The NRA and others cite the Second Amendment as giving individuals the right to bear arms. One justification they give is "the people" need arms to protect themselves against "the government". However, they neglect Article II, Sec 8, of the Constitution: Congress has the power "to call out the militia to suppress insurrection".
If you use your guns to "protect you" from the government, then you are involved in an insurrection. If you are in an insurrection, then the Constitution gives Congress the power to suppress your insurrection. Suppressing an insurrection includes taking the guns from those in the insurrection.
George Washington was involved in putting down the Whiskey Rebellion, a tax revolt from 1791-1794. See "Whiskey Rebellion", Wikipedia. The Whiskey Rebellion was quite a complicated affair, but popular support seemed to be in favor of the suppression of the rebellion. Another interesting point that some make: it was also a conflict between large distillers who paid less per gallon than small, individual distillers who paid more per gallon.
The last great Republican President put the down the biggest insurrection of all, the Civil War.
See also "Is the N.R.A. Un-American", Stanley Fish, New York Times, 2013-05-13.
Showing posts with label National Rifle Association. Show all posts
Showing posts with label National Rifle Association. Show all posts
Sunday, May 19, 2013
Friday, December 21, 2012
NRA wants to raise your taxes
The NRA proclaims that having police officers in all schools will prevent more shootings. Is the NRA willing to pay the taxes for tens of thousands of police officers?
There are about 99,000 public K-12 schools in the U.S. and the average police officer is paid about $50,000. That's nearly five billion dollars. If there are an average of two school shootings per year, that's over two billion dollars to prevent a single school shooting. Would the NRA agree to a sales tax on guns to pay for these police officers?
Over ten million guns were sold in the U.S in 2011. To fund the NRA's protection plan would require a $500 tax on each gun sale. I doubt the NRA would accept that tax.
There were 93 million children enrolled in public schools in 2010. If we taxed the parents for police officers in their children's schools, that would be about $54 per child. So, all parents would be required to pay $54 per child so that the NRA can keep gun regulations to a minimum. Sounds fair, not!
However, what would be assurance that said police officers would reduce school shooting deaths to zero? The NRA is watching too many westerns where the good guys can shoot an apple out a tree, even from the hip! The reality is that many police officers themselves are victims of mass murderers.
Sgt. Kimberly Munley, the first police officer on the scene at the Ft. Hood mass shooting, is a member of a SWAT team and an advanced firearms instructor. Maj. Hassan, the shooter, wounded her at least twice, and supposedly he was able to kick her gun out of her reach. Whether she wounded him sufficiently to subdue him or her partner did so is not clear from what I read.
In another case, New York Police wounded nine bystanders trying to take down a gunman on a city street.
The NRA also claims that more armed citizens will prevent mass murders. In the Arizona shooting in which Rep. Gabby Giffords was wounded, one armed citizen almost shot the wrong person in the melee.
Several commentators are pointing out that the NRA is not so much about the right to bear arms but the right of gun makers to sell arms.
There are about 99,000 public K-12 schools in the U.S. and the average police officer is paid about $50,000. That's nearly five billion dollars. If there are an average of two school shootings per year, that's over two billion dollars to prevent a single school shooting. Would the NRA agree to a sales tax on guns to pay for these police officers?
Over ten million guns were sold in the U.S in 2011. To fund the NRA's protection plan would require a $500 tax on each gun sale. I doubt the NRA would accept that tax.
There were 93 million children enrolled in public schools in 2010. If we taxed the parents for police officers in their children's schools, that would be about $54 per child. So, all parents would be required to pay $54 per child so that the NRA can keep gun regulations to a minimum. Sounds fair, not!
However, what would be assurance that said police officers would reduce school shooting deaths to zero? The NRA is watching too many westerns where the good guys can shoot an apple out a tree, even from the hip! The reality is that many police officers themselves are victims of mass murderers.
