Gun Control

I wonder what the writers of the Constitution and the Bill or Rights would think of the Second Amendment being interpreted as:

The people have no right to regulate a militia of one person.

If you read through the Constitution you will find that the writers knew quite well the difference between “the people” and “a person”.

Posted to Nicholas Kristof's 2018-03-08 column on the Florida school shooting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/07/opinion/parkland-florida-gun-control.html?comments#permid=26247237

Tweet of the Day: AR-15 and Marco Rubio

“We should change the names of AR-15s to “Marco Rubio” because they are so easy to buy.”
Sarah Chadwick, 2018-02-23.

294K likes compared to Rubio’s 23K likes

Included in Helaine Olen’s “The Parkland kids are revealing America’s failings for all to see”.https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/03/05/the-parkland-kids-are-revealing-americas-failings-for-all-to-see/

One of the commenters (kdog_wnc) quotes the Rev. Dr. William Barber: "There are those who say so much about which the Bible says so little, and say so little about which the Bible says so much."

One Representative’s take on “terrorism”

”Now we're obsessing over whether the (Nevada) carnage was 'terrorism'," he wrote in a tweet. "If we decide it is, we'll mobilize untold resources. If not, nothing.”’
Jim Times, Rep. Connecticut

“Terrorism, Race, Religion: Defining the Las Vegas Shooting”, Associated Press, reprinted in New York Times, 2017-10-02, https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/10/02/us/ap-defining-terrorism.html.

Jim Himes has also stayed away for the “prayers” for the victims of Orlando shootings.  “There would be, for the umpteenth time, a moment of silence. To ‘honor’ the victims.”
“Why I walked out of the House’s moment of silence for Orlando”, Washington Post, 2016-06-14, https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/06/14/why-i-walked-out-of-the-houses-moment-of-silence-for-orlando/?utm_term=.0511e903c97b.

Quote of the day: an assault on assault

“[T]here is still no reason for a citizen to own an assault rifle unless he is planning an assault.”

“Omar Mateen, American Monster”, Charles M. Blow, New York Times, 2016-06-16, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/16/opinion/omar-mateen-american-monster.html

Quote of the day - liberals will win if they vote!

"Notwithstanding the NRA’s win in Colorado in knocking off two gun control Democratic State Senators for supporting more stringent ‘gun control’, if Liberals vote they will win. In fact if one analyzes the Colorado race, Liberals were disinterested and stayed home, something that must be worked on going forward. Voters must learn that it is their civic duty to vote every time. [My emphasis] Political engagement must be a requirement for effective citizenship."

- Egberto Willies,  "America Is A Liberal Nation. A Liberal Wins On A Liberal Message".

Quote of the day - gun control and control of Congress

"However, the issue is no more how gun-control legislation will curb gun violence. The real concerns are whether the American legislative system is too crippled to take an action and whether vested interests of powerful lobbies can indefinitely hold hostage the legitimate expectations of the American people."
- M. Imran Hayee, "Lawmakers must rise above politics and craft sensible gun-control laws",
Duluth News Tribune, 2013-03-29.

When I accessed the article for its web address, I noticed at the top an ad:

"Gun control? Vote Here Now!"

I decided to at least check the ad out.  It is provided by Newsmax.  The title is "Gun Control Laws from Obama? Vote Now in Urgent Poll." The questions are rather balanced, although the one on the Second Amendment uses wording not in the Second Amendment.  Newsmax says it shares its results with a list of major news outlets.

To have your responses counted, you must provide your email address and ZIP Code.  I really don't care for polls, requiring my email address made not taking the poll even easier.

I wonder if a similar ad was posted by Google AdSense on this entry.

Quote of the day: Gun Control

"Why is voting & adjusting my Facebook settings harder than buying a semi-automatic?"
"The K Chronicles" by Keith Knight, 2012-12-19, http://www.gocomics.com/thekchronicles/2012/12/19

For many of your favorite comics, see http://www.gocomics.com/feature for alphabetic listing of many popular comics.

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.

Gun violence, some thoughts

Here we go again!  Some crazy wants to go out in a blaze of glory killing people he doesn't even know.  It's been going on a long time and will go on for a long time.  We will debate around and around as to whether we need more or less gun control.

If you're over fifty, you may remember Charles Whitman, the Texas Tower shooter, who killed 16 and wounded 32 on August 1, 1966.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman.

And on and on it went.  Last year it was in Norway which supposedly has strict gun control.  Last week it was at a movie theater in Colorado.  We'll probably see some copycat attempt in the next month or so.  Our only solutions will be to point fingers at those who oppose any gun control and at those who "want to take guns away from freedom lovers".  For a really well-thought out discussion, see http://www.salon.com/2012/07/22/jason_alexanders_amazing_gun_rant/.

Trigger sappy in America

Concealed-carry supporters argue that concealed weapons will allow people to defend themselves against mass murderers. Texas and other states are considering legislation to allow concealed weapons on college campuses.

"The American Way", Bob Herbert, New York Times, 2009-04-14
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/14/opinion/14herbert.html

Will it really work? Will one or two people with minimal training in the use of a pistol be able to stop some idiot with an assault weapon. Is everybody with a pistol a Navy Seal sniper?

