31 October 2009

Cartoons!


It seems like my life is fast becoming like the film Volere Volare, where the protagonist sees himself living in a cartoon. I should blame this on spending time in Belgium where bande dessinée is the national art form.

I was going to make a comment that Boris Johnson (top left) looks like a character from the Beano. A bleach blonde version of Dennis the Menace (right). I think it's the hair. Or maybe the eyes.

It seems that Private Eye agrees with me on this. They referred to The Spectator as "The Hasbeano", with the Spectator's editor Boris Johnson becoming "Boris the Menace".

I prefer Boris to Red Ken who sort of reminded me of Peter Bowles when he had hair and a moustache.

Not sure what Stephen Fry is doing in this picture, but I do think QI is brilliant. A Fred Flintstone look alike perhaps?

Andrew Marr (top right) is a brilliant journalist. I've started watching his "The Making of Modern Britain" which is interesting, but I am beginning to see I am not as much of a lefty as I think. This show is really oriented toward "democracy". I think that the belief in my being left leaning comes from living in the US which seems to be turning more and more into a facist nation.

Anyway, I think he looks like a cartoon with the ears. I thought I could come up with a "good" picture, but short of a screen capture, I don't think one will show up in a picture search.

I can't help thinking of the Yellow Kid (right) when I see Marr on the screen. It seems that he once was approached by a man in a shop who said, "Here, you look just like that Andrew Marr... you poor bugger."

Marr claims he was once mistaken for Vladimir Putin. Sorry, Andrew, but Putin looks more like Dobby the House Elf than you. Unfortunately, that similarity caused an international crisis.

Now, I just have to steer clear of Toontown.

29 October 2009

We haven't heard the last from Tony the Weasel

Somehow in my state of political and current events ignorance, I've managed to keep it from my consciousness that Gordon Brown wants Tony "the Weasel" Blair to become president of the European Union.

Probably because I am glad he is GONE from British politics. I never liked him anyway since he made me feel as if I went to the wrong School or Oxford College when I met him. And this was pre-PM days. I had the fortune to attend Parliamentary discussions on License of Right in 1988.

My boss at that time told me that one day Tony Blair would be PM. Six years later, well...

The worst bit is that Blair reminds me of Alan B'Stard on the New Statesman. The really funny thing is that Rik Mayall claims he "discovered Tony Blair" in the Daily Mail.

Not as good as this from the Beeb: Explaining the defection to Labour, Mr Mayall said: "They are young, they are sexy and they are much more right-wing than the Conservative Party."

I guess my suspicions were correct!

And you wonder why I call him "Tony the Weasel".

I really don't understand baseball

TO be honest, I've gone to the far ends of the world to avoid anything dealing with the superbowl (yeah, I know, wrong sport, but...) only to have it rear its head on the shortwave news.

Likewise, Baseball makes no sense to me. It's called rounders. Although rounders is assumed to be older than baseball (alleged to date back to Tudor times), literary references to early forms of "base-ball" in England pre-date use of the term "rounders". The earliest reference being in 1745 in A Little Pretty Pocket-Book where it is called "baseball". That calls into question its claim of being an "American" sport (So, It IS as American as apple pie, which is Dutch).

The world series is totally misnamed since it only involves teams from North America: Unsually from the United States, but I understand there are Canadian baseball teams. Someday, there may be Japanese teams, but that will probably be a long way off.

If the Japanese beat the Yanks at baseball, then the US will develop another national sport.

Needless to say, I prefer cricket test matches and World Cup Football to baseball.

Anyway, I digress from the real topic at hand: it seems that Bensalem police arrested a woman for prostitution. She is alleged to have offered sex for world series tickets.



Normally, I'd be ignorant of such things and prefer it to be that way, but this has exploded into an international news story. The basic gist is that Finklestein:
Described herself as a "Diehard Phillies fan" and "gorgeous tall buxom blonde," Finkelstein said she was "in desperate need" of two tickets to see the Phillies play the Yankees at Citizens Bank Park.

Then came the zinger: "Price negotiable -- I'm the creative type! Maybe we can help each other!"

The actual ad was placed in the "for sale/wanted section" not the adult section:
http://philadelphia.craigslist.org/tix/1438649356.html
DESPERATE BLOND NEEDS WS TIX (Philadelphia)
Date: 2009-10-26, 3:36PM EDT
Reply to: sale-zafz2-1438649356@craigslist.org

Diehard Phillies fan -- gorgeous tall buxom blonde -- in desperate need of two World Series tickets. Price negotiable -- I'm the creative type! Maybe we c...an help each other!

S.

Location: Philadelphia
it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests

PostingID: 1438649356

Does that sound like solicitation to you? I don't see any offers of sex and the ad was in the section for Tix on Craigslist!

Are these Bensalem Cops Yankees fans and just being jerks?

The short term outcome is that Radio DJ Chio from Wired 96.5 gave two tickets to Finkelstein and her husband explaining that anyone who was that despirate deserved tickets to see the game.

I hope the long term outcome is as good for Ms. Finklestein.

Let's say I'm closer to this story than I would like to be...

But my basic comment is that once one leaves Philadelphia (or Pittsburgh), one finds the police and district attorneys have too much time on their hands. Especially in Bucks County, This is a place where they once had a three day Jury trial for squeezing bread.

You think I'm joking:
Commonwealth v. Feldman, CP-09-CR-0003020-2000 and CP-09-CR-0003021-2000,(aka “Bucks County Bread Squeezer”): Client was originally charged with Felony criminal mischief for allegedly destroying thousands of dollars of bread and cookies in a supermarket in Yardley, PA. Client was found not guilty by jury of all criminal charges, sentenced by the judge for summary violation to pay $500.00 fine. Received worldwide coverage from the Associated Press and Newsweek Magazine and story was on all 4 local news stations, CNN and the Court Channel.

Bucks county has had a lot of problems with Cereal killers as well. cereal murder (or breakfast murder) is defined in Bucks County as the killing of one breakfast food item by another, or the killing of one cereal mascot by another. It can also describe human-on-cereal murder, animal-on-cereal murder, or inanimate-object-on-cereal murder.

Notorious Convicted Bucks County Cereal Killers are:

* Cornelius (Corn Flakes rooster)

Evidently, Cornelius got into a very brief cockfight with one of the Freakies from the Freakies cereal. Cornelius creditied his win to his large talons, and the use of the Filipino curved blade.
Kelloggs profited massively from the illegal fight by betting big money on Cornelius to win. Some say that the fight was fixed, and that Kelloggs is to blame.

* Dig 'Em Frog, for his spooning to death generic mascots, was turned into a pure gold statue in Quahog, Rhode Island.

Some of the more famous yet unsung cereal killers were actually mob bosses for the Kelloggs:

* Snap, Crackle and Pop
* Tony the Tiger
* Captain Crunch
* Calliou
* Ed, Edd n Eddy
* Toucan Sam

Seriously, the word around the court house is that Bucks County has a crime problem in that it lacks any significant crime such that they have to troll Craigs List to make work for themselves.

