the Columbines and Virginia Techs, the Military Industrial Complex is laughing their asses off and seeing the tyranny that the founders anticipated happening with the establishment of a professional, standing army!
Think about it!
26 April 2007
The Economist Newpaper again goes where most American Media will not.
The tragedy in Virginia Tech is such a shockingly gruesome crime that has had me feeling very disturbed for days.
But perhaps what has most surprised me about it is the incredibly idiotic “discussion” that has been heard in the media about it. In the first few hours after the incident, I came across “analysis” blaming this incident on Islamic terrorism, Pakistani culture, Korean military ruthlessness, Korean “male anger”, “militant Christianity”, “capitalism’s excesses”, bullying in school and countless other phenomena too stupid to even mention. None of these explanations deserve to expound on and refute.
But, as expected, the Economist offers one of a very few voices of reason on American issues.
While everyone is discussing every single aspect of issues that have nothing to do with this crime, the most important point is missed: Every society has deranged people like this criminal; only in America can he walk into a gun store with a history of stalking, instability and violence, and purchase semi-automatic weapons with the same ease with which he purchased the tapes he used to film himself; the same tapes that got thousands of hours of play in the media, while no one even discussed where he might have gotten his guns from.
How convenient it is for the NRA that everyone is talking about other issues and avoiding the issue of guns. And the few voices that have mentioned this issue (on Fox News) have criticized the university for not allowing teachers to carry guns in class. Indeed, what an intelligent idea: a fully-militarized society is the answer to gun-crime.
As pro-Palestine activists in America know all too well, when there are powerful special interest groups, open debate becomes an impossibility. On this issue as well, let’s try and not fall into this trap.
After the Virginia Tech massacre America’s tragedy: Its politicians are still running away from a debate about guns
Apr 19th 2007
From The Economist Newspaper print edition
In the aftermath of the massacre at Virginia Tech university on April 16th, as the nation mourned a fresh springtime crop of young lives cut short by a psychopath’s bullets, President George Bush and those vying for his job offered their prayers and condolences. They spoke eloquently of their shock and sadness and horror at the tragedy (see article). The Democratic speaker of the House of Representatives called for a “moment of silence”. Only two candidates said anything about guns, and that was to support the right to have them.
Cho Seung-hui does not stand for America’s students, any more than Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris did when they slaughtered 13 of their fellow high-school students at Columbine in 1999. Such disturbed people exist in every society. The difference, as everyone knows but no one in authority was saying this week, is that in America such individuals have easy access to weapons of terrible destructive power. Cho killed his victims with two guns, one of them a Glock 9mm semi-automatic pistol, a rapid-fire weapon that is available only to police in virtually every other country, but which can legally be bought over the counter in thousands of gun-shops in America. There are estimated to be some 240m guns in America, considerably more than there are adults, and around a third of them are handguns, easy to conceal and use. Had powerful guns not been available to him, the deranged Cho would have killed fewer people, and perhaps none at all.
But the tragedies of Virginia Tech—and Columbine, and Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania, where five girls were shot at an Amish school last year—are not the full measure of the curse of guns. More bleakly terrible is America’s annual harvest of gun deaths that are not mass murders: some 14,000 routine killings committed in 2005 with guns, to which must be added 16,000 suicides by firearm and 650 fatal accidents (2004 figures). Many of these, especially the suicides, would have happened anyway: but guns make them much easier. Since the killing of John Kennedy in 1963, more Americans have died by American gunfire than perished on foreign battlefields in the whole of the 20th century. In 2005 more than 400 children were murdered with guns.
The trigger and the damage done
The news is not uniformly bad: gun crime fell steadily throughout the 1990s and early 2000s. But it is still at dreadful levels, and it rose sharply again in 2005. Police report that in many cities it rose even faster in 2006. William Bratton, the police chief of Los Angeles (and formerly of New York), speaks of a “gathering storm of crime”. Politicians on both sides, he says, have been “captured” by the vocal National Rifle Association (NRA). The silence over Virginia Tech shows he has a point.
The Democrats have been the most disappointing, because until recently they had been the party of gun control. In 1994 President Bill Clinton approved a bill banning assault weapons (covering semi-automatic rifles plus high-capacity magazines for handguns) and the year before that a bill imposing a requirement for background checks. But Democrats believe they paid a high price for their courage: losing the House of Representatives in 1994 shortly after the assault-weapons ban, and then losing the presidency in 2000. Had Al Gore held Arkansas or West Virginia or his own Tennessee, all strongly pro-gun, he would have won the election. These days, with hopes for a victory in 2008 dependent on the South and the mountain West, it is a brave Democrat who will talk about gun control. Some of them dismiss the very idea as “insensitive”.
Mr Bush however, has done active damage. On his watch the assault-weapons ban was allowed to lapse in 2004. New laws make it much harder to trace illegal weapons and require the destruction after 24 hours of information gathered during checks of would-be gun-buyers. The administration has also reopened debate on the second amendment, which enshrines the right to bear arms. Last month an appeals court in Washington, DC, overturned the capital’s prohibition on handguns, declaring that it violates the second amendment. The case will probably go to the newly conservative Supreme Court, which might end most state and local efforts at gun control.
Freedom yes, but which one?
No phrase is bandied around more in the gun debate than “freedom of the individual”. When it comes to most dangerous products—be they drugs, cigarettes or fast cars—this newspaper advocates a more liberal approach than the American government does. But when it comes to handguns, automatic weapons and other things specifically designed to kill people, we believe control is necessary, not least because the failure to deal with such violent devices often means that other freedoms must be curtailed. Instead of a debate about guns, America is now having a debate about campus security.
Americans are in fact queasier about guns than the national debate might suggest. Only a third of households now have guns, down from 54% in 1977. In poll after poll a clear majority has supported tightening controls. Very few Americans support a complete ban, even of handguns—there are too many out there already, and many people reasonably feel that they need to be able to protect themselves. But much could still be done without really infringing that right.
The assault-weapons ban should be renewed, with its egregious loopholes removed. No civilian needs an AK-47 for a legitimate purpose, but you can buy one online for $379.99. Guns could be made much safer, with the mandatory fitting of child-proof locks. A system of registration for guns and gun-owners, as exists in all other rich countries, threatens no one but the criminal. Cooling-off periods, a much more open flow of intelligence, tighter rules on the trading of guns and a wider blacklist of those ineligible to buy them would all help.
Many of these things are being done by cities or states, and have worked fairly well. But jurisdictions with tough rules are undermined by neighbours with weak ones. Only an effort at the federal level will work. Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, has put together a coalition of no fewer than 180 mayors to fight for just that. Good luck to him.
But perhaps what has most surprised me about it is the incredibly idiotic “discussion” that has been heard in the media about it. In the first few hours after the incident, I came across “analysis” blaming this incident on Islamic terrorism, Pakistani culture, Korean military ruthlessness, Korean “male anger”, “militant Christianity”, “capitalism’s excesses”, bullying in school and countless other phenomena too stupid to even mention. None of these explanations deserve to expound on and refute.
But, as expected, the Economist offers one of a very few voices of reason on American issues.
While everyone is discussing every single aspect of issues that have nothing to do with this crime, the most important point is missed: Every society has deranged people like this criminal; only in America can he walk into a gun store with a history of stalking, instability and violence, and purchase semi-automatic weapons with the same ease with which he purchased the tapes he used to film himself; the same tapes that got thousands of hours of play in the media, while no one even discussed where he might have gotten his guns from.
How convenient it is for the NRA that everyone is talking about other issues and avoiding the issue of guns. And the few voices that have mentioned this issue (on Fox News) have criticized the university for not allowing teachers to carry guns in class. Indeed, what an intelligent idea: a fully-militarized society is the answer to gun-crime.
As pro-Palestine activists in America know all too well, when there are powerful special interest groups, open debate becomes an impossibility. On this issue as well, let’s try and not fall into this trap.
After the Virginia Tech massacre America’s tragedy: Its politicians are still running away from a debate about guns
Apr 19th 2007
From The Economist Newspaper print edition
In the aftermath of the massacre at Virginia Tech university on April 16th, as the nation mourned a fresh springtime crop of young lives cut short by a psychopath’s bullets, President George Bush and those vying for his job offered their prayers and condolences. They spoke eloquently of their shock and sadness and horror at the tragedy (see article). The Democratic speaker of the House of Representatives called for a “moment of silence”. Only two candidates said anything about guns, and that was to support the right to have them.
Cho Seung-hui does not stand for America’s students, any more than Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris did when they slaughtered 13 of their fellow high-school students at Columbine in 1999. Such disturbed people exist in every society. The difference, as everyone knows but no one in authority was saying this week, is that in America such individuals have easy access to weapons of terrible destructive power. Cho killed his victims with two guns, one of them a Glock 9mm semi-automatic pistol, a rapid-fire weapon that is available only to police in virtually every other country, but which can legally be bought over the counter in thousands of gun-shops in America. There are estimated to be some 240m guns in America, considerably more than there are adults, and around a third of them are handguns, easy to conceal and use. Had powerful guns not been available to him, the deranged Cho would have killed fewer people, and perhaps none at all.
But the tragedies of Virginia Tech—and Columbine, and Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania, where five girls were shot at an Amish school last year—are not the full measure of the curse of guns. More bleakly terrible is America’s annual harvest of gun deaths that are not mass murders: some 14,000 routine killings committed in 2005 with guns, to which must be added 16,000 suicides by firearm and 650 fatal accidents (2004 figures). Many of these, especially the suicides, would have happened anyway: but guns make them much easier. Since the killing of John Kennedy in 1963, more Americans have died by American gunfire than perished on foreign battlefields in the whole of the 20th century. In 2005 more than 400 children were murdered with guns.