Sgt. Kimberly Munley, the first police officer on the scene at the Ft. Hood mass shooting, is a member of a SWAT team and an advanced firearms instructor. Maj. Hassan, the shooter, wounded her at least twice, and supposedly he was able to kick her gun out of her reach. Whether she wounded him sufficiently to subdue him or her partner did so is not clear from what I read.
In another case, New York Police wounded nine bystanders trying to take down a gunman on a city street.
The NRA also claims that more armed citizens will prevent mass murders. In the Arizona shooting in which Rep. Gabby Giffords was wounded, one armed citizen almost shot the wrong person in the melee.
Several commentators are pointing out that the NRA is not so much about the right to bear arms but the right of gun makers to sell arms.
Sunday, December 16, 2012
Pistol-packing principals?
"Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, was the sole representative of gun rights' activists on the various Sunday talk shows. In an interview on 'Fox News Sunday,' Gohmert defended the sale of assault weapons and said that the principal at Sandy Hook Elementary School, who authorities say died trying to overtake the shooter, should herself have been armed.
"'I wish to God she had had an M-4 in her office, locked up so when she heard gunfire, she pulls it out and she didn't have to lunge heroically with nothing in her hands. But she takes him (the shooter) out, takes his head off before he can kill those precious kids, Gohmert said.'"
- "Senators call for ban on assault weapons, want commission to examine gun laws, mental health", Anne Flaherty , Associated Press Updated: December 16, 2012 - 2:52 PM
Do we really want to live in a country where every citizen is armed? Do we have to add weapons training to the curricula of our schools of education? When I went to high school in the 1950s, we didn't even have cops in the schools. What has changed in our country? Maybe it was too many westerns in which the hero was always the fastest draw and the most accurate shot. For a couple of more realistic views, see "Myth of the Hero Gunslinger" and "How the Gunfighter Killed Bourgeois America".
As for the proposed year-and-a-half waiting period "to discuss this volatile matter" the U.S. has been averaging two mass murders per year for the last thirty years. "And in most cases, the killers had obtained their weapons legally."
- "11 facts about U.S. gun massacres", Ezra Klein, Washington Post Updated: December 15, 2012 - 7:10 PM, retrieved from Star Tribune
"'I wish to God she had had an M-4 in her office, locked up so when she heard gunfire, she pulls it out and she didn't have to lunge heroically with nothing in her hands. But she takes him (the shooter) out, takes his head off before he can kill those precious kids, Gohmert said.'"
- "Senators call for ban on assault weapons, want commission to examine gun laws, mental health", Anne Flaherty , Associated Press Updated: December 16, 2012 - 2:52 PM
Do we really want to live in a country where every citizen is armed? Do we have to add weapons training to the curricula of our schools of education? When I went to high school in the 1950s, we didn't even have cops in the schools. What has changed in our country? Maybe it was too many westerns in which the hero was always the fastest draw and the most accurate shot. For a couple of more realistic views, see "Myth of the Hero Gunslinger" and "How the Gunfighter Killed Bourgeois America".
As for the proposed year-and-a-half waiting period "to discuss this volatile matter" the U.S. has been averaging two mass murders per year for the last thirty years. "And in most cases, the killers had obtained their weapons legally."
- "11 facts about U.S. gun massacres", Ezra Klein, Washington Post Updated: December 15, 2012 - 7:10 PM, retrieved from Star Tribune
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Strange remarks on gun control
On the Connecticut shooting, a letter to the Star Tribune included:
"To discuss this very volatile matter, we need to wait until we have a period of, say, a year and a half with no mass killings that come about as a result of gun sales and ownership."
- http://www.startribune.com/opinion/letters/183584251.html
I wonder if the writer considered that "a year and a half with no mass killings" is about the same as never. First, unfortunately there will be some copycat killings. Second, what does he define as "mass killings", more than two dozen victims, more than a dozen, more than six? This writer also thought that the killer could have killed as many with a club and feet!
We really should have been having intelligent conversations how to reduce the number of killings, no matter how many are killed by no matter how many. But, no, we have the National Rifle Association (NRA) raising political hell on any restrictions of unlimited availability of guns and a few less politically powerful calling for complete restrictions.