There's a rumour that Bucks County may actually set up a humourous crime squad to chase down craig's list jokers, bread squeezers, Cereal Killers, and people who put jelly in other people's shoes!

In the mean time, stay tuned for more trials of Cereal Murderers in Bucks County, PA! Maybe they might actually go after some of those Meth Labs they have up there!

28 October 2009

British Guns


I see a lot of drivel spouted by US Gun cretins. The first being "gun rights".

There have never been Gun Rights in British Common law.

After that is the inflated "gun crime" statistic. You can find the actual UK gun crime statistics here. Note that imitation, airguns, and replica arms account for a majority of gun incidents (12569 imitation, airguns, and replica v. 4774 handgun and shotgun out of a total 17343 for 2007/08). Additionally, total "firearms" offences have been declining, rather than increasing: Source.

The British Gun Control Network has a list of Gun Incidents, which they admit is only around 10% of the figure, but they give an idea of what "gun crime" in the UK is like. You should also remember that The Gun Cotrol Network's objectives are "predicated on the belief that the interests of public safety demand a reduction in the availability and attractiveness of guns of all kinds".

You will note that the "gun" incidents listed by the Gun Control Network include: blank firing guns, replica firearms, airguns, stun guns, paintball guns, and even toy guns! That vastly stacks the deck when it comes to "gun crime". Some samples:

Cumberland News, 23 October 2009

William Musson went into the emergency department of a hospital in Whitehaven, Cumbria, and told the doctor he had a gun. It turned out to be a toy gun and he wanted to be sectioned as he had nowhere to live and no money. He admitted a public order offence of threatening behaviour and was conditionally discharged for six months.

Think of what would happen in the US if someone brought a toy gun and started threatening people! Anyway...

Northwich Guardian, 26 October 2009

Police found cannabis plants and a stun gun when they raided the house of James Wilkinson in Wincham, Cheshire. He admitted charges of cultivation and possession of cannabis and possession of an offensive weapon. He was given a 12-month sentence, suspended for a year.

Oxford Mail, 23 October 2009

Joseph Byrne, 19, has been banned from going out at weekends after he drunkenly brandished a Taser stun gun at two men in Oxford in August 2009. He had found the device on the ground earlier in the evening.


The most interesting bit of information comes from the Evening Standard, 19 October 2009

Of 985 guns seized by the police in London this year 217 were "live-firing" weapons (136 handguns, 72 shotguns, 9 sub-machine guns) and the majority are believed to be BB guns, replicas or other "non-live firing" guns.

Likewise, Police in Strathclyde, Scotland have reported that of the 1,529 reported firearms incidents between January and June 2008, 85% of the guns recovered were airguns, BB guns or replicas. In total 107 of the weapons have been seized by the Armed Response Vehicle officers and more than 100 by officers on routine patrol. The weapons were mainly being carried by young men in their teens.

The Scottish Government has launched a hard hitting campaign involving washroom ads, on-line gaming ads, internet virals, posters, leaflets, and a dedicated website to warn the population about the dangers and consequences of using air and replica guns. The adverts spell out the punishments, a fine or jail sentence, and highlight the potential consequences such as injuring or killing a person or animal or being challenged by a police armed response unit. Gun Control Network, along with other organisations including the Scottish SPCA and Scottish Target Shooting, has given its support to the campaign.




From 1 October 2007 restrictions have been placed on the purchase of air weapons and, with certain exceptions, it is illegal to sell, import or manufacture realistic imitation firearms (e.g., airsoft guns).

To be quite honest, the UK does not have the tolerance for gun crime that the US does. I wish this would change, but I do not have any hope that this will happen.

So, next time you mention how "gun crime is out of control in the UK" remember that this figure is far more encompassing than US gun crime. I mean think of what the gun ownership would be like if they added toy guns to the amount of REAL guns in circulation in the US!

Stop The Bullets...Kill The Gun!



Stop the Bullets, Kill the Gun is a public service announcement against gun violence brought to you by the UK radio station Choice FM. The video, produced by UK ad conglomerate Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO, uses slow motion photography to show the effects of bullets as they pass through inanimate objects.

"In the end gun violence destroys young lives and showing this ad during the summer months will hopefully put this message in the forefront of young minds when they are confronted by peer pressure or conflict situations."—Ivor Etienne, Choice FM managing director Brand Republic: Choice FM Targets Notting Hill with Gun Ad

"Unlike Hollywood films, bullets don't leave perfectly clean symmetrical holes, they leave big gaping wounds in kids faces, bodies, arms and legs. If this little film makes just one kid think twice about picking up a gun, then it's a start."—Gary Walker and Huw Williams, AMV BBDO senior directors Brand Republic: Choice FM Targets Notting Hill with Gun Ad

Say what?

I have to admit being taken aback when I see someone arguing that you can be pro-life and pro-gun at the same time.

Well, I guess you need the guns to kill abortion doctors.

There is a serious problem with this position, but I don't expect that someone who is stupid enough to believe one can be pro-life and pro-gun would comprehend the disconnect.

First off, up to a point, the foetus is a speculative life. The foetus can miscarry. That seems a simple enough concept to grasp. Up until birth, there is the possibility that the foetus can miscarry. Modern technology has reduced the level of infant mortality, but birth also isn't a guarantee that a child will live.

On the other hand, those who have been born sacrifice their "innocence".

We can put a face on a foetus, but we make gun violence victims into statistics.

I know I sounded callous in my Bart Stupak post, but that is the type of disconnect I see in people who are pro-life and pro-gun. Even more disconcerting, is that Stupak's family suffered from gun violence.

People like Nicole Dufresne, BJ Stupak, Melanie Hain, and others are the real face of gun violence in America, not the overestimated and anecdotal DGUs the gun cretin crowd cite.

Another problem is that the assertion that guns are the only effective method implies that only deadly force is effective for self-defence. That deadly force is the only effective means of self-defence in of itself should be enough to make it ridiculous to assert that one is "pro-life".

Once people start rationalizing the deliberate taking of life, they are on a slippery slope. Before they know it, they are in a situation of having to destroy a village in order to save it, are in a plane over Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Could a person in an ICBM launch control center or on a submarine, ready and willing to turn the keys that would launch the missiles carrying nuclear warheads aimed to kill over 100 million people in half an hour, possibly be considered “pro-life”? If so, then it may be futile to seek limits to the killing in which one is willing to engage.

Personally, the lack of gun control impacts society in such a way, that one cannot possibly call themselves pro-life and pro-gun.

The problem is that more than 12,000 homicides by gun were reported in the United States in 2005. But the number who are wounded and survive gunshot assaults is much greater — nearly 53,000 were treated in emergency rooms in 2006, the same federal database shows.

A report in the journal Spinal Cord a decade ago estimated the direct lifetime charges for every shooting victim at $600,000, or nearly $800,000 in today's dollars. Some estimates put the indirect costs, including lost wages and productivity, at double that amount.