The trigger and the damage done
The news is not uniformly bad: gun crime fell steadily throughout the 1990s and early 2000s. But it is still at dreadful levels, and it rose sharply again in 2005. Police report that in many cities it rose even faster in 2006. William Bratton, the police chief of Los Angeles (and formerly of New York), speaks of a “gathering storm of crime”. Politicians on both sides, he says, have been “captured” by the vocal National Rifle Association (NRA). The silence over Virginia Tech shows he has a point.
The Democrats have been the most disappointing, because until recently they had been the party of gun control. In 1994 President Bill Clinton approved a bill banning assault weapons (covering semi-automatic rifles plus high-capacity magazines for handguns) and the year before that a bill imposing a requirement for background checks. But Democrats believe they paid a high price for their courage: losing the House of Representatives in 1994 shortly after the assault-weapons ban, and then losing the presidency in 2000. Had Al Gore held Arkansas or West Virginia or his own Tennessee, all strongly pro-gun, he would have won the election. These days, with hopes for a victory in 2008 dependent on the South and the mountain West, it is a brave Democrat who will talk about gun control. Some of them dismiss the very idea as “insensitive”.
Mr Bush however, has done active damage. On his watch the assault-weapons ban was allowed to lapse in 2004. New laws make it much harder to trace illegal weapons and require the destruction after 24 hours of information gathered during checks of would-be gun-buyers. The administration has also reopened debate on the second amendment, which enshrines the right to bear arms. Last month an appeals court in Washington, DC, overturned the capital’s prohibition on handguns, declaring that it violates the second amendment. The case will probably go to the newly conservative Supreme Court, which might end most state and local efforts at gun control.
Freedom yes, but which one?
No phrase is bandied around more in the gun debate than “freedom of the individual”. When it comes to most dangerous products—be they drugs, cigarettes or fast cars—this newspaper advocates a more liberal approach than the American government does. But when it comes to handguns, automatic weapons and other things specifically designed to kill people, we believe control is necessary, not least because the failure to deal with such violent devices often means that other freedoms must be curtailed. Instead of a debate about guns, America is now having a debate about campus security.
Americans are in fact queasier about guns than the national debate might suggest. Only a third of households now have guns, down from 54% in 1977. In poll after poll a clear majority has supported tightening controls. Very few Americans support a complete ban, even of handguns—there are too many out there already, and many people reasonably feel that they need to be able to protect themselves. But much could still be done without really infringing that right.
The assault-weapons ban should be renewed, with its egregious loopholes removed. No civilian needs an AK-47 for a legitimate purpose, but you can buy one online for $379.99. Guns could be made much safer, with the mandatory fitting of child-proof locks. A system of registration for guns and gun-owners, as exists in all other rich countries, threatens no one but the criminal. Cooling-off periods, a much more open flow of intelligence, tighter rules on the trading of guns and a wider blacklist of those ineligible to buy them would all help.
Many of these things are being done by cities or states, and have worked fairly well. But jurisdictions with tough rules are undermined by neighbours with weak ones. Only an effort at the federal level will work. Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, has put together a coalition of no fewer than 180 mayors to fight for just that. Good luck to him.
What don't you understand about "Shall not be infringed"?
O.K., let's suppose ad arguendo the Second Amendment has nothing to do with the Militia.
The wording is indeed "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
That is "the People" as in "We the People", which meant that the constitution was written by the entire population of the United States who came to Philadelphia to be part of this momentous occasion, instead of a small, elite band.
People being an individual as in "he be my people".
Funny, I always thought people was plural. It's hard to imagine it referring to an individual.
Anyway, people is an individual. I know that's not really grammatical or makes sense, but we have to believe that "People" refers to an individual.
It's all part of the argument.
It is the right of this people, as an individual "to keep and bear arms". Keep means exactly that, you can possess them. Bear also means that, you can have them out an open.
Arms. Those are military weapons and "this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government" according to St.George Tucker.
According to the Supreme Court in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."..."With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."
Now, given that language it's safe to assume that "Arms" means some form of military weapon, and not hunting or target firearms.
This means any weapon which is in use by the military! That means I can own a thermonuclear device, howitzer, rocket launcher, etcetera.
"Infringe" means to violate or invalidate.
"Shall not" is imperitive.
That means any individual can own a thermonuclear device. the government can't regulate that.
This means criminals cannot be barred from owning firearms, unless they lose their rights as citizens (Dred Scott and Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990)).
As the saying goes "What don't you understand about "Shall not be infringed"?"
Now, isn't that plain off silly? I would like to think most people who support their "Second Amendment Rights" would agree that SOME form of regulation is possible, which means they don't really understand "Shall not be infringed".
"Shall not be infringed" means precisely that, that this right cannot be abrogated.
Does that make any sense to you?
This is made even sillier when one considers that individuals are supposed to be able to have arms so that they can wage war on the government if they feel oppressed.
Never mind the Consitution Article III, Section 3 states: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
Oh, yes, it's the "patriots" who make this argument.
The wording is indeed "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
That is "the People" as in "We the People", which meant that the constitution was written by the entire population of the United States who came to Philadelphia to be part of this momentous occasion, instead of a small, elite band.
People being an individual as in "he be my people".
Funny, I always thought people was plural. It's hard to imagine it referring to an individual.
Anyway, people is an individual. I know that's not really grammatical or makes sense, but we have to believe that "People" refers to an individual.
It's all part of the argument.
It is the right of this people, as an individual "to keep and bear arms". Keep means exactly that, you can possess them. Bear also means that, you can have them out an open.
Arms. Those are military weapons and "this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government" according to St.George Tucker.
According to the Supreme Court in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."..."With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."
Now, given that language it's safe to assume that "Arms" means some form of military weapon, and not hunting or target firearms.
This means any weapon which is in use by the military! That means I can own a thermonuclear device, howitzer, rocket launcher, etcetera.
"Infringe" means to violate or invalidate.
"Shall not" is imperitive.
That means any individual can own a thermonuclear device. the government can't regulate that.
This means criminals cannot be barred from owning firearms, unless they lose their rights as citizens (Dred Scott and Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990)).
As the saying goes "What don't you understand about "Shall not be infringed"?"
Now, isn't that plain off silly? I would like to think most people who support their "Second Amendment Rights" would agree that SOME form of regulation is possible, which means they don't really understand "Shall not be infringed".
"Shall not be infringed" means precisely that, that this right cannot be abrogated.
Does that make any sense to you?
This is made even sillier when one considers that individuals are supposed to be able to have arms so that they can wage war on the government if they feel oppressed.
Never mind the Consitution Article III, Section 3 states: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
Oh, yes, it's the "patriots" who make this argument.
20 April 2007
More Second Amendment
I found this in my research. It is particularly appropriate.
So, since I am feeling lazy today.
THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND GUN CONTROL: A SKEPTICAL VIEW
by Steve Gustafson
Please distribute this text freely
Just like science, the law also knows its paradoxers and eccentrics. What a good society is, or what the law ought to be, are questions aboutwhich reasonable people can always differ, as no ultimate evidence canbe brought to bear on either of them. What the law now -is-, though, isa question that can be decided by reference to authoritative sources open to all who wish to consult them.
As such, it is possible to say that the law knows cranks andcrackpots, people who insist on exploded theories long after they havebeen decisively falsified. A person who claimed that individual stateshad the right to secede from the United States, or nullify legitimatelypassed Federal legislation, would certainly deserve the label of"crank." Whatever sophisms he could put forth in favour of thosepositions have been decisively rejected by both law and history; thoughthey may once have been viable positions, they are no longer.
Other legal cranks claim that various aspects of United Statescurrency, dollars unredeemable for gold, or the Federal Reserve Banks,or other financial institutions, are unconstitutional. Despite the factthat proponents of this nonsense are inveterate litigators and some havefiled literally dozens of lawsuits to establish these claims, they havebeen universally rejected by the courts. [See, e.g., HANSON v. GOODWIN(1977) 432 F. Supp 853; PETH v. BREITZMANN (1985) 611 F. Supp 50]
Some of the people who make these claims have tawdry and venal goals,trying to escape paying their taxes or mortgages, or other obvious sortsof self-interest. On the other hand, these claims are oftenorchestrated by dangerous and evil anti-Semitic cults, aligned withneo-Nazism, holocaust revisionism, and the more homicidal forms ofquackery. These groups proselytize for these false beliefs, hoping byan appeal to self-interest to suck in people for their neo-Nazimovements. When these claims meet universal rejection, this is held tobe evidence of the Jewish "conspiracy" at work.
I. CURRENT LAW FINDS NO INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO FIREARMS IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT, MUCH LESS THE RIGHT TO A STATE OF ARMED ANARCHY THAT IS SOMETIMES CLAIMED.
Then there are those who claim that the 2nd Amendment to the U. S.Constitution gives them a right to own handguns or other firearms, andprevents regulation of gun ownership, licencing, waiting periods, andother proposals for gun control. Like the gold standard advocates,their claims make an intuitive appeal to the way things allegedly werein the distant past. The minutemen and Indian fighters of old needed tohave guns at their side to repel attacks, right? And it was just suchmen who whupped the redcoats, right? So no matter how times havechanged, the Founding Fathers enshrined in the Constitution a right toguns equal to that needed in those days.
Whatever the merits of arguments for or against gun control, claimsof a Second Amendment individual right to own a handgun or any otherparticular firearm are simply false. Those claims have typically metwith universal rejection by courts that have considered them. In short,those who claim under the Second Amendment a Federal constitutionalright to own firearms are as much cranks as the people who claim aconstitutional right to a gold standard.
