Exactly!

From the Philadelphia Inquirer, Sat, Nov. 28, 2009
Editorial: Legal, but still lethal

In the wake of a number of shocking mass shootings, Americans should call on their elected leaders to tackle the problem of easy access to guns for people who have no business being armed.

Yes, that's the point, yet we hear all sorts of arguments that aren't germane to the discussion from the "gun rights" extremists.

They dodge the question of whether they support easy access to guns for disqualified persons: e.g., criminals, the insane, terrorists, and so on. Actually, there is a legislator, Sen. Richard Burr (N.C.), who wants to arm the insane. Burr would give immediate access to guns to over 100,000 veterans already found to be “mentally incapacitated, deemed mentally incompetent, or experiencing an extended loss of consciousness.”

Something Bill Mann has written in his newspaper columns about for years bears repeating here:

Any country with as many mentally ill people as the U.S. that allows virtually unlimited access to handguns is on a suicide mission.

Maybe we just need to ignore the ignorant gun fanatics who want to give guns to criminals and crazies and just start working on gun regulation.

Gun Policy News

I subscribe to gunpolicy news from http://www.gunpolicy.org/ which is like an international version of the gun guys.

One article that caught my interest was an op-ed piece from the LA Times called America's pointless gun fight. It's by Richard Feldman, so he tries to be unbiased about the issue saying that it's both sides who are being unreasonable. I tend to disagree with that, since most of the lack of reason comes from the more radical segment of the pro-gun side who see any attempt to regulate fireams as an infringement on their "gun rights". Feldman does make a very good point:

What is missing from The Times' editorial and from the ongoing national debate is the following:

First, we need to recognize that guns are present in more than 40% of all homes in this country -- like it or not. Any credible discussion of this issue must acknowledge that reality.

Second, gun owners and non-gun owners alike are in universal agreement in this country that violent, predatory criminals should not possess, have access to nor easily obtain firearms.

Third, we all wish that mentally troubled individuals would not own, possess or acquire guns.

Both sides of the debate need to acknowledge they actually agree on several key issues. I am a gun owner, and I do not intend to surrender my rights because of the acts of criminals, mental midgets or a sentimental wish of how things might be somewhere else (The Times muses about Canada's low homicide rate). I am hungry for action that moves our common agenda forward.

Mr. Feldman, I think we have sentimental wishes coming from both sides. Looking at how gun control has worked in other jurisdictions is merely an academic exercise. It has some value, but the US gun situation is very unique.

Also, I have a question about the figure that "guns are present in more than 40% of all homes in this country" which isn't disputing the figure, but a question of how many of those homes would keep the firearms if registration were imposed?

A realistic scenario for gun registration in the US would be that there would be a period of amnesty in which people were given the option of registering their firearms (which would probably be grandfathered in) or legally disposing of them. How many would turn their guns in as part of a gun amnesty or buyback?

My opinion on the reason the gun lobby fears registration has nothing to do with its efficacy as a tool for controlling firearms, but the fact that it WILL reduce the amount of firearms sold. How many people would buy a firearm if it requires a registration process?

It's not about public safety, but how much money the gun companies can make selling firearms and not caring where they end up.

Feldman does end on a very good point:

The bottom line is this: We must stop debating the polemics of guns and instead show wisdom and maturity to begin to resolve the problems of the negligent misuse of guns. Though a cliche, the following is nevertheless true: Guns aren't ever the problem; guns in the wrong hands are always the problem. How we address this problem will determine the future of gun safety in America.

Does saying that make him anti-gun? Although I already imagine he is seen as a turncoat for having written "Ricochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist". Nevermind that he was an executive director of the firearm industry's trade association and a regional political director for the National Rifle Association.

Not from Gunpolicy.org, but from my past reading and collection we have a couple of interesting articles from Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting we have a couple of interesting articles that seem to be lost in the dreck: Jeff Cohen's Gun Control, the NRA and the Second Amendment and Howard Friel's How the NRA Rewrote the Constitution: On Second Amendment, Reporters Side With Gun Lobby Against Supreme Court.

These articles deal with how the National Rifle Association has advanced the view that the amendment provides a fundamental right to private gun ownership that cannot be abridged by the passage of gun control laws. In fact, the actual finding that the Second Amendment provided an "individual right" in DC v. Heller did not come through legal precedent, but from a well planned attack by a special interest group, the Cato Institute.

The problem is that the gun debate like other US policy debates seems to be dominated by continuing misinformation, lies and deception used by ideologically shaped skeptics who deny (in this case, climate change, but it can be gun control or whatever). If deniers can convince the public that gun control (climate science, etcetera) is bogus, then there is no need for legal reforms. There is an industry of those who are paid to say that there are gun rights (manmade global warming isn’t happening, etcetera). The great majority of people who believe this have not been paid; however, they have been duped.

Gun control is a wedge issue par excellence in that all sorts of emotive situations and language can be used. Brainwashing doesn't take any sci-fi gadgetry or Manchurian Candidate hypnotism bullshit. There are all sorts of tried-and-true techniques that anyone can use to bypass the thinking part of your brain and flip a switch deep inside that says "OBEY."

How long will it take before people get fed up with the concept of "gun rights" and wake up?

How many incidents like this one where a NH Man was Charged With Firing AK-47 in a Massachusetts Restaurant:

Authorities said Anthony Gobbi, 30, of East Wakefield, N.H., fired an AK-47 into the restaurant's ceiling as patrons ducked for cover. Police said Gobbi became enraged when bartenders at the China Lion restaurant refused to serve him alcohol, believing he was drunk.

Police said that after he was refused service, Gobbi went to his truck, retrieved a handgun and the AK-47, returned to the restaurant and opened fire.

While most patrons ducked for cover, others managed to tackle Gobbi, wrestling him outside as he squeezed off a few more bursts of gunfire, police said. Gobbi was pinned to the ground while others called 911.

People didn't need guns to stop this shooter, they just needed to stand up to him and be fearless.

People need to stand up to the US gun lobby and not take it anymore.
(I was trying to figure out how to get the AK-47 story in there)

Sorry, Mandatory Gun Registration Is Constitutional

I'll link to this article since it is making its way into the search results

Funny, but this is nothing new to anyone who is familiar with the Heller Decision. In fact, I've been saying this from pretty early on (check my posts)! Of course, I'm "anti-gun" so nothing I say is true, which shows the gun cretins for the brainwashed fools they are. But it is fun to read things like:

Even some pro-gun scholars and advocates reluctantly agree. “I think under the Heller decision, registration would be constitutional,” Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation in Bellevue, Wash., told CBSNews.com this week. “It doesn’t make it good public policy.”

and

“Registration is probably not unconstitutional,” says Don Kilmer, an attorney in San Jose, Calif. who has sued two California counties for denying law-abiding citizens permits to carry concealed weapons. “There’s a difference between registration as a permissible regulation and registration as good policy.”

But, I saw an interesting parallel to British Gun law where licensing was introduced and eventually this led to a registration scheme. In the US case, there is an "individual right", but that is not infringed upon by registration. This allows for the nebulous mantra of "the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right", yet it also allows for registration:

In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun
possession in the home violates the Second Amendment,
as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm
in the home operable for the purpose of immediate
self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified
from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District
must permit him to register his handgun and must
issue him a license to carry it in the home.
* * *
We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this
country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the
many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun
ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the
District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that
problem, including some measures regulating handguns,
see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of
constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy
choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition
of handguns held and used for self-defense in the
home. -DC. v. Heller

Gee that's a godsend to the gun control crowd who can now say "regulation is acceptable, but we can't ban gun ownership".