In a 1999 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Cook and his colleagues concluded that gunshot injuries in the United States in 1994 produced $2.3 billion in lifetime medical costs. Taxpayers footed half of that through Medicaid, Medicare, workers' compensation and other programs.

In a follow-up book, "Gun Violence: The Real Costs," published in 2000, Cook and Jens Ludwig estimated that gun violence costs the nation $100 billion a year, with medical costs only a small part of that.

This is just the financial cost, but there are other societal costs to gun violence in harm to families and destruction of neighbourhoods.

As I keep saying "Pro-life" society would work to make sure that basic needs would be assured, including a nutritious diet, sanitary water, decent shelter from the elements, a safe environment, and humane medical care. Programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, public housing and food stamps are assertions that satisfying these basic human needs should not be determined by one’s ability to pay. Structural violence in society occurs when people’s basic needs go unfulfilled because they are too poor to purchase goods or services.

Of course, this is an effort to take seriously the possibility of a “pro-life” philosophy and to examine what that might entail other than opposition to abortion. Of course, another possibility is that antiabortion people are not really interested in developing a “pro-life” philosophy but rather are just using the “pro-life” label because it will enhance their political effectiveness. Labeling oneself as “pro-life” is a form of self-aggrandizement, in part because it casts aspersions on one’s adversaries, implying that these opponents are “anti-life.” It is very unlikely that anyone would willingly seek or accept the label of “anti-life.” In that respect, the situation may be similar to those created by the Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy and the National Right to Work Committee; who would volunteer to be the advocate of an “insane nuclear policy” or oppose the right of people to work?

But, why try to hide the fact, that this may not be a "pro-life" position, but one that is far more insidious.

More "Turtles all the way down".

In my original "Turtles All The Way Down" post, I discussed the argumentum ad populem and how people can be wrong. Despite holding incorrect opinions, the masses refuse to see reason. This is depiste being shown their opinions are wrong.

Needless to say, we have this love of long discredited statistics concerning defensive gun use by the gun cretin crowd.

They insist that Lott and Kleck are "peer reviewed". Well, yes, they are peer reviewed and found to be seriously flawed. Yet, the gun cretin crowd will trot them out to try and refute more accurate statistics.

The New England Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence blog post Say what? How many defensive gun uses? Points out a sidebar in an Article called “Who is the Armed Citizen?” in the National Rifle Association’s magazine America’s 1st Freedom highlights one of the gun lobby’s favorite pieces of research – a 1995 study by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz that reported an astounding 2.5 million defense gun uses each year in the United States. But for some curious reason the author neglected to mention the numerous, peer reviewed, refereed, academic articles that have been published over the last decade that clearly refute Kleck’s astronomical claim.


Never mind it's well known that applying Kleck and Gertz's methodology to a 1994 ABC News/ Washington Post survey of 1500 adults of which 10 percent answered affirmatively as to whether they had ever seen an alien spacecraft. Of these, six percent stated they had come into contact with a space alien. If extrapolated to the national population using Kleck and Gertz's methodology, this would translate into almost 20 million Americans who had seen a spacecraft from another planet and more than a million who had actually met space aliens.

You can Read some of the other refutations of Kleck and Gertz's methodology for yourself:

* “The gun debate’s new mythical number: How many defensive uses per year?” Journal of Police Analysis and Management, 1997
* “The myth of millions of annual self-defense gun use: A case study of survey overestimates of rare events” Chance - American Statistical Association, 1997
* “Defensive Gun Uses: New Evidence from a National Survey” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1998
* “The Relative Frequency of Offensive and Defensive Gun Uses: Results from a National Survey”, Violence and Victims, 2000
* “Myths about Defensive Gun Use and Permissive Gun Carry Laws” Berkeley Media Studies Group, 2000
* "Comparing the Incidence of Self-Defense Gun Use and Criminal Gun Use" Harvard Injury Control Research Center, 2009
* And the list goes on.......

But perhaps the most egregious part of this article is the reference to the work of researchers Phillip Cook and Jens Judwig. In a 1997 article in the National Institute of Justice Research in Brief titled “Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms”, Cook and Ludwig conclude “The NSPOF-based estimate of millions of defensive gun uses each year greatly exaggerates the true number, as do other estimates based on similar surveys. Evidence suggests that this survey and others like it overestimate the frequency with which firearms were used by private citizens to defend against criminal attack.” Yet in the sidebar article the NRA inexplicitly claims “researchers Cook and Ludwig confirmed the results of the Kleck/Gertz study.”

That doesn't really surprise me since the gun cretin crowd will grasp at straws to try and buttress their position. For example the following quote:
It must be made a sacred maxim, that the militia obey the executive power, which represents the whole people in the execution of laws. To suppose arms in the hands of the citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self defense, or by partial orders of towns, counties, or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed, and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws. Adams, John, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America,1787-88, p. 474-5

The gun cretin will see the phrase "To suppose arms in the hands of the citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self defense". Nevermind that the entire quote supports the concept of the militia. In fact, the first quote is only a part of the whole sentence which is:
To suppose arms in the hands of the citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self defense, or by partial orders of towns, counties, or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man is a dissolution of the government.

Which sounds pretty negative about "arms in the hands of the citizens" to me.

Anyway, I have a really hard time accepting the arguments from the gun lobby.

27 October 2009

Bart Stupak--Sick Motherfucker!

It comes to my attention that Bart Stupak claims to be pro-Life. The origin of this rant is that this "pro-life" dickhead claims enough votes to stop health care bill over abortion.

Health care is a "pro-life" concept even if it has provisions for abortion on demand. As I said before:
In a “pro-life” society, certain basic needs would be assured, including a nutritious diet, sanitary water, decent shelter from the elements, a safe environment, and humane medical care. Programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, public housing and food stamps are assertions that satisfying these basic human needs should not be determined by one’s ability to pay.

Anyway, if you didn't know it, Stupak's son, BJ, killed himself with a firearm on May 14, 2000. Yet does this asshole do anything about trying to prevent gun violence? fuck no? In fact, the fucker blamed accutane rather than the gun.

I've got news for you, Dickhead, I've gone through two courses of accutane and only came out of it with a bad sunburn.

But I had two things going for me, I wasn't mentally ill and I didn't have access to a firearm.

Instead of trying to stop other senseless deaths, it seems that Stupak claims to be "pro-life". That means he works to curtail women's access to birth control and if they have a "whoops": safe abortions. That means they would ultimately have to find some illegal source to terminate the unwanted pregnancy which could result in serious injury or death.

I guess he's one of those "kill a doctor for life" crowd.

There is a really sick trend in the US to calling yourself "pro-life" yet instead of doing things that promote and work to make life better, they try to make life hard for people. They want to punish. Punish women for having sex.

If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

An unborn baby is an "innocent life", yet Stupak's fucked up son wasn't worth putting his guns in a gun safe. Get the picture?