The Courts have generally held that the 2nd Amendment's purpose wasto guarantee the integrity of militias organized by the states, not toconfer an individual right to firearms. Moreover, any rights created bythe 2nd Amendment have not been applied to the States through theFourteenth Amendment, the true source of the enforceability of portionsof the Bill of Rights against the States.
The Second Amendment to the U. S. Constitution was ratified by theStates on Dec. 15, 1791. It provides that "A well regulated Militia,being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the peopleto keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The militia was or is a group of citizens volunteering or legallycompelled to turn out for active military service upon order of theseveral States. For purposes of federal law, it is defined as all malesbetween the ages of 17 and 45 who are or intend to become citizens. [10U.S.C. 31]
The Congress shall have Power. . .
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the
Militia according to the Discipline provided by Congress. . .
[U. S. Const. art. 1, sec. 8, cl. 15-16] The President is Commander inChief of all the state militias when they are called into service of theUnited States. [U. S. Const. art. 2 sec. 2, cl. 1) When the Presidentis not exercising this authority, it is usually held by the governors ofthe several states or territories. (Cf., Northwest Ordinance of 1787,ss. 6; Indiana Const. art. 5, sec. 12)
From the foregoing, it is apparent that the Federal Government hasbroad authority to prescribe rules and regulations for any militia,active or inactive. Believers in a 2nd Amendment individual right tofirearms point only to the Amendment, and claim that everyone isautomatically deemed to be in the militia. At minimum, these argumentsare unavailable to women, or to senior citizens.
More importantly, they duplicitously ignore Congressional authorityover any alleged militia conferred by article 3. Reading this inconnection with the 2nd Amendment, it should be clear that membership inthe militia confers no individual rights. Quite the opposite, it-subjects- you to Congressional authority over what sort of arms, ifany, you are entitled to bear. You are subject to whatever disciplineCongress chooses to provide for the militia. You have no right to aweapon that Congress doesn't want you to have.
As such, any legislation made by Congress that restricts oreliminates the availability of a given weapon is authorized, evenagainst those who claim the status of militiamen, given the power ofCongress to discipline the militia. Indeed, Congress could under thisgrant of authority decide to completely disarm the militia, or providethat the only weapons they were allowed are slings or spears. You getno Constitutional rights from a claim of militia status; you becomesubject to such military discipline as Congress and the States choose toenforce against you.
Indeed, in light of these broad grants of military authority that youare potentially subject to, it strikes me as rather reassuring to knowthat any 2nd Amendment "rights" do not constrain the States through the14th amendment.
It is now well settled that some, but not all, of the provisions ofthe Bill of Rights also curb the authority of the States by means of the14th Amendment's due process clause. Not all of them are: the 5thAmendment requirement of an indictment by grand jury for crimes does notapply to the States, for example.
And, any right to bear arms created by the 2nd Amendment does notapply to the States, either. See, e.g., KELLOGG v. CITY OF GARY (1990)Ind., 562 N.E.2d 685, 692. As such, the states remain free to restrictor ban any firearms in the exercise of their general powers to legislatefor the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens. The SecondAmendment poses no obstacles to such legislation. See, e.g., NEWHAMPSHIRE v SANNE (1976) 364 A.2d 630.
Moreover, for more than a hundred years the United States SupremeCourt has held that the Second Amendment does not grant any individualrights; but rather, it is "a limitation only upon the power of Congressand the National Government. . ." PRESSER v. ILLINOIS (1886) 116 U.S.252, 265. There is no Federally guaranteed right to bear arms for anylawful purpose that is granted by the U. S. Constitution. UNITED STATESv. CRUIKSHANK (1876) 92 U.S. 542.
Likewise, in UNITED STATES v. MILLER (1939) 307 U.S. 174, the UnitedStates Supreme Court held that concerns over safety and concealmentallowed Congress to require registration of sawed-off shotgunstransported across state lines, despite claims that the Federal law inquestion was an attempt to usurp the States' police power, or that the2nd Amendment gave individuals a right to such a weapon.
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of [a sawed-off shotgun]. . . at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
MILLER, 307 U.S. at 178. It is true that the United States Supreme Court has not oftenconsidered the scope of any claims of Second Amendment rights. Some haveattempted to use this silence as implying that some right might exist.In fact, the Supreme Court has broad discretion to decide what cases areworth its time to hear. It is likelier to take up an issue when it seeswidely different standards being applied by lower courts.
On the Second Amendment, though, the Supreme Court is confronted withno such differences of legal opinion. Instead, a survey of currentdecisions shows instead that there is an Amen chorus of agreement thatthe Federal constitution poses no obstacles to gun control.
The courts instead say that the 2nd Amendment guarantees a collectiveright of political organizations to form militias, not an individualright to a firearm. UNITED STATES v. WARIN (1976 6th Cir.) 530 F.2d103; UNITED STATES v. JOHNSON (1974 4th Cir.), 497 F.2d 548. Itprotects state militias, not personal firearms. UNITED STATES v. NELSEN(1988 8th Cir.) 859 F.2d 1318; CASES v. UNITED STATES (1942 1st Cir.)131 F.2d 916, cert. den. Its only purpose is to prevent Congress frominterfering with State militias, and has no bearing on regulation offirearms for public safety or the general welfare. UNITED STATES v.HALE (1992 8th Cir.) 978 F.2d 1016.
The Second Amendment poses no obstacle to state or local laws thatsubstantially burden or completely ban handguns for safety and welfarereasons. QUILICI v. VILLAGE OF MORTON GROVE (1982 7th Cir.) 695 F.2d261, cert. den.; SKLAR v. BYRNE (1984 7th Cir.) 727 F.2d 633. Technicalmembership in an inactive state militia does not confer a right to ownan unregistered submachine gun. UNITED STATES v. OAKES (10th Cir.) 564F.2d 384. To claim a right under the Second Amendment, you must be inactive duty in a militia organized by a state, rather than a merelyprivate organization or a person theoretically subject to militiaservice. VIETNAMESE FISHERMAN'S ASSOCIATION v. KNIGHTS OF THE KU KLUXKLAN (1982 S. D. Tex.) 543 F.Supp 198.
Read 'em and weep, NRA members. You cannot even glimpse at thismaterial without forming the conclusion that anybody who has told youthat you have a Second Amendment right, enforceable in court, topurchase and keep a firearm free from gun control legislation --- hasbeen telling you a lie. I'm not talking about the rhetoric fromAmerican Revolution veterans. I'm talking about what the courts say anddo in the here and now. It just ain't so.
To sum up:
The Second Amendment offers no protection against Congressionalregulation or banning of weapons that still allow state militias inactive duty to be armed. Indeed, Congress has the right to prescribewhat weapons, if any, such militias will be authorized to bear.
The Second Amendment offers no protection against the regulation orbanning of weapons by the States. The Second Amendment does notrestrict the police powers of the States in any way, because it does notapply to the States. The States may decide that some or all firearmsare threats to health and public safety, and restrict or ban them forthose reasons, notwithstanding the Second Amendment.
Former Chief Justice Warren Burger, hardly a bleeding heart liberal,has called the belief that the Second Amendment guarantees an individualright to firearms one of the biggest frauds perpetrated on the Americanpublic by a special interest group. Whatever your opinion on thedesirability of guns or an armed citizenry, given the current status oflegal precedents, his assessment of the situation is correct.
II. THE FEDERALIST PAPERS OUGHT NOT TO BE CITED SO AS TO GIVE AID AND COMFORT TO THE PROPONENTS OF ARMED ANARCHY.
In the course of the endless debate on whether the 2nd Amendmentcreates a Federal constitutional right to own handguns or otherfirearms, some have claimed that the Federalist Papers contain supportfor these claims. In those documents, it is said, the Founding Fathersexpressed their support for an individual right to own firearms. What Iknow of history made me skeptical of those claims, so I looked into it.
These arguments only work on people who are unfamiliar with both theFederalist Papers and the history surrounding them. The claimsgenerally fall into two categories:
First, that the Federalist Papers ought to be interpreted as an expression of the intent of the Framers to create an individual right to gun ownership by the 2nd Amendment; or
Second, that the Papers contain expressions of confidence by the Framers that guns in the hands of private individuals are a bulwark against government tyranny.
The first claim is easily refuted. The Federalist Papers are a poorsource for any information about the intentions of the authors of theBill of Rights. They are suspect on these grounds because the authorswere not advocating the passage of the Bill of Rights; it was not partof the proposal they were defending. Indeed, they argued at length inthe Federalist Papers that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary. In -TheFederalist No. 84-, Hamilton says:
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous.
Are these authors then reliable guides for the interpretation of anypart of the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd amendment? It would seemnot so.
The second claim is that the Federalist Papers contain expressionsby the Constitution's original authors, that guns in the hands ofprivate individuals are an important bulwark against tyranny. If youequate "militia" with "anybody" like the NRA would have us do, there aresome passages that could be read as supporting this theory. On theother hand, to read the Federalist Papers is to realize how wrong theNRA is about the nature of a militia.
What people were in fact debating in the days of the FederalistPapers was: are standing armies desirable? Will a standing army beturned into an instrument of tyranny against the people? Will astanding army be turned by the Federal Government proposed by theConstitution to purposes of foreign military adventurism?
Madison, replying to these criticisms, wrote words that might beread as supporting the NRA position:
The only refuge left for those who prophecy the downfall of the State Governments, is the visionary supposition that the Foederal Government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. . .
