DBM:
’... This is the crux of my problem with the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment ... if the intent is a “citizen army” or a militia to be at the service of the people through government then I think that is fulfilled through the existence of the National Guard.  If not, then what?  What possible good purpose is the arming of people with weapons designed to kill human beings?’

Deadly force is the bottom line of the state.  For the writers of the Constitution, the ability to exert deadly force had to be distributed in order to resist invasion and prevent home-grown tyranny.  The idea of the militia during the period of the Revolutionary War was not that of being in service through government, but separate from and quite possibly against government.  The 18th-century mindset about such matters was quite different from the contemporary one, in which government is quasi-totalitarian and resistance to it, except among highly marginalized groups, is unthinkable.

As for the assertion, Anarcissie, that “... if you don’t trust the people, then logically you ought also to oppose democratic elections and most of the rest of the Bill of Rights, not just the Second Amendment”.  I think it is self-evident that democratic elections are designed to give a majority of people a say in their own governance.  Weapons are designed to give an individual or small minority excessive power over the people around them (a power that is usually misused or abused - the number of suicides and illegal acts committed with guns dwarfs the number of successful acts of legal self-defence that occur). ...’

It’s not evident to me at all that elections, as practiced in the United States and similar countries, are designed to give anyone but elites a say in the governance of the community.  That is how they function, anyway.  But in principle, if their function were to distribute power to ordinary people, then those who don’t trust the people should be opposed to them, and not just to the Second Amendment, but the whole Bill of Rights.  This is only logical.

As for “excessive”, that is in the mind of the beholder.  A weapon might give a 100-pound little old lady the power to scare off a young, strong, 200-pound thug.  Would this power be excessive?

In regard to statistics, everyone seems to cook them their own way.  Most of the statistics I’ve seen support the gun nuts’ position, but it may be that being a gun nut is more conducive to statistics-flogging than being a gun control nut.  My principle dog in the fight is not the utility of guns but my opposition to any further extensions of state power.

Thanks for your thoughtful updates.  I think you are a little in disagreement with each other although we all recognise the futility of citizens bearing arms as a credible check on the power of government (given current military technology). 

This is the crux of my problem with the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment ... if the intent is a “citizen army” or a militia to be at the service of the people through government then I think that is fulfilled through the existence of the National Guard.  If not, then what?  What possible good purpose is the arming of people with weapons designed to kill human beings?

As for the assertion, Anarcissie, that “... if you don’t trust the people, then logically you ought also to oppose democratic elections and most of the rest of the Bill of Rights, not just the Second Amendment”.  I think it is self-evident that democratic elections are designed to give a majority of people a say in their own governance.  Weapons are designed to give an individual or small minority excessive power over the people around them (a power that is usually misused or abused - the number of suicides and illegal acts committed with guns dwarfs the number of successful acts of legal self-defence that occur).

Still, I don’t think this is the most pressing issue.  It is merely indicative of the fundamental problems facing democracies around the world that an organisation like the NRA (for motives I don’t get) can control the government so that the majority support for restriction of many types of weapons cannot be established in law.

DBM:
‘Do you seriously want “the population” to be armed sufficiently to combat the military of the State?  There are people and groups in “the population” that I would trust less than the government ...’

Well, if you don’t trust the people, then logically you ought also to oppose democratic elections and most of the rest of the Bill of Rights, not just the Second Amendment.

But I do think it’s correct to notice that the Second Amendment is no longer sufficient to protect the people from the government.  I think there needs to be a considerable cutback of government power in a great many areas.  This isn’t going to happen until there is some kind of reversal in the present culture of passivity, dependency, and hero-worship.

“ A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. “

I see where the interpretation of this wording is open to various belief. History shows that the govt of Great Britain, from which this amendment may be said to evolve, enacted, after the protestant revolution there a right to bear arms law:

from wiki

English history and common law
The concept of a universal militia originated in England The requirement that subjects keep and bear arms for military duty dates back to at least the 12th century when King Henry II, in the Assize of Arms, obligated all freemen to bear arms for public defense. King Henry III required certain subjects between the ages of fifteen and fifty (including non-land owning subjects) to bear arms. The reason for such a requirement was that in the absence of a regular army and police force (which was not established until 1829), it was the duty of certain men to keep watch and ward at night to capture and confront suspicious persons. Every subject had an obligation to protect the king’s peace and assist in the suppression of riots.

In response to complaints that local people were reluctant to take up arms to enforce justice for strangers, The Statute of Winchester of 1285 (13 Edw. I) declared that each district or hundred would be held responsible for unsolved crimes. Each man was to keep arms to take part in the hue and cry when necessary.

Following the Protestant overthrow of the Catholic King James II, the Protestant controlled Parliament obliged the newly installed Protestant monarchs William and Mary to enact the English Bill of Rights of 1689 which granted Protestants a series of liberties including the right to arms for self defense: “That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.” For instance, in 1780 after some riots, the recorder of London - the city attorney - was asked if the right to arms protected armed groups, he wrote: “The right of his majesty’s Protestant subjects, to have arms for their own defense, and to use them for lawful purposes, is most clear and undeniable.” At least one historian describes this as the first instance when the customary duty to bear arms transitioned into a right.[18][19] Other historians describe this as an example of the traditional restricting of weapons access for one class of people over another, in this case the Protestant victors over the vanquished Catholics.[19][20] Additionally, this reflected the popular dread of a standing army and the preference instead for a select militia. These values would have a long life both in England and America.[19]

Sir William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England describes the right to arms in England during the eighteenth century:

The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

.....

So it seems a mixed bag to me, but here int he USA I believe the thrust of this amendment had more to do with the need for a citizen army than the need to defend the citizenry from its own govt. Then but perhaps not now!

I’m not sure what else to read into Anarcissie’s comment:

“One of the things which was supposed to offset the power of the central government was an armed population, able to organize itself into militias (as the Second Amendment notes).

If you plan to abandon this strategy, what do you propose to put in its place?”

DBM, August 16 at 10:06 pm #

Do you seriously want “the population” to be armed sufficiently to combat the military of the State? 
................................

I doubt that anyone, excepting a small minority, believe the issue of gun ownership devolves upon the need to combat our own military in the streets of our own cities.

Do you seriously want “the population” to be armed sufficiently to combat the military of the State?  There are people and groups in “the population” that I would trust less than the government ...
 
Note that the restriction on domestic use of the military - Posse Comitatus - has been seriously compromised in the last 8 years so we’re talking about the full military might of the United States.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act)

A Consitutional convention would be subject to the same political forces that the ordinary government is subject to, but unlike the ordinary government, it would have unlimited powers.  Thus, it could wipe out the entire Bill of Rights along with the Second Amendment.

Anyway, I’m extremely dubious of the assertion that the writers of the Constitution would not want the people to possess fairly serious armament.  They feared government (rightly, in my opinion) and therefore created a government which was partitioned vertically and horizontally, all of whose components were supposed to watch and limit the power of one another, according to a strict set of rules to limit the powers of each.  One of the things which was supposed to offset the power of the central government was an armed population, able to organize itself into militias (as the Second Amendment notes).