Consider the number of police officers who have been killed by assault weapons. These officers have regular target practice. They are trained to react to armed people. Three officers were killed by a single gunman in Pittsburgh. Four officers were shot to death in Oakland.

Consider the Luby's Cafeteria massacre in Killeen TX in 1991. My memory from the newspapers of the time is that there were two police officers eating in the restaurant at the time of the shooting, but by the time they reacted, the gunman had already barricaded himself in restroom. I can't corroborate this easily today via Google.

On the other hand, one of the survivors had left her gun in her car instead of her purse. Both of her parents were killed by the gunman. She has become a strong advocate of concealed carry. But would she have been able to get close enough to kill the gunman before he killed her with his semi-automatic pistol? In fact, he was wounded by police before finally being shot to death.

Frankly, I don't think the gun question can ever be satisfactorily settled. The Constitution was written in a time when all guns were single-shot. One person could not possibly defend himself against a government patrol coming to arrest him. However, neighbors banding together could defend themselves somewhat from an out-of-control government. I think this is what the founders had in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment (couldn't they have been less ambiguous). Even then, many of these groups didn't succeed: Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion.

Yes or No! No Ifs, Ands, or Buts!

Creationism vs. evolution, anti-abortion vs. pro-abortion, pro-Americanism vs. anti-Americanism, “you’re for us or against us”, “my way or the highway”, Democrat or Republican! On and on it goes for issue after issue – taxes, gun control, and war. Loud voices drown out reasoned voices. Slogans overwhelm discussion.

Now the election is over and we shall see if we get more partisanship or more governance. If McCain has won, we’ll definitely see more partisanship and less governance; each side working to show how they “know best”. If Obama has won, we may see less partisanship and a bit more governance. Even then, with our “imperial presidency”, there will be grandstanding both in Congress and in the Executive Office to show how “hard everyone is working for the people.”

Whoever has won, we will see many shortsighted solutions. On one hand, we’ll see “free market knows best” solutions with a lot of government breaks for favored industries. On the other hand, we’ll see “the people know best” solutions with a lot of government breaks for favored industries.

Charles Wheelan, author of “The Naked Economist”, recently wrote “The Twilight of Free-Market Ideology”. He faulted those who promoted lessening regulations to let business thrive, especially those who say government should get out of businesses’ way. He wrote that, at a minimum, we need government for when we want to sue somebody.

Many of the comments that followed on finance.yahoo.com were extremely vituperative. Almost any hint of government involvement is seen as socialism or communism. Fortunately, we have few public voices that are espousing either of these extreme ideas of government involvement in the economy.

In health insurance, McCain has been promoting individual choice and wants to tax employee-provided insurance. He seems to forget all the fraternal societies founded in the 1800s to provide various forms of assistance to members as well as help to others. At one time insurance companies were owned by policyholders; that’s why they included the name “Mutual”.

Obama has a several-point plan on reducing costs and providing insurance for more people. However, it will take a lot of jawboning on the part of the Federal government to implement many of these ideas.

Wouldn’t a better way be to encourage states to improve health care and insurance costs? This way a lot more ideas can be tried sooner with a lot less hassle than a national plan.

“Obama will take our guns away.” Other than an ill-advised, off-the-cuff remark about some people finding solace in having guns, I don’t think Obama has said much about gun control. Even if some future president and Congress wanted to take guns away, does anyone think they will succeed? President Bush hasn’t been able to take guns away from people in Iraq and Afghanistan in over five years. And there are enough Democratic hunters in Congress to block any extreme action in the U.S.

“Gay marriage will destroy marriage!” “All couples should be treated equally!” Hm! I find both positions tiresome. Gay marriage surely will not destroy my marriage of 48 years. And everybody has the right to marry a person of their choice of the opposite sex. However, there are many living arrangements that require more legal support than is currently available. How about two widows living together to save costs?

As for the Biblical basis of marriage being one man and one woman, what about Solomon and his 700 wives and 300 concubines?

Every abortion is a difficult choice. To criminalize abortion is to assume that the federal government knows best; strange coming from the party that wants “to get government off our backs.” Criminalizing abortion will work no better than prohibition of alcohol or drugs. We would be much better off working to reduce abortions by providing more non-governmental counseling, just like is done with substance abuse.

“The two-party system” is the king of “yes or no, no ifs, ands, or buts”. We are bamboozled into making a choice between two candidates, both of whom may cause more problems than they will solve. “Don’t throw your vote away!” “A vote for Nader was a vote for Bush!” It was? More Democrats stayed home than voted for Nader in 2000 in Florida. Nader got 9,000 votes and over 100,000 Democrats stayed home.

I hope you didn’t stay home on Nov. 4 but cast your vote as you saw fit, whether it was for McCain or Obama, Barr or Nader, or whoever else was on the ballot. If you didn’t like any of them, I hope you voted for “None of the above”. You didn’t see it on the ballot? It’s there in two ways. In Minnesota, you can write someone in (remember to give two names when voting for President) or you can leave the boxes blank for any given office.

This election may see the rise of a viable national third party. There may have been enough Republicans, dissatisfied with the McCain-Palin candidacy or with the ideological hardening of the Republican Party, who will split off into a new party. Don’t forget that the Republican Party was started by dissatisfied Whigs.

As the first and last real Republican said, “As our case is new, so must we think anew, and act anew.”