[After estimating the number of professional soldiers he thought the country could support at the time at 30,000 maximum, Madison continued---]
To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.
(The Federalist, no. 46)
It should first be noticed that the militia imagined by Madison bearslittle resemblance to the ghostly force imagined by the NRA. Themilitia here has officers. It is commanded by state governments. It isnot a mere assembly of self-proclaimed irregulars.
It should also be noted that, whatever confidence Madison had inmilitias, these words give no succour to those who would claim that heintended an -individual- right to own any firearm she pleased. Instead,the liberties defended by the militias here don't belong to anyindividuals, but to the several States.
If we are delving into history as far back as the Federalist Papersto interpret the Constitution, it makes little sense to ignore one majorevent that calls Madison's line of argument above into question: theCivil War. After the Civil War, it seems idle to suggest that statemilitias have a scheme in the Constitutional system to check the Federalgovernment by making war against it. Whatever the 2nd Amendment mightgive to the States, later precedent seems to have taken it away.
Finally, it should be conceded that the critics to whom Madison wasreplying were themselves closer to being right than he is. For betteror for worse, we now have a standing professional army. TheConstitution's stricture that a standing army can only be funded for twoyears at a time has been an inadequate check to the growth of theprofessional military establishment. The standing army's advantages inarmament are great enough that it seems hard to imagine that any militiafielded by an aggrieved state government could overcome it, despiteMadison's confidence.
Madison's critics were also right, in that the Federal government'sstanding army has indeed become an instrument of both harshauthoritarian rule, and foreign military adventurism, as they feared.Gun control is not as great a threat to our freedoms, as compared withthe threat of being hauled into boot camp against your will into themilitary service of the Federal government. If Madison and Hamilton ortheir critics had foreseen that, the Constitution never would havepassed.
The Federal government's power to dragoon people into its armies haswithin recent memories been used to support military adventures abroad.The national security establishment has been a major source ofrestrictions on Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, and thepersecution of people for their political opinions. These things werethe very dangers the Anti-Federalists warned us of.
Among those who noisily insist on their alleged right to guns, itseems to me that "national security," military patriotism, and the Flagoften achieve the rank of sacred totems. These beliefs suggest thatMadison's arguments and concerns are an imperfect fit to contemporarypolitical debates. Love of guns for many is not inconsistent withunquestioning support of an authoritarian, centralized military.
Indeed, given what Madison was in fact saying, it would bemealy-mouthed hypocrisy for somebody to cite the Federalist Papers insupport of a right to own guns, and to turn around and label our President Clinton a "draft-dodger," as if that's honourable.
In conclusion:
The Federalist Papers shed no light on what the 2nd Amendment to the U. S. Constitution might mean.
The Federalist Papers do not claim that an armed citizenry in and of itself is an important restraint on tyranny.
The Federalist Papers do support the claim that organized State militias may be a check on the military adventurism or usurpations of the Federal government. After the Civil War, this claim is no longer tenable; given changes in the hardware required for war, it is probably utopian.
III. OTHER MISLEADING, OUT OF CONTEXT QUOTES FROM AMERICAN REVOLUTIONARIES ARE OFTEN CITED IN AN ATTEMPT TO JUSTIFY ARMED ANARCHY.
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the _real_ object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" --- Patrick Henry
This is typical of one of those out of context quotes that are oftenrepeated in gun lobby propaganda. Patrick Henry was not arguing for aright of anybody to own any weapon for any private purpose here.
Observe the pronoun without a reference in the first line. The editorwho would puff this as a pro-gun-anarchy quote chose not to leave in areference to who the "we" are that Patrick refers to here. In context,"we" are not people in general, but the Virginia House of Burgesses.
The issue under discussion was whether the Constitution proposed bythe Federalists should be ratified by Virginia. The specific issueunder discussion was the broadened military powers granted the Federalgovernment by the Constitution. The Constitution allowed the Federalgovernment to raise armies. The Articles of Confederation made raisingarmies a responsibility of the States, who typically had more or lesstrained militias; the Federal government had limited powers to mobilizethem.
Henry was specifically against the section of the Constitution thatgave Congress the power to organize, arm, and discipline state militias.(Article 1, section 8, clause 16) This is what he was talking aboutwhen he mentioned "having our arms under the management of Congress."Not gun control or licensing as a safety or anti-crime measure.
Indeed, if you imagine that you have gun rights as a member of anorganized or irregular "militia," the Constitution gives Congress powerto decide what arms you can bear and the terms of your discipline.Licensing for safety would be one reasonable way for Congress toexercise its explicitly granted power.
For what it's worth, Patrick Henry was on the losing side of thisargument. As an anti-Federalist, he opposed the Constitution and thestronger government it was intended to create. Virginia did end upratifying the Federal constitution on June 26, 1788, although the votein Virginia was close. Even if you read it in support of private gunsrather than state armies, Henry's statements carry little weight todetermine the mind of the authors of the Constitution itself.
You can believe what you wish about the worthwhileness of guns or theundesirability of any or all measures for gun control. But I find itvexing to constantly see out-of-context quotes, distorted history, andmisstatements of the law being dragged into this endless argument.
"THE Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of con- science; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms". (Samuel Adams, Debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87.)
Another quote from an anti-Federalist; in Adams's case he originallyopposed ratification of the Constitution as well. His statements hereare certainly not conclusive; and, again, he was talking about thekeeping of arms for military purposes, not private ones.
I will admit that the Founding Fathers hoped or imagined that astanding army would not be necessary. They believed that it would bepolitically dangerous, and a temptation to foreign interventionism.They imagined that America would be adequately defended by a "militia"constructed on lines similar to the Swiss system. While they thoughtthat everybody would have a rifle to bring and participate in thissystem, they also thought that everyone would be required to drill andacquire at least some minimal military competence.
Over time, it didn't work out that way. Universal militia service collapsed around the 1820's; people just weren't obeying the laws thatrequired them to appear and drill, &c. The next step was to organizelocal regiments of volunteers that formed the core of what was to becomethe National Guard. This was the main body of American arms up untilthe Spanish-American War; although in heavy fighting such as the Civil War this model proved inadequate as well. Still, up until World War IIwe kept the faith of the Founding Fathers that Federal armies should be kept small in times of peace, and in strict subordination to the civil power.
Since World War II, we have had a large standing army in permanent establishment; and as such most of the dangers warned against by theFounding Fathers have come to pass. One quote from Samuel Adams thatfor some reason gets passed over by the NRA or the American Legion comesto mind ---
Soldiers are used to obey the absolute commands of their superiors: It is death to them, in the field, to dispute their authority, or the rectitude of their orders; and sometimes they may be shot upon the spont without ceremony. The necessity of things makes it highly proper that they should be under the absolute control of the officer who commands them; who saith unto one come, and he cometh, and to another go, and he goeth. Thus, being inured to that sort of government in the field and in the time of war, they are too apt to retain the same idea, when they happen to be in civil communities and in a time of peace. [Boston Gazette, Dec. 12, 1768]
It is worthwhile to recall these words when confronted with thep oliticking of veterans' organizations, or their pretense to define by their authoritarian model the One True Patriotism.
We now see the military actively politicking, as view their attempts to claim the nation would be endangered were their budget cut or their numbers reduced; consider also their resistance to their Commander inChief's instructions to end institutional hostility to homosexuals.Veterans' organizations pretend to define the One True Patriotism according to their authoritarian model of following orders.
Instead of the volunteer militias to defend hearth and home imagined by the Founding Fathers, we were given the monstrous tyranny of Selective Service. Today's would-be tyrants claim that the One True Patriotism consisted of unquestioning obedience to its orders, and paint resistance to that loathsome bureaucracy as suspect! In fact, the Selective Service press gangs raised troops for exactly the sort of foreign adventures our founding fathers condemned.
At its most grandiose, it hoped to become an instrument of a national labour and industrial policy that sought to coerce us into a socialist military state. During the dark days of conscription, it was anexplicit national policy to use the threat of forced military service asa club to compel people to make career decisions that favoured thegovernment's idea of what was useful to it, rather than their own interests. Remember General Hershey's infamous "channelling" memo of 1965:
In the less patriotic and more selfish individual it engenders a sense of fear, uncertainty, and dissatisfaction which motivates him, nevertheless, in the same direction. He complains of the uncertainty he must endure; he would like to be able to do as he pleases; he would appreciate a certain future with no prospect of military service or civilian contribution, but he complies with the needs of the national health, safety, or interest --- or he is denied deferment. . .
From the individual's viewpoint, he is standing in a room which has been made uncomfortably warm. Several doors are open, but they all lead to various forms of recognized, patriotic service to the Nation. Some accept the alternatives gladly --- some with reluctance. The consequence is approximately the same.
[The Selective Service: Its Concepts, History, and Operation (Govt.Printing Office, Sept. 1967)] Remember those words the next time you hear the "anti-socialist" rhetoric of professional flagwavers. Remember these words the next time you hear President Clinton being condemned as a "draft-dodger." I submit that "draft-dodgers" were the people who were actually keeping the spirit of our Founding Fathers alive, rather than the latter-day Hessians or Prussians who think obedience to orders is praiseworthy.
In any case, when our Founding Fathers spoke of keeping and bearing arms, they meant for military purposes, under the control of governments and for purpose of national defence. To try and twist their remarks into support for private guns for private purposes is to take them seriously out of context.
So, since I am feeling lazy today.
THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND GUN CONTROL: A SKEPTICAL VIEW
by Steve Gustafson
Please distribute this text freely
Just like science, the law also knows its paradoxers and eccentrics. What a good society is, or what the law ought to be, are questions aboutwhich reasonable people can always differ, as no ultimate evidence canbe brought to bear on either of them. What the law now -is-, though, isa question that can be decided by reference to authoritative sources open to all who wish to consult them.
As such, it is possible to say that the law knows cranks andcrackpots, people who insist on exploded theories long after they havebeen decisively falsified. A person who claimed that individual stateshad the right to secede from the United States, or nullify legitimatelypassed Federal legislation, would certainly deserve the label of"crank." Whatever sophisms he could put forth in favour of thosepositions have been decisively rejected by both law and history; thoughthey may once have been viable positions, they are no longer.
Other legal cranks claim that various aspects of United Statescurrency, dollars unredeemable for gold, or the Federal Reserve Banks,or other financial institutions, are unconstitutional. Despite the factthat proponents of this nonsense are inveterate litigators and some havefiled literally dozens of lawsuits to establish these claims, they havebeen universally rejected by the courts. [See, e.g., HANSON v. GOODWIN(1977) 432 F. Supp 853; PETH v. BREITZMANN (1985) 611 F. Supp 50]
Some of the people who make these claims have tawdry and venal goals,trying to escape paying their taxes or mortgages, or other obvious sortsof self-interest. On the other hand, these claims are oftenorchestrated by dangerous and evil anti-Semitic cults, aligned withneo-Nazism, holocaust revisionism, and the more homicidal forms ofquackery. These groups proselytize for these false beliefs, hoping byan appeal to self-interest to suck in people for their neo-Nazimovements. When these claims meet universal rejection, this is held tobe evidence of the Jewish "conspiracy" at work.
I. CURRENT LAW FINDS NO INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO FIREARMS IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT, MUCH LESS THE RIGHT TO A STATE OF ARMED ANARCHY THAT IS SOMETIMES CLAIMED.
Then there are those who claim that the 2nd Amendment to the U. S.Constitution gives them a right to own handguns or other firearms, andprevents regulation of gun ownership, licencing, waiting periods, andother proposals for gun control. Like the gold standard advocates,their claims make an intuitive appeal to the way things allegedly werein the distant past. The minutemen and Indian fighters of old needed tohave guns at their side to repel attacks, right? And it was just suchmen who whupped the redcoats, right? So no matter how times havechanged, the Founding Fathers enshrined in the Constitution a right toguns equal to that needed in those days.
Whatever the merits of arguments for or against gun control, claimsof a Second Amendment individual right to own a handgun or any otherparticular firearm are simply false. Those claims have typically metwith universal rejection by courts that have considered them. In short,those who claim under the Second Amendment a Federal constitutionalright to own firearms are as much cranks as the people who claim aconstitutional right to a gold standard.
The Courts have generally held that the 2nd Amendment's purpose wasto guarantee the integrity of militias organized by the states, not toconfer an individual right to firearms. Moreover, any rights created bythe 2nd Amendment have not been applied to the States through theFourteenth Amendment, the true source of the enforceability of portionsof the Bill of Rights against the States.
The Second Amendment to the U. S. Constitution was ratified by theStates on Dec. 15, 1791. It provides that "A well regulated Militia,being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the peopleto keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The militia was or is a group of citizens volunteering or legallycompelled to turn out for active military service upon order of theseveral States. For purposes of federal law, it is defined as all malesbetween the ages of 17 and 45 who are or intend to become citizens. [10U.S.C. 31]
The Congress shall have Power. . .
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the
Militia according to the Discipline provided by Congress. . .
[U. S. Const. art. 1, sec. 8, cl. 15-16] The President is Commander inChief of all the state militias when they are called into service of theUnited States. [U. S. Const. art. 2 sec. 2, cl. 1) When the Presidentis not exercising this authority, it is usually held by the governors ofthe several states or territories. (Cf., Northwest Ordinance of 1787,ss. 6; Indiana Const. art. 5, sec. 12)
From the foregoing, it is apparent that the Federal Government hasbroad authority to prescribe rules and regulations for any militia,active or inactive. Believers in a 2nd Amendment individual right tofirearms point only to the Amendment, and claim that everyone isautomatically deemed to be in the militia. At minimum, these argumentsare unavailable to women, or to senior citizens.
More importantly, they duplicitously ignore Congressional authorityover any alleged militia conferred by article 3. Reading this inconnection with the 2nd Amendment, it should be clear that membership inthe militia confers no individual rights. Quite the opposite, it-subjects- you to Congressional authority over what sort of arms, ifany, you are entitled to bear. You are subject to whatever disciplineCongress chooses to provide for the militia. You have no right to aweapon that Congress doesn't want you to have.
As such, any legislation made by Congress that restricts oreliminates the availability of a given weapon is authorized, evenagainst those who claim the status of militiamen, given the power ofCongress to discipline the militia. Indeed, Congress could under thisgrant of authority decide to completely disarm the militia, or providethat the only weapons they were allowed are slings or spears. You getno Constitutional rights from a claim of militia status; you becomesubject to such military discipline as Congress and the States choose toenforce against you.
Indeed, in light of these broad grants of military authority that youare potentially subject to, it strikes me as rather reassuring to knowthat any 2nd Amendment "rights" do not constrain the States through the14th amendment.
It is now well settled that some, but not all, of the provisions ofthe Bill of Rights also curb the authority of the States by means of the14th Amendment's due process clause. Not all of them are: the 5thAmendment requirement of an indictment by grand jury for crimes does notapply to the States, for example.
And, any right to bear arms created by the 2nd Amendment does notapply to the States, either. See, e.g., KELLOGG v. CITY OF GARY (1990)Ind., 562 N.E.2d 685, 692. As such, the states remain free to restrictor ban any firearms in the exercise of their general powers to legislatefor the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens. The SecondAmendment poses no obstacles to such legislation. See, e.g., NEWHAMPSHIRE v SANNE (1976) 364 A.2d 630.
Moreover, for more than a hundred years the United States SupremeCourt has held that the Second Amendment does not grant any individualrights; but rather, it is "a limitation only upon the power of Congressand the National Government. . ." PRESSER v. ILLINOIS (1886) 116 U.S.252, 265. There is no Federally guaranteed right to bear arms for anylawful purpose that is granted by the U. S. Constitution. UNITED STATESv. CRUIKSHANK (1876) 92 U.S. 542.
Likewise, in UNITED STATES v. MILLER (1939) 307 U.S. 174, the UnitedStates Supreme Court held that concerns over safety and concealmentallowed Congress to require registration of sawed-off shotgunstransported across state lines, despite claims that the Federal law inquestion was an attempt to usurp the States' police power, or that the2nd Amendment gave individuals a right to such a weapon.
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of [a sawed-off shotgun]. . . at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
MILLER, 307 U.S. at 178. It is true that the United States Supreme Court has not oftenconsidered the scope of any claims of Second Amendment rights. Some haveattempted to use this silence as implying that some right might exist.In fact, the Supreme Court has broad discretion to decide what cases areworth its time to hear. It is likelier to take up an issue when it seeswidely different standards being applied by lower courts.
On the Second Amendment, though, the Supreme Court is confronted withno such differences of legal opinion. Instead, a survey of currentdecisions shows instead that there is an Amen chorus of agreement thatthe Federal constitution poses no obstacles to gun control.
The courts instead say that the 2nd Amendment guarantees a collectiveright of political organizations to form militias, not an individualright to a firearm. UNITED STATES v. WARIN (1976 6th Cir.) 530 F.2d103; UNITED STATES v. JOHNSON (1974 4th Cir.), 497 F.2d 548. Itprotects state militias, not personal firearms. UNITED STATES v. NELSEN(1988 8th Cir.) 859 F.2d 1318; CASES v. UNITED STATES (1942 1st Cir.)131 F.2d 916, cert. den. Its only purpose is to prevent Congress frominterfering with State militias, and has no bearing on regulation offirearms for public safety or the general welfare. UNITED STATES v.HALE (1992 8th Cir.) 978 F.2d 1016.
The Second Amendment poses no obstacle to state or local laws thatsubstantially burden or completely ban handguns for safety and welfarereasons. QUILICI v. VILLAGE OF MORTON GROVE (1982 7th Cir.) 695 F.2d261, cert. den.; SKLAR v. BYRNE (1984 7th Cir.) 727 F.2d 633. Technicalmembership in an inactive state militia does not confer a right to ownan unregistered submachine gun. UNITED STATES v. OAKES (10th Cir.) 564F.2d 384. To claim a right under the Second Amendment, you must be inactive duty in a militia organized by a state, rather than a merelyprivate organization or a person theoretically subject to militiaservice. VIETNAMESE FISHERMAN'S ASSOCIATION v. KNIGHTS OF THE KU KLUXKLAN (1982 S. D. Tex.) 543 F.Supp 198.
Read 'em and weep, NRA members. You cannot even glimpse at thismaterial without forming the conclusion that anybody who has told youthat you have a Second Amendment right, enforceable in court, topurchase and keep a firearm free from gun control legislation --- hasbeen telling you a lie. I'm not talking about the rhetoric fromAmerican Revolution veterans. I'm talking about what the courts say anddo in the here and now. It just ain't so.
To sum up:
The Second Amendment offers no protection against Congressionalregulation or banning of weapons that still allow state militias inactive duty to be armed. Indeed, Congress has the right to prescribewhat weapons, if any, such militias will be authorized to bear.
The Second Amendment offers no protection against the regulation orbanning of weapons by the States. The Second Amendment does notrestrict the police powers of the States in any way, because it does notapply to the States. The States may decide that some or all firearmsare threats to health and public safety, and restrict or ban them forthose reasons, notwithstanding the Second Amendment.
