New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | February 15, 2005

Gun control is supposed to be a "progressive" cause, but Dave Kopel tracks the provenance of gun control laws and finds a history that's anything but.

Fans of the excellent John Bergstrom may be reminded of this cartoon.

Comments

|2.15.05 @ 9:31AM|#

Downright Shaprtonian, Julian. You found a racist historical precedent that kinda sorta can be stretched into a parallel of a modern political movement, and ran with it.

At least Koppel has the sense to explicitly disavow the race baiting that underlies his article.

Of all people, proponents of laissez faire capitalism should know better than to dwell on superficial similarities between modern political movements and repugnant episodes from the 19th century.

sage|2.15.05 @ 9:53AM|#

On a semi-related note, was anyone surprised that the NY mall shooting prompted cries that the assault weapons ban should not have been allowed to expire? I, for one, am shocked.

|2.15.05 @ 9:56AM|#

Joe,

I don't really find anything in Julian's rather brisk and curt post that is "Sharptonian". If only Sharpton were that short.

It seemed to me that he was simply linking to Kopel's piece, and tossing in a related cartoon. I fail to see where, in the two brief sentences that Julian put forth, he "ran with it", whatever it may be. Any way you smear it, that's not alot of room to "run" with anything.

Knee-jerk reactions to label anything discussing race as "race-baiting" (which is what you just did, Joe), are just as bad as the actual act of race baiting itself.

"That gun control has a very unsavory past does not, in itself, prove that all modern gun control proposals are a bad idea. But it does offer reasons to be especially cautious about the dangers of disarming people who cannot necessarily count on their local government to protect them."

|2.15.05 @ 10:06AM|#

Evan, the paragraph you quote was the reason I gave mild props to Koppel.

"I fail to see where, in the two brief sentences that Julian put forth, he "ran with it", whatever it may be."

Well, there's titling an article about gun control "The Klan's Favorite Law," but that's more specifically the editors' fautl. In reality, the Klan despises modern gun control laws and considers them a treason against the white race's right to "defend" itself, which some people would interpret as evidence that modern gun control laws don't have very much in common with the racist system of disarmament that Klan supported. Then there's Julian's description of post-Confederate legislators' attempts to further white supremacist terrorism as "the provenance of gun control laws."

Finding superficial similarities between aggressively racist violence from the past and modern political causes is the essence of Al Sharpton's tactics. "Welfare reformers claim that AFDC discourages black people from working. You know who else called black people lazy? Slaveowners!"

It's a strike against you that you're willing to pretend this hustle isn't happening when it's being carried out for a cause you support.

|2.15.05 @ 10:08AM|#

Nice bit of jujitsu to accuse ME of race baiting here. Yeah, bad joe, imposing race into the debate where it's clearly irrelevant, and suggesting that my opponents are the intellectual heirs of the Klan.

Oh wait, I'm not the one that did that. Never mind.

|2.15.05 @ 10:46AM|#

joe:

Go read the novel A Gathering of Old Men by Ernest J. Gaines. There's a film starring Lou Gosset you could rent, too.

What I found interesting is that those who wished to amend the Constitution to prevent the disarming of the Freedmen obviously saw keeping and bearing arms as an individual right.

Kevin

|2.15.05 @ 10:46AM|#

Dave's point, that we should consider the racist origins of gun control laws, still holds. Regardless of the time when enacted, many of these laws exist today. One example: the laws banning so called "Saturday Night Specials" which is really a cleaned-up term for its racist origins.

|2.15.05 @ 10:55AM|#

Gun control in reverse here in Florida. New legislation would ease deadly force restrictions. This from the "Florida Today" newspaper:

"The National Rifle Association-backed bill establishes a legal presumption that a home intruder is there to do bodily harm. Any use of deadly force by a homeowner is then justified by definition. The same presumption applies to someone who forcibly enters a car. On Wednesday, the committee passed the bill unanimously. Another panel must pass it before the full Senate can consider it."

|2.15.05 @ 10:59AM|#

kevrob, I'm well aware of the post-war history of disarming black people in the south. Just as I'm well aware that Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, held some repugnant beliefs about eugenics.

