Gun control and Genocides

A tip of the hat to Matthew White who compiled this list (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/gunsorxp.htm) with some additions from me.

There's an old saying: "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions", so wouldn't it be really ironic if a law created with the purpose of cutting back on the number of murders actually had the opposite effect?

Of course, there's another old saying: "Yew-juice is sovereign against snake-bite", which goes to show you that sometimes old sayings are just plain stupid. Sometimes good intentions turn out just fine, and sometimes laws don't have ironic outcomes.

But among the advocates of irony, the leading cause of 56 million needless deaths would seem to be gun control. Here's an account ledger that is reposted at several sites:

CONSIDER THIS... This is just part of the known tally ...

* In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
* In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
* Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
* China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
* Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
* Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
* Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.

Well, right off the bat I can see that whoever compiled this tally has a different definition of defenseless than I do. I myself wouldn't declare the largest military machine on the planet "unable to defend itself", but by adding 20 million from the Soviet Union, this list does. After all, Stalin's most infamous terror fell heavily on the Soviet Army, culling tens of thousand of officers, and executing three out of five marshals, 15 out of 16 army commanders, 60 out of 67 corps commanders and 136 out of 199 division commanders. In one bloody year, the majority of the officer corps was led away quietly and shot. It may be one of life's great mysteries as to why the Red Army allowed itself to be gutted that way, but obviously, lack of firepower can't be the reason.

I am not sure that the assumption that Turkey's institution of "gun control" would have helped the Armenians either. One problem with "pro-gun" arguments is that they have the unspoken assumption that people owned guns prior to the enactment of these laws (such as comparisons to England and Australia). Usually, there wasn't wide spread gun ownership prior to the enactment of these laws, which is likely in the case of the Armenian genocide. Additionally, this happened during the First World War. The Armenians who were in the Ottoman Empire (which is now called Turkey) army were disarmed, but again, this sounds like what happened in the Soviet union.

The Third Reich did not need gun control (in 1938 or at any time for that matter) to maintain their power. The success of Nazi programs (restoring the economy, dispelling socio-political chaos) and the misappropriation of justice by the apparatus of terror (the Gestapo) assured the compliance of the German people. Arguing otherwise assumes a resistance to Nazi rule that did not exist. Further, supposing the existance of an armed resistance also requires the acceptance that the German people would have rallied to the rebellion. This argument requires a total suspension of disbelief given everything we know about 1930s Germany. Why then did the Nazis introduce this program? As with most of their actions (including the formation of the Third Reich itself), they desired to effect a facade of legalism around the exercise of naked power. It is unreasonable to treat this as a normal part of lawful governance, as the rule of law had been entirely demolished in the Third Reich. Any direct quotations, of which there are several, that pronounce some beneficence to the Weapons Law should be considered in the same manner as all other Nazi pronouncements - absolute lies.

A more farfetched question is the hypothetical proposition of armed Jewish resistance. First, they were not commonly armed even prior to the 1928 Law. Second, Jews had seen pogroms before and had survived them, though not without suffering. They would expect that this one would, as had the past ones, eventually subside and permit a return to normalcy. Many considered themselves "patriotic Germans" for their service in the first World War. These simply were not people prepared to stage violent resistance. Nor were they alone in this mode of appeasement. The defiance of "never again" is not so much a warning to potential oppressors as it is a challenge to Jews to reject the passive response to pogrom. Third, it hardly seems conceivable that armed resistance by Jews (or any other target group) would have led to any weakening of Nazi rule, let alone a full scale popular rebellion; on the contrary, it seems more likely it would have strengthened the support the Nazis already had. Their foul lies about Jewish perfidy would have been given a grain of substance. To project backward and speculate thus is to fail to learn the lesson history has so painfully provided.

Just a few steps down, we can trim another 20 million from our total. Take a look at China, 1935. Picture, if you will, a long, peaceful line of naive little natives queueing up to dump their guns into an industrial smelter, while off to the side, a bureaucrat with a clipboard checks their names off the list. That's the image this list would like to create. The problem is, in 1935 China was in the midst of the Age of Warlords. Even if you know nothing about Chinese history, just the name "Age of Warlords" should tip you off. It was a pistol packer's paradise, a lawless Wild West where all power flowed from the barrel of a gun.

