New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | December 21, 2004

Brian Doherty says the right to bear arms is about more than just horror stories and statistics.

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

← A Few More Bad Apples | Main | Electoral College Surprise →

See all 31 comments | Leave a comment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

|12.21.04 @ 7:16PM|#

I can't understand how even libertarians could be in favor of the right to arm bears. They already have sharp teeth and claws to protect themselves and to catch their food with.

Also, a bear could hardly be a part of a well regulated militia, although I did see a dancing bear in a circus that took commands very well. Still, I wouldn't want that bear to have a gun.

What? what's that? Oh....Never Mind.

|12.21.04 @ 7:30PM|#

My favorite commentary on the right to keep and bear arms comes from the esteemed Slim Shady:

There's an intruder
in my house
He cut my phone-lines
can't dial out
I scream for police
but I doubt
They're gonna hear me
when I shout

A couple of cocktails have sent me to jail
there's a couple of cops hot on my trail
But this time, when I get pulled over
there's a doberman picture and a pitbull in the seat
these pigs 'll get bit fooling with me
quit fooling with me
Bitch, you're gonna see
No pistol in the seat
why it always gotta be an issue when you're me
and which you're gonna see in the long run
Im'a be the wrong one
wanna herass with this lymutinic class
flashin that flash-light on my ass where was you at
last night when the mass hoes
ran up on my grass
rapper slash actor
kiss the crack on my cracker slashed ass
they took away my right to bear arms
what I'm posed to fight with bear palms?
yeah right
they coming with bombs, I'm comin with flare-guns
We as americans

(Chorus)

We as a Americans
Us as a citizen
Gotta protect ourselves
Look at our shit has been
We better check ourselves
Livin up in these streets
Through worse and through better health
Surviving by any means
We as Americans
Us as a citizen
We are cemeritans
What do we get us in
We better check ourselves
Look at our shit has been
Take a look where you live
This is America
And we are Americans

Im'a make Vuku bucks
wearin Vuku vests
Drama hanging over my head like a voodoo hex
I could've been next to fly over the cuckoo's nest
but you know who
whith a nest tatooed to my chest
But I've innested
Now I got the Industry pissy
eversince me and Dre split it fifty-fifty on fifty it's funny
We got a bus spreading quicker than making paper-airplanes out
of a twenty
F**k money I don't grab the dead presidents
I'd rather see the president dead
It's never been said
but I said precedents understanders
and they can't stand it
My name should've been bastard
the shit should've been plastered
on my forehead with a stamp
I should've been blasted
I should've been had a cap pulled in my ass
but I'm too swift and fast
for that one bastard
I'm too old to and cruise grass shit
F**k that shit
I done seen a fastest rap shit
and turning into some pap-pap shit
that quick
snap click
but this time they got f**king auto-ma-tic
((jamaican)) and no one gon' test this mon
Clack

(Chorus)
We as a Americans
Us as a citizen
Gotta protect ourselves
Look at our shit has been
We better check ourselves
Livin up in these streets
Through worse and through better health
Surviving by any means
We as Americans
Us as a citizen
We are cemeritans
What do we get us in
We better check ourselves
Look at our shit has been
Take a look where you live
This is America
And we are Americans

(SSHHH)
I got a secret if you can keep it between us
I tuck two meaners under my jeans either side of my penis
under my Long Johns
under my Sean Johns
when running with the long arm or the long long gone
Im'a do five years or less than that
no questions asked
it might be a good idea to stop right here
and quit while I'm ahead
already in the red
already got a steady infrared nipped on my head
I'm talking on my back
bigger problems than that
Bin Laden on my ass
he probly gone send a task
I ain't gone even ask
they ain't gone let me pack
they ain't gone gimme my semi but I got my Whizz at
(Chorus)
We as a Americans
Us as a citizen
Gotta protect ourselves
Look at our shit has been
We better check ourselves
Livin up in these streets
Through worse and through better health
Surviving by any means
We are Americans
Us as a citizen
We as cemeritans
What do we get us in
We better check ourselves
Look at our shit has been
Take a look where you live
This is America
And we are Americans

|12.21.04 @ 7:35PM|#

Way to hijack the thread, thoreau.

|12.21.04 @ 7:36PM|#

"Guns aren't toys. They're for family protection, hunting dangerous or delicious animals, and keeping the King of England out of your face."