Now, the question is would incorporation to the States mean that something such as Idaho's Constitutional right to arms, "No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition", would be pre-empted by Federal law?

Be careful what you wish for, it may come true!

In the fight against terrorism, some rights must be repealed

I found this whilst trying to get info on a certain Jewish "Gun Rights" organisation. It's from altmuslim! It's also been something that I have been saying since 9/11.

By Junaid M. Afeef, March 4, 2005

The newly appointed CIA Director Porter Goss, believes that terrorists may bring urban warfare techniques learned in Iraq to our homeland. If he is right, we could have a whole new war on our hands. The prospect is indeed scary.

The idea of terrorist cells operating clandestinely in the United States, quietly amassing handguns and assault rifles, and planning suicide shooting rampages in our malls, is right out of Tom Clancy's most recent novel. If not for the fact that the 9/11 attacks were also foreshadowed in a Clancy novel, I would have given the idea no further thought.

However, rather than facing this potential threat publicly, the Bush administration is only focused on terrorist attacks involving missiles, nuclear devices and biological weapons. Stopping terrorists with WMDs is a good thing, but what about the more immediate threat posed by terrorists with guns? The potential threat of terrorist attacks using guns is far more likely than any of these other scenarios.

This leads to a bigger policy issue. In the post 9/11 world where supposedly "everything has changed," perhaps it is time for Americans to reconsider the value of public gun ownership.

The idea of public gun ownership simply does not make sense anymore. The right to bear arms, as enumerated in the Second Amendment, was meant for the maintenance of a "well-regulated militia." At the time the amendment was adopted, standing armies were viewed with a great deal of suspicion, and therefore, gun-owning individuals were seen as a protection mechanism for the public. These gun owners were also seen as guardians of the republic against the tyranny of the rulers. The framers of the Constitution saw the right to bear and use arms as a check against an unruly government. That state of affairs no longer exists.

Today, only a handful of citizens outside of neo-nazi and white supremacist groups view gun ownership as a means of keeping the government in check. Even those citizens who continue to maintain such antiquated views must face the reality that the United States' armed forces are too large and too powerful for the citizenry to make much difference. Quite frankly, the idea of the citizenry rising up against the U.S. government with their handguns and assault rifles, and facing the military with these personal arms is absurd. The Branch Davidian tragedy at Waco, Texas, was one such futile attempt.

The more important consideration is public safety. It is no longer safe for the public to carry guns. Gun violence is increasingly widespread in the United States. According to the DOJ/FBI's Crime In The United States: 2003 report, 45,197 people in the United States were murdered with guns between 1999 and 2003. That averages out to more than 9,000 people murdered per year. Nearly three times the number of lives lost in the tragic 9/11 attacks is murdered annually as a direct result of guns.

Examples of wanton violence are all around. One particularly heinous incident of gun violence occurred in 1998 when former Aryan Nation member Buford Furrow shot and wounded three young boys, a teenage girl and a receptionist at the North Valley Jewish Community Center in Los Angeles and then shot and killed a Filipino-American postal worker.

Another occurred in July 1999 when white supremacist Benjamin Nathaniel Smith, a member of the World Church of the Creator, went on a weekend shooting spree, targeting Blacks, Jews and Asians. By the time Smith was done he had wounded six Orthodox Jews returning from services, and killed one African-American and one Korean-American.

Just recently, in Ulster, NY, a 24 year old man carrying a Hesse Arms Model 47, an AK-47 clone assault rifle, randomly shot people in a local mall. While the Justice Department did not label this murder a terrorist attack, all the signs were there. The Ulster, New York shooting is an ominous warning of what lies ahead. Terrorism can be a homegrown act committed by anyone with a gun and is not unique to a "Middle Eastern-looking man with a bomb." As long as the public is allowed to own guns, the threat of similar terrorist attacks remains real.

The idea of curtailing rights in the name of homeland security does not seem implausible given the current state of civil liberties in the United States. The war on terror has already taken an enormous toll on the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments, and thus far, very few Americans have objected. In light of this precedence, it seems reasonable that scaling back or even repealing the right to bear arms would be an easy task.

In fact, it will be a very difficult task. So far the civil liberties curtailment has affected generally disenfranchised groups such as immigrants, people of color and religious minorities. An assault on the Second Amendment will impact a much more powerful constituency.

According to the DOJ's Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2002 41 percent of American households owned at least one gun. According to these same statistics, 50 percent of the owners were male, 43 percent were white and 48 percent were Republican. More than 50 percent of the gun owners were college educated and earned more than $50,000 per year. Regrettably, these folks are going to marshal their considerable resources to protect their special interest.

This is a shame. Instead of laying waste to the civil rights and civil liberties that are at the core of free society, and rather than squandering precious time and money on amending the U.S. Constitution for such things as "preserving marriage between a man and woman," the nation ought to focus its attention on the havoc guns cause in society and debate the merits of gun ownership in this era of terrorism.

So long as guns remain available to the general public, there will always be the threat of terrorists walking into a crowded restaurant, a busy coffee shop or a packed movie theater and opening fire upon unsuspecting civilians. The Second Amendment is not worth such risks.

Junaid M. Afeef is a Research Associate at the Institute for Social Policy & Understanding. His articles are available at http://ispu.org/.

Comment: if the US seriously starts addressing gun control, stops messing with gay marriage, abortion, making Christianity the state relgion, and other wedge topics, then there would be progress. As long as the US allows the political arena to be diverted by fringy groups, nothing will get done.

Pro-gun rubbish

Let's see: Kleck and Lott have been discredited all over the internet, yet some people still love quoting them. Well, Michael Bellesiles has some pretty good arguments as well and he didn't need to pretend to be a student to get praise for Arming America!

Gun Control leads to Genocide! really! I've gone over that one with a fine tooth comb. Why hasn't there been a genocide in Britain since it has had gun control for nearly 90 years now? Maybe the answer to preventing genocide lies elsewhere besides firearms ownership!

Saddam Hussein? Private ownership of guns was very common under Saddam Hussein's regime and it didn't stop him. Same goes for the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Check out the Durra Gun Market in this video.

The Second Amendment doesn't guarantee private ownership outside of the militia institution and fighting government tyranny is also rubbish. I agree with Matthew White that the most likely outcome of a war between the Feds and the extreme right is that the extreme right is crushed like bugs, even before the network news anchors can move their mobile newsdesks, satellite link-ups and tactical hairdryers out to the battlefield. As I said in my Fear the Reaper post:

Μολὼν λάβε?
Εντάξει, με ευχαρίστηση!

Or in the way that pisses off the gun cretins, let's just kill them and pry the guns from their fingers if that's what they want. If these people are that stupid, they deserve to be removed from the gene pool. And they don't have popular support which means most people would be happy if the government wasted them. I would have called in an air strikes on Ruby Ridge and Mount Carmel.

Whatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a "right" to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change.--Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951)

The amount of defensive gun uses is highly overestimated
Oh, yeah don't forget the study that says armed defenders are more likely to be killed or injured!

Sort of like Melanie Hain!

More Gun Control and Genocide

One tactic of propaganda is to still up the emotions with black and white arguments and dire scenarios. Gun Control will bring about tyranny and possibly genocide. On the other hand, we have a couple of instances from history. There is a bogus quote out there attributed to Hitler which is pretty obviously false. Why?