I wish some Constitutional scholars would really take on the meaning of the Second Amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Many argue that the single-shot "Arms" of the time were nowhere near as lethal as the large-magazine automatic pistols of today. Unfortunately, few argue about the choice of words for who has the right to bear arms or for what purpose.
First, the purpose in the Second Amendment is "the security of a free State", not the "defense of home or self". Many claim that the Constitution gives them the right to have arms to defend their home. That is common law, the so-called "castle doctrine", not constitutional law. Given the times, I venture that this was meant for communities on the frontier to defend themselves against Indian attack or foreign invasions.
Second, please note the choice of words to describe who has the "right to bear arms" - "the people", not persons or citizens. The writers used "the people" only twice in the original Constitution: "We, the People" in the preamble and "The House of Representative shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People..." in Article I, Section 2. That is, "people" is a collective noun. Otherwise, when writing about individuals, the writers used "person" or "citizen" in the singular or plural form as appropriate.
I do find it ironic that the party that wants a strict interpretation of the Constitution gives such a loose interpretation to the Second Amendment. This same party completely ignores the parts of the Constitution that state office holders need only give an oath (or affirmation) to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." - Article II, Section 1, and Article VI. Article VI also includes "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." It would seem the political pressure to attend prayer breakfasts or to end speeches with "God Bless America" are certainly violations of the Constitution.
"To discuss this very volatile matter, we need to wait until we have a period of, say, a year and a half with no mass killings that come about as a result of gun sales and ownership."
- http://www.startribune.com/opinion/letters/183584251.html
I wonder if the writer considered that "a year and a half with no mass killings" is about the same as never. First, unfortunately there will be some copycat killings. Second, what does he define as "mass killings", more than two dozen victims, more than a dozen, more than six? This writer also thought that the killer could have killed as many with a club and feet!
We really should have been having intelligent conversations how to reduce the number of killings, no matter how many are killed by no matter how many. But, no, we have the National Rifle Association (NRA) raising political hell on any restrictions of unlimited availability of guns and a few less politically powerful calling for complete restrictions.
I wish some Constitutional scholars would really take on the meaning of the Second Amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Many argue that the single-shot "Arms" of the time were nowhere near as lethal as the large-magazine automatic pistols of today. Unfortunately, few argue about the choice of words for who has the right to bear arms or for what purpose.
First, the purpose in the Second Amendment is "the security of a free State", not the "defense of home or self". Many claim that the Constitution gives them the right to have arms to defend their home. That is common law, the so-called "castle doctrine", not constitutional law. Given the times, I venture that this was meant for communities on the frontier to defend themselves against Indian attack or foreign invasions.
Second, please note the choice of words to describe who has the "right to bear arms" - "the people", not persons or citizens. The writers used "the people" only twice in the original Constitution: "We, the People" in the preamble and "The House of Representative shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People..." in Article I, Section 2. That is, "people" is a collective noun. Otherwise, when writing about individuals, the writers used "person" or "citizen" in the singular or plural form as appropriate.
I do find it ironic that the party that wants a strict interpretation of the Constitution gives such a loose interpretation to the Second Amendment. This same party completely ignores the parts of the Constitution that state office holders need only give an oath (or affirmation) to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." - Article II, Section 1, and Article VI. Article VI also includes "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." It would seem the political pressure to attend prayer breakfasts or to end speeches with "God Bless America" are certainly violations of the Constitution.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
How many people must die before you show up and vote?
Too many times we have had "wars of choice" where we went in with little understanding of the countries we invaded. We assumed that all our fancy weaponry would overcome "the enemy" with "shock and awe". We are really dismayed when the people we are "protecting" regard us as the enemy and can fight for years with far less sophisticated weaponry.
We have forgotten our own history. There was a well-organized army with advanced weaponry and organization "protecting" us. But many of the people regarded this army as the enemy. They formed poorly-armed, poorly-organized militias and fought back. It took eight years for the "super-power" of the time to admit defeat.