If you plan to abandon this strategy, what do you propose to put in its place?  This web site is full of stories of crimes and abuses carried out by the government, including the most dire war crimes.  It hardly seems appropriate to give the institution that commits them yet more powers than it has.

Well thanks Caroblite, it seems we have reached a common sense agreement ...

I can’t disagree with what you say about needing constitutional reform but I don’t fancy the chances of it coming about.  It seems that the constitution and various statutes and conventions regarding the political parties have become well-entrenched as they are to the advantage of those currently in power.  I believe there have been no changes to the constitution (say for increasing representatives to match the increase in population) for nearly 100 years.  Similarly the rules which make it nearly impossible for a 3rd party to get traction are equally sacrosanct.

As a result there are numerous laws which have been modified by precedent rather than legislation to completely different ends from what they were originally intended.  The 14th amendment was supposed to protect newly freed slaves but has been used to establish the rights of corporations as is they were “natural persons”.  The rules about interstate commerce have been bent to allow enforcement of regulations by the Federal government of everything from illegal drugs to abortion.

A genuine attempt to re-establish constitutional principles which recognise the growth in Federal power over the states (following the Civil War) and changes in technology (such as “arms”) would be a refreshingly honest endeavour.

Given the vested interests in the status quo I’m not holding my breath ... but it is an admirable position!

Anarcissie and DBM . . .

Thank you both for your excellent posts .  .  .

Anarcissie, I’m reminded of the Guatemalan situation from the 50’s up until the early 1990’s.  According to Jennifer Harbury in her book, “Bridge of Courage,” the American supported Fascist regime throughout this time enforced absolute prohibition of any gun ownership by the civilian population, precisely so the police and military could commit mass muder with little fear of popular resistence.  Of course, as you know, neither the right wing “gun-rights” groups like the NRA or the 2nd Amendment Foundation etc. mention this fact, nor does the progressive left wingers like Michael Moore, or the more mainstream left like Hillary Clinton etc. etc.

DBM, I think my post echoed your general sentiment about the 2nd Amendment being outdated (I pointed the fact that it was conceived and written when muskets were the norm). 

But I’m not sure that my other point has been absorbed.  And what point is that?  Well, this time, more explicitly, that simply legislating more gun control laws without updating the outdated 2nd amendment will never really work, because in passing these laws we are essentially ignoring the constitution.  And by ignoring the “highest law in the land,” we are fomenting confusion, anger, schizophrenia, and violence.  One cannot usurp the fundamental due process of law and magicially come up with a more coherent or orderly society. 

As I stated somewhat before, there has been ample time since the musket-bearing age for our President and Congress and the population to update the 2nd Amendment by having a Constituional Convention.  A new amendment that specically elucidates a more specific authority over “arms” would do wonders to eliminate our endless polemic regarding the 2nd amendment.  As muskets and cannons such were replaced by revolvers, Gatlin Guns, and later by machine guns, ICBMS etc., there should have been a concurrent review and revamping of just what constituted legitimate ownership of “arms” by the population. 

The mainstream left - and perhaps even the alternative left, have NEVER proposed this proper adherence to due process (and on the most fundamental level!), anymore than any of the right wing groups have or will.  America thus remains forever stuck in the 18th century, fighting it out over “gun control” without ever waking up to the fact that problem lies in this absurdity.

Thanks Anarchissie ... good post.  I think I understand your point now.  I don’t agree with the idea of armed civilians but I can report positively (from personal experience) on how a society works when the police are not armed either.

I must say that police are necessary and that many of them do a good job for quite altruistic reasons.  They have gotten a bad rap for quite a long time now due to the proliferation of victimless crimes which they are required to enforce.  The drug & vice laws seem to cause more harm than good and have reduced the police from respected community members to often unwanted enforcers of laws which are broken by people who don’t consider themselves criminals.

DBM—I wasn’t focusing on military budgets but on the use of government armament within American communities.  The police swagger about with all sorts of weapons hanging off them or available for them nearby.  In addition, all politicians, bureaucrats, and other Very Important People, including the most ardent fans of gun control, seem to think it is all right for them to carry weapons.  If you want to disarm a society, you have to disarm the whole society, not just the lower castes.  The present arrangement has led to a events like the Gates flap, where a police officer believes it is his right and duty to arrest a man in his own house whose only offense is speaking disrespectfully to the police.  The police believe that where they are present, the rights of property, free speech, and personal liberty simply disappear.  I don’t wish to support that sort of thing.  In any case, as I said before, if the police, politicians, bureaucrats, corporate managers and rich people are allowed to carry weapons, then gangs will get them in the normal course of gang-to-gang commerce.  You can observe this behavior in the more violent Latin-American countries (toward whose culture we are tending).

As for militias, I don’t think they would be impractical, especially if the government’s use of weapons and spies against its own people were restrained.  A system of interlocking neighborhood militias would have done much better than the police in post-Katrina New Orleans, for example, or at least one would hope they would have killed, robbed and terrorized fewer people than the official police and other government officials did.  But we are a long way from the public consciousness and culture necessary to support militias.

That is due, I believe, to the pollution of leftist thought by Marxism-Leninism: the fatal idea that one can use the state to advance the leftist cause, which in my view is diametrically opposed to state power.  Hence my persistent interrogation of the faith of gun control fans in the state.  I believe that if they reflect on the implications of their fondness for state power they may change their minds.  Guns and gun control constitute just one issue among many.

Caroblite & Anarcissie -

Point taken that the government commits many more atrocities with weapons than the public (especially overseas of course).

However, the point I tried to make in my first contribution to this thread is that the 2nd Amendment is an anachronism.  At BEST (for the pro-gun freedom crowd) the amendment was an attempt to ensure that local militias that could resist the state military should be legal to guard against the abuse of military power.  That argument no longer makes sense.  When the militias were going to have muskets and the state was going to have, say, muskets and cannons this was possible.  Now that the military has vastly more effective armaments than any militia could or should have (tanks, warplanes, nukes, gas, bazookas, whatever - I’m not up on the current state of arms), there is no possible way we could or should want any local militia to be a balancing power.

So, yes, I agree whole-heartedly that the military budgets are a scandal and should be cut by 90% over time (not that hard if overseas bases are all abandoned and massively expensive weapons systems designed for no reason but profit are dumped).  I don’t see, though, how that has anything to do with gun control in the general population.  Even at 10% of the current budget the American military would be the best funded most formidible army in history.

Entirely apart from that, the arguments for weapons designed only for violence against human beings are spurious.  The anecdotes of successful self-defense are swamped by the anecdotes of accidental harm, domestic violence or suicide.  But I’m still more than happy to consider any arguments anyone has about where the line restricting weaponry in public hands should be drawn (how much more than a BB gun and how much less than an ICBM?).

caroblite:
‘Why is the emphasis always on just domestic gun (and bomb) violence? ...’