Naw, I'm not cynical or biased, these sick bastards will treat victims of gun death as scum the moment they get popped.

Remember Meleanie Hain?

Anyway, Stupak, call it like it is: you aren't pro-life. You're a fucked up, asshole and a piss poor father.

Your son deserved to die.

As the pro-choice crowd says, If you can't trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child.

In your case, it's if you aren't parent enough to keep your guns locked up in a safe, then your kid deserved to die.

It was his choice after all.

"Pro-life" my ass.

Punish your own sick ass, Stupak, not other people.

26 October 2009

Gun control works!

I've always thought the gun lobby in the States has the strangest argument for laxer gun laws which is that "criminals will always get guns, so why should we have strict gun controls?"

This is roughly like saying "people will always steal cars, so you should leave your car unlocked with the keys in the ignition", "Burglaries happen, so you should leave your house unlocked", or "stop rape, say 'yes'".

Anyway, this article was in the Times today:
Shotgun and rifle crime has more than doubled in Scotland because police have been so effective in cracking down on handgun smugglers, it emerged yesterday.

This sounds like really bad news. Gun crime is on the rise in Scotland. How can this be?
Gangs finding it harder to access the smaller weapons are instead arming themselves with shotguns and rifles stolen from licensed holders.

Oh, Dear! I am glad all the shotguns and rifles on our Scottish estate are locked up in a verrrryyy secure gun room (it would take about 4 hours with a thermic lance to cut through the walls or steel door), which is within a house with video security and a pretty good alarm system.

After all, I'd hate to have to rely on Hamish MacBeth to keep our guns safe. And woe to any mofo who turns my matching Holland and Hollands into sawed offs.

But the really staggering figures come a little further on:
New figures show that shotgun and rifle offences are at a ten-year high. Police recorded 130 offences involving shotguns and rifles between April 2008 and March this year, compared with 59 similar incidents over the previous 12 months.

OMG, these numbers are staggering! 59 incidents involving guns! It's a horrendous epidemic nearly on the scale of US gun crime!

The increase comes as overall firearms crimes in Scotland dropped from 1,125 in 2007-08 to 884 this year.

Scotland's population according to the 2008 census was 5,168,500, which means there was a 1.7% level of gun crime! Something must be done to stop this horrendous epidemic!

The really bad news is that:
The latest figures on firearms offences are likely to fuel renewed calls for the licensing of air weapons in Scotland — a move supported by the SNP Administration. At present, firearms legislation is confined to Westminster. A Scottish government spokesman said: “Of course, air weapons still account for a very high proportion of all firearms offences in Scotland, and that is why it is disappointing the UK Government has so far not agreed to transfer air gun legislation to Scotland, as recommended by the Calman Commission.

I've been expecting the registration of air weapons for a while. They have tightened the sale in England, where one could buy a BB pistol at the markets without let or hindrance 20 years ago. Now the things are ILLEGAL!

Anyway, as I have said on another board: British gun crime includes acts performed with air weapons and can include just shooting one in a built up area! So, even though the astronomic number of 884 gun crimes occured thus far in Scotland, it doesn't necessarily mean that this was the sort of gun violence that is so commonplace in the US. Also, the UK "gun crime" figures are inflated by adding air weapons and replica (non-firing) guns to the total figure.

US gun stats don't include non-firearms the way UK stats do. So, it makes the UK "gun crime" look pretty bad when it isn't.

On the other side of the pond, it also seems that the inability to acquire an assault rifle likely jammed an alleged terrorist plot to pull off a shopping mall massacre somewhere in Massachusetts. It seems that Massachusetts gun shops operate under some of the strictest laws in the nation when it comes to providing firepower to the public. Massachusetts has kept intact the Brady Bill, which barred the sale of assault weapons to all but those with the most exclusive licenses.

Poor terrorist, no gun for you!

Compare this to the Virginia tech shootings where Seung-Hui Cho was able to buy his firearms over the counter with no problem! So much for the gun cretin argument that "gun control caused the Virginia Tech Massacre".

Even though, the terrorist could have bought his arsenal in another state, say New Hampshire, the mere fact that it was made slightly harder by Massachusetts still having Brady Controls prevented a massacre!

The problem is that guns start out as legal commodities and then move into the category of being illegal when they are transferred into the hands of criminals: either through direct sale or straw purchase. The gun lobby does everything in its power to distract people from that inconvenient fact.

Unfortunately, people need to accept some "inconvenience" for the benefit of society. That inconvenience comes in the form of restrictions on gun sales and ownership, not in the form of diminshed public security.

The upshot of all this is that gun control is making it harder for criminals and other diqualified people (insane,terrorists, and so on) to acquire firearms! What a novel idea! Restrict access to firearms and gun crime goes down. A little prevention can work wonders.

It beats throwing your arms up in resignation.

25 October 2009

Sotomayor, Alito, and Gun Control

I have to admit that it is interesting seeing the kerfuffle around Sonia Sotomayor's position on the Second Amendment. It means absolutely zip as my early posts regarding Samuel Alito show

The real point is that in conversations and my early blogs, I pointed out that Justice Alito was on the three judge panel that decided U.S. v. Rybar,103 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 1996). That was the case which earned him the nickname "machinegun Sammy". But, I have been pointing out as frequently as I can that this case addressed the personal right interpretation of the Second Amendment which was raised as a defence by Rybar. The Rybar court held that the Second Amendment was a collective right, which means that it is to ensure the efficacy of the Militia institution set up under Article I, Section 8.

Justice Alito did dissent, but he did so in a manner similar to Justice Kennedy did in US v Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) which was to say that he would have found the machinegun statute constitutional had Congress provided a finding that these items were in interstate commerce.

Now, I have raised the question whether this means that Justice Alito follows the collective right interpretation of the Second Amendment whenever I can. I am also curious if stare decisis precludes Justice Alito from taking the individual right interpretation, which most commentators are not sure. I would like to think that it does. Or, failing that, I would like to think that Justice Alito is what I consider a true conservative rather than the idiots who call themselves conservative these days. This means that Justice Alito knows the accepted judicial interpretation of the Second Amendment, which is that it is to ensure the efficacy of the militia set up under Article I, Section 8 and has nothing to do with self-defence, hunting, or shooting sports in general.


No, had Justice Alito stuck by his position in U.S. vs. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3rd Cir. 1996), we would have seen a drastically different outcome to DC v. Heller.

The real point her is that Justice Sotomayor can vote whatever position her heart desires, which is contrary to proper Judicial practice. But, hey, they started it first!

As I keep saying, I am not sure what trend is starting with DC v.Heller,but I don't like it.

23 October 2009

Collective right new???

This decision was from 1942, which would put it well before 1970 and says that the Second Amendment: was not adopted with individual rights in mind, but as a protection for the States in the maintenance of their militia organizations against possible encroachments by the federal power.

That sounds pretty "collective" to me. Not only that it's in pretty clear language that it was not adopted with individual rights in mind.