But it's not just the ready availability of guns in China that contradicts the Big Tally. No, it's just as important what everyone was doing with all those guns -- fighting for supremacy, fighting against the Communists, fighting the Japanese. In other words, gun control or not, everyone who had a side to take had already taken sides. Everyone who wanted a gun already had a gun. The enemies of the state who were killed after 1949 weren't defenseless; they were just plain beaten.

This is what I call the Cold-Dead-Hands Test. If the only way to get someone's gun is to pry it from their cold, dead hands (literally or figuratively), that's not gun control. When Grant disarmed the Confederates at Appomattox, that wasn't gun control; that was taking prisoners. When the Soviets disarmed the remnants of the German 6th Army at Stalingrad, that wasn't gun control either. Mao didn't come to power in China by tricking the populace into surrendering their arms. He pummeled his well-armed opponents in a stand-up fight. There's a big difference between unable to fight back, and fighting back but losing.

It's just as hard to label the Cambodians defenseless when you remember that they had just spent five years and a half million lives trying to stop the Khmer Rouge. It's also hard to call the Guatemalans defenseless when it took a 30-year civil war to rack up their body count. Even most of the victims of Hitler went down kicking and screaming. The majority of the Jews and Gypsies were hunted down in countries like Poland and Russia that had been overrun in open battle, and if they were lacking guns, it certainly wasn't German laws that created the situation.

Frankly, this list is a pitifully weak argument against gun control, simply because most of the victims listed here did fight back. In fact, if there's a real lesson to be learned from this roster of oppressions, it's that sometimes a heavily armed and determined opposition is just swept up and crushed -- guns or no guns.

The Myth of Nazi Gun Control

By N. A. Browne
from http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html

A commonly heard argument against gun control is that the National Socialists of Germany (the Nazis) used it in their ascent to and maintenance of power. A corollary argument is sometimes made that had the Jews (and presumably the other targeted groups) been armed, they could have fought off Nazi tyranny. This tract seeks to counter these misassumptions about Nazi gun control.

Gun control, the Law on Firearms and Ammunition, was introduced to Germany in 1928 under the Weimar regime (there was no Right to Arms in the Constitution of 1919) in large part to disarm the nascent private armies, e.g. the Nazi SA (aka "the brownshirts"). The Weimar government was attempting to bring some stability to German society and politics (a classic "law and order" position). Violent extremist movements (of both the Left and Right) were actively attacking the young, and very fragile, democratic state. A government that cannot maintain some degree of public order cannot sustain its legitimacy. Nor was the German citizenry well grounded in Constitutional, republican government (as was evidenced in their choices at the ballot box). Gun control was not initiated at the behest or on behalf of the Nazis - it was in fact designed to keep them, or others of the same ilk, from executing a revolution against the lawful government. In the strictest sense, the law succeeded - the Nazis did not stage an armed coup.

The 1928 law was subsequently extended in 1938 under the Third Reich (this action being the principal point in support of the contention that the Nazis were advocates of gun control). However, the Nazis were firmly in control of Germany at the time the Weapons Law of 1938 was created. Further, this law was not passed by a legislative body, but was promulgated under the dictatorial power granted Hitler in 1933. Obviously, the Nazis did not need gun control to attain power as they already (in 1938) possessed supreme and unlimited power in Germany. The only feasible argument that gun control favored the Nazis would be that the 1928 law deprived private armies of a means to defeat them. The basic flaw with this argument is that the Nazis did not seize power by force of arms, but through their success at the ballot box (and the political cunning of Hitler himself). Secondary considerations that arise are that gun ownership was not that widespread to begin with, and, even imagining such ubiquity the German people, Jews in particular, were not predisposed to violent resistance to their government.