That’s another form of a question I’ve tried to raise, pretty unsuccessfully here and elsewhere.  The way gun control laws are usually drawn up, they restrict the possession and use of weapons by ordinary people, but allow the government and important people—that is, the ruling class, the rich, the people with connections, the cops (public and private) and so on—to keep them.  It seems to me that, given the kind of people who are drawn to government and corporate management, we would want to restrict and oversee the use of weapons by such people first and most strictly.  So where are the calls for reduction of government and corporate armament?  I don’t see them.

In regard to which, I have to once again point out that if you don’t keep guns away from politicians, bureaucrats, police, rentacops, and so on, then criminals will get them as a result of normal gang-to-gang commerce.  Obviously—or at least, it’s obvious to me.

cyrena:
’... “Cognitively impaired.” Good choice of words….’

Maybe I’m cognitively impaired.  I’ve been posting what I think are passably polite, rational arguments and observations, and all I’ve seen coming from the gun control fan author above and the gun control fan comments below are atrocity poetry and personal abuse.  This sort of thing generally means to me that the poets’n'abusers don’t have a case.  But maybe it’s just my cognitive impairment talking.  What do you think?

Why is the emphasis always on just domestic gun (and bomb) violence?  There is very little demand among the Democrats to prosectute any of those connected with the U. S. backed and funded invasion of East Timor, where 300,000 (1/3 of the population) were murdered. 

Neither have the Democrats shut the notorious School of the Americas down (also known as “Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation.”)

Nor are they likely to go after Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield etc., or—if they do—to pursue it the same way they pursue “evil” pot smokers.

So much for the “disgust” with violence that the mainstream “left” have, either in this country, or in “socialist utopias” like Canada, England etc. (the latter two of which were also involved in the East Timor massacre and occupation).

By Louise, (in response to me)
•  ““Cognitively impaired.” Good choice of words, since we all know given a choice between making an intelligent decision based on imperical knowledge, and simply repeating and reacting to anything they hear, is an impairment that seems to afflict the gun-toten nuts.”
Well Louise, I’ve been trying to diplomatize my vocabulary a little bit. Way back when, I started substituting naïve for ignorant because it seemed to provide the benefit of the doubt. (ie, ignoraqnce CAN be cured). But, at the end of the day, it is what it is I suppose, and the majority of the defenders of gun-worshippers are beyond ignorant. The senator from South Dakota isn’t ignorant, or naïve, or even cognitively impaired. He’s just a hypocritical republican like all of the rest of them, with his bread buttered lavishly by the NRA.
The same shouldn’t be assumed though, of anyone stupid enough to believe that carrying weapons on board commercial aircraft is a good idea.
Meantime, Purple Girl makes an excellent point…how much of our health care dollars are spent on people who shoot themselves or each other? It has never ceases to amaze me when I consider the ideological connection between “pro-lifer’s” (anti-abortion) and gun-toters. Seriously, the most ardent so-called ‘pro-lifers’ are almost exclusively gun-toters prepared to use them at the first ‘opportunity’. So, they aren’t pro-life at all. Pro-embryo maybe, but not pro-life.

Meantime, the Constitution allows for the right to bear arms in terms of militias (aka the military). So, is that why we make is so easy for gangs to be fully armed? Maybe that’s the interpretation of the cognitively impaired.

Is the grandpa who shot his grandson a one-person militia? Probably not.

Meantime, who here has NOT seen Michael Moore’s excellent documentary from over a decade ago…“Bowling For Columbine?” It might help some of the cognitively impaired to view that, and connect some dots.

To which, I might add:

If you think health reform has been tough to get through, wait until they start looking at financial system reform!  For the politicians to move on that one will really be “biting the hands that feed them” ...

Taking the legislators’ medical care away would be unlikely to sway them.  The “money for votes” system “K Street” (the lobbying army) is a symptom of has led to a situation where almost every congressman and senator is a millionnaire to start with.  Their health care is a perk but not a necessity.

I feel the same way about insurance.  Let the senators and congressmen have the same health insurance as the least of us are able to obtain.  See how long we stay without national health insurance.  Let them experience everything we experience and America will become a much better place.

John F. Butterfield:
‘Did gunbunny say “Pro-Gun” is an insult?’

I believe gunbunny compared the use of “pro-abortion” for pro-choice to the use of “pro-gun” for, well, pro-choice.  Just an observation about the distortions used in propaganda, I believe.

Mustacio:
’... I’ll admit that the US takes the cake in violence, in fact, Compton,CA has a population of roughly 100,000 people and the have something like 1,700 murders a year. ...’

I think you take the cake in the use of statistics.  In 2005, Compton had 75 murders.

I don’t know what Compton would prove anyway.  At least according to legend, violence in Compton is gang-related, and gangs can always get weapons, from the police if necessary.

Did gunbunny say “Pro-Gun” is an insult?

Let me understand ... a murderous robbery in 1970 might have been averted if one of the victims had a loaded gun.  While we wait for the next similar case there are 1700 murders per year in Compton.

This seems to me similar to the idea that it is Ok that prisoners should be tortured for 5, 6 or 7 years because there might someday be a ticking time bomb.

The exception just doesn’t support the general case.  Maybe Druthers was right about phallic symbols!

gunbunny:
’... Dionne, Cocco, Sen. D.Feinstein, all lost in panic, confusion and cowardice, wish to impose their sheep-herd mentality on the rest of America….’

Not Diane Feinstein.  She carried until she was exposed by the press as yet one more gun control fan who believed it was all right for her to do it, just not ordinary, lesser mortals.  It’s not just about guns, it’s about everything.  Look at her record.

In response to what BruSays wrote:

(And let’s not dismiss this as Mustachio has, that “we live in a world that has made guns necessary.” No we don’t. We live in a COUNTRY that has made guns necessary.)

I was not “dismissing” this, merely stating an obvious and unfortunately fact of human nature.  To be more specific, humans kill one another, every day all over the world.  Whether it’s with a gun, a stick, or an advanced ballistic missle.  Until we can change this about our own nature, guns will be needed to stop those who may pray on the innocent. 

I’ll admit that the US takes the cake in violence, in fact, Compton,CA has a population of roughly 100,000 people and the have something like 1,700 murders a year.  The point here is that, until you focus on changing the underlying behavior that leads to this violence, guns are unfortunately needed. 
Also don’t forget that mass shootings are not only a US occurrence.  Yes they occur in the US frighteningly more frequent than other countries, but they do happen, and seem to be happening more and more all over the world. 

Once again, human nature is what saddens me here and it is universal, not only confined to borders of the US.