From U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3rd Cir. 1942)

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides: "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 appellant's contention is that if the statute under which this prosecution was brought is to be applied to a weapon of the type he had in his possession, then the statute violates the Second Amendment.

It is abundantly clear both from the discussions of this amendment contemporaneous with its proposal and adoption and those of learned writers since that this amendment, unlike those providing for protection of free speech and freedom of religion, was not adopted with individual rights in mind, but as a protection for the States in the maintenance of their militia organizations against possible encroachments by the federal power. The experiences in England under James II of an armed royal force quartered upon a defenseless citizenry was fresh in the minds of the Colonists. They wanted no repetition of that experience in their newly formed government. The almost uniform course of decision in this country, where provisions similar in language are found in many of the State Constitutions, bears out this concept of the constitutional guarantee. A notable instance is the refusal to extend its application to weapons thought incapable of military use.

The contention of the appellant in this case could, we think, be denied without more under the authority of United States v. Miller, 1939, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S. Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206. This was a prosecution under the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the weapon, the possession of which had occasioned the prosecution of the accused, was a shotgun of less than 18 inch barrel. The Court said that in the absence of evidence tending to show that possession of such a gun at the time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, it could not be said that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep such an instrument. The appellant here having failed to show such a relationship, the same thing may be said as applied to the pistol found in his possession. It is not material on this point that the 1934 statute was bottomed on the taxing power while the statute in question here was based on a regulation of interstate commerce.

But, further, the same result is definitely indicated on a broader ground and on this we should prefer to rest the matter. Weapon bearing was never treated as anything like an absolute right by the common law. It was regulated by statute as to time and place as far back as the Statute of Northampton in 1328 and on many occasions since. The decisions under the State Constitutions show the upholding of regulations prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons, prohibiting persons from going armed in certain public places and other restrictions, in the nature of police regulations, but which do not go so far as substantially to interfere with the public interest protected by the constitutional mandates. The Federal statute here involved is one of that general type. One could hardly argue seriously that a limitation upon the privilege of possessing weapons was unconstitutional when applied to a mental patient of the maniac type. The same would be true if the possessor were a child of immature years. In the situation at bar Congress has prohibited the receipt of weapons from interstate transactions by persons who have previously, by due process of law, been shown to be aggressors against society. Such a classification is entirely reasonable and does not (p.267)infringe upon the preservation of the well regulated militia protected by the Second Amendment.

22 October 2009

More Guns, Less Crime???

I have been asking this question for quite some time: How can Michael Bellesiles be ripped to shreds for his book Arming America, yet we still see John Lott cited as authoritative about CCW reducing crime?

John Lott makes Bellesiles look honest as heck.

Tim Lambert catalogues Lott's unethical behaviour. In fact, Lambert basically rips apart everything John Lott says.

Anyway...

From Mother Jones:

One of Michael Bellesiles' most dogged critics, Northwestern University law professor James Lindgren, also prepared a report investigating Lott's survey claims. "I have serious doubts whether he ever did the study," says Lindgren, "and the only evidence that he's brought forward for having done the study is ambiguous" -- an NRA activist who claims to remember having been called and asked about defensive gun uses.

But many gun rights conservatives have taken a pass on the Lott issue. A glowing review of "The Bias Against Guns" in National Review -- which made much hash of the Bellesiles affair -- failed to mention Lott's recent difficulties in corroborating the existence of his survey. "It's so interesting that Michael Bellesiles gets hung from the highest tree, while Lott, if anything, he's been more prominent in the last couple of months," says Donohue.

The right has good reason to stick by Lott: "The entire ideology of the modern gun movement has basically been built around this guy," says Saul Cornell, an Ohio State University historian who has written widely on guns. Over the years the pro-gun intellectual agenda has had two prongs: Defending a revisionist legal understanding of the Second Amendment in constitutional law, and refuting social scientists and public-health researchers who argue that the widespread availability of guns in America plays a key role in the nation's staggering number of homicides and suicides. Without Lott's work, the latter argument becomes much harder to make.

More conservative soul searching may result from a forthcoming National Academy of Sciences report from an expert panel dedicated to "Improving Research Information and Data on Firearms." Scheduled for release in late fall, the panel's report will address Lott's work. Duke University economist Philip Cook, co-editor of the Brookings Institution book "Evaluating Gun Policy", draws a historical analogy: In the late 1970s, after economist Isaac Ehrlich published a complex analysis supposedly proving that every execution in America deters about eight murders, the NAS released a devastating expert report debunking Ehrlich's findings. The same thing could happen to Lott.

If it does, we can be reasonably sure of one thing: Lott will have a response ready. "Lott will never say, 'that's a good point.' Lott will offer you some rebuttal," says Georgetown gun policy expert Jens Ludwig. But if Lott won't fully address the errors that undermine his thesis, it may fall to someone else -- his conservative peers, the American Enterprise Institute, perhaps -- to step in and do it for him.

21 October 2009

Collective Right Anathema to freedom?

I would argue that the entire concept of a “collective” right is an anathema to freedom. Some please tell me what ‘collective right’ they have, and how they can assert it.

Well, Those who insisted the Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights had a well founded fear of standing armies. They knew how often standing armies, established in the name of defending against external enemies, had instead used the power with which they had been entrusted to enslave the very peoples they had pledged to protect. Those men of wisdom also recognized how the power of tyrants almost always required control over a standing army capable of imposing the tyrant's will on an unwilling populace. The Continental Congress had no intention of allowing the liberty they sought for Americans to be easily usurped - and they were also determined not to create the means for a tyrant to seize the reins of power from the people.

A large part-time people's army reduces the likelihood of war as members derive the great bulk of their income from civilian employment thus are less than enthusiastic about interrupting their civilian lives and careers by marching off to an unnecessary war, while many citizens are far less likely to support a war of aggression if it is likely a family member will have to fight it, factors which help explain Swiss neutrality and the fact that it has not fought a war in almost 500 years (not counting a very brief civil war in 1847 that did away with the last vestiges of feudalism). Being a member of a military organization promotes discipline, comradeship and self-reliance, which fosters social cohesion and an egalitarian, democratic mindset thanks to the mixing of people from different social classes and cultural groups who would otherwise have little if any close contact with each other.