Nonetheless, I prefer to see issues argued on their merits, rather than through well-poisoning.

fyodor|2.15.05 @ 11:00AM|#

joe,

You're doing the same thing you're accusing Julian of doing. The similarity between what Julian said and what you describe Sharpton as saying is very much "superficial."

I agree, however, that the title of the article is off base. Obviously the Klan only supported gun control when it was limited to blacks.

|2.15.05 @ 11:01AM|#

I'm just curious what Dave Kopel thinks about US gun control in Iraq. Any racist origins there?

Just for laughs, I'll throw in this from Jeff Jarvis. Love that part about WMDs.


http://www.buzzmachine.com/archives/2003_05_21.html#003822

|2.15.05 @ 11:03AM|#

joe:

Does this fit into the model of liberals upsetting entrenched power structures with their policies?

Only mildly curious, really. I just felt like stirring the pot a bit :)

|2.15.05 @ 11:19AM|#

joe:

Gaines' book is set in the 1970's.

Kevin

|2.15.05 @ 11:21AM|#

JL, it depends on what "this" is. If "this" refers to the selective disarming of black people by the defenders of "traditional values" in the post war South, then no, that was a right wing policy, carried out by right wingers, for the conservative purpose of retaining the old set of power relations that they benefitted from.

|2.15.05 @ 12:01PM|#

Joe,
Could the spirit of the racist gun control laws of back in the day still be in effect today?

Instead of the law stating that "blacks can't own guns", it says "not saturday night specials". Different words but the same effect.

Instead of being forbidden to own a gun because of the color of your skin, you are forbidden to own a gun because of where you live. Different words in the law, but the same net effect.

The new laws sound nicer, but are really much more effective in their evil design.

The key thing about the new laws is that now there are black criminals helping to keep the law abiding black people down. Because we all know that gun laws only apply to law abiding citizens. Right?

So in a black neighborhood you have a white police officer occupying force, and armed black criminals giving them legitimacy. But the vast majority of any neighborhood is mostly law abiding citizens trying to get ahead. And in these conditions it is a lot more difficult than when the klan was doing their overt misdeeds.

All gun control laws are about saying that some citizens cannot be trusted. Whether the law is about black or some other marginalized group. Gun control is wrong.

Gun control can only ever be right in by opinion if it is universal. If the cops can walk the neighborhood without guns, and if the mayor's bodyguards are unarmed, only then can they even begin to ask the citizenry to be unarmed and not be hypocrites.

|2.15.05 @ 12:10PM|#

Very well put, kwais. And you had been gettin' down on yourself lately. :)

|2.15.05 @ 12:19PM|#

Thanks for pointing out the racist history of gun control laws.
Throughout American Hx, a repeating theme has been the practice of playing poor whites and blacks off against each other. Is it any surprise that modern gun control advocates consistently raise the image of armed "rednecks" posing a threat to their neighbors? It's simply another turn of a very old screw.

|2.15.05 @ 12:22PM|#

joe, are you cool with the extra gun control imposed on the predominantly black residents of big cities like New York and DC?

Does the "disparate impact" of modern gun control laws on blacks bother you, just a little bit?

Does the fact that these laws are the direct descendants of Jim Crow laws matter at all in evaluating their modern-day disparate impact?

|2.15.05 @ 12:27PM|#

I don't buy everything in your post, kwais, but I appreciate it as an honest, good faith effort to look at the nexus between gun control and race, in contrast to the post, and the attempt to define modern gun control as an outgrowth of what happened during Reconstruction.

'Instead of the law stating that "blacks can't own guns", it says "not saturday night specials". Different words but the same effect.' No, not the same effect at all. Wealthy black people (the class that most annoyed the Klan) are still allowed to buy weapons, while poorer white people (the group most useful to the people who use race conflict to their advantage) are not.

"Because we all know that gun laws only apply to law abiding citizens. Right?" Um, no. Gun laws are often used to arrest career criminals, or to jail them when the charge for which they were originally arrested carries little or no time.

And no, it is not considerably harder to get ahead for a black person in the Bronx in 2005, than for a black person in Alabama in 1870.