The Third Reich did not need gun control (in 1938 or at any time thereafter) to maintain their power. The success of Nazi programs (restoring the economy, dispelling socio-political chaos) and the misappropriation of justice by the apparatus of terror (the Gestapo) assured the compliance of the German people. Arguing otherwise assumes a resistance to Nazi rule that did not exist. Further, supposing the existance of an armed resistance also requires the acceptance that the German people would have rallied to the rebellion. This argument requires a total suspension of disbelief given everything we know about 1930s Germany. Why then did the Nazis introduce this program? As with most of their actions (including the formation of the Third Reich itself), they desired to effect a facade of legalism around the exercise of naked power. It is unreasonable to treat this as a normal part of lawful governance, as the rule of law had been entirely demolished in the Third Reich. Any direct quotations, of which there are several, that pronounce some beneficence to the Weapons Law should be considered in the same manner as all other Nazi pronouncements - absolute lies. (See Bogus Gun Control Quotes and endnote [1].)

A more farfetched question is the hypothetical proposition of armed Jewish resistance. First, they were not commonly armed even prior to the 1928 Law. Second, Jews had seen pogroms before and had survived them, though not without suffering. They would expect that this one would, as had the past ones, eventually subside and permit a return to normalcy. Many considered themselves "patriotic Germans" for their service in the first World War. These simply were not people prepared to stage violent resistance. Nor were they alone in this mode of appeasement. The defiance of "never again" is not so much a warning to potential oppressors as it is a challenge to Jews to reject the passive response to pogrom. Third, it hardly seems conceivable that armed resistance by Jews (or any other target group) would have led to any weakening of Nazi rule, let alone a full scale popular rebellion; on the contrary, it seems more likely it would have strengthened the support the Nazis already had. Their foul lies about Jewish perfidy would have been given a grain of substance. To project backward and speculate thus is to fail to learn the lesson history has so painfully provided.

The simple conclusion is that there are no lessons about the efficacy of gun control to be learned from the Germany of the first half of this century. It is all too easy to forget the seductive allure that fascism presented to all the West, bogged down in economic and social morass. What must be remembered is that the Nazis were master manipulators of popular emotion and sentiment, and were disdainful of people thinking for themselves. There is the danger to which we should pay great heed. Not fanciful stories about Nazi's seizing guns.

In other words, people should stop mindlessly repeating the same nonsense and start thinking for themselves. RKBA is a myth, the tyranny the founding fathers had in mind, a large standing army, is here.

Is the US becoming facist or just going Insane?

I have to admit that the reaction to the Virginia Tech shootings that we need more guns and have armed students on campus and that it was gun control which caused the shootings which seems ubiquitous has me dumbfounded. I mean, the lack of a decent background check was what really caused these shootings, not gun control. The kid couldn't have bought a gun if there had been adequate gun control!

Additionally, the masses say that Parker v. DC was "correctly decided" despite the fact that it goes against just about everything proper in legal reasoning (e.g., stare decisis).

As P.T. Barnum said, "nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people".

Another thing which has me amazed is that public transport in the US is pitiful (with the exceptions of Washington, DC and New York). The price of fuel is finally catching up with the rest of the world, but it seems everyone wants and SUV or other gas guzzler. People also move out of the cities to the middle of nowhere and increase the traffic and amount of services needed so that there will soon be no natural spots.

Never mind global warming or recycling. Instead of demanding better public transport, people want more roads and bypasses. Sort of like some people think more guns means less crime, more cars will mean less traffic.

Oh, yeah, how could I forget health care, which sucks in the USA. I mean I have health insurance and I get the bottom of the barrel care. A national health service, "socialised medicine" seems to be a fantastic idea. It's that word "socialised" which sounds like "Socialism".

Oh, yeah and a woman's right to choose is getting more and more under threat.

This is by the same people who say they support the Constitution, yet try to get religion (usually Christianity) in under the radar. The US is supposed to be religiously neutral, which works for me as I would take all of December off (12 days of Christmas, Hanukkah, St. Stephen's day, St. Nicholas's Day, etc.)

I could go on, but this ramble is getting me annoyed.

Zionists!

Anybody who knows me, knows that I am not anti-Jewish or even really anti-Israel.

Well, other than having qualms about how the Israelis treat the Palestinians, but not every Israeli tolerates that either. So, as long as someone supports the right of return and full citizenship for everyone in the state of Israel, I don't have a problem.

And I'd send you to http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/ as well.

On the other hand, I have a problem with Zionists.

You might be surprised who they are. Sure, there are a few Jews in that crowd, but a whole lot of them are Christians.