You would find that the founders also would be in complete disagreement:

"Standing armies [are] inconsistent with [a people's] freedom and subversive of their quiet." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North's Proposition, 1775. Papers 1:231

"It astonishes me to find... [that so many] of our countrymen... should be contented to live under a system which leaves to their governors the power of taking from them the trial by jury in civil cases, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of commerce, the habeas corpus laws, and of yoking them with a standing army. This is a degeneracy in the principles of liberty... which I [would not have expected for at least] four centuries." --Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1788. (*) FE 5:3

"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." --Thomas Jefferson to Chandler Price, 1807. ME 11:160

"The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1814. ME 14:184

"When a government wishes to deprive its citizens of freedom, and reduce them to slavery, it generally makes use of a standing army." -- Luther Martin, Maryland delegate to the Constitutional Convention
Mr. Gerry — This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration 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 ith respect to a militia, as make a standing army necessary. Whenever government 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. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishement of an effective militia to the eastward. The assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making, to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia, but they were always defeated by the influence of the crown. The Congressional Register, 17 August 1789

"A distinction between the civil and military [is one] which it would be for the good of the whole to obliterate as soon as possible." --Thomas Jefferson: Answers to de Meusnier Questions, 1786. ME 17:90
It must be made a sacred maxim, that the militia obey the executive power, which represents the whole people in the execution of laws. To suppose arms in the hands of the citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self defense, or by partial orders of towns, counties, or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed, and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws. Adams, John, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America,1787-88, p. 474-5

The Bill of Rights secures to the people the use of arms in common defense; so that, if it be an alienable right, one use of arms is secured to the people against any law of the legislature. The other purposes for which they might have been used in a state of nature, being a natural right, and not surrendered by the constitution, the people still enjoy, and [may?] continue to do so till the legislature shall think fit to interdict. "Scribble Scrabble," Cumberland Gazette, January 26, 1787; "Scribble-Scrabble," ibid., December 8, 1786

Mr. Madison has introduced his long expected amendments. They are the fruit of much labor and research. He has hunted up all the grievances and complaints of newspapers, all the articles of conventions, and the small talk of their debates. It contains a bill of rights, the right of enjoying property, of changing the government at pleasure, freedom of the press, of conscience, of juries, exemption from general warrants, gradual increase of representatives, till the whole number, at the rate of one to every thirty thousand, shall amount to ____, and allowing two to every State, at least. This is the substance. There is too much of it. Oh! I had forgot, the right of the people to bear arms.

Risum teneatic amici? [Hold your laughter, friends.]

Upon the whole, it may do some good towards quieting men, who attend to sounds only, and may get the mover [Madison] some popularity, which he wishes.
Fischer Ames, letter to Thomas Dwight, June 11, 1789

And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights. Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§ 1890

The legislature, therefore, have a right to prohibit the wearing or keeping weapons dangerous to the peace and safety of the citizens, and which are not usual in civilized warfare, or would not contribute to the common defense. The right to keep and bear arms for the common defence is a great political right. It respects the citizens on the one hand and the rulers on the other. And although this right must be inviolably preserved, yet, it does not follow that the legislature is prohibited altogether from passing laws regulating the manner in which these arms may be employed.

To hold that the legislature could pass no law upon this subject, by which to preserve the public peace, and protect our citizens from the terror, which a wanton and unusual exhibition of arms might produce, or their lives from being endangered by desperadoes with concealed arms, would be to pervert a great political right to the worst of purposes, and to make it a social evil, of infinitely a greater extent to society, than would result from abandoning the right itself. Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. (2 Hump.) 154 (1840).


So, your right to be free from a large military establishment was of the highest importance!

How to take the fun out of blogging!

I mentioned in my Anonymity post that the person I work with would love for me to post scholarly articles. Well, he has told me that my job description now includes blogging in his name.

Despite what the booboisie (ignorentsia? hoi polloi? cretin class?) believe, I have a pretty good reputation as a lawyer and for doing legal research. To be quite honest, these jokers are much more polite when they are ponying up $20-30k for me to guide them through a federal gun charge. That's a major reason I can blow off their comments. Well, that and the fact that I don't like moronic, time wasters.

Anyway, I now have to crank out cogent comments on the latest court cases. That isn't too hard since I've been preparing all the CLE material he claims as his own. Not that I mind since I get free CLE for doing that!

The problem is that this is now WORK, which is something I try to avoid. My wife will tell you that I do not define myself by my job, no matter how good I am at it. My life begins once I leave court and the office.

The Second Amendment stuff is a fun game, but I won't persuade the believers. I just hope that someone is able to put it to good use.

20 October 2009

For Sevesteen

The Militia Information Service is an Internet website dedicated to the democratization of military forces around the world.

This service was created by the Human Rights Coalition (Australia) and is committed to two objectives:

* Promoting the democratization of national armed forces as a safeguard against tyranny and crimes against humanity; and
* Educating the public about the danger posed by the monopolization of force into the hands of professional soldiers.

I don't agree with this group, but they do present the miltia based idea of military service. While it is a bit fringy, it isn't as fringy as the "militia" groups in the US. It's belief that citizens have a duty to join a Swiss Army style citizen army, army reserve, or Home Guard type militia in order to act as a democratic safeguard and help deter crimes against humanity like genocide is defintely similar to the idea presented at the time of the drafting of the US Constitution. That is a militia is distinct from the full-time professional soldiers paid by the government. In modern times the militia normally serves to supplement a standing army (e.g., help it resist an invasion) and act as a safeguard against it (i.e., deter a military coup).

This is very close to the beliefs of the Founders of the United StateS:
A large part-time people's army reduces the likelihood of war as members derive the great bulk of their income from civilian employment thus are less than enthusiastic about interrupting their civilian lives and careers by marching off to an unnecessary war, while many citizens are far less likely to support a war of aggression if it is likely a family member will have to fight it, factors which help explain Swiss neutrality and the fact that it has not fought a war in almost 500 years (not counting a very brief civil war in 1847 that did away with the last vestiges of feudalism). Being a member of a military organization promotes discipline, comradeship and self-reliance, which fosters social cohesion and an egalitarian, democratic mindset thanks to the mixing of people from different social classes and cultural groups who would otherwise have little if any close contact with each other.

The US Health System Is Way Better Than Europe's -- If You Don't Count Gunshots and Auto Accidents

Ever wonder why those people are showing up with firearms at meetings where Health Care reform is being discussed?

No phrase is bandied around more in the gun debate than “freedom of the individual”. When it comes to most dangerous products such as handguns, automatic weapons and other things specifically designed to kill people, I believe control is necessary, not least because the failure to deal with such violent devices often means that other freedoms must be curtailed.


TPM LiveWire
Ensign: Our Health System Is Way Better Than Europe's -- If You Don't Count Gunshots and Auto Accidents
Rachel Slajda | September 29, 2009, 12:48PM

In the Senate Finance Committee debate on health care reform this afternoon, Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) brought up what he thought was a very good point: If you don't count injuries from guns or car accidents, the U.S. health care system actually provides better outcomes than those in European and other industrialized countries.

"Are you aware that if you take out gun accidents and auto accidents, that the United States actually is better than those other countries?" Ensign said. Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) had been citing the health care systems of France, Germany, Japan and Canada as more effective, but with lower costs.

"But that doesn't have anything to do with health care. Auto accidents don't have anything to do with h--," Ensign said, cutting himself off. "I mean we're just a much more mobile society. ... We drive our cars a lot more, they do public transportation. So you have to compare health care system with health care system."



"The level of gun ownership world-wide is directly related to murder and suicide rates and specifically to the level of death by gunfire." From International Correlation between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide.' Professor Martin Killias, May 1993.