Trying to make to case as a pure self defense issue just muddies the water. Even if it made you less safe in your home, it would have to go a long way to overcome the value of the protection it gives you against the state. Armed citizens are the guarantee of the rule of law; the state can only push so far before the people utilize their ability to push back. Almost directly to Mr. Doherty's point of "...as some of them argue the Republicans are actively creating a theocratic dictatorship, in which guns in citizens hands could be quite helpful..." is the oft seen post-election taunt toward panicked Dems "And if you don't like it what're you gonna do about it? We've got all the guns."

|12.21.04 @ 7:40PM|#

The core issue for defenders of the RTKBA versus those who would outlaw privately-owned firearms is this:

Should the State have a monopoly on the use of deadly force?

Those of us who answer "no" may be theoretically concerned about someday opposing a tyrannical government, and/or put little faith in the State's ability to come to our defense when threatened with deadly violence by criminals. Remember, the SCOTUS has ruled that the State has no duty to defend persons against such violence.

http://tinyurl.com/3nu54 for DESHANEY v. WINNEBAGO CTY. SOC. SERVS. DEPT., 489 U.S. 189 (1989) @ findlaw.com

Those who would confiscate don't stop at handguns and long guns. Various bladed weapons have been outlawed in many states, and in other countries.

Now, whether gun control regimes that leave some weapons in private hands, but not others, and disqualify some who have had their rights abridged, such as felons, are another question.

Kevin

Larry A|12.21.04 @ 7:50PM|#

The argument for big government:

People are just not competent to run their own lives. Therefore we should appoint some of the incompetent people to government positions so they can run everybody's life.

|12.21.04 @ 11:20PM|#

"even as some of them argue the Republicans are actively creating a theocratic dictatorship, in which guns in citizens hands could be quite helpful, as those who gave us the Second Amendment in the first place understood so well"

Thank you very much--a point I routinely make to my wild leftist, anti-gun friends.

If you are going to start comparing Bush to Hitler, invoking the term "fascism", etc., then why in the hell would you be against gun ownership? Hell, stock up freaking quick, while they are cheap and available--and buy plenty of ammo!!!

There was a time when the American left understood the value of the gun--the Abraham Lincoln Brigade comes to mind. But today's American "leftists" are the biggest, incapable-of-self-defense pansies on the planet. If they turn out to be right about BushCo, they'll deserve their certain fate.

raymond|12.22.04 @ 1:37AM|#

...the protection it gives you against the state.

If the role of the government is to secure rights, and if the only valid powers a state has are those it gets from the people ("common pot"), then this argument is based on the idea that (the form of) your government is either already beyond the "light and transient causes" stage or is on the verge of becoming "destructive of these ends".

It is certainly not a Constitutional argument, since the 2nd Amendment is quite clear that the right is protected in order to protect "the security of a free State".

In fact, the two arguments are diametrically opposed.

Should the State have a monopoly on the use of deadly force?

It's not possible. Unless you're talking about the use of deadly force on a massive scale. And de facto, it already has such a monopoly.

Remember the Whisky Rebellion.

|12.22.04 @ 3:08AM|#

Remember the Whisky Rebellion. - Raymond

Did that happen in Scotland? We had a Whiskey Rebellion in the early U.S. Thomas Slaughter wrote a decent book about it. [ 0195051912 ]

I think the impulse to deprive the citizenry of effective weapons is utopian in origin, and would, if largely successful, result in a dystopia. Calling men and women who have been disarmed "citizens" is a misnomer, anyway.

Kevin

raymond|12.22.04 @ 4:21AM|#

We had a Whiskey Rebellion in the early U.S.

Was that before or after you broke away from Ireland?

|12.22.04 @ 4:27AM|#

In my heart, I have never broken away from Ireland. :)

Kevin

|12.22.04 @ 8:46AM|#

Real question;
How does the second ammendment relate to states like CA and NY making their own prohibitionist laws? How about certain counties? I am from NV, and we have some pretty good gun laws over there (they could be better), but I know that certain counties are less free than others.

|12.22.04 @ 9:32AM|#

I think the concept of protecting oneself against the government is too much for some of these stupid fucks to comprehend. Government, throughout history, has a great track record of NOT turning against it's citizens, right? When the National Guard gunned a bunch of you down during the 60s in Berkly, it was just a fluke, right? Morons.

You think like a sheep. You live like a sheep. You die like a sheep.

|12.22.04 @ 9:41AM|#

Mr Nice Guy -

It's possible you might wish to find a new monicker.

|12.22.04 @ 9:59AM|#

Irony, no? Sorta like the Comedian.

I'm reading The Watchmen yet again. What an astounding work..

|12.22.04 @ 10:03AM|#

I'm not one to pick anyone's spelling in this sort of informal forum, Mr. NG, but I think it's spelled "Kent State", not "Berkly."

|12.22.04 @ 10:03AM|#

As many people have pointed out, it often comes down to a rural vs. urban thing. A gun in the country and you're not too likely to harm anyone but yourself. Let off a gun in a densely populated area, and people are far more likely to die.