Former Chief Justice Warren Burger, hardly a bleeding heart liberal,has called the belief that the Second Amendment guarantees an individualright to firearms one of the biggest frauds perpetrated on the Americanpublic by a special interest group. Whatever your opinion on thedesirability of guns or an armed citizenry, given the current status oflegal precedents, his assessment of the situation is correct.
II. THE FEDERALIST PAPERS OUGHT NOT TO BE CITED SO AS TO GIVE AID AND COMFORT TO THE PROPONENTS OF ARMED ANARCHY.
In the course of the endless debate on whether the 2nd Amendmentcreates a Federal constitutional right to own handguns or otherfirearms, some have claimed that the Federalist Papers contain supportfor these claims. In those documents, it is said, the Founding Fathersexpressed their support for an individual right to own firearms. What Iknow of history made me skeptical of those claims, so I looked into it.
These arguments only work on people who are unfamiliar with both theFederalist Papers and the history surrounding them. The claimsgenerally fall into two categories:
First, that the Federalist Papers ought to be interpreted as an expression of the intent of the Framers to create an individual right to gun ownership by the 2nd Amendment; or
Second, that the Papers contain expressions of confidence by the Framers that guns in the hands of private individuals are a bulwark against government tyranny.
The first claim is easily refuted. The Federalist Papers are a poorsource for any information about the intentions of the authors of theBill of Rights. They are suspect on these grounds because the authorswere not advocating the passage of the Bill of Rights; it was not partof the proposal they were defending. Indeed, they argued at length inthe Federalist Papers that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary. In -TheFederalist No. 84-, Hamilton says:
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous.
Are these authors then reliable guides for the interpretation of anypart of the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd amendment? It would seemnot so.
The second claim is that the Federalist Papers contain expressionsby the Constitution's original authors, that guns in the hands ofprivate individuals are an important bulwark against tyranny. If youequate "militia" with "anybody" like the NRA would have us do, there aresome passages that could be read as supporting this theory. On theother hand, to read the Federalist Papers is to realize how wrong theNRA is about the nature of a militia.
What people were in fact debating in the days of the FederalistPapers was: are standing armies desirable? Will a standing army beturned into an instrument of tyranny against the people? Will astanding army be turned by the Federal Government proposed by theConstitution to purposes of foreign military adventurism?
Madison, replying to these criticisms, wrote words that might beread as supporting the NRA position:
The only refuge left for those who prophecy the downfall of the State Governments, is the visionary supposition that the Foederal Government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. . .
[After estimating the number of professional soldiers he thought the country could support at the time at 30,000 maximum, Madison continued---]
To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.
(The Federalist, no. 46)
It should first be noticed that the militia imagined by Madison bearslittle resemblance to the ghostly force imagined by the NRA. Themilitia here has officers. It is commanded by state governments. It isnot a mere assembly of self-proclaimed irregulars.
It should also be noted that, whatever confidence Madison had inmilitias, these words give no succour to those who would claim that heintended an -individual- right to own any firearm she pleased. Instead,the liberties defended by the militias here don't belong to anyindividuals, but to the several States.
If we are delving into history as far back as the Federalist Papersto interpret the Constitution, it makes little sense to ignore one majorevent that calls Madison's line of argument above into question: theCivil War. After the Civil War, it seems idle to suggest that statemilitias have a scheme in the Constitutional system to check the Federalgovernment by making war against it. Whatever the 2nd Amendment mightgive to the States, later precedent seems to have taken it away.
Finally, it should be conceded that the critics to whom Madison wasreplying were themselves closer to being right than he is. For betteror for worse, we now have a standing professional army. TheConstitution's stricture that a standing army can only be funded for twoyears at a time has been an inadequate check to the growth of theprofessional military establishment. The standing army's advantages inarmament are great enough that it seems hard to imagine that any militiafielded by an aggrieved state government could overcome it, despiteMadison's confidence.
Madison's critics were also right, in that the Federal government'sstanding army has indeed become an instrument of both harshauthoritarian rule, and foreign military adventurism, as they feared.Gun control is not as great a threat to our freedoms, as compared withthe threat of being hauled into boot camp against your will into themilitary service of the Federal government. If Madison and Hamilton ortheir critics had foreseen that, the Constitution never would havepassed.
The Federal government's power to dragoon people into its armies haswithin recent memories been used to support military adventures abroad.The national security establishment has been a major source ofrestrictions on Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, and thepersecution of people for their political opinions. These things werethe very dangers the Anti-Federalists warned us of.
Among those who noisily insist on their alleged right to guns, itseems to me that "national security," military patriotism, and the Flagoften achieve the rank of sacred totems. These beliefs suggest thatMadison's arguments and concerns are an imperfect fit to contemporarypolitical debates. Love of guns for many is not inconsistent withunquestioning support of an authoritarian, centralized military.
Indeed, given what Madison was in fact saying, it would bemealy-mouthed hypocrisy for somebody to cite the Federalist Papers insupport of a right to own guns, and to turn around and label our President Clinton a "draft-dodger," as if that's honourable.
In conclusion:
The Federalist Papers shed no light on what the 2nd Amendment to the U. S. Constitution might mean.
The Federalist Papers do not claim that an armed citizenry in and of itself is an important restraint on tyranny.
The Federalist Papers do support the claim that organized State militias may be a check on the military adventurism or usurpations of the Federal government. After the Civil War, this claim is no longer tenable; given changes in the hardware required for war, it is probably utopian.
III. OTHER MISLEADING, OUT OF CONTEXT QUOTES FROM AMERICAN REVOLUTIONARIES ARE OFTEN CITED IN AN ATTEMPT TO JUSTIFY ARMED ANARCHY.
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the _real_ object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" --- Patrick Henry
This is typical of one of those out of context quotes that are oftenrepeated in gun lobby propaganda. Patrick Henry was not arguing for aright of anybody to own any weapon for any private purpose here.
Observe the pronoun without a reference in the first line. The editorwho would puff this as a pro-gun-anarchy quote chose not to leave in areference to who the "we" are that Patrick refers to here. In context,"we" are not people in general, but the Virginia House of Burgesses.
The issue under discussion was whether the Constitution proposed bythe Federalists should be ratified by Virginia. The specific issueunder discussion was the broadened military powers granted the Federalgovernment by the Constitution. The Constitution allowed the Federalgovernment to raise armies. The Articles of Confederation made raisingarmies a responsibility of the States, who typically had more or lesstrained militias; the Federal government had limited powers to mobilizethem.
Henry was specifically against the section of the Constitution thatgave Congress the power to organize, arm, and discipline state militias.(Article 1, section 8, clause 16) This is what he was talking aboutwhen he mentioned "having our arms under the management of Congress."Not gun control or licensing as a safety or anti-crime measure.
Indeed, if you imagine that you have gun rights as a member of anorganized or irregular "militia," the Constitution gives Congress powerto decide what arms you can bear and the terms of your discipline.Licensing for safety would be one reasonable way for Congress toexercise its explicitly granted power.
For what it's worth, Patrick Henry was on the losing side of thisargument. As an anti-Federalist, he opposed the Constitution and thestronger government it was intended to create. Virginia did end upratifying the Federal constitution on June 26, 1788, although the votein Virginia was close. Even if you read it in support of private gunsrather than state armies, Henry's statements carry little weight todetermine the mind of the authors of the Constitution itself.
You can believe what you wish about the worthwhileness of guns or theundesirability of any or all measures for gun control. But I find itvexing to constantly see out-of-context quotes, distorted history, andmisstatements of the law being dragged into this endless argument.
"THE Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of con- science; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms". (Samuel Adams, Debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87.)
Another quote from an anti-Federalist; in Adams's case he originallyopposed ratification of the Constitution as well. His statements hereare certainly not conclusive; and, again, he was talking about thekeeping of arms for military purposes, not private ones.
I will admit that the Founding Fathers hoped or imagined that astanding army would not be necessary. They believed that it would bepolitically dangerous, and a temptation to foreign interventionism.They imagined that America would be adequately defended by a "militia"constructed on lines similar to the Swiss system. While they thoughtthat everybody would have a rifle to bring and participate in thissystem, they also thought that everyone would be required to drill andacquire at least some minimal military competence.
Over time, it didn't work out that way. Universal militia service collapsed around the 1820's; people just weren't obeying the laws thatrequired them to appear and drill, &c. The next step was to organizelocal regiments of volunteers that formed the core of what was to becomethe National Guard. This was the main body of American arms up untilthe Spanish-American War; although in heavy fighting such as the Civil War this model proved inadequate as well. Still, up until World War IIwe kept the faith of the Founding Fathers that Federal armies should be kept small in times of peace, and in strict subordination to the civil power.
Since World War II, we have had a large standing army in permanent establishment; and as such most of the dangers warned against by theFounding Fathers have come to pass. One quote from Samuel Adams thatfor some reason gets passed over by the NRA or the American Legion comesto mind ---
Soldiers are used to obey the absolute commands of their superiors: It is death to them, in the field, to dispute their authority, or the rectitude of their orders; and sometimes they may be shot upon the spont without ceremony. The necessity of things makes it highly proper that they should be under the absolute control of the officer who commands them; who saith unto one come, and he cometh, and to another go, and he goeth. Thus, being inured to that sort of government in the field and in the time of war, they are too apt to retain the same idea, when they happen to be in civil communities and in a time of peace. [Boston Gazette, Dec. 12, 1768]
It is worthwhile to recall these words when confronted with thep oliticking of veterans' organizations, or their pretense to define by their authoritarian model the One True Patriotism.