Gun Control existed in Britain long before Nazi Germany did. In 1870 (19 years before Hitler was born) a licence was introduced for anyone who wanted to carry a gun outside their home, but there were no restrictions on keeping a firearm indoors. More restrictions came into force with the 1903 Pistols Act which denied ownership to anyone who was "drunken or insane". It also required a licence for firearms with a barrel shorter than nine inches: that pretty much covered handguns. The 1920 Firearms Act introduced a registration system and allowed local police forces to deny a licence to anyone who was "unfitted to be trusted with a firearm". The 1920s Firearms act was due to fears of working class unrest as was occurring in Germany. Again, this would place 1920 Britain as "the first civilised nation that has full gun registration" to paraphrase and also correct a bogus quote, placing British Gun Control at least 12 years ahead of Nazi Germany: if Nazi gun control truly existed.

In fact, the Nazi Party as we knew it was just formed when Britain had its system of gun registration!

On the other hand, Gun control was not initiated at the behest or on behalf of the Nazis. German gun control was designed to keep them, or others of the same kind (e.g., Communists), from executing a revolution against the lawful government. In the strictest sense, the law succeeded since the Nazis did not stage an armed coup, they were elected in 1932. The Third Reich did not need gun control in 1938 or at any time thereafter to maintain their power. The success of Nazi programs in restoring the economy and dispelling socio-political chaos along with the misappropriation of justice by the apparatus of terror 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.

Several conclusions become clear if you read the 1938 Nazi gun laws closely and compare them to earlier 1928 Weimar gun legislation as a straightforward exercise of statutory interpretation. First, with regard to possession and carrying of firearms, the Nazi regime relaxed the gun laws that were in place in Germany at the time the Nazis seized power. Second, the Nazi gun laws of 1938 specifically banned Jewish persons from obtaining a license to manufacture firearms or ammunition. Third, approximately eight months after enacting the 1938 Nazi gun laws, Hitler imposed regulations prohibiting Jewish persons from possessing any dangerous weapons, including firearms. The Nazis aspired to a certain relaxation of gun registration laws for the "law-abiding German citizen" - for those who were not, in their minds, "enemies of the National Socialist state," in other words, Jews, Communists, and other undesirables".

We know that armed rebellions in the Jewish Ghettos were crushed by the better armed German forces. The Jews who did survive did as the Bielskis did and hid in the forests, or were dispersed as they were in Bulgaria.

On the other hand, there was unarmed resistance to Oswald Mosley's Blackshirts at Cable Street in the East End of London, which had a large Jewish population. The anti-facist demonstrators fought with sticks, rocks, chair legs and other improvised weapons, but not guns. Rubbish, rotten vegetables and the contents of chamber pots were thrown at the police by women in houses along the street. After a series of running battles, Mosley agreed to abandon the march to prevent bloodshed.

So, even though the was gun control in England, it wasn't the presence or lack of arms that prevented a genocide, but the fact that popular opinion rose up to fight the facists.

The simple lessons about the efficacy of gun control is blotted out by the events in Germany and Britain at 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 or that possession of guns would have prevented anything.

mikeb302000 posted part of this debate from the Seattle Times. I wanted to post this comment from Lynne Varner:

Focusing on the crime and not the tools is shortsighted as any security expert for banking, technolology or other industries could tell you. You'll never deter all crimes, so targeting the tools criminals use is a way to prevent or at least make criminal activities more difficult. In 2006, 10,700 people in the United States died by gunfire. After 9-11 many Americans agreed with security changes that altered our freedoms, and in some cases, our rights. We agreed it was important to do so to offer a modicum of public safety. So it ought to be with guns.

This is pretty much what I've been saying: gun control serves to reduce the amount of guns that flow into the hands of criminals.

I have a real problem with calling this position "anti-gun" since it makes sense for people who are responsible gun owners to want to ensure that guns don't fall into the hands of criminals. It could possibly be "anti-gun" since it will definitely reduce the amount of guns that are sold.

I have to admit a curiousity at to how many of the guns sold in the US end up in the hands of criminals, or used in crimes. We can debate how this happens: direct sale, straw purchase, theft, and so forth; however, the real issue is that guns end up in the hands of criminals. The term the "time-to-crime" rate of a firearm comes up regarding this issue. Time-to-crime is the period of time (measured in days) between a firearm's retail sale and law enforcement's recovery of the firearm in connection with a crime. A short time-to-crime rate usually means the firearm will be easier to trace, and when several short time-to-crime traces involve the same individual/Federal firearm licensee, illegal trafficking activity is highly probable.

Also, I was told that the number of "stolen" guns isn't a good indicator per ATF as gun traffickers tend to say their guns were stolen when they turn up at crime scenes.

We also have the illusory concept of "gun rights" which isn't associated with the Second Amendment. That was supposed to ensure civilian control over the military by preventing the establishment of a professional standing army. Instead, defence was to be performed by a Swiss style military. The Second Amendment was to ensure institution of a Swiss style military.

"Gun rights" pops up as a concept in state Constitutions, but can one argue that criminals have a right to own a firearm? If criminals and others who are detriments to society have "gun rights" then that is pretty idiotic right.

astroturfed Genocide

The ridiculous "Gun Control results in genocide" "argument" is a lovely case of an specious argument astroturfing the playing field with rubbish. You know the list I'm talking about since googling "Gun Control Genocide" will turn up about 60 million results with that list reprinted verbatim. No need to give it any more power in the rankings.

On the other hand, Matthew White compiled the list Which has killed more people: Gun Control or Christianity? that begins to tear apart this argument. I reposted it at Gun control and Genocides with some additions made to the Holocaust section. I am going to add even more to show that the Guns could have saved the Jews proposition is straight off horseshit.

I am surprised that Matthew's list doesn't get the attention it deserves. The "gun cotnrol leads to genocide argument" is pretty silly when you think about it.

As Matthew points out "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."

Matthew points out that "this list of alleged genocides 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."

Yeah, yeah, there is the example of the Bielski partisans who were made famous by the film Defiance. You can debate as to how effective they were at armed resistance or whether they were the heros depicted by the film. The real lesson that should be learned was that it wasn't their arms that protected them, but the fact that they hid in the forests:

By the early spring of 1942, the brothers managed to form what was called an Otriad (a partisan detachment), which initially consisted of their immediate surviving relatives and close friends. Over the next three years, approximately 1200 Jews came into their Otriad. In contrast to Russian partisan units and many of the other Jewish units that restricted participation to young men capable of fighting, the Bielski’s took in any Jew who sought their help and actively helped liberate Jews from nearby ghettos to join the unit...

At its height, the Otriad camp consisted of long, camouflaged dugouts for sleeping, a large kitchen, a mill, a bakery, a bathhouse, two medical facilities, a tannery, a school, a jail, and a theater. Tailors, seamstresses, shoemakers, watchmakers, carpenters, mechanics, and experts in demolition provided the 1200-member community with necessary skills, and about sixty cows and thirty horses provided food and transportation.

Many of the men served as part of the armed contingent which secured food and engaged in sabotage and even the murder of Germans officials, while many others, including the women, the elderly, and the handicapped received the benefits of the community which protected them, despite the difficulties they presented when it was necessary to travel to new locations.

The Jewish Daily Newspaper Forward points out in its article, Bielskis vs. Hollywood that The Bielski brothers engaged in violence out of necessity, but the nobility of their enterprise is that they preserved lives:

Tuvia was fortunate in choosing the more difficult path — in fact, not a path at all, but a deep marsh — rather than a more inviting route lined with fallen logs, which proved unsafe. The greater human drama was in persevering for a week in an epic trek through the swamp, not in fighting and winning a battle at the end, as the filmmaker chose to depict in his re-creation of the story.

The awesome achievement of the Bielskis to save so many innocents otherwise doomed is cheapened by the image of Hollywood heroes mowing down the enemy, as we’ve seen before in scores of World War II movies. These real heroes had to kill at times, but their story deserves more than a war movie.