Christian Zionism is a belief among some Christians that the return of the Jews to the Holy Land, and the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, is in accordance with Biblical prophecy. Christian Zionism, as a specifically theological belief, does not necessarily entail sympathy for the Jews as a nation or for Judaism as a religion. Since the biblical text is filled with references to God's chosen people, it is common for Christian Zionists to emphasize the Jewish roots of Christianity, and even to promote Jewish practices and Hebrew terminology as part of their own practice; however, Christian Zionists commonly believe that to fulfill prophecy, a significant number of Jews will accept Jesus as their Messiah, and that in the last days, such Messianic Jews will practice a thoroughly Hebraic form of Christianity.

Examples of Christian leaders combining political conservatism with Christian Zionism are Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, leading figures of the Christian Right in the 1980s and 1990s. Falwell said in 1981: "To stand against Israel is to stand against God. We believe that history and scripture prove that God deals with nations in relation to how they deal with Israel." They cite part of Genesis 27:29 Those who curse you [Israel] will be cursed, and those who bless you will be blessed.

The government of Israel has given official encouragement to Christian Zionism, allowing the establishment in 1980 of an "International Christian Embassy" in Jerusalem. The main function of the embassy is to enlist worldwide Christian support for Israel. The embassy has raised funds to help finance Jewish immigration to Israel from the former Soviet Union, and has assisted Zionist groups in establishing Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

Deep down, these folks would be happy if every Jew in Israel were incinerated, especially if that brings the prophetic role of Israel in the apocalyptic End Times.

Oy gevalt!

More Parker vs. the District of Columbia

I called Judge Silberman senile in a previous post and I now stand by that after reading this decision.

Unlike everyone else on the web who has no legal knowledge and calls this "the correct decision", this decision is only worthy of picking up my dog poop. Silberman must have let his clerk write this and not proof read it if he isn't senile.

There are four reasons this is crap:
1) Stare decisis
2) Misunderstanding of Miller v. US, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
3) Poor scholarship and use of citations.
4) Silly logic

Let's start with stare decisis. Judge Silberman should know this as it's something everyone learns before law school and should have grasped by first term. Sure US law schools are dogshit, but come on--it's a basic.

Stare decisis for those of you who don't understand it. including you Judge Silberman, is a Latin legal term, used in common law to express the notion that prior court decisions must be recognized as precedents, according to case law. More fully, the legal term is "stare decisis et non quieta movere" meaning "stand by decisions and do not move that which is quiet" (the phrase "quieta non movere" is itself a famous maxim akin to "let sleeping dogs lie").

The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a higher court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which a lower court cannot overturn. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and lower courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do occasionally ignore.

Stare decisis is one of the basics for the rule of law, which is predictability. It screws the system up if some joker judge decides he doesn't like precedent.

In short, Silberman, you have to follow precedent if the Supreme Court makes a ruling whether or not you agree with it until it is overturned. You buck that tradition in violation of the principle of stare decisis.

Which takes us to point number 2, misunderstanding of Miller v. US, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).

Judge Silberman, while the ignorant classes can say that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right, the Supremes have said it only guarantees a collective right. Other courts understand this. You have the dubious distinction of writing an opinion which contradicts this rather large corpus of decisions which take the collective right position.

United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 2362 (2002) isn't really an exception since the court there was sensible enough to use their opinion as a soap box for the idiotic "individual rights" argument you actually use! The Emerson court only spouted that shit as dicta, you actually use it as logic for your ruling.

I have serious wonders if you cheated to get through law school given the scholarship of your opinion. Did you actually read what you quote? I can expect that sort of ignorance from the hoi polloi, but not someone who is allegedly educated.

You would find that your sources contradict your opinion and support the dissent's opinion. I would much rather embarrass you in public by having you sue me for slander, but your quote From Cooley, which is short enough you should have read it:

SECTION IV. — THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

The Constitution. — By the Second Amendment to the Constitution it is declared that "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The amendment, like most other provisions in the Constitution, has a history. It was adopted with some modification and enlargement from the English Bill of Rights of 1688, where it stood as a protest against arbitrary action of the overturned dynasty in disarming the people, and as a pledge of the new rulers that this tyrannical action should cease. The right declared was meant to be a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and as a necessary and efficient means of regaining rights when temporarily overturned by usurpation.[1]

The Right is General. — It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.