We now see the military actively politicking, as view their attempts to claim the nation would be endangered were their budget cut or their numbers reduced; consider also their resistance to their Commander inChief's instructions to end institutional hostility to homosexuals.Veterans' organizations pretend to define the One True Patriotism according to their authoritarian model of following orders.
Instead of the volunteer militias to defend hearth and home imagined by the Founding Fathers, we were given the monstrous tyranny of Selective Service. Today's would-be tyrants claim that the One True Patriotism consisted of unquestioning obedience to its orders, and paint resistance to that loathsome bureaucracy as suspect! In fact, the Selective Service press gangs raised troops for exactly the sort of foreign adventures our founding fathers condemned.
At its most grandiose, it hoped to become an instrument of a national labour and industrial policy that sought to coerce us into a socialist military state. During the dark days of conscription, it was anexplicit national policy to use the threat of forced military service asa club to compel people to make career decisions that favoured thegovernment's idea of what was useful to it, rather than their own interests. Remember General Hershey's infamous "channelling" memo of 1965:
In the less patriotic and more selfish individual it engenders a sense of fear, uncertainty, and dissatisfaction which motivates him, nevertheless, in the same direction. He complains of the uncertainty he must endure; he would like to be able to do as he pleases; he would appreciate a certain future with no prospect of military service or civilian contribution, but he complies with the needs of the national health, safety, or interest --- or he is denied deferment. . .
From the individual's viewpoint, he is standing in a room which has been made uncomfortably warm. Several doors are open, but they all lead to various forms of recognized, patriotic service to the Nation. Some accept the alternatives gladly --- some with reluctance. The consequence is approximately the same.
[The Selective Service: Its Concepts, History, and Operation (Govt.Printing Office, Sept. 1967)] Remember those words the next time you hear the "anti-socialist" rhetoric of professional flagwavers. Remember these words the next time you hear President Clinton being condemned as a "draft-dodger." I submit that "draft-dodgers" were the people who were actually keeping the spirit of our Founding Fathers alive, rather than the latter-day Hessians or Prussians who think obedience to orders is praiseworthy.
In any case, when our Founding Fathers spoke of keeping and bearing arms, they meant for military purposes, under the control of governments and for purpose of national defence. To try and twist their remarks into support for private guns for private purposes is to take them seriously out of context.
18 April 2007
Gun Myth #2: Gun control caused the Virginia Tech Shootings
That comment might make sense if the Virginia Tech shootings occurred in Massachusetts, New Jersey, or California.
But they didn't.
It happened in Virgina, a state with liberal gun laws. It was pretty high up there on the NRA good state scale. Brady gives it a grade of 18 out of 100. Virginia must be doing something correct from a "gun rights" standpoint. So, Just how did gun control cause the Virgnina Tech Massacre?
Virginia has shall issue concealed carry. Heck, you can strap on a holster and carry openly in the part of Virginia where the shootings happened. It's not unusual to walk into a gun store in Virgina and see machineguns for sale.
According to the RKBA crowd beliefs, this kind of gun culture should have prevented the shootings.
But would an armed citizen have stopped a lunatic intent on committing suicide on a grand scale? I mean Klebold and Harris engaged in a shoot-out with an armed Sheriff at Columbine. That's a real trained Law enforcement agent.
Didn't stop them from killing 13 people besides themselves.
What would some armed citizen do to stop the violence if a trained cop couldn't?
First off, a private citizen does not have all the legal advantages a policeman does when he engaging in his official duties. The private citizen can legally only protect himself if he, or his family is faced with immediate bodily harm. That harm must be resisted with the least amount of force necessary to stop the attack.
So, if someone is coming at you and you could stop that person with somehting less than deadly force, use of deadly force makes the victim the aggressor!
Not to mention if Rambo with the gun there mistakenly hits someone besides the gun toting maniac. Bimbo with the gun has just added to the chaos, confusion, and carnage. Think of the liability there!
Hero to zero in nothing flat.
Anyway, I've seen in posts that Cho Seung-Hui wasn't a US citizen (in gun groups where this is a thread no less). Not to mention the guy had psychological problems.
Now, shouldn't that have disqualified him from owning a gun?
Nope, Cho Seung-Hui plunked down the money and passed the instant checks to walk away with a Walther P22 and Glock 9 mm handguns, not to mention how many rounds of ammunition.
Now, does that sound like gun control contributed to those shootings to you?
But they didn't.
It happened in Virgina, a state with liberal gun laws. It was pretty high up there on the NRA good state scale. Brady gives it a grade of 18 out of 100. Virginia must be doing something correct from a "gun rights" standpoint. So, Just how did gun control cause the Virgnina Tech Massacre?
Virginia has shall issue concealed carry. Heck, you can strap on a holster and carry openly in the part of Virginia where the shootings happened. It's not unusual to walk into a gun store in Virgina and see machineguns for sale.
According to the RKBA crowd beliefs, this kind of gun culture should have prevented the shootings.
But would an armed citizen have stopped a lunatic intent on committing suicide on a grand scale? I mean Klebold and Harris engaged in a shoot-out with an armed Sheriff at Columbine. That's a real trained Law enforcement agent.
Didn't stop them from killing 13 people besides themselves.
What would some armed citizen do to stop the violence if a trained cop couldn't?
First off, a private citizen does not have all the legal advantages a policeman does when he engaging in his official duties. The private citizen can legally only protect himself if he, or his family is faced with immediate bodily harm. That harm must be resisted with the least amount of force necessary to stop the attack.
So, if someone is coming at you and you could stop that person with somehting less than deadly force, use of deadly force makes the victim the aggressor!
Not to mention if Rambo with the gun there mistakenly hits someone besides the gun toting maniac. Bimbo with the gun has just added to the chaos, confusion, and carnage. Think of the liability there!
Hero to zero in nothing flat.
Anyway, I've seen in posts that Cho Seung-Hui wasn't a US citizen (in gun groups where this is a thread no less). Not to mention the guy had psychological problems.
Now, shouldn't that have disqualified him from owning a gun?
Nope, Cho Seung-Hui plunked down the money and passed the instant checks to walk away with a Walther P22 and Glock 9 mm handguns, not to mention how many rounds of ammunition.
Now, does that sound like gun control contributed to those shootings to you?
17 April 2007
Gun Myth #1: Tyrants Fear Guns.
Give me a break. Saddam Hussein's Iraq was well armed. He would just gas or bomb any resistance.
He was happy to have armed resistanceit made his job easier.
Not to mention that Adolph Hitler quote about Gun control is just wrong. Even the "Second Amendment" crowd admits that!
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcbogus.html
fom the March 10, 2003 Christian Science Monitor edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0310/p01s03-woiq.html
He was happy to have armed resistanceit made his job easier.
Not to mention that Adolph Hitler quote about Gun control is just wrong. Even the "Second Amendment" crowd admits that!
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcbogus.html
fom the March 10, 2003 Christian Science Monitor edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0310/p01s03-woiq.html
Iraqi public well-armed and wary
Iraqi civilians are dusting off their firearms, constructing oil-filled trenches and preparing for civil unrest.By Scott Peterson | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
BAGHDAD, IRAQ - With a gun culture that closely resembles that of the United States, Iraq is one of the most heavily armed societies in the world. Its tradition of self-reliance and hard desert and mountain living puts it on a gun-per-person level rivaling other clan systems in Yemen or Somalia.
As US military strategists look ahead to a possible war in Iraq - and a postwar period of working with the Iraqi people to establish more representative rule - firearms loom large. What Iraqis do with those weapons if the US launches an invasion will determine success or failure for Washington. Most war plans, including a United Nations postwar contingency plan leaked in New York last week, assume a swift fall of the regime, and little Iraqi resistance.
But even as Iraq Sunday continued destroying its Al Samoud 2 missiles - bringing the total to 46, more than one-third of Iraq's total Al Samoud force - Iraqis on the home front are stockpiling bullets, dusting off corroded old guns, and receiving freshly minted assault rifles from the ruling Baath Party.
"We tell the Americans: We are prepared for them," says Abdulamir Nasir al Abbudi, a dapper, older Iraqi in a jacket and tie with a white scarf. "My grandfather has a gun from 1895, and I'm going to use it to kill American soldiers. I'm keeping this gun in my hand. I also have a pistol and a Russian Kalashnikov - all Iraqis have these."
Iraqis warn that they are far from convinced that US troops will be seen as liberators, and say instead that they will resist any American occupation.
Sand-bagged positions have been popping up in downtown neighborhoods, and Western witnesses have seen trenches filled with oil on the northern edge of the city that could be set alight to block visibility and confuse oncoming forces.
Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein dismissed the significance of giving up the Al Samoud missile (the name means "steadfastness") when he spoke to senior commanders late last week, and made clear that Iraq is not wanting for arms.
"You are the Samoud missiles," Mr. Hussein said, pointing at the officers. "This is the spirit of the Iraqis, their determination to defend their country."
On Thursday, Hussein praised the "determination" of Iraqis to defend themselves, "even if the fighting was confined to one with rifle and hand grenade," according to the Iraqi New Agency.
Just days before, infantry battalion and regiment commanders told Hussein that two months of ammunition had been stored, that drills for "defensive battle and urban combat [had been] executed," and that soldiers were dug in to minimize casualties from air bombardment.
One officer reportedly vowed to fight with stones if ammo ran out. Hussein reassured him that "arms are plenty."
Although France, Russia, and Germany are redoubling diplomatic efforts to stop the US and Britain from invading, and Friday's report card from UN weapons chiefs Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei might be described as a passing grade, few here think war can be averted.