Gun Deaths - International Comparisons

from The Gun Control Network
Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated): SROLL DOWN AS I CAN'T FIGURE OUT TABLES!





















































































Homicide


Suicide


Other (inc Accident)
USA(2001) 3.98 5.92 0.36
Italy (1997)
0.81 1.1 0.07
Switzerland(1998) 0.50 5.8

0.10
Canada(2002) 0.4 2.0 0.04
Finland (2003) 0.35 4.45 0.10
Australia (2001)
0.24 1.34 0.10
France (2001) 0.21 3.4 0.49
England/Wales(2002) 0.15 0.2 0.03
Scotland(2002)
0.06 0.2 0.02
Japan(2002)
0.02 0.04 0


Data taken from Cukier and Sidel (2006) The Global Gun Epidemic. Praeger Security International. Westport.


Figure produced by IANSA (International Action Network on Small Arms) and taken from their recent presentation Gun Violence: The Global Crisis.

Collective or Individual?

Quick Answer for Sevesteen: gun rights are illusory in common law.

I have begun to dislike the terms "collective" and "individual" right in relation to the Second Amendment. First off, neither term really conveys what the right actually encompasses (in legal terms--it's scope). Saying that the right is collective and belongs to the States isn't really helpful. The right was intended to ensure that the Federal Government would not abuse its power to arm the militia under Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 to the detriment of the militia.

It shouldn't come as a surprise that this subject is hard for the booboisie to comprehend since even Supreme Court Justices have difficulty comprehending that there was a difference between civic and private purposes. I mean the booboisie can't comprehend comics, let alone complicated ideas. Also, “collective right” or “individual right” doesn't really define what exactly was being protected. The State's right to have militias? A personal right to own firearms outside of militia service?

That's why the question that the Supreme Court allegedly was considering in Heller was:
Whether the following provisions—D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02—violated the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?

Justice Stevens pointed out that:
The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an“individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.

Guns are used to hunt, for self-defense, to commit crimes, for sporting activities, and to perform military duties. The Second Amendment plainly does not protect the right to use a gun to rob a bank; it is equally clear that it does encompass the right to use weapons for certain military purposes. Whether it also protects the right to possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunting and personal self-defense is the question presented by this case.
Justice Stevens's Heller Dissent p.1

This question was answered by US v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) as:
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. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.

The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress 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 prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. 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.

I paraphrase the dicta to make it comprehensible to modern minds as:
The entire text of the Second Amendment was made with the obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of the forces created under authority of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16. It must be interpreted and applied in consideration of that purpose. Without evidence that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' is reasonably related 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. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment of the body organised under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 of the Constitution or that its use and possession would contribute to the common defense.

Despite what various sides say about the holding taking it from various portions of the early paragraphs. The actual holding is that: "We are unable to accept the conclusion of the court below and the challenged judgment must be reversed (i.e., that the National Firearms Act violates the Second Amendment). The cause will be remanded for further proceedings."

Although it seems from the dicta that the Second Amendment right is best defined as a civic right in that it requires a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" at least according to Miller, but not according to Heller which choose to ignore the method and precedent of Miller.

Although, As I read Miller, the proper answer to the Question in Heller was "no" for a multitude of reasons. The Heller court had other dilatory tactics if it couldn't give the proper answer, but I digress...

The Founders came from the common law tradition and didn't totally reinvent the wheel when it came to the nascent US legal system. That means the law of the United States was originally largely derived from the common law system of English law, at both the federal and state levels. Weapons related to militia service enjoyed greater protection and were not subject to the same level of regulation as personal arms in the early republic. The right to keep arms for civilian purposes was not removed from the sphere of the State's legislative power, it was subject to the full scope of the state's police powers.

As anyone familiar with Common law developments regarding gun regulation will tell you, there are no "gun rights" in other common law jurisdictions even though they all have the militia tradition to some extent or another (E.g., Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom). Other Common law based jurisdictions are quick to ban personal firearm ownership after gun massacres.

For example, when Martin Bryant killed 35 people and wounded 21 others in Port Arthur, Tasmania. Both federal and state governments, some of which (notably Tasmania itself and Queensland) were opposed to firearm control, quickly took action to restrict the availability of firearms. It should be noted that the Tasmanian state government initially attempted to ignore this directive, but was subsequently threatened with a number of penalties from the federal government. Though this resulted in stirring controversy, most Government opposition to the new laws was silenced by mounting public opinion in the wake of the shootings. Under federal government co-ordination all states and territories of Australia banned and heavily restricted the legal ownership and use of self-loading rifles, self-loading and pump-action shotguns, together with considerable tightening of other gun laws.

When Michael Robert Ryan, armed with two semi-automatic rifles and a handgun, shot and killed sixteen people including his mother, and wounded fifteen others, then fatally shot himself in Hungerford, England. The massacre led to the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, which banned the ownership of semi-automatic centre-fire rifles and restricted the use of shotguns with a magazine capacity of more than two rounds. The Hungerford Report had demonstrated that Ryan's collection of weapons was legally licensed.

The Dublane Massacre where Sixteen children and one adult were killed led to the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 being passed. This means that as of 1997 handguns have been almost completely banned for private ownership in Great Britain. Exceptions to the ban include muzzle-loading "blackpowder" guns, pistols produced before 1917, pistols of historical interest (such as pistols used in notable crimes, rare prototypes, unusual serial numbers and so on), starting pistols, pistols that are of particular aesthetic interest (such as engraved or jewelled guns) and shot pistols for pest control. Under certain circumstances, individuals may be issued a PPW (Personal Protection Weapon) licence. Even the UK's Olympic shooters fall under this ban; shooters can only train in Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man, or abroad.

Compare the reactions from Australia and Great Britain to the Circle Jerks that occur in the United States after mass shootings and other examples of mayhem caused by firearms. People are so frustrated that they don't even bother to mention gun control. Maybe if someone wipes out an entire city...

Likewise, Early commentators in the US saw the difference possession for the common defence and personal uses. For example, the following passage is often cited by "gun rights" advocates to buttress their position:
7. “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own State, or theUnited States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies
in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and be governed by the civil powers.”
"The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania to their Constituents (December 18, 1787), reprinted in Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution, 1787-1788, p. 422

This is because the private purposes of "defense of themselves" and "killing game" is mentioned. The problem is that the public can be disarmed for "unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals". This raises a few questions in my mind such as how strongly are the private purposes protected in light of "real danger of public injury from individuals". I believe that the fact that private purposes are mentioned in this passage, but aren't in the text of the Second Amendment shows that the Second Amendment should not include those purposes under the maxim of Statutory Interpretation Expressio unius est exclusio alterius (The express mention of one thing excludes all others).