In contrast, actual armed resistance by Jews led to mass anihilation. Despite being vastly outgunned and outnumbered, some Jews in ghettos and camps did resist the Germans with force. The failure to halt the genocidal policies of the Nazis has pretty much left Jewish resistance as a footnote to the holocause. For example, The the largest single revolt by the Jews during the Holocaust, the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, was crushed by the Militarily superior German forces: Casualties and losses during this uprising were 17 Germans killed and 93 wounded Versus 13,000 Jews killed and 56,885 captured. The captured Jews were sent to Treblinka. So much for armed resistance.

Some people forget that inhabitants in the ghettos of Vilna, Mir, Lachva (Lachwa), Kremenets, Czestochowa, Nesvizh, Sosnowiec, and Tarnow, among others, resisted with force when the Germans began to deport ghetto populations. In Bialystok, the underground staged an uprising just before the final destruction of the ghetto in September 1943. Research into Jewish Resistance during the holocaust pretty much repeats the message that The Jews knew that uprisings would not stop the Germans and that only a handful of fighters would succeed in escaping to join the partisans. Still, some Jews made the decision to resist. Most of the ghetto fighters, primarily young men and women, died during the fighting. Unfortunately, this resistance did little to stop the German genocide.

We can add in that Iraqis and Afghans are armed to the teeth, yet this didn't stop the rise of Saddam Hussein or the Taliban.

Matthew has "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 nice being able to dream of stopping the mistakes of the past with force. It's a romantic idea to die fighting "tyranny" (whatever that means). But you have to remember that heavily armed and determined opposition sometimes is just swept up and crushed: guns or no guns. Everyone who wanted a gun already had a gun in the list of "gun control victims". The enemies of the state who were killed in that list weren't defenseless; they were just plain beaten.

National Rifle Association Has Become a National Disgrace

From The 'Skeeter Bites Report and I couldn't have put it better! I found this through Buzzflash's piece from Buzzflash's piece on the NRA.

Monday, May 07, 2007
National Rifle Association Has Become a National Disgrace

The Nation's Largest Gun Lobby Reveals Itself as an Organization of Second-Amendment Extremists Putting 'Right to Bear Arms' Ahead of Laws Protecting Americans From Gun-Wielding Terrorists

By Skeeter Sanders

When it was founded in 1871, the mission of the National Rifle Association was the promotion of marksmanship, firearm safety and the protection of hunting and personal-protection firearm rights in the United States, in accordance with the Second Amendment of the U.S Constitution.

But in the last 30 years, the NRA has been transformed into a monster its founders would not recognize. Today's NRA is an organization whose leadership has turned the Second Amendment on its head, more concerned about preserving the right to bear arms than in preserving the safety of the American people.

The NRA leadership's absolutist position on the Second Amendment has driven the nation's oldest civil-liberties organization over the edge into outright extremism, insisting that Americans' right to bear arms includes the right to acquire military-grade weapons of war that were never designed for civilians to use in peacetime.

By taking such an extremist position on the Second Amendment, the NRA poses as great a threat to the nation's security as al-Qaida and other terrorists.

At the same time, NRA has alienated so many law-abiding gun owners with its opposition to restrictions on military-grade weapons that a rival organization was founded in 2005 as an advocacy group that presents itself as "a force of moderation and common sense" in the gun-control debate.

NRA's Successful Repeal of Assault Weapons Ban Boomerangs With Virginia Tech Massacre

In 2004, the NRA successfully lobbied a Republican-controlled Congress to let a 1994 federal law banning certain types of military-grade assault weapons and ammunition expire. That lobbying effort has now come back to haunt the NRA with the massacre last month at Virginia Polytechnic Institute.

Cho Seung-Hui, the Virginia Tech gunman who killed 32 people and wounded 24 others before killing himself, used a Glock 19 semi-automatic pistol with a 15-round ammunition clip. Both the gun and the clip -- which were designed specifically for use by the military and law-enforcement agencies -- were banned for civilian use under the now-defunct 1994 law.

Had that law remained in place -- combined with an existing statute that bans gun sales to persons deemed a danger to themselves and to others -- Cho might not have been able to pull off his rampage.

The fact that Cho used guns and ammunition that were previously banned under the 1994 law -- and that the massacre took place in the NRA's home state of Virginia (NRA headquarters are in the Washington suburb of Fairfax) -- has left the nation's most powerful gun lobbying group uncharacteristically speechless. To date, it has refused to comment on the massacre beyond extending its condolences to the friends and relatives of Cho's victims.

The NRA Wasn't Always the Way It Is Now

The NRA was founded in New York City in 1871 by two U.S. Army officers, Colonel William Church and General George Wingate, who were upset with the poor marksmanship of their troops. In a magazine editorial written by Church, he stated their primary goal was "providing firearms training and encouraging interest in the shooting sports."

From 1873 to 1892, the NRA operated a rifle range at what is now the Creedmoor State Psychiatric Hospital in nearby Queens Village, New York, where members of the National Guard were trained and international competitions were held.

Civil War General Ambrose Burnside, a former governor of Rhode Island who also represented the state in the U.S. Senate, became the NRA's founding president. Other Union generals, including Phillip Sheridan, Winfield Hancock and Ulysses S. Grant (who would later win the White House) also served as NRA president at various times.

In 1934, the NRA formed its "Legislative Affairs Division." While it did not directly lobby Congress until 1975, the NRA did mail out legislative analyses and facts to its members, so that they could lobby Congress themselves individually.

During World War II, the NRA reloaded ammunition used for guarding factories involved in wartime production and sought to help arm Britain against potential invasion with the collection of over 7,000 firearms for that country's defense.

How The NRA Lost Its Way -- And Became a Political and Ideological Monster

In May 1977, the NRA began a rightward shift after controversy erupted within the organization over the possibility of banning cheap, .22-caliber handguns known as "Saturday night specials." These pistols were the weapons of choice used by criminals in what was then the nation's worst wave of violent street crime since the prohibition era of the 1920s that saw the rise of organized crime.

At their annual convention in Cincinnati that year, more than 2,000 NRA members revolted against the organization's leadership after Harlon Carter, a member of the NRA's executive council, was fired by the council from his post as political action director for his fiercely hard-line opposition to the handgun ban.

In what came to be known as the "Cincinnati Revolt," the rebellious delegates retaliated against the council and elected Carter NRA president. In his acceptance speech, Carter told the delegates, "Beginning in this place and at this hour, this period in NRA history [internal division over gun-control laws] is finished. There will be no more civil war in the National Rifle Association!"

Since its 1977 takeover by anti-gun control hard-liners, the NRA has consistently opposed any proposed legislation that purports to limit access to guns by law-abiding citizens, although it does support some laws restricting access to guns by criminals.

Yet its lobbying has included opposition to common-sense legislation aimed at keeping weapons of war out of the hands of civilians. What, for example, does a hunter need with a Kalashnikov AK-47 rifle that was originally designed as a combat weapon for the Soviet Red Army? What does a sport shooter need with an M-16 rifle that was designed as a combat weapon for the U.S. Army?

The hard-liners' takeover also shifted the NRA away from its roots as an organization for hunters and sport shooters, resulting in the ouster of at least one executive council member who said he was told that "this is a single-purpose organization" after the ousted council member expressed support for strong wilderness preservation.

An Obscene Misinterpretation of the Second Amendment

In its lobbying for the rights of gun owners, the NRA asserts that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to own and use guns. While the Second Amendment does state that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," the NRA insists that the Second Amendment's reference to "a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" means that the American people at large comprise the "militia."