Civilian UN workers began pulling out of the demilitarized zone yesterday between Kuwait and Iraq, just two days after US Marines in civilian clothes were found cutting 25-yard gaps in the border fence that could accommodate armored columns invading Iraq.
The sense of impending conflict means business is picking up at the capital's 43 gun shops, even though they are only licensed to sell hunting guns or pistols. Customers are stockpiling bullets or shotgun cartridges, says Wiham Ghazi of the "Free Bird" gun shop, whose 12-gauge shotguns and .22 caliber rifles hang from gun racks on the wall of his shop, emanating a faint scent of gun oil.
"It's our culture that people keep guns in their houses - it's inherited from our grandfathers," says Mr. Ghazi, sorting through an array of pistol bullets. Among the ammunition selection is a 12.7mm bullet for a heavy machine gun, with the red-painted tip of a tracer that burns bright as it flies.
"People are buying these kinds of guns just to protect themselves, in case of conflict," Ghazi says, adding that one customer Saturday morning came in looking for bullets for his father's .45 caliber pistol, which had been "put aside for years."
To explain their bond with weapons, Iraqis are fond of the modernized version of one traditional saying: "Give everything to your friend, except your car, your wife, and your gun."
Shotguns here go for just $100; Iraqi-made "Tariq" 7.65 mm pistols cost $200. AK-47 assault rifles, the same gun being offered to Baath Party members, sell for $250.
Iraqi concerns are two-fold: They are worried about the fallout from an American invasion; and they worry that civil unrest could erupt, as it did in 1991.
The result of the latter fear is that urban areas since then have been armed as never before.
"No one would come close to a house at night, because everyone has guns," says a young educated Iraqi, who asked not to be named. "I tell people - and all the neighbors know it - that anyone who crosses this door will be shot."
While it may appear ironic to US planners that the regime is further arming potentially rebellious party cadres and tribal groups, this Iraqi says that his people will do anything to avoid a repeat of 1991.
"We learned that lesson of 1991 - it was something more than awful," says the unaccompanied Iraqi, speaking in English . "People will try to stop that kind of chaos, because once [gunmen] finish with this [person], and move on to the next, they may touch my family."
Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links
When will the US wise up?
Brenda Spencer opened fire with a rifle at the Grover Cleveland Elementary School in San Diego, California, killing two adults and injuring nine children. She later explained her actions with the statement, "I don't like Mondays" back in 1979.
The Boomtown Rats were at a US radio station for an interview when the story of Brenda Spencer came over the news wire. As a loud mid '70s rock band, the Boomtown Rats were (respectfully if not completely accurately) branded punks by the media. As the Sex Pistols and the Clash became the voice of young London punks, The Boomtown Rats carried the flag for the youth of Dublin. After their debut album saw respectable sales in 1978, they recorded "I Don't Like Mondays," their most successful and most enduring hit despite the fact that many US radio stations refused to play it.
I wonder why?
Since Brenda Spencer went "postal" there have been many shootings like this. School shootings like this happen all the time, but they are treated as local news, unless they are like Columbine or yesterday's Virginia Tech shootings.
I mean 32 dead. Wow, that's a new record.
I guess the next big school shooting is going to have to top that to become news.
There are other songs which pinpoint the real instrumentality which allows for this carnage: Guns. Cheryl Wheeler's "If It Were Up To Me", Wall of Voodoo's "Shouldn't have given him a gun for Christmas", Captain Sensible's "Yanks with Guns", Robert Bobby "Guns across the USA", The Beatles "Happiness is a Warm Gun", Johnny Cash "Don't Take Your Guns to Town", Lynyrd Skynyrd "Saturday Night Special", Harry Chapin "Sniper", Indigo Girls "Don't Give that Girl a Gun", various versions of "The Devil's Right Hand", I Can Lick Any Son Of... "Dear Mr. Heston", Ian Hunter "Gun Control", Pearl Jam "Glorified G", Robert Bobby "guns Across the USA", any other suggestions out there?
Anyway, Cheryl Wheeler's "If it were up to me" which ends with "If it were up to me, I'd take away the guns." is also not played on the airwaves. The pro-gun crowd is too scared of it.
Why, let's face it, more guns does not equal less crime. If it were the case, Philadelphia would be one of the safest places in the nation with the largest number of NRA life members and amount of concealed carry permits. Also, Virginia, they can just strap on a gun there, but this is the second time they have been victimised by maniacs with a gun on a large scale (anybody remember Lee Boyd Malvo and John Allen Muhammad?).
I mean those last two paralaysed the nation's capital with only one gun. Shit, the East Coast!
Not bad.
It is the guns and I don't hear many people talking about gun responsibilities!
Sorry, but 28 years is too long and too many bodies have piled up from guns. It's costs this country too much to treat all the gunshot victims.
It's time for guns to be banned.
The only thing stopping that happening is the gun lobby.
For a great piece on Brenda Spencer listen to 's piece from Day to Day, January 31, 2005:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4472389
Add on the following songs:
Stephen Sondheim: Gun Song, Bobby Bare Jr.: Gun Show, Railroad Jerk: Gun Problem, Kittens For Christian: Gun Country, D.R.I.: Gun Control , Guess Who: Guns, Guns, Guns, Junior Reid: Gun Court, Boy Wundah: Change (The Anti Gun Crime Song), 311: Guns (Are For Pussies), Gorillaz: Kids With Guns, Robert Bobby: Guns Across The U.S.A and Bigger Guns., UB40: Guns In The Ghetto, The Damned: Gun Fury, The Tannahill Weavers: At The End Of A Pointed Gun, Steely Dan: With A Gun, Buju Banton: Mr. Nine, Aerosmith: Janie's Got A Gun, Indigo Girls: Don't Give That Girl A Gun, and Julie Brown: Homecoming Queen's got a gun
MORE SUGGESTIONS ARE ALWAYS WELCOME!
BE SURE TO CALL IN AND REQUEST THEY BE PLAYED ON THE RADIO IN AFTER THE NEXT MASS SHOOTING!
The Boomtown Rats were at a US radio station for an interview when the story of Brenda Spencer came over the news wire. As a loud mid '70s rock band, the Boomtown Rats were (respectfully if not completely accurately) branded punks by the media. As the Sex Pistols and the Clash became the voice of young London punks, The Boomtown Rats carried the flag for the youth of Dublin. After their debut album saw respectable sales in 1978, they recorded "I Don't Like Mondays," their most successful and most enduring hit despite the fact that many US radio stations refused to play it.
I wonder why?
Since Brenda Spencer went "postal" there have been many shootings like this. School shootings like this happen all the time, but they are treated as local news, unless they are like Columbine or yesterday's Virginia Tech shootings.
I mean 32 dead. Wow, that's a new record.
I guess the next big school shooting is going to have to top that to become news.
There are other songs which pinpoint the real instrumentality which allows for this carnage: Guns. Cheryl Wheeler's "If It Were Up To Me", Wall of Voodoo's "Shouldn't have given him a gun for Christmas", Captain Sensible's "Yanks with Guns", Robert Bobby "Guns across the USA", The Beatles "Happiness is a Warm Gun", Johnny Cash "Don't Take Your Guns to Town", Lynyrd Skynyrd "Saturday Night Special", Harry Chapin "Sniper", Indigo Girls "Don't Give that Girl a Gun", various versions of "The Devil's Right Hand", I Can Lick Any Son Of... "Dear Mr. Heston", Ian Hunter "Gun Control", Pearl Jam "Glorified G", Robert Bobby "guns Across the USA", any other suggestions out there?
Anyway, Cheryl Wheeler's "If it were up to me" which ends with "If it were up to me, I'd take away the guns." is also not played on the airwaves. The pro-gun crowd is too scared of it.
Why, let's face it, more guns does not equal less crime. If it were the case, Philadelphia would be one of the safest places in the nation with the largest number of NRA life members and amount of concealed carry permits. Also, Virginia, they can just strap on a gun there, but this is the second time they have been victimised by maniacs with a gun on a large scale (anybody remember Lee Boyd Malvo and John Allen Muhammad?).
I mean those last two paralaysed the nation's capital with only one gun. Shit, the East Coast!
Not bad.
It is the guns and I don't hear many people talking about gun responsibilities!
Sorry, but 28 years is too long and too many bodies have piled up from guns. It's costs this country too much to treat all the gunshot victims.
It's time for guns to be banned.
The only thing stopping that happening is the gun lobby.
For a great piece on Brenda Spencer listen to 's piece from Day to Day, January 31, 2005:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4472389
Add on the following songs:
Stephen Sondheim: Gun Song, Bobby Bare Jr.: Gun Show, Railroad Jerk: Gun Problem, Kittens For Christian: Gun Country, D.R.I.: Gun Control , Guess Who: Guns, Guns, Guns, Junior Reid: Gun Court, Boy Wundah: Change (The Anti Gun Crime Song), 311: Guns (Are For Pussies), Gorillaz: Kids With Guns, Robert Bobby: Guns Across The U.S.A and Bigger Guns., UB40: Guns In The Ghetto, The Damned: Gun Fury, The Tannahill Weavers: At The End Of A Pointed Gun, Steely Dan: With A Gun, Buju Banton: Mr. Nine, Aerosmith: Janie's Got A Gun, Indigo Girls: Don't Give That Girl A Gun, and Julie Brown: Homecoming Queen's got a gun
MORE SUGGESTIONS ARE ALWAYS WELCOME!
BE SURE TO CALL IN AND REQUEST THEY BE PLAYED ON THE RADIO IN AFTER THE NEXT MASS SHOOTING!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