Now we are getting ourselves into the same quagmires as that once world-spanning empire got itself into, not once, but many times. Thousand of our countrymen are killed and even more are permanently maimed. The casualties of the citizens of the "enemy" country are even greater.
But less than half of us vote into office our governments that beat the war drums. The opposition party often goes along with or eggs the other party into the conflict. Too many of those who dislike both parties or for some reason are unhappy with the less aggressive party don't show up.
Now we are seeing a similar situation within our own borders. Many people were dissatisfied with the party of their choice and stayed home in the 2010 elections. The more aggressive party "won" the elections in many jurisdictions and is enacting laws that allow citizens to "protect themselves" with impunity against some unspecified "enemy". If there are no witnesses, these armed citizens can kill somebody "threatening" them and face no consequences.
Thus was set up the situation that many predicted – an armed white man killed an unarmed black teenager!
How many people must die before you show up and vote?
We have forgotten our own history. There was a well-organized army with advanced weaponry and organization "protecting" us. But many of the people regarded this army as the enemy. They formed poorly-armed, poorly-organized militias and fought back. It took eight years for the "super-power" of the time to admit defeat.
Now we are getting ourselves into the same quagmires as that once world-spanning empire got itself into, not once, but many times. Thousand of our countrymen are killed and even more are permanently maimed. The casualties of the citizens of the "enemy" country are even greater.
But less than half of us vote into office our governments that beat the war drums. The opposition party often goes along with or eggs the other party into the conflict. Too many of those who dislike both parties or for some reason are unhappy with the less aggressive party don't show up.
Now we are seeing a similar situation within our own borders. Many people were dissatisfied with the party of their choice and stayed home in the 2010 elections. The more aggressive party "won" the elections in many jurisdictions and is enacting laws that allow citizens to "protect themselves" with impunity against some unspecified "enemy". If there are no witnesses, these armed citizens can kill somebody "threatening" them and face no consequences.
Thus was set up the situation that many predicted – an armed white man killed an unarmed black teenager!
How many people must die before you show up and vote?
Thursday, February 23, 2012
The right to bear Canons
Jim Heffernan, formerly of the Duluth News Tribune editorial staff, wrote a great letter that was titled "Obama isn't coming after your guns". Unfortunately, none of the letters for 2012-02-21 were posted online, and so I can't give those of you outside Duluth a link to Jim's letter. [Update: Jim's letter is at http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/223784/]
Although Wayne LaPierre, executive vice-president of the National Rifle Association, backed off from any claim that President Obama has tried "to take guns away" in his first term, LaPierre stated, "he's hiding his true intentions to destroy the Second Amendment in his second term." ["At CPAC, Defeating Obama Trumps Fight for Nomination", New York Times, Erik Eckholm, 2012-02-11.] Jim wrote that LaPierre "doesn't have a clue" about Obama's intentions. Jim countered that he knows "very well that LaPierre and the NRA soon will arm every student in Columbine High School in Colorado with an assault rifle." Jim adds that of course he doesn't know that, but he wouldn't be surprised.
In an email exchange with Jim, I wrote, "the right to bear cameras should be the same as the right to bear cannons. (Or the right to bear a Canon or a cannon.)" See "Constitution, Rights, and secretive Congress".
Although Wayne LaPierre, executive vice-president of the National Rifle Association, backed off from any claim that President Obama has tried "to take guns away" in his first term, LaPierre stated, "he's hiding his true intentions to destroy the Second Amendment in his second term." ["At CPAC, Defeating Obama Trumps Fight for Nomination", New York Times, Erik Eckholm, 2012-02-11.] Jim wrote that LaPierre "doesn't have a clue" about Obama's intentions. Jim countered that he knows "very well that LaPierre and the NRA soon will arm every student in Columbine High School in Colorado with an assault rifle." Jim adds that of course he doesn't know that, but he wouldn't be surprised.
In an email exchange with Jim, I wrote, "the right to bear cameras should be the same as the right to bear cannons. (Or the right to bear a Canon or a cannon.)" See "Constitution, Rights, and secretive Congress".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)