It is true that this country did not have a permanent, standing army at the time of its founding in 1776 (It took the ratification of the Constitution in 1789 to authorize Congress to raise one), but it is an obscenity to this blogger that the NRA would interpret the Second Amendment to count the general public as being part of that "well-regulated militia."

Quite the contrary, the intent of the Founding Fathers when they wrote the Second Amendment is quite clear: In the absence of "a well-regulated militia," it was necessary for the citizens of the newly-created United States to be armed in order to maintain the security of the new country.

We certainly have a "well-regulated militia" now -- from local, state and federal law-enforcement agencies to the U.S. military. Indeed, we have the most highly organized and well-regulated law-enforcement agencies in the world. We have most highly organized, well-regulated -- and powerful -- military in the world.

That the NRA continues to view the American public at large as part of a "well-regulated militia" is an obscenely extremist interpretation of the Second Amendment. It is an interpretation rooted in a "Wild West" mentality that has no place in 21st-century America.

And it is an interpretation that poses a clear and present danger to the safety of the American people. The idea of civilians today possessing military weapons designed to wage war and wreak maximum death and destruction is absolutely mind-boggling. Yet this is what today's NRA lobbies for. It is beyond an obscenity; it is out-and-out insanity.

The NRA's Latest Outrage: Lobbying Against Ban on Gun Sales to Suspected Terrorists

Now, less than a month after the Virginia Tech shootings, the NRA has gone off the deep end yet again. It's urging the Bush administration to withdraw its support of a bill that would prohibit suspected terrorists from buying firearms.

Strongly backed by the Justice Department, the measure, introduced last week by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-New Jersey), would authorize the attorney general to use his discretion to block gun sales, licenses or permits to terror suspects.

NRA executive director Chris Cox, in a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, wrote last week that the Lautenberg bill "would allow arbitrary denial of Second Amendment rights based on mere 'suspicions' of a terrorist threat."

Given the many abuses of power committed by Gonzales since he became attorney general -- particularly his glaring violations of the Fourth Amendment in spying on Americans without constitutionally-required court warrants -- Cox's beef, at first glance, appears to be quite legitimate.

But on closer examination, Lautenberg's bill makes sense -- and the senator obviously had future attorneys general in mind when he wrote it. A 2005 study by the Government Accountability Office found that 35 of 44 firearm purchase attempts over a five-month period made by known or suspected terrorists were approved by the federal law-enforcement officials.

Current law requires gun dealers to conduct a criminal background check and deny sales if a gun purchaser falls under a specified prohibition, including a felony conviction, domestic abuse conviction or illegal immigration. But there is no legal basis to deny a sale if a purchaser is on a terrorism watch list.

Admittedly, the terrorism watch list being maintained by the Bush administration is top secret -- and undoubtedly contains many glaring errors of fact. "As many of our friends in law enforcement have rightly pointed out, the word 'suspect' has no legal meaning, particularly when it comes to denying constitutional liberties," Cox wrote.

But for people on the terror watch list to be allowed to purchase firearms -- even if they're on the watch list erroneously -- places too high a risk to our nation's security. There's simply no way to know with absolute certainty if such a purchaser has plans to pull off another 9/11-style terrorist attack, or worse.

And what about psychos like Cho Seung-Hui or the Columbine High School killers, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold?

At Last, A 'Common-Sense' Alternative to the NRA

The NRA's Second Amendment extremism has alienated so many law-abiding gun owners that there is now a rival organization -- the American Hunters and Shooters Association -- that aims to serve as the advocacy group for the hunters and sport shooters that the NRA used to be, but isn't anymore.

Founded in 2005, the AHSA's mission is to "restore pride in America's hunting and shooting heritage," according to the AHSA's Web site. "The AHSA vigorously defends the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, promotes safe and responsible gun use, and supports reasonable public policies, so that all Americans can enjoy the benefits of this crucial and historic liberty."

In a slap at the NRA, the AHSA argues that, "No constitutional right to bear arms exists for criminals, terrorists, or others who seek to abuse the very freedoms our Constitution guarantees. The law is crystal clear on this point: reasonable laws designed to keep guns out of the wrong hands are entirely consistent with the Second Amendment."

While the AHSA says that its legislative policy "will always promote the common sense interests of hunters and shooters, AHSA also will always give top priority to the basic safety and security interests of our communities."

Striking a Balance Between Firearms Rights and Public Safety

The AHSA "supports rational, deliberative firearms policy crafted to protect our sport and our communities." the group's mission statement says. "Moreover, the AHSA strongly opposes legislative proposals that violate Second Amendment rights by impeding access to firearms by law-abiding citizens.

"By faithful adherence to basic Second Amendment principles, while balancing the needs of our sport and the needs of our community, the AHSA will promote rational and practical firearms policies that serve to bring Americans together," the statement says.

Ray Schoenke, a former Washington Redskins football star, is the AHSA's founding president. Bob Ricker, a former NRA lobbyist, is the AHSA's executive director. Jody Powell, former White House press secretary under President Jimmy Carter, is a co-chairman of the group's advisory board.

With Its Membership Declining, the NRA 'Freaks Out' Over the AHSA

Not surprisingly, the NRA has gone ballistic with a vitriolic attack against the AHSA, pointing out that John Rosenthal, president of the AHSA's charitible arm, the AHSA Foundation, "is one of the founders of the Massachusetts-based group Stop Handgun Violence, a group that has been a major force in passing some of the most Draconian state gun laws in the nation."

The NRA considers Ricker a traitor, blasting him as "a former NRA employee who switched sides and has actively worked for gun control groups for many years now."

"With leadership like that, there is no doubt about the true goals of AHSA," the NRA asserts. "They are trying to fool hunters and gun owners with a soft sell ... while working behind the scenes to end the sport that we all love."

Such vitriol by the NRA only serves to show just how paranoid it has become -- and how out of touch with law-abiding gun owners it is today. Indeed, NRA membership has fallen from a peak of 8.2 million members in 1993 to 4.3 million members today.

Among the millions of NRA members who quit include former President George H.W. Bush, who resigned his lifetime membership in 1994 in protest of NRA President Wayne LaPierre's attack on agents of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms as "jack-booted thugs" following the violent incidents involving BATF agents at Waco and Ruby Ridge.

The NRA has even seen internal dissent from its membership, including a prolonged series of verbal attacks and campaigns initiated by Neal Knox, a former NRA vice president, who unsuccessfully attempted to depose both LaPierre and Tanya Metaska, the former executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, in leadership elections during the late 1990s.

Whither the NRA's Future?

In the wake of the Virginia Tech massacre, the NRA is showing signs that its influence in Washington may be on the decline. Relations between the NRA and the Bush administration already appear to be fraying over the administration's support for the Lautenberg bill on gun sales to terrorists.

The NRA's continued public silence on the massacre itself has raised eyebrows on both sides of the gun-control debate -- and has drawn ire from relatives of the 32 people who lost their lives in the shootings.

And among the broader conservative community, the NRA has recently come under sharp criticism for endorsing and supporting candidates who, while staunch defenders of gun rights, are generally perceived as being liberal on several other hot-button social issues, such as amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Is America at last coming to a consensus that the NRA has lost its way and has become an impediment to the delicate balance between preservation of the Second Amendment and preservation of Americans' peace and security?

This blogger certainly hopes so. Only time will tell.

Unfortunately, this blogger sees that the media is too scared and controled by the gun lobby to take them on.

More right to life and gun control

It seems that right to lifers are claiming that their position is not inconsistant since they have a right to self-defence. The argument runs:

If every human person has a natural right to life, then he has a right to defend his life against those who would seek to violate this right. This means that one has the right to an effective method of self-defence.