I think there is no relation whatsoever to the Constitution, law or protection from killers but a neurotic attachment to powerful phallic symbols needed by men who feel diminshed and frail.  A BIG LOADED weapon ready to fire off gives them a feeling of virility and it is that “feeling” they want and the gun gives it to them. 
If it were not so dangerous who would care?  When I hear one ranting on about his right and need for loaded weapons I always think, your poor wife, she must have a terrible life having to live with such an infant.
Take a goggle at the congress people, the real believers, not the money coddlers and imagine what it must be like to live with one of these retarded cowboys.

Excellent, Purple Girl! It’s all a matter of choice, and not liking “one-size-fits-all-and-if-you-don’t-like-it-that’s-tough” laws.

Gun Ownership and Abortion are a Choices. I choose not to own a gun, but respect the rights of others to. and lets’ be honest both Gun ownership and abortion deal with life and death decisions and outcomes.
So if I can’t have an abortion, then gun enthusiats can’t own a gun. yes ‘Pro Lifers’ - People shot (and -this is important- Kill) people ...With Guns.
Do Tell how many gun injuries require medical attention? How many result in death? Will I be expected to pay the burden of these peoples choices in the new healthcare Reform bill. I mean many are responsible for their own injuries- Armed robber shot by armed victim (or vice versa).
But theres where the comparison diverges- with an abortion there is no additional cost to society- Yet gun shot injuries often require not only lengthy hosptial stays, but therapies and possible long term care.
so the Right wing doesn’t want Abortions included in the healthcare coverage- but those against guns are expected to foot the bill for their personal right and freedom?
Some of you idiots shot yourselves- I have yet to hear of a Case of emaculate conception. so at least we are covering the Cost of freedoms for Two people instead of just one.
So until the right Wing’s Guns, and Balls, are on the Table- my uterus is not either- as a Right or a coverable service.
Want to avoid an abortion use birth control
Want to avoid a robbery- get a German Shepherd. Why conceal your Defense- that visual alone will deter anyones nafarious intentions.

As long as there are right-wing new-mooners out there packing heat, and as long as mouths-for-hire like Rush and Beck etc. are also well-armed, maybe ALL of us should be carrying lethal weapons.  Glen Beck (aka Ralphie-you’re-gonna-shoot-your-eye-out) apparently carries a gun even when he’s in front of the camera. 
  When there are paranoids among us with malice aplenty, maybe we ALL need body armor.

By DBM, July 28 at 9:25 am #

“I think E.J.Dionne’s very good article makes a simple point:  That there are hypocritical politicians steadfastly against any domestic gun control but who are sensible enough to want protection from people with guns.  This may have been put in an amusing way but to isolate a specific argument is not to trivialise a “difficult and complex issue”.  It is to seek a response to that argument.  If there is none then presumably opponents of the position need to rethink their beliefs.”

~~~

Right on!

Just one problem. Folks firmly committed to the power of propaganda (obscene profit to the corporate master, in this case the masters of NRA) cant re-think! If it isn’t in the prepared mantra they are commanded to follow ... they are lost.

By cyrena, July 27 at 10:59 pm #

“Actually, not just ANY ‘person’ has ever been able to carry a loaded firearm on board a commercial airplane. That would be about as stupid as it gets. ... Anyone who actually thinks that we would be safer if moron passengers could carry their weapons on board, (I guess they think the F/A should serve them highballs while they’re packing too, eh?) is cognitively impaired.”

~~~

“Cognitively impaired.” Good choice of words, since we all know given a choice between making an intelligent decision based on imperical knowledge, and simply repeating and reacting to anything they hear, is an impairment that seems to afflict the gun-toten nuts. Otherwise we never would read of a grandpa who shot his five-year-old grandaughter when she opened his door, or cops who shot a twelve-year-old who didn’t stop quick enough on command, or hunters who shot an orange covered horse because he was sure it was an orange covered bambi ... and my all-time favorite tragedy ... the hunter who gunned down a bunch of kids getting on a school bus. That one defied explanation!

But all the same, fruitcakes like Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., do indeed practice what they preach. They preach hate and fear-mongering, and that is exactly what they practice! (And here I thought only those in the deep South, like Sen. David Vitter, R-La.,  were still fighting the Civil War.)

Just for the heck of it, does anyone out there know how many assault weapons and other fun stuff the National Rifle Associations favorite buddies the gun manufacturers, manufacture for foreign consumption? You know, weapons that end up in the hands of various and sundry foreign fruitcakes? It’s almost like being awash in human blood is something to be desired. Blood for the Lord, food for the believers. Sick I know. But maybe there is some “religious” thing burried in our unconscious little mush-brains.

It’s certainly not a stretch to say we hear the NRA devotees link God and Guns all the time

DBM:
’... P.T.‘s and my point is that there clearly have to [be] legal restrictions on arms.  That’s not the same as “unshakeable faith in the state” ...’

Juxtaposed to Dionne’s silly article, it sure looks like it to me.  In another context, you might be able to present a reasoned argument that conditions demanded some sort of universal restrictions against weapons possession—“disarming the victims” as gun nuts put it—like blood running in the streets.  Dionne’s article, though, is nothing but a series of gibes.  It’s not hard to return the compliment: major gun control fans, like Diane Feinstein, have been found to habitually carry guns.  (According to Feinstein, she’s a sort of superior being who, unlike the unwashed, can be trusted with a gun.)  I don’t see what difference this sort of venal hypocrisy makes to the issue, or to the larger questions of state power and benevolence of which it is a minor branch.

There seems to be a truly schizoid idea of the state on the Left.  On the one hand, anyone who reads the material on this site or any like it must be aware that states, including the U.S., are responsible for all kinds of atrocities amounting to millions of deaths around the world, to say nothing of bodily harm, torture, terror, and destruction of worldly goods and means of livelihood; that their structure of authority inevitably attracts sociopaths and criminals; that their power attracts corruption and oppression….  Well, I could do that all day.  And on the other hand, people calling themselves “liberals”, “progressives”, and “leftists” can’t wait to give up their freedom, security and autonomy to the same institutions, and not only in the realm of weapons and self-defense.  It’s a great mystery to me.

To roughly paraphrase Obama during the campaign:

“I apologise AND I recant” ... and whatever else…

I think you are unfair, DBM, in my first two posts I defended E.J. Dionne’s article

“E.J. Dionne is suggesting that republican politicians would not really be interested in living with the consequences of the logical extensions of their own ideas.”

Note I did not even use the word “hypocrites”. That term was introduced by Anarcissie.

In fact, DBM, some of what you wrote was just an expansion of what I quoted from my second post. Sorry, that some liberals were attacked by ardee. Not sorry, that I defended myself just a little. Compare my comments to ardee’s.

Quite frankly, DBM, I want an apology from you.

Yes, we get it ardee, “typical liberal mantras”
“those folks”
typical liberal folks deserve “ridicule”

You never progressed beyond that, did you.

I’m a little disapppointed in the ad hominem conflict wasting space in this thread.  I can get that watching Hannity or O’Reilly.

I’m also a disappointed in having debate shut down without any counterpoint.  I’ll try to do better ...