There's something to be said for requiring at least a minimum of training or demonstration of maturity before allowing someone to get his hands on a gun. Living in upstate NY, every hunting season we had to deal with the weekend warriors from NYC who would guzzle down a sixpack of beer and then stagger around in the woods blasting away at anything that moved, totally oblivious to how close they might be to residential areas. Scary.

|12.22.04 @ 10:10AM|#

TZS -

We have the same problems when I lived in SE MO, idiots coming down from St. Louis.

But while the demographics maybe urban/rural, the argument to *not* allow everyone in the population to carry a gun simply because a minority of people are too stupid to use one properly is dumb - whether in a large city or a small community.

Seriously, think of all the idiots that can't drive. Not to mention those that can't stop drinking at the bar. With legislation to disallow certain activities because of a minority population of morons, we'd never be able to leave our houses.

|12.22.04 @ 10:16AM|#

yeah, but the difference is that drivers *do* have to show "at least a minimum of training or demonstration of maturity" to be allowed on the road. You'd be ok with that as a prereq for gun ownership?

|12.22.04 @ 10:20AM|#

Definitely. I'd actually be ok with more intense training for a first drivers liscense. Almost like a pilot's lisence only obviously not quite as severe.

Nonetheless, yes, I would agree with safety courses and such as a purchasing requirement for guns. And most sensible measures such as a rquirement for child safety locks.

|12.22.04 @ 10:30AM|#

Sixsigma,

I'm not so sure that mandatory child safety locks are a good thing. If you live in rough neighborhood, the time spend unlocking it may be too much, should something bad happen. How about people disciplining their children? Touching one of my dad's guns was a capital offense in my childhood.

|12.22.04 @ 10:35AM|#

really? Was it a self-fulfilling capital offense?

Larry A|12.22.04 @ 10:36AM|#

Raymond: "Should the State have a monopoly on the use of deadly force?
It's not possible. Unless you're talking about the use of deadly force on a massive scale. And de facto, it already has such a monopoly."

But states can and often do claim a legal monopoly on the use of deadly force. For instance in Britain it is illegal to possess anything for the purpose of self-defense, and virtually illegal to use any appreciable level of force for self-protection. You're supposed to rely entirely on the government to keep you from criminals, regardless of how inefficient it is at the task.

|12.22.04 @ 10:49AM|#

c,

Indeed, either they were booby trapped, or "capital offense" is used the same way that one would say "My parents are gonna kill me if I miss curfew!"

|12.22.04 @ 11:03AM|#

"Touching one of my dad's guns was a capital offense in my childhood."

I take it you never touched one of your poppy's guns, then. Or did you have good lawyers? LOL

raymond|12.22.04 @ 11:04AM|#

For instance in Britain it is illegal to possess anything for the purpose of self-defense, and virtually illegal to use any appreciable level of force for self-protection.

It's interesting that that should come up.

Just last week there was a huge discussion in the UK about the use of force in defending one's home. (You can click here and here for some background. The last time I paid attention to the discussion, the consensus was that the Martin case was not a self-defence case, and that householders already have a right to use necessary force.)

Perhaps there are states which "claim a legal monopoly on the use of deadly force", but Britain isn't one of them. I do believe, however, that in most countries the law on self-defence allows "necessary" force, not "deadly" force per se.

|12.22.04 @ 11:15AM|#

Wellfellow -

I agree that any device that actually hampers the effective use is idiotic, so in my view the child lock must be capable of being removed completely.

Kevin Carson|12.22.04 @ 1:33PM|#

thoreau,

When they kick in your front door
How are you gonna come?
With your hands on your head
Or on the trigger of your gun?

The Clash, "Guns of Brixton"

|12.22.04 @ 1:54PM|#

Andy,

I had limitless appeals. :)

Kevin,

Clash reference. Nice.

|12.22.04 @ 2:18PM|#

Nice Travis Bickle picture on that story, by the way.

|12.22.04 @ 6:56PM|#

Wow! Brian Doherty quoted me in his official online article!

If you knew how hihgly I think of REASON, and how formative it has been to my political thought and philosophy over the past 10 years, you would know how much that means to me. It's sort of like writing to a scientist I admire, and having him quote my letter in his next book.

Also, on another thread that I can't find now (we were discussing how Ruthless is actually Scotch-Irish and not a "brother"), Jason Ligon opined, "Stevo rocks." (Because I knew the words to the theme song from "Shaft," I think.)

It is a good day to be Stevo on H&R!

Must go now; am being urgently paged to join a happy hour.