"Gun control can only ever be right in by opinion if it is universal. If the cops can walk the neighborhood without guns, and if the mayor's bodyguards are unarmed, only then can they even begin to ask the citizenry to be unarmed and not be hypocrites." Should the public be allowed to own every weapon available to the troopers in your battalion? Those wire-guided anti-tank thingies look cool.

|2.15.05 @ 12:30PM|#

RC, the Saturday Night Special law does bother me, mainly because of its disparate impact based on economic class.

But these laws are in no way the "direct descendants" of Jim Crow laws. It's a convenient race card to play, and Lord knows the Right loves those these days, but it bears no relation to reality.

|2.15.05 @ 12:59PM|#

Joe,
"Should the public be allowed to own every weapon available to the troopers in your battalion? Those wire-guided anti-tank thingies look cool."

I assume you are talking about the TOW's, they are pretty cool, easy to shoot too. But I don't have one.

Here is my point though, as long as the local police don't need to carry them to use against US populace, I would say that civilians don't need to have one.

That is where I draw my rationale for what the government should not be allowed to forbid it's citizenry from owning. If the cops need bullet proof vests, then so does the 7-11 worker if he wants one. If the cops need a fully automatic weapon (which they don't) then I need one for home defence. After all, theoretically they will only be confronting the criminals after the criminals have victimized some citizen right?

|2.15.05 @ 1:21PM|#

joe - ok, so gun control laws might help lock-up a career criminal if he gets caught with a gun, especially using it in a crime. Fine. But kwais' point, I think, was that only law-abiding citizens stop carrying guns when they are banned. What good does the criminal getting locked-up for an extra amount of time do for the poor citizen who got shot to death because he couldn't defend himself?

|2.15.05 @ 1:36PM|#

Lowdog;

"Very well put, kwais. And you had been gettin' down on yourself lately."

Why thanks man, I am back now.

|2.15.05 @ 1:44PM|#

I am not so sure you need gun control laws to help lock up career criminals. Maybe the only one you really need is the law against felons owning firearms. I would have that law even modified to where the felony has to involve victimising another citizen.

I am skeptical that gun control laws are effective becuase of a statistic I saw that said that only two percent of crimes were committed by first time offenders. I realise that may not be accurate, and that at best it is an estimate anyways, but the spirit of the statistic is right. Few crimes are committed by first time offenders.

I am very skeptical of making laws to encarcerate people because you can't convict them of real crimes. I don't consider owning a gun in itself to be a real crime.

|2.15.05 @ 1:53PM|#

kwais, I'm not going to argue that broad-based gun laws make a huge difference in crime rates. My point was just to deflate the "laws are useless because criminals break laws" argument.

Personally, I think the only gun laws that are worth it are those that ban weapons based on their destructive potential, like the laws against owning automatic weaponry, explosive rounds, or large capacity magazines. Most of the federal assault weapons ban distinguished among weapons based on completely irrelevant criteria.

|2.15.05 @ 2:10PM|#

Joe,
I'm not saying that laws are useless because people break them. But I do think that you should look at a law to see if it does a net good, a net bad, or if it restricts freedom and makes no difference in crime rate at all. Would you agree with that?

So onto your second point, the law against high capacity magazines caused no drop in crime rate, nor in victims of crime. So maybe scrapping that law was a good thing.

I don't know about the automatic weapons thing. I like automatic weapons for fun, but if I am actually trying to be efficient at killing people I am not going to shoot full auto. But I am not willing to waste any political capital to legalize full autos.

The most deadly long gun out there IMO, is a hunting rifle. It has a large caliber, it has a scope and a long range. You can kill someone from far away, and no one will know where the shot came from. Then again if I am going to kill people, why do I care what the law says about guns?

|2.15.05 @ 2:15PM|#

"The National Rifle Association-backed bill establishes a legal presumption that a home intruder is there to do bodily harm. Any use of deadly force by a homeowner is then justified by definition. The same presumption applies to someone who forcibly enters a car. On Wednesday, the committee passed the bill unanimously. Another panel must pass it before the full Senate can consider it."

Sounds like a quite proper return to the way things used to be back in the old days - before the lefty bleeding-heart types got the govt to start worrying more about the "rights" of the criminals instead of the victims.

|2.15.05 @ 2:28PM|#

kwais, your judgement of what weapons are most effective at killing people is based on battlefield conditions. I'm thinking more of standing-in-the-door-of-a-crowded-McDonalds-and-firing-at-random-because-the-toaster-told-you-to conditions.