I think E.J.Dionne’s very good article makes a simple point:  That there are hypocritical politicians steadfastly against any domestic gun control but who are sensible enough to want protection from people with guns.  This may have been put in an amusing way but to isolate a specific argument is not to trivialise a “difficult and complex issue”.  It is to seek a response to that argument.  If there is none then presumably opponents of the position need to rethink their beliefs.

P.T.‘s and my point is that there clearly have to legal restrictions on arms.  That’s not the same as “unshakeable faith in the state” although a belief that a state with rule-of-law is a better thing than a state-less Mad Max lack of any rule-of-law or a state with rule-of-man superceding rule-of-law.  If you want to argue that any state is a bad thing then that is a perfectly acceptable response but I don’t see the need to merely huff and puff without engagement.

I guess, though, if no-one looking at this thread has any thoughts they want to share about the ideas in the article then you can keep on sniping at each other ad nauseum.

Correction:

ardee replied after ardee (gender unknown) said ardee wasn’t going to reply.

The following is from ardee’s second post:
“exactly the stupid liberal I referred to in my first post here”

Isn’t that an attack?

Aren’t you admitting that your first post was an attack? that you made the first attack?

Oh, I forgot ardee isn’t going to reply . . .
wait ardee already replyed after saying he wasn’t going to reply.

ardee:
’... My comment was regarding the simplistic way the author approached a difficult and complex issue, using silliness in place of reason. ...’

There is probably no way to approach the issue with reason, actually.  One certainly doesn’t observe very much in the present case.  Attitudes towards authority and other social relations are probably established early in childhood and thereafter become very nearly impregnable.  Hence it makes little difference whether one argues childishly, as E.J. Dionne does, or intelligently; the only question most of the audience is interested in is which side you’re on.

My first post on this thread:

By ardee, July 27 at 6:36 am #

I do not believe that this article adds anything of value to the debate on gun ownership. In fact it echoes the typical liberal mantras that subject those folks to ridicule and rant.

Butterball’s first post on this thread:

John F. Butterfield, July 27 at 7:04 am #

Of course the article adds something of value to the debate. Too bad so many people of limited thinking ability would rater ridicule real thought than think themselves. Ardee’s rant is thoughtless and adds nothing of value to this or any other debate.

..................

Thus Butterfat lies exposed for what she is, a useless and sophomoric child who lies freely with no redeeming social value.

I apologize for the extension of this spat to the forum in general but, when one sees a steaming pile of horseshit in the middle of the road one is obligated to point out the danger to those travelling that same road.

ardee, Why are you so intent on proving yourself an ass? Your first post on this thread was an attack, pure and simple, and thus you show the intellectual capacity of a moss covered rock. No further response from me to you is necessary as I am certain the intelligent folks on this forum neither wish to see such dialogue or need further proof of your uselessness.

<blockquote>
DBM:
‘Wow!  After reading this article I was just going to leave a comment saying “brilliant” ... but have found this very lively debate where I expected none.  I guess I shouldn’t be surprised but I always am.

Ardee & Anarcissie, I presume you are all for “anarchy” in the face of the evils of government. ...’
<blockquote>
The fundamental issue is one of state power.  You don’t have to be an anarchist to be suspicious of state power.  But as for debate, I don’t see anything much here but confessions of unshakable faith in the state, so there is really not much to debate with.

DBM, July 28 at 12:35 am #

Wow!  After reading this article I was just going to leave a comment saying “brilliant” ... but have found this very lively debate where I expected none.  I guess I shouldn’t be surprised but I always am.

Ardee & Anarcissie, I presume you are all for “anarchy” in the face of the evils of government.  There are others of you who profess an attraction for the current gun laws and no impinging on gun-owners’ “lifestyles”.
.......................

You may assume all you wish, but you are familiar with the old saw about ‘assuming’ I presume. I do not speak for Anarcissie, a poster perfectly capable of doing so, but, as for me, I think you missed my intent.

I understand that my thoughts on this article were sidetracked by a moron who thinks only he is allowed to use impolitic commentary to attack another view, but morons are what they are.

My comment was regarding the simplistic way the author approached a difficult and complex issue, using silliness in place of reason. That is all I meant to say. I took no position on the gun control issue whatsoever yet certain mouthbreathers , sans the benefit of decent parenting I suppose, made assumptions about an unstated position…..

John F. Butterfield, July 28 at 6:06 am #
.......

Why are you so intent on proving yourself an ass? Your first post on this thread was an attack, pure and simple, and thus you show the intellectual capacity of a moss covered rock. No further response from me to you is necessary as I am certain the intelligent folks on this forum neither wish to see such dialogue or need further proof of your uselessness.

ardee, the first to post on this thread, still has not even attempted to offer anything of value to this debate. He has only offered the excuse that the article disgusted him so much that he could not make a good post. Then, perhaps, he should not have posted at all, since all he did from his very first post was show his lack of civility.

Hi DBM,

Great comment, along with the great excerpt from “P. T.”  that you gave.

I remember over ten years ago how a friend pointed out to me the obvious: that when the second amendment was written, about the only weapon that US citizens had then was the musket, which could fire one shot before a laborous and lengthy reloading process (Native Americans, I guess, had the famous bow and arrow!).

But this brings up another problem - it isn’t just the “right wing nuts” preventing any kind of modern update.  Historically, the attempts to bring some sort of rational or reasonable restrictions on “arms” usually fail—at least in the long term— because there has been no perceived need to have a constitutional convention and pass an amendment that would specifically either 1) revoke the second amendment, or 2) give some sort of coherence by “amending” it—i. e. granting the US gov’t the power to regular and/or prohibit explosive devices, or devices over a certain calibre etc. etc.  Without such an amendment, the possibility of arms regulation will always be subject to either failure, or future court reversals. 

There is a famous precedent for needing this: the passing of prohibition (18th amendment, I think), and the revokation of prohibition 13 years later (21st amendment, I believe).  One amendment clearly gave the government the right to prohibit the right to make or consume alcoholic beverages, and the other restored this right.

I can’t help but agree ultimately (no matter how impractical it is!) with the Libertarian Party Platform (at least as it was in the early nineteen nineties) that is critical of the way our government has created so many entities: from the CIA and the Drug Czar to the EPA and FDA etc.  None of these, according to the Libs did the constitution authorize for the congress or president to create. 

The issue for the Libs wasn’t (at the time, anyway) whether or not the agency in question is a “good idea” or not, but rather the lack of proper legal basis in the manner in which it was created.  In other words, regulating food might be a great idea, or (for some out there) maybe even having the CIA was a good idea (!)—but not the manner in which it was (and is still being) done—willy nilly, at the whim of an unregulated congress and president.

Of course, many right wing people like Limbaugh will use this exclusively against his “enemies,” like Obama, and many left wing people will use it exclusively again their “enemies.” 

And so it goes. . .

Wow!  After reading this article I was just going to leave a comment saying “brilliant” ... but have found this very lively debate where I expected none.  I guess I shouldn’t be surprised but I always am.