Additionally, we have this quote showing a difference between use for the common defence and personal uses from ratification times.
The Bill of Rights secures to the people the use of arms in common defense; so that, if it be an alienable right, one use of arms is secured to the people against any law of the legislature. The other purposes for which they might have been used in a state of nature, being a natural right, and not surrendered by the constitution, the people still enjoy, and [may?] continue to do so till the legislature shall think fit to interdict. "Scribble Scrabble," Cumberland Gazette, January 26, 1787; "Scribble-Scrabble," ibid., December 8, 1786

The right to keep and carry firearms was one of the issues in Commonwealth v. Selfridge (1806), the most important murder trial of the early republic that began to change the need to retreat in self-defence situations. In this case, Selfridge's lawyer conceded that "every man has a right to possess military arms" and "to furnish his rooms with them." Yet the defense also recognized that the ownership and the use of non-military weapons were not constitutionally protected. Rather than assert a constitutional claim, the defense framed a common law argument on behalf of his client. Selfridge's attorney argued "there is no law written or unwritten, no part of the statute or common law of our country which denies to a man the right of possessing or wearing any kind of arms." Given this fact, it was indisputable that "in every free society a man is at liberty to do that which the law does not interdict, nor can the doing that which is not forbidden be imputed as a crime." Therefore, the acquittal in the Selfridge case made perfect legal sense since Selfridge had not broken any law.
Trial of Thomas O. Selfridge, attorney at law, before the Hon. Isaac Parker, Esquire, for killing Charles Austin, on the public exchange, in Boston, August 4, 1806 by Thomas O. Selfridge, Published by Russell and Cutler, Belcher and Armstrong, and Oliver and Munroe (Boston) 1807.

Likewise, there are other instances where it is made clear that States legislatures could regulate firearms for personal uses
The legislature, therefore, have a right to prohibit the wearing or keeping weapons dangerous to the peace and safety of the citizens, and which are not usual in civilized warfare, or would not contribute to the common defense. The right to keep and bear arms for the common defence is a great political right. It respects the citizens on the one hand and the rulers on the other. And although this right must be inviolably preserved, yet, it does not follow that the legislature is prohibited altogether from passing laws regulating the manner in which these arms may be employed.

To hold that the legislature could pass no law upon this subject, by which to preserve the public peace, and protect our citizens from the terror, which a wanton and unusual exhibition of arms might produce, or their lives from being endangered by desperadoes with concealed arms, would be to pervert a great political right to the worst of purposes, and to make it a social evil, of infinitely a greater extent to society, than would result from abandoning the right itself. Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. (2 Hump.) 154 (1840).


Aymette is quite clear on the difference between the use of arms for Common defence and personal uses.

So, to recap on how to tell what is being discussed:

Civic context:
Basic gist: the right is better defined as a civic right in that it requires a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" that is the body organised under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 of the Constitution.
The test is: does it contribute to the common defense? "How will your militia be armed?"
Key words to clue you in: "subject to militia duty", "Common defence", security, free State, discipline, standing army, system of defense, general obligation, military duty, etcetera

Personal uses:
personal non-military use, not related to the common defence.
Test: is the use military in nature or related to the common defence? If the answer is "no", then this is a private use.
Key words to clue you in: "defense of his home, person and property", family, hunting, recreational use, purpose of killing game, private use, etcetera.


Anyway, if one goes to the primary sources such as Patrick Henry's comments in regard to the Constitution, one finds a direct reference to the Federal power over the militia in relation to the Second Amendment and the need to preserve state militias from Federal interference.

Patrick Henry, Against the Federal Constitution (June 5, 1788) Argument IV: against the standing army Constitution: Article I Section 8
8.1 You will find all the strength of this country in the hands of your enemies; their garrisons will naturally be the strongest places in the country. Your militia is given up to Congress, also, in another part of this plan: they will therefore act as they think proper: all power will be in their own possession. You cannot force them to receive their punishment: of what service would militia be to you, when, most probably, you will not have a single musket in the state? for, as arms are to be provided by Congress, they may or may not furnish them.
9.1 Let me here call your attention to that part which gives the Congress power "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 prescribed by Congress."
9.2 By this, sir, you see that their control over our last and best defence is unlimited. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless: the states can do neither—this power being exclusively given to Congress. The power of appointing officers over men not disciplined or armed is ridiculous; so that this pretended little remains of power left to the states may, at the pleasure of Congress, be rendered nugatory. Our situation will be deplorable indeed: nor can we ever expect to get this government amended, since I have already shown that a very small minority may prevent it, and that small minority interested in the continuance of the oppression.


or Patrick Henry's "That every man be armed" speech found at The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (3 Elliot's Debates 384-7), Virginia, Saturday, June 14, 1788. Page 386-7
. . .

As my worthy friend said, there is a positive partition of power between the two governments. To Congress is given the power of "arming, organizing, and disciplining the militia, and governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States." To the state legislatures is given the power of "appointing the officers, and training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." I observed before, that, if the power be concurrent as to arming them, it is concurrent in other respects...May we not discipline and arm them, as well as Congress, if the power be concurrent? so that our militia shall have two sets of arms, double sets of regimentals, &c.; and thus, at a very great cost, we shall be doubly armed. The great object is, that every man be armed. But can the people afford to pay for double sets of arms &c.? Every one who is able may have a gun. But we have learned, by experience, that necessary as it is to have arms, and though our Assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavoured 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; for sure I am that nation which shall trust its liberties in other hands cannot long exist. If gentlemen are serious when they suppose a concurrent power, where can be the impolicy to amend it? Or, in other words, to say that Congress shall not arm or discipline them, till the states shall have refused or neglected to do it? This is my object. I only wish to bring it to what they themselves say is implied. Implication is to be the foundation of our civil liberties, and when you speak of arming the militia by a concurrence of power, you use implication. But implication will not save you, when a strong army of veterans comes upon you. You would be laughed at by the whole world for trusting your safety implicitly to implication.

Additionally, even though Story is cited as being for an individual right, we find him bemoaning the "growing indifference to any system of militia discipline"
And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights. Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§ 1890

Again, we find that when we use the primary sources to examine the quotes used to show an "individual right" we find a distinct civic tone. Why would one need "some organization" if the right belongs to individuals for non-common defence purposes?

Anyway, there are loads of examples of a guarantee of arms for private purposes in State Constitutions. Although, I find it interesting that some of these personal rights are recently granted, such as Delaware's from 1987, Nebraska's from 1988, and the change in language between Idaho's provision from 1978 compared to the language from 1889.

Colorado: The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons. Art. II, § 13 (enacted 1876, art. II, § 13).
Delaware: A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use. Art. I, § 20 (enacted 1987).
Georgia: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne. Art. I, § 1, ¶ VIII (enacted 1877, art. I, § XXII).
Nebraska: All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof. Art. I, § 1 (right to keep and bear arms enacted 1988).


Idaho: The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony. Art. I, § 11 (enacted 1978).
1889: "The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense; but the Legislature shall regulate the exercise of this right by law." Art. I, § 11.


I find the more research I do with primary sources on this subject, the more it becomes apparent that the founders saw a difference between civic and personal uses of firearms. The Civic right was that covered by the Second Amendment with the private uses being subject to common law and the police power of the States.