Unfortunately, this denies the possibility of non-lethal methods of self-defence or acknowledge their efficacy. If effective non-lethal forms of self-defence are aailable, then a person who believes in the right to life should be using those over deadly force.

How about, people have a right to life. All people have a right to life.

They have a right to self-defence, but deadly force is an extreme option. It is the ultimate last resort if you believe that life is sacred.

If one states that there is a right to life, which is more important life? Or the ability to use deadly force to defend your life? Is one person's life more valuable than anothers? Is the possibility that you could harm or kill an innnocent bystander outweigh your own life?

By arguing that deadly force is the first option, one removes the legitimacy of stating that one has a right to life.

I have a right to life, but you don't. Does this make sense?

In fact, the right to life position is totally anti-thetical to the current "no duty to retreat" theory of self-defence. Right to life is in accord to the "back to the wall" theory of self-defence, where every opportunity to avoid, deescalate, and/or withdraw from the situation has to be eliminated making deadly force the LAST option.

The right to life position means that a reasonable person would use reasonable force to end the threat; not deadly force. This means that non-lethal methods are the method of choice, not ones using deadly force. Especially if deadly force could result in harm to innocent bystanders.

If pepper spray is an option, then you must use that rather than deadly force. I find that pepper spray works quite effectively for ending threats. It allows for one to retreat to a point of safety and prevents the possibility of harm to innocent bystanders.

Likewise, everyone has a right to life, therefore, we should work to remove situations where violent confrontations arise. This means that social programs that work to reduce factors that would lead to crime are a priority as well to someone who claims that there is a "right to life".

By eliminated the possibility that non-lethal defence as an option, you have removed any legitimacy of your claim to being pro-life. Life is not sacred, you may kill. You do not believe that you need to first avoid conflict and secondly, had taken reasonable steps to retreat and so demonstrated an intention not to fight before eventually using any kind of force: deadly or otherwise.

Sorry, but being pro-gun is totally antithetical to being "right to life" since that means you believe deadly force is an option. You cannot believe that life is sacred, yet be willing to take it.

Take My Freedom, Not My Gun?

Liberal Viewer has a really super video about gun control.

I don't think I need to add to what is said in this video.



One issue that needs to be raised is the disparity in funding between the "gun rights" organisations and gun control organisations. The "gun rights" organisations groups are spending in the millions whereas the gun control organisations are spending in the thousands. gun control organisations roughly spend about a tenth of what "gun rights" organisations spend.

Is that really grass roots and the will of the people or astroturf and spin?

Are we just dealing with Freedom Parrots?

Part II

I decided it was better to divide the last post into two parts since this is really unrelated to the point I was making in my previous post. This is just me engaging in mental masturbation.

One finds that 2,000 guns cross the US-Mexico border to drug gangs.

For example, one cannot make a blanket statement that gun control does not work in reducing that number. This is especially true if we see that "one gun a month" has changed the internal dynamic of illegal guns within the US. Likewise, the only firearms registration program that has existed in the US has been the NFA: how many NFA weapons are found at crime scenes? If a firearms regulation has an effect internally, why not with guns smuggled externally?

We also know internally within the US that guns move from regions of weak regulation to those of stronger regulation. Likewise, the amount of gunrunning from Nations with strong firearms regulation is next to nil (e.g., how many crime guns come from Britain?).

The answer to Mexican Crime guns might indeed be stronger regulation of US firearms, but how likely is that to happen? the problem is that one cannot let their conclusion be clouded by their own opinions if the evidence shows that answer is stronger regulation of firearms, then that should be the conclusion. If Mexican crime guns came from New Jersey, then you might be able to show that gun control had no effect on the issue.

Another point, is that gun control isn't seen as a panacea, but as a method of reducing the flow. Looking at internal US figures, is that a possibility? I believe there are studies showing that "one gun a month" reduces the amount of crime guns from those states and the figure shifts to states without that regulation. SO, if the amount of guns IS reduced by "gun control" one cannot state there is no effect.

OK, there are a lot of factors involved in the above example, but the primary one is that the person who made it "believes in the Second Amendment" freedoms. I could assume some things from that statement, but I can see that her argument is coloured by her belief. The belief isn't challenged and the result is confusing.

That is a blanket statement that gun control will not reduce the amount of crime guns. Likewise, that whatever reduction resulted from US gun control would beneficial.

Of course, the drug lords have enough money that they could set up their own firearms factories making any gun control moot. Which is also a flawed statement on my part as I think about it. Is it more economically sound and practical to set up clandestine gun factories in Mexico? Is it more viable to smuggle guns from the US than make illegal guns in Mexico? This comes in contemplating her point about making weapons from parts kits.

Again, if it is more economically feasible to make a firearm starting from a kit and only produce a receiver in a clandestine factory (Considering all the other factors), this leaves us with a load more questions. Especially if the source for parts kits is the US. Does that mean an even tighter restriction on firearms parts?

Is the actual answer incredibly tight gun controls rather than gun controls are ineffective?

Anyway, it seems I have glommed two posts into one. More as a musing in the Second half. I do like to challenge my beliefs.

Well, I do like a challenge!

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.

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.

Why all the focus on the gun in Melanie Hain's story???

"Don't try to turn this into a gun debate"!

Hilarious. What on Earth does this story have to do with guns?

It's funny how the gun cretins like to deflect the fact that Melanie Hain was killed with a gun, which is the magic talisman by which she hoped that she would be protected from all evil.

She wasn't killed with a flyswatter, mousetrap, pencil sharpener, piece of paper, cross bow, knife, brass knuckles, axe, machete, chain saw, stapler, toothbrush, or frying pan.

IT WAS A GUN THEY HAD FOR "SELF-PROTECTION".

But it didn't work that way...Did it?

Instead of being one of those anecdotes that the gun cretins like to use to show that defensive gun use happens more frequently than incidents where the gun owner is injured or killed, Their poster child, Melanie Hain is DEAD from having a gun in the house. Now, She is a valid number in the statistic of people killed by handguns in the United States.

I have pointed out that even the weak laws in this country, if enforced, should have prevented this, I am not sure to say tragedy or act of justice. Melanie Hain was a hazard to her community, People questioned her mental health, and she was in an abusive relationship. Yet, despite these facts, there were handguns in their home.

Mental illness and abusive relationships are reasons for the gun to be removed from the home under current law. Being a hazard to the community welfare should be a disqualifier, but some judge unfortunately saw fit to allow her a permit to carry a concealed weapon even though it was revoked by the sheriff for cause.

The gun cretins keep saying "enforce the laws on the books", yet there were laws which were not enforced. The gun cretins cheered when Hain's gun permit was returned to her.

The gun laws in the US don't work because they aren't allowed to work. The gun cretins do everything in their power to make sure they are ineffective.

The problem is that the gun cretin arguments do not stand up to scrutiny: especially that the Second Amendment allows for any right to a weapon of any kind outside of militia service.

Found this little goodie in my research

Yes, gun control does work when there are effective laws. The problem with Washington, DC's gun laws weren't that they didn't work, but that there were other jurisdictions, in particular Virginia, that allowed for the easy access to firearms.

Effects of limiting handgun purchases on interstate transfer of firearms

Article Abstract:

Limiting the sale of guns to one per person per month could substantially reduce interstate gun trafficking. Many traffickers can buy guns cheaply in states with liberal gun laws and sell them at a higher price in states with more restrictive gun laws. Researchers used a firearms trace database compiled by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to estimate the odds that a firearm used in a crime in the Northeast could be traced to Virginia before and after a law was passed in Virginia limiting the sale of guns to one per person per month. Virginia and other Southeastern states are the principal supplier of weapons to the Northeast. Before the law was passed, 27% of the weapons used nationwide could be traced to Virginia. After the law took effect in July, 1993, that percentage dropped to 19%. This represents a 36% drop in nationwide gun trafficking originating in Virginia. Within the Northeast, gun trafficking originating in Virginia was reduced 66%.
author: Weil, Douglas S., Knox, Rebecca C.
Publisher: American Medical Association
Publication Name: JAMA, The Journal of the American Medical Association
Subject: Health
ISSN: 0098-7484
Year: 1996

Read more: http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Health/Effects-of-limiting-handgun-purchases-on-interstate-transfer-of-firearms.html#ixzz0TTepejNg

Pro-Life????