Ardee & Anarcissie, I presume you are all for “anarchy” in the face of the evils of government.  There are others of you who profess an attraction for the current gun laws and no impinging on gun-owners’ “lifestyles”.

I wouldn’t expect to be able to make a point to you guys by quoting statistics and facts.  There are plenty of them and I’m sure you’ve found a way to dismiss them already.  However, I think “P.T.” had a very good point which hasn’t generated the discussion it deserves.  (I’ve made it before so it must be good!):

If you think the 2nd amendment is there to allow “arms” for all and that with everyone armed we’ll all be able to protect ourselves against ... whoever.  Well, the amendment says “arms”.  It doesn’t say “guns” and it certainly doesn’t say “handguns” or “rifles”.  So surely, if you are going to be consistent, there should be no restrictions on arms.  P.T. suggests a hand grenade might bring objections.  I would suggest that if there is no restriction then a like-minded group should be able to chip in together and get a tank.  Why not?  ... and if Bill Gates wants a nuke, why should he be restricted from having one?  Why can’t motorcycle gangs use mustard gas???

Obviously, to me anyway, there has to be a line drawn to prevent people from having destructive power.  Every other civilised country restricts guns far more than the U.S. and has lower crime rates.

What all gun control proponents are suggesting is to draw that line where it makes sense (i.e. no guns which are intended for the killing of human beings - hand guns, automatic weapons and, of course, more destructive devices like explosives).

Comments welcome!