Standing Army. — A further purpose of this amendment is, to preclude any necessity or reasonable excuse for keeping up a standing army. A standing army is condemned by the traditions and sentiments of the people, as being as dangerous to the liberties of the people as the general preparation of the people for the defence of their institutions with arms is preservative of them.

What Arms may be kept. — The arms intended by the Constitution are such as are suitable for the general defence of the community against invasion or oppression, and the secret carrying of those suited merely to deadly individual encounters may be prohibited.[1]

-[1] 1 Tuck. Bl. Com., App. 300.

Summing up Cooley, the Right to keep and bear arms is predicated upon militia service which is a counterbalance to a standing army. In fact, a militia means there shouldn't be a standing army.

Have you seen the how much money is budgeted lately for the military each year. Silberman? Doesn't sound like the militia is a very vibrant institution.

Actually, Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys 154 (Tenn. 1840) is a much better repudiation of your logic since the right to keep and bear arms relates to military service, that is training for militia duty.

The right to keep and bear arms as mentioned in the Second Amendment is not a personal one. Look to state constitutions for examples of how it would be written if it were intended to have been a personal right.

Which takes me to point number 4: silly logic.

Using your logic, I am allowed to keep machineguns, tanks Chemical weapons, and even nuclear weapons.

Take the recent US invasion of Iraq with it's shock and awe would a mere firearm do to repel such a foe? The same goes for a tyrant. I mean, People were, and are, armed to the teeth in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. He just used Chemical weapons on them.

What would repel a tyrant like that other than an H-bomb?

Now, should individuals be allowed such weaponry?

Anyway, it is obvious from Cooley and the post-Miller precedents that "With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces (Militia set up under Article I, Section 8) the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."

I mean, where does this stuff about not having standing armies come in? Does that make any sense to you? Did you miss that in what minimal research you did to write this?

What is the real agenda for trying to come up with an "individual right". I mean do you want to abolish the standing army in favour of a citizen's militia like what Switzerland had at one time? Does that really make any sense to you? Did you fail to think all this through?

Anyway, I have this H-bomb I need to register thanks to your categorising the right to keep arms "suitable for the general defence of the community against invasion or oppression" as an individual right.

"Mission Accomplished"?????

It was four years ago that George Bush announced that the mission was accomplished in Iraq.

Sure, it doesn't seem that way to the vast majority of us, but I've been thinking about it.

The Iraqis don't really need democracy. And the US can't really expect to install it there anyway for a myriad of reasons. The US system is a republic, not a democracy for one. The other is that the US has a president who wasn't popularly elected (Well, I didn't vote for him). Anyway, the will of the people is thwarted by special interest groups, such a AIPAC and the NRA.

I mean is that a democracy?

AIPAC is the group which really wanted this war to try and relieve Israel and put a US base in the region to save Israel's sorry ass. I don't think there were many people who wanted this last war.

Well, maybe with the exception of the people who thought there REALLY were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that the mission was accomplished. This is the crowd that thinks having a gun in your home makes you safer despite much more scientific showings that you are more likely to harm a family member with your gun. You know "more guns, less crime."

Which brings us to the NRA, which tells us that it is freedom if everybody has a gun. Going on that Iraq was free under Saddam. But they are freer now since Saddam is gone and lord knows who is really running the show. I mean the daily body count.

As the NRA tells us: "It's the price of freedom!"

Which is why nothing gets done about firearms in this country and we have a long way to go until we are as free as Iraq. Hell, they top Virginia Tech everyday and everybody has a gun.

Never mind that most people in this country want firearms regulation, but that is blocked by a minority of gun toting [insert your choice of epithet here].

Now, isn't an armed minority holding the will of the people hostage tyranny?

I mean we are living in terror which is similar to Iraq. Of course, we are going to teach the Iraqis about democracy and the American system. But, how can we do that when the will of the people is thwarted by lord knows who.

So, does all that explain to you how Dubious could say "Mission Accomplished" on that battleship four years ago?