I have long joked that the anti-abortion movement should adopt the motto "kill a doctor for life", but it seems they are now whining that Harlan Drake, an anti-abortion activist has been shot.

Of course, you can't ask for gun control. Nevermind the Second Amendment was intended to prevent the militia formed under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution from being disarmed and no private purpose intended. Part of the use of abortion and gun control to keep the US political system as divisive as it is requires perpetuating the lie of an "individual right" (whatever that means) under the Second Amendment. And Heller didn't say shit since the holding said that Heller was able to register the gun provided he passed the registration requirements.

Donald Granberg said it pretty well in his post found at http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1315.

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. Structural violence in society occurs when people’s basic needs go unfulfilled because they are too poor to purchase goods or services.

On the matter of health, it almost goes without saying that the “pro-life” person would refrain from smoking, oppose government subsidy of domestic tobacco production and sale to overseas markets, encourage physical fitness, and donate blood for transfusions to people whose lives might thereby be saved. Also, insofar as a surplus existed, one might also expect the society to provide relief to needy people in other societies in the form of nonmilitary foreign aid, directly providing goods or teaching developmental skills.

The U.S. is a violent society, as reflected in the statistics showing the very high rate at which we kill each other and the frequency with which we go to war. We are a nation armed to the teeth, in terms of civilians owning guns and in terms of the amount we spend on the military.

At both levels there are sincere and well-intentioned people who believe that having more weapons makes for more safety, peace and security. Statistics, however, do not bear this out. There is no evidence that would indicate that a family is less likely to die from gunshot wounds if it keeps guns in the house. In fact, the contrary is true.

What does that mean in practise?

Well, if you are truly pro-life, then you should be supporting health care and really concerned about gun control.

But the issue isn't really "pro-life" or Scalia wouldn't have put his name to that piece of shit called the Heller decision. It is anti-abortion.

So cut the crap folks: if you don't want an abortion, then don't have one.

BUT KEEP OUT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S PERSONAL DECISIONS: ESPECIALLY PERSONAL DECISIONS REGARDING MEDICAL CARE, WHICH ABORTION IS..

I have a serious problem with the US believing in gun rights, but denying the basic human rights of health care, housing, or education.

What is wrong with the situation where some asshole can show up at a rally where the president will be speaking with an assault rifle, scream tyranny and decry healthcare? Maybe we should send him to Iran or North Korea and learn about Tyranny.

Seriously, any other country and he would have been cuffed face down on the ground. In a tyrannical society they would have shot him without a by your leave.

That would have served him for being enough of an idiot to show up with a weapon. Maybe he will be more intelligent in his NEXT life.

Yanks are such cretins that they don't realise that a couple of people with the same type of rifle carried by the cretin in AZ held the US capitol hostage for a couple of weeks. There are people running around openly carrying guns. These people allow for the carnage at LA Fitness by blocking laws that would prevent access to firearms by psychos because they are Psychos who know they wouldn't be allowed firearms if registration were required.

Unfortunately, the US has this bizarre myth that requires them to attack and harm innocent people. On the other hand, there are people who go bankrupt from serious illnesses because the healthcare system in the states sucks. Yes, the US is #37 in the world as far as actual healthcare services go according to the World Health Organisation. Quote:

In spite of improvements, on various measures of health outcomes the United States appears to rank relatively poorly among OECD countries. Health expenditures, in contrast, are significantly higher than in any other OECD country. While there are factors beyond the health-care system itself that contribute to this gap in performance, there is also likely to be scope to improve the health of Americans while reducing, or at least not increasing spending.

What is wrong with the picture of a person carrying an assault rifle to protest people having health care? Is it just me?

The US has some serious problems if the Second Amendment allows for George Sodini the firearms to kill and maim at LA fitness, yet Heather Sherba, one of Sodini's victims, has to have a car wash to pay for treatment.

Pro-life my arse.

Bye Bye Montana!

I've been reading that Montana plans on seceding from the Union if SCOTUS rules that the Second Amendment protects a collective, rather than individual right. The whole idea sounds like it came from the Militia of Montana, which is a pretty pathetic thought. Is Brad Johnson, Montana's secretary of state,such a political whore that he is willing to pander to a group of crazies? Anyway, that is the problem with elected officials in this country is that they are too willing to listen to the loudest constituents rather than the sanest.

On the other hand, the United States is a failed state and has been since the Treaty of Paris ended the War for Independence. I have a longer post on why the independence movement was a bad idea, but that's for a later date. This type of thing is one of the symptoms and they have been happening since Daniel Shays's little uprising. Nay, since the first idiot started screaming for independence on trumped up grounds. Since then, crazies have tried to break from the Union on all levels of scale based on the same silly arguments as the early "patriots".

Fortunately, we are seeing the culmination of my observation that the United States is the richest third world country. Infrastructure is collapsing, the economy is heading toward the shitter, the price of fuel is rising, and so on. Because the "leaders" are more interested in popularity than addressing the issues, the price of fuel will be a real problem for this country.

I see protesters wanting "fair gas prices". To them, that probably means the low prices that the US is used to, rather than the prices the rest of the world pays. It would be funny if the politicians gave the protesters the latter and petrol went to US$10 a gallon! Definitely a tax to pay for repairing and upkeep of the infrastructure. The problem is that the private automobile has been subsidised by low fuel prices and parking. Not to mention that the tax barely covers repairs to the crumbling highways.

Now, what really brought down the Soviet Union wasn't anything the US did with the possible exception of aiding the mujahadeen in Afghanistan, which was a bad move. Some mujahadeen later going on to form al-Queda or aid Islamic fundamentalist movements. Funny if by trying to bring down the Sovs, the Septics cause their own demise! But, the point is that what really brought down the Sovs was that foreign banks were bankrolling the state.

Now, the world economy is truly global, which most septics don't grasp. Meaning even if your job hasn't left the country, your real boss may be from overseas. I am not sure what the foreign investment level is in the states, but it's pretty stinking high. And the largest foreign investors in the US are:

THE BRITISH!

So, the US has never really been independent from England, but it has not had the benefits of its ties to Britain since they are economic rather than political. In fact, the relationship between the US and Britain has been purely economic since day one. The unfortunate thing is that we lack British administration and laws, in particular those regarding firearms, since the ninnies decided to make the break.

Anyway, Bye Bye Montana! I wish this pathetic nation a swift demise and swifter return to the breast of Mother England.

I sort of imagine this demise to be like the Battle of Mogadishu where the Malaysian and Pakistani troops come to our rescue.

More RKBA illogic

I read that the "gun control" crowd is the "guns for criminals" crowd because they prevent law abiding citizens from having guns. That's a lot of a distraction from reality there. I mean John Allen Muhammad, Steven Kazmierczak, and Seung-Hui Cho bought their guns legally, not through the black market.

Gun enthusiasts often claim that there is no link between legal ownership of guns and gun crime - legal guns are legal, illegal guns are illegal and, according to them, never the twain shall meet.