By Anarcissie, July 27 at 7:58 pm #
’... Carrying it one step further, just let everyone carry arms on airplanes so we can defend ourselves against terrorists. ...’
I have read that there was a time when a person could carry a gun on a plane, and during that time no planes were hijacked.  I haven’t checked out that story, but it does seem reasonable.
~~~~~
Actually, not just ANY ‘person’ has ever been able to carry a loaded firearm on board a commercial airplane. That would be about as stupid as it gets.
FAA laws DO allow credentialed individuals from the government agencies to travel with their service revolvers, provided all of the paperwork in filled out and filed in triplicate, and the cockpit crew of the designated flight/aircraft have been introduced to them, and if there is more than one armed agent/passenger, then they have to be introduced to each other, and everybody in the operation knows these people are armed. Even then, the captain of the flight can refuse them. (no, most don’t tell the federal agents that they can’t carry their firearms, but I know a few who have, and managed to keep their jobs.)  Still, my point is that for at least the past 5 decades, persons are NOT allowed to carry firearms in the passenger section of any airplane. They can CHECK them as baggage, but there are several sheets worth of bureaucracy/protocol involving that as well.

So, contrary to what you might have ‘heard’ there has never been such a time, and DOMESTIC TRAVEL in the US prior to 9/11 WAS “HIGHJACK FREE”for at least 30 years.  That’s exactly why anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the levels of security protocol in air travel can’t possibly believe the 19 Arabs/Muslims part of the 9/11 so-called highjacking. If those planes were “highjacked”, it was by something far more scientifically evolved than 19 Muslims with boxcutters. (Or maybe god created a temporary Bermuda Triangle type phenomena in the North East Corridor that particular day.)

Like I said, in terms of domestic travel originating in the US, there had NOT been any ‘highjackings’ for decades. Ships that operate in the water maybe, (cruises, pirates, etc) but not airplanes. It means the protocol for security (which is multilayered) -  WORKS!! (That is unless orders from on high specifically tamper with the protocol, as was the case on 9/11/2001, when 4 airplanes somehow managed to slip through all of the security protocols in place, and allegedly make their way into the most protected airspace on the planet. The Pentagon. )

Anyone who actually thinks that we would be safer if moron passengers could carry their weapons on board, (I guess they think the F/A should serve them highballs while they’re packing too, eh?) is cognitively impaired. Maybe the crew should be required to keep a count on how many cocktails the dude in seat 29B is guzzling, seeing as he’s packin’ heat, and might just get stupid – seeing as how that tends to happen to some people when they’re drunk. They become ‘disorderly’. Would YOU like to be a passenger on an airplane at 35,000 feet knowing that some of your fellow passengers are armed….like the one who’s sucking down cocktails and screaming at his wife. Or just a nutcase…there’s tons of them. Can’t refuse to sell an airplane ticket to somebody because we think they ‘look’ weird. But no, they can’t have their guns.

That would be…well….STUPID!!

On July 23rd I sent the following message to Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) who voted in favor of Senator Thune’s Amendment No. 1618:

- - - -

Dear Senator Udall:

It is my understanding that you voted in favor of Senator Thune’s Amendment No. 1618, which would have allowed citizens who have concealed carry permits from the state in which they reside to carry concealed firearms in another state that grants concealed carry permits.

If that is correct, my question to you is this: Would you also vote in favor of allowing citizens who have concealed carry permits from the state in which they reside to carry concealed firearms into the halls of Congress when they visit the District of Columbia?

If not, why not?

My guess is that you would not vote in favor of allowing concealed weapons to be carried into the halls of Congress because you know full well that doing so would dramatically increase the odds of shootings of elected officials. Am I correct?

So, I guess increasing the odds that ordinary, non-elected, citizens will be shot by some wacko with a concealed weapons permit from another state is okay by you.

Lastly, I also assume that by now you have gotten the message that I am very disappointed by your vote in favor of Amendment No. 1618.

- - - -

I have yet to hear back from Senator Udall.

I think it’s a common fault of We The People (Americans) to assume that our problems are as unique as our solutions must be.

Guns exist in every country of the world. Yet few western nations are having these conversations about gun control. Somehow, incredibly, they have managed to regulate guns AND ensure the safety of their citizens.

I find this similar to the health care issue. We’re wringing our hands on what to do about our soaring health care costs and relatively dismal infant mortality rates and life expectancies when all around us are dozens of nations who’ve worked out working solutions decades ago. 

So let’s look around and learn from others. The wheel has already been invented. 

(And let’s not dismiss this as Mustachio has, that “we live in a world that has made guns necessary.” No we don’t. We live in a COUNTRY that has made guns necessary.)

hippie4ever:
’... Regarding the Bill of Rights, Anarcissie, which signer do you believe would support the right of anyone to commit an atrocity at will? ...

Just about all of them, I imagine.  Remember, they were revolutionaries, just like Fidel Castro; they brought about an important political change by force of arms, partly through the use of militias, which were crucial to the success of their enterprise, especially at the beginning (Lexington and Concord) and at the end (Yorktown).  That’s why militias are explicitly mentioned in the Second Amendment as the reason for prohibiting the government from restricting the possession of weapons.

I live in New York City, and the poetry of slaughter does not convince me of anything.  However, if you are so opposed to people using guns, why not push for disarming the government first?  They’re the people with the heavy stuff and seem to be a primary magnet for psychopaths.

’... Carrying it one step further, just let everyone carry arms on airplanes so we can defend ourselves against terrorists. ...’

I have read that there was a time when a person could carry a gun on a plane, and during that time no planes were hijacked.  I haven’t checked out that story, but it does seem reasonable.

By Anarcissie, July 27 at 12:56 pm #

“And then think of all the people whose lives have been ruined by dirty books, unprescribed drugs, bad religions, and an unconscionable desire to keep their privacy and not confess all regularly to the police.  We should get rid of all of the Bill of Rights—all we need are bigger and better police stations!”

__________________________________

Anarcissie. I’d argue that “dirty” is a matter of point of view, so I’m unsure if you’re referring to pornography or banned works of literature. I believe porn serves a legitimate need among humanity insofar as it exists universally in culture. While pornography can be abused, the same can be said about nearly anything. Fairly harmless stuff, if slightly unbelievable.

As for banned books, they have a way of becoming more popular and influential; besides I enjoy reading something besides the pap that passes for contemporary American literature, don’t you? Do I support banning books? Never.

More have been harmed by prescribed drugs which have been largely untested since the rise of HIV in the 1980s. The “fast track” for HIV drugs has unfortunately been extended to others, with some tragic results. As for the War on Drugs, that’s really a War Against the American People, and I have fought this fight for over 40 years now.

Anarcissie, when you refer to “bad religions” are you certain there are good ones?

Regarding the Bill of Rights, Anarcissie, which signer do you believe would support the right of anyone to commit an atrocity at will? A musket can miss a target at fifty feet; an AR-15 can spray an area several hundred feet around, killing everyone. The reality of gun violence affects everyone, whether fascist, socialist or whatever.

Anarcissie, do you live in a suburban or country area? Have you ever seen someone’s brains blown out? Television does not count. People who have seen the results of gun violence never hold your point of view. How do you explain that?

And while it IS Interesting how you go off about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, you cannot help but denigrate the rest of us with the broad brush of police informant. You know,  Anarcissie, there are hits and misses in life, and then there are MISSES.

If a person reads this article, thinks about the issue, and then is forced to consider the basis of their own belief system, then bravo.  No matter what you believe.  But unfortunately, any time you use an extreme scenario to make a point it usually forces people to vehemently hold on to whatever preconceived ideals/beliefs they already believed before they read the article.  Which is what appears to have happened to most of the people who posted a comment on this site.  And admittedly to myself as well to a certain degree.

I was all ready to give my political two scents but after reading some of the amusing back and forth comments, I feel that what I’ve written above is more appropriate.  Or it at least warrants mention before I hypocritically offer my two cents anyway. 

And who cares what my opinion is unless it either backs up what your opinion is, or gives you ammunition to strengthen your own argument, right?  Regardless of what side you’re on.

The underlying reality of this issue is the unfortunate truth that we live in a world that has made guns necessary.  Blame who you want, but that fact is regrettably true. And if our government is incapable of protecting us from whatever evils that roam the earth, (including each other or the government itself) how are we to protect ourselves?

Once again, I’m all for living in a harmonious Nirvana where hugs replace guns but I just don’t see that in the cards for the human race.  Let’s be realistic about human nature.  I’m not saying we should give up hope for a better tomorrow or ever stop trying to improve our humanity.  Let’s just acknowledge the fact that guns are necessary.  Unfortunately necessary, but necessary.  Again, I’m not advocating arming the entire country here, I just want this fact of human nature to be carefully considered. 

I write this as a person who was in a situation where I could have used a gun to protect myself and my family and did not have one at my disposal.  So that obviously, admittedly slants my belief system here.  I’m selfish in that if guns are out there and who knows who has one, I want to level the playing field by having one myself.

But I’m always willing to rethink my belief system even after having such a personal experience on this matter.  My experience may seem anecdotal to you, but it doesn’t seem that way to me. 

I’m all for believing we don’t need guns, but until we can change human nature, (the real issue here in my opinion) guns are sadly, here to stay.

Washington is a coward’s castle and the cowards don’t want anyone coming to Washington and venting their rage over how they are screwed 7 days a week by those sellouts who are bribed to pass laws and make policy by vested interests i.e. corporations who have the morality of,well, corporations. It will take years to change this culture, but there is a gun for every man, woman and child in America (300 million guns and counting)floating around out there. And still the politicians don’t feel safe! I wonder why. I agree with the ban because you can just imagine what would happen if they lifted it. I especially enjoyed rollzone’s image of a lone gun travelling all on its own, with evil designs but no human intervention. Do they charge guns to travel by bus? Can guns vote? You betcha.

Ardee’s rant is thoughtless and adds nothing of value to this or any other debate.

.............

So, this is how you enter a debate. You are a simpleton of the lowest order, Butterball. My initial post spoke to the shallow way the author approached the gun control issue, and now you mirror that shallowness yourself. No wonder you liked it.

.....................................
Anarcissie, July 27 at 9:28 am #

John F. Butterfield:
‘Of course the article adds something of value to the debate. ...’

What?  It seems like third-grade stuff.  The issue of gun rights is about state power: gun control fans admire and trust state power and want the government to take guns away from ordinary people and give them to rightist government institutions like the military and the police.  Why this is considered a leftist position is beyond me, but the the article doesn’t touch on that.  It doesn’t deal with any of the fundamental issues involved.  It also suggests that some politicians may be hypocrites.  I can’t tell you how shocked I am by that revelation!
.........................

Thanks, Anarcissie, you added detail I was far too disgusted to post.

Readers sharing this excellent column need to be more aware than I was. I “shared” this column on Facebook, but failed to send the correct thumbname. That means the link to this column had an images of Chris Hedges’ Happiness Consultants Won’t Stop a Depression

hello. if the article is founded on the expanding right of conceal carry, and is only extremely stupid about arousing debate: then leave the hangover at the door -before sitting down to work. it is not the gun that is the criminal, and it is not the criminal that is insanely entering the Capitol- to physically assassinate someone whom they very strongly disagree with. criminals are not mental patients. the requisite humbling of representatives must be upheld. they must always hang their guns at the door.

There are limits. As Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. once put it, “Freedom of speech does not give a person the right to falsely yell `Fire!’ in a crowded theater.”

And unfortunately, we live in a time when people have very few limitations on their own behavior. To quote Edmund Burke, “Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within the more there must be without. Men of intemperate mind cannot be free. Their passions form their fetters.”

The question is, where are those limits? How can national, one-size-fits-all limits on the Second Amendment be agreed to when people have such widely differing interpretations of it? I personally prefer keeping the Status Quo; no more new gun laws, just enforce the ones that exist, and let the states decide for themselves where the limits are. You let me live like I want to live, and vice versa—and if my lifestyle includes firearms, don’t worry about it.

E. J. Dionne,

I read your article today in the SF Chronicle and realized it would also be on Truthdig - last night there was a rerun on 60 Minutes about the surge in gun and ammunition purchases and comments from an NRA spokesperson about how if college students had been allowed to carry weapons at Virginia Tech that massacre could have been avoided. The solution for gun nuts is to arm everyone in the country and recreate the old west again. They have this insane desire go go back to the 19th century and take us all along for the ride. With the aid of a conservative Supreme Court they have totally distorted the second amendment to mean unfettered access to whatever guns citizens want to buy, when they want to buy them and where they want to buy them. The infatuation with guns in this country is truly a sickness that needs to be cured. It was refreshing to read the hypocrisy by carrying the arguments presented by the NRA to their logical extreme. Carrying it one step further, just let everyone carry arms on airplanes so we can defend ourselves against terrorists.  The second amendment made no restriction against that either.

Some time back, on a website frequented by some pro-gun types, I posted the same argument as E. J. Dionne except that I went even further.  I said that “arms are arms” and that included things such as hand grenades.  Therefore, folks should be able to take guns, hand grenades, whatever into the Capitol Building.  (Hand grenades could prove useful defending against a gang attack.)  As I recall I did not get any supporters for this idea, even by ardent pro-gun people.

hippie4ever:
’... I suggest anyone who supports absolute gun ownership, visit a morgue and view the blown-out corpses with shattered skulls….’

And then think of all the people whose lives have been ruined by dirty books, unprescribed drugs, bad religions, and an unconscionable desire to keep their privacy and not confess all regularly to the police.  We should get rid of all of the Bill of Rights—all we need are bigger and better police stations!

Sorry to descend to sarcasm, but it is evident we’re not going to get any evidence or reason here.

ardee:  there should be no debate, correct.  why not allow guns into congress? That way all the liberals can be done away with?  it adds no value because YOU are a NRA sycophant!  Pathetic comment.  Mole

John F Butterfield, to write intelligently about gun control, one must consider the costs of being the only nation without it; the dead speak so eloquently.

I suggest anyone who supports absolute gun ownership, visit a morgue and view the blown-out corpses with shattered skulls, massive body cavities, missing organs. That’s the logical result of this ideology, and it cannot be left out of the debate in favor of Constitutional rights. Indeed, the Founding Fathers never imagined a gun that could exterminate dozens of people in an instant; in their day it was the musket, which was notoriously unreliable and slow. Had they known the future, there wouldn’t be a Second Amendment.

Yeah, wouldn’t it be nice if Congress lived by the rules they want to impose on the rest of us.  Add to the list their health care—those who oppose government involvement in health care should immediately divest themselves of the government-paid health care they now enjoy without somehow understanding their own hypocrisy.

Anarcissie,

of course it is no big revelation that some politicians may be hypocrites. But sometimes it is of value to have someone point out particular instances of hypocrisy.

E.J. Dionne’s article is not a really great article.
I have never seen a really great article either for or against gun control.

Anarcissie, you have at least added to the debate and not called people names or made improper suggestions.

I have not even said where I stand on this issue.

I guess I just don’t like ardee because he paints with a much broader brush than I and is far more uncivil.

” it is my opinion that that is the only way to keep any government on the up & up. if the government knows that if they jerk around the people, the people will rise up, they may return to the old “by the people, for the people” format that has been abandoned very long ago.”—steven_m_s

This is one of the oldest myths used to promote unfettered gun ownership, and it is just that. Certainly “the people” have had good reason to rise up against their oppression, but they never have, with the exception of the Civil War, but there the “oppression” was the RIGHT to oppress and enslave others, hardly the stuff of Second Amendment rights. Or maybe it is: maybe the Second is now the heritage of bigots, racists, homophobes and of course garden-variety criminals.

I know, how unsurprising…

And Ardee, if you want to be taken seriously, be serious; if you want respect, earn it. Your arguments are lukewarm leftovers via Limbaugh and other GOP hacks. You don’t even have the passion of your beliefs, which are rubbish. Dionne’s point is valid: if it’s good enough for you and me, it’s good enough for them.

““They tell us that the best defense against crime is an armed citizenry and that laws restricting guns do nothing to stop violence.

If they believe that, why don’t they live by it?”“
****************************************************
The guards won’t disappear as these criminals who continually get re-elected by us to turn around and work for the corporations via their lobbyist know what would happen if there were to be allowed ‘unfettered’ entrance to our capital just as their ‘unfettered’ subversion of their real loyalty and duties are slowly and inhumanly killing off a segement of people they despise intensely.
——————————————————————————
“”“The benefits of conceal and carry extend to more than just the individuals who actually carry the firearms. Since criminals are unable to tell who is and who is not carrying a firearm just by looking at a potential victim, they are less likely to commit a crime when they fear they may come in direct contact with an individual who is armed.””“
****************************************************
I would say it means that the right’s desire to not hinder gun ownship and ‘conceal & carry’ ability but keep guards in place around their ‘work place’ is indicative of hoping the citizenry will do what any enemy wants and that is for the ‘other side’ to kill each other off instead of having to use police or military and this is evidenced by the at least reporting of more and more shootings and family multiple suicides taking place all around this devastated country on a daily basis.

I couldn’t help but notice that Ardee didn’t address the point of the article . If allowing guns everywhere is such a great idea then why don’t these 2nd amendent , put guns everywhere loons want them in ” their ” work place ? In fact , they go to great lengths to keep them out , go figure . In Ardees case simply pulling your head from your posterior would be a start , since figuring doesn’t seem to be your strong suit .

John F. Butterfield:
‘Of course the article adds something of value to the debate. ...’

What?  It seems like third-grade stuff.  The issue of gun rights is about state power: gun control fans admire and trust state power and want the government to take guns away from ordinary people and give them to rightist government institutions like the military and the police.  Why this is considered a leftist position is beyond me, but the the article doesn’t touch on that.  It doesn’t deal with any of the fundamental issues involved.  It also suggests that some politicians may be hypocrites.  I can’t tell you how shocked I am by that revelation!

Keep revealing more and more about yourself, ardee.

E.J. Dionne is suggesting that republican politicians would not really be interested in living with the consequences of the logical extensions of their own ideas. I am sure that is beyond your grasp.

I could, of course, ask the silly Mr. Butterball why he paints with such a broad brush but I already understand the mindset of some who think any who disagree with, or hold an opinion different from, themselves are unworthy of civility or honest debate.

I could, of course, suggest that Mr. Butterball perform an anatomically impossible act upon himself but that would add nothing at all to the debate. In other words it would be too much like his contribution.

I would ask what, if anything, Mr. Butterball finds helpful in this article, but I expect little if anything of value in response. He seems, after all, to be exactly the stupid liberal I referred to in my first post here.

The issue of gun ownership is a litmus test for many American citizens and certainly deserves more, much more, than given it by either this article or the buffoon referred to previously.

Of course the article adds something of value to the debate. Too bad so many people of limited thinking ability would rater ridicule real thought than think themselves. Ardee’s rant is thoughtless and adds nothing of value to this or any other debate.

I do not believe that this article adds anything of value to the debate on gun ownership. In fact it echoes the typical liberal mantras that subject those folks to ridicule and rant.