The problem is that guns are the only commodity that start out legal and then end up on the black market. Some are bought directly from a gun dealer (above), some enter through straw purchase/traffickers, and others are stolen. To understand how guns are acquired on the illicit market, we must also look at the legal trade, since the majority of guns on the black market began as part of the legal trade. In the United States alone, approximately 500,000 small arms enter the black market every year due to theft from private citizens.

Legal gun ownership creates a pool of weapons from which crime weapons can be obtained through theft and other means such as fraud. The more guns in circulation, the larger the pool of guns that can end up in the hands of criminals. This is especially true if the penalties for selling to disqualified persons are non-existant, or weak enough that they could be non-existant. Also, we have seen the Government give immunity from lawsuits to gun dealers who sell to disqualified persons.

It's funny how we hear the "Guns for criminals" crowd scream about enforcing the gun laws on the books (which they have structured to be ineffective) on one hand, yet work to repeal them or make them weaker on the other. More than enough times I have pointed out that a finding of an individual right in DC v. Heller will lead to litigation regarding existing firearms laws. It is not strong guns laws that put guns in the hands of criminals, but weak and ineffective ones.

DC's experience shows that having strong gun laws in one jurisdiction while another jurisdiction has weak laws will indeed lead to criminals having guns. DC's crime guns come from outside DC and from legal sources. Crime guns don't come from outer space. Ambiguous or ineffective domestic laws concerning the purchase of small arms contribute to the quantity of guns available on the black market. For example, "straw purchasers" can buy several weapons at once and then illegally resell them if there are no limits to how many guns a person may buy at one time. These illegal weapons are often sold across state lines from a State with lax regulations to one with quite strict gun laws.

On the other hand, the "guns for criminals" crowd refuses to allow for the tools to prevent guns from falling into the hands of criminals. Even simple actions like reporting stolen guns are fought as infringing upon the rights of "law abiding" citizens. The problem is that "stolen guns" find their way into the hands of criminals. In fact, stolen guns by definition have entered the black market. The Tiahrt amendment blocks law enforcement from accessing useful statistics regarding the source of illegal firearms.

Sorry, by doing everything in their power the alphabet soup of "gun rights" organisations (NRA, SAF, GOA, CCRKBA, SAS, etcetera) have ensured a steady source of guns for criminals. This is a pool which won't dry up anytime soon even if SCOTUS does the correct thing and upholds the Miller standard.

Unfortunately, instead of talking about gun responsibilities and enforcing gun laws which had teeth, the "gun rights" organisations have been working to eliminate gun laws. This means more guns for criminals. Gun owners would have been far better served had the talk been of gun responsibilities.

So, to be quite frank with you, crime guns start out as legal guns. We have to look at who is responsible for blocking any serious solution to this problem until the flow of legal guns into the black market is stopped.

From the Vatican

A second point, which has long been a grave concern for the Holy See, in the framework of criminal justice and crime prevention, is the sale and possession of firearms. This issue is closely related to building peace and is a key component of a truly sustainable economic and social development. Clearly, there is a link between crime and trafficking in firearms that feeds terrorism at national and international levels. A reduction in the availability of firearms will facilitate the establishment of peace and security. It will also contribute to channel money spent on trafficking weapons, into programmes for development.

INTERVENTION BY THE HOLY SEE AT THE ELEVENTH UNITED NATIONS CONGRESS ON CRIME PREVENTION AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE (BANGKOK, 18-25 APRIL 2005)

Now, I am pretty sure that the Vatican didn't directly weigh in on the issue of DC v. Heller, but we have the above concern expressed by the them regarding crime prevention. Now, the "Conservative" block of the Justices (CJ Roberts, JJ Scalia, Kennedy, and Alito) are all Catholics and should keep in mind that this is an issue that the Church has expressed concern. I was hoping to find a way to contact the Pope and ask for some sort of comment on this case.

I would be pretty certain that he would side with Washington, DC in its desire to control firearms within its jurisdiction. I can't be certain to what extent the Church would go in its opinion. I found this article from the bishop of the Diocese of Juneau, Alaska about Catholicism and gun control. Of course, the Church points out that gun control is not a panacea, but only a part of a project which requires other social matters.

The "right" of self-defence is not a part of the Constitution and in no way should be part of the constitution. To say one has a right of first recourse to deadly force flies in the face of how the concept of self-defence was understood at the time of the Constitution:

THE defence of one's self, or the mutual and reciprocal defence of such as stand in the relations of husband and wife, parent and child, master and servant. In these cafes, if the party himself, or any of these his relations, be forcibly attacked in his person or property, it is lawful for him to repel force by force; and the breach of the peace, which happens, is chargeable upon him only who began the affrayd . For the law, in this case, respects the passions of the human mind; and (when external violence is offered to a man himself, or those to whom he bears a near connection) makes it lawful in him to do himself that immediate justice, to which he is prompted by nature, and which no prudential motives are strong enough to restrain. It considers that the future process of law is by no means an adequate remedy for injuries accompanied with force; since it is impossible to say, to what wanton lengths of reapine or cruelty outrages of this sort might be carried, unless it were permitted a man immediately to oppose one violence with another. Self-defence therefore as it is justly called the primary law of nature, so it is not, neither can it be in fact, taken away be the law of society. In the English law particularly it is held an excuse for breaches of the peace, nay even for homicide itself: but care must be taken that the resistance does not exceed the bounds of mere defence and prevention; for then the defender would himself become an aggressor.

Blacktone's Commentaries on the Law of England, PRIVATE WRONGS, BOOK III., Ch. 1

OK, it is well settled that the law of self-defence only allows the minimum of force allowed to stop the threat. Any excessive force (e.g., deadly force) can turn the defender in to an aggressor.

Now, I am looking at the St. George Tucker quote and wondering if it has been taken out of context and is actually a gloss on the Blackstone's piece on British Bill of Rights, NOT the US Bill of Rights. That would be the problem with taking quotes out of context, which I can imagine most people quoting this are doing. In fact, I think quite a bit of the "Scholarship" is people doing term searches and then just using the quote without concern of meaning or context (e.g., Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1856)). There are copies of Tucker's commentaries on line:

http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/tucker/index.html
http://www.constitution.org/tb/tb-0000.htm

I was able to find the whole gloss at Constitution.org, but it was chopped up so much that it was rather worthless. Indeed, it appeared to be more of a gloss on the British Bill of Rights. Compare and Contrast the British Bill of Rights to that of The US Bill of Rights seemed to have been a theme in the Heller arguments of which the advocates did a lousy job. As I said before, I am not sure what these people had been doing with their time.

Anyway, both Blackstone and St. George Tucker are rather long works which I doubt that many people have plowed through. Most of the time, Tucker is just updating Blackstone and trying to make it applicable to the US experience, especially post-rebellion. Given that the only print copy of Tucker costs US$450, I don't see too many people actually buying a copy and reading it! And given the cite for the Tucker quote: St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries 1:App. 300, he may actually be discussing the British Bill of Rights. I would also add that Tucker was not a party to the Constitutional debates, which only means that this is his opinion and definitely not legal authority regarding the Second Amendment.

On the other hand, I am really not here to discuss Blackstone, Tucker, or the "right of self-defence" which is not a Constitutional concept, but that the Vatican has expressed an opinion that firearms should be regulated. The concept of Self-defence has no requirement that firearms be made available. In fact, it has the requirement that only the minimum of force needed to stop the threat is used. The Catholic church talks about respecting life and the Constitution says that life cannot deprived without due process of law. To constitutionally sanction deadly force in self-defence flies in front of all that is proper.

There is no reason to place the "right of self-defence" within the Constitution. On the other hand, there are more than enough reasons to ensure that legislatures can regulate firearms without having to fear being second guessed by the court system.