"So onto your second point, the law against high capacity magazines caused no drop in crime rate, nor in victims of crime. So maybe scrapping that law was a good thing." My reasons for supporting such a law have nothing to do with crime rates, since mass murder is an extremely rare crime. I support laws that make it harder to kill large numbers of people, regardless of whether there is one such episode a year of fifty.

"Then again if I am going to kill people, why do I care what the law says about guns?" You probably wouldn't. The honest businessman operating the sporting goods store, on the other hand, would probably care quite a bit.

|2.15.05 @ 2:35PM|#

Wait, do you mean to say that Southerners enacted racist laws that abridged fundamental rights?

I thought that the South was all about federalism and limited government back then!

|2.15.05 @ 2:39PM|#

"Progressive" support for gun control might be the biggest reason why Democrats continue to lose elections on the national level. Yet it seems to be a sacred cow to them.

Apparently, you can't be a Northeastern democrat without supporting gun control, which Joe likes to prove every chance he can. But it just alienates the rest of us.

Joe, do you realize your party might get a 5% election gain if it supported gun rights the way republicans do? One of my main hang-ups to voting Dem is the anti-gun fervor. Pretending that those like myself are irrelevant isn't winning you any elections.

|2.15.05 @ 2:52PM|#

Joe,

"I'm thinking more of standing-in-the-door-of-a-crowded-McDonalds-and-firing-at-random-because-the-toaster-told-you-to conditions."

Maybe the toaster tells the guy how to go about getting the gun illegally. Which can be done in any place regardless of the gun laws.

At that point wouldn't it be beneficial for the citizens to be able to cut short the man's killing spree, given the well documented shorcomings of local constables? And the inability of local law enforcement to be everywhere all the time.

And really don't you think that there is a downside to accepting stricter laws with no measurable benefit.

|2.15.05 @ 2:58PM|#

kmw, you seem to be about a decade out of date.

With Brady passed, gun control has basically dropped off the Democratic radar. Kerry made a passing reference to the sunset of the assault weapons bill for about two days, but other than that, it was completely absent from the presidential campaign. I can't even recall it playing much of a role in the Democratic primaries. I don't know how old you are, but if you can remember back to the 80s, the Democratic Party has done an about face on the issue.

Conservatives still get some traction out of the issue in the sticks, but mainly by packaging it as a culture war issue. As you prove by following my comment, "Personally, I think the only gun laws that are worth it are those that ban weapons based on their destructive potential, like the laws against owning automatic weaponry, explosive rounds, or large capacity magazines. Most of the federal assault weapons ban distinguished among weapons based on completely irrelevant criteria. with "Apparently, you can't be a Northeastern democrat without supporting gun control, which Joe likes to prove every chance he can."

Seriously, do you believe Republicans support the private ownership of belt fed machine guns and artillery pieces? The only meaningful part of your statement are the words "northeastern liberal." And if a Democrat were to shoot his pappy's rifle into the air while yelling "yee haw, from my cold dead fingers," his opponent would find some other vehicle for calling him a rich snobby elitist.

|2.15.05 @ 3:02PM|#

My reasons for supporting such a law [against high capacity magazines] have nothing to do with crime rates, since mass murder is an extremely rare crime. I support laws that make it harder to kill large numbers of people, regardless of whether there is one such episode a year of fifty.

And true-blue states are the only ones that maintain high cap bans. Yet they are also the ones that have the most mass shootings. What exactly, is the criteria for judging a law successful or not? Whether it saves one life? Banning cars would save a lot more lives.

|2.15.05 @ 3:03PM|#

Given that so much of politics is solely for entertainment nowadays, I would gladly vote for any Democrat who decided to:

shoot his pappy's rifle into the air while yelling "yee haw, from my cold dead fingers,"

I'd clap and say "Maestro, show us another funny!"

|2.15.05 @ 3:08PM|#

Anyway, I'm still shocked, absolutely shocked! that right after the Civil War the Southern states decided to betray the ideals of the Confederacy (limited government, federalism, and lower tariffs, of coruse) by enacting racially biased laws that undermined a fundamental freedom!

What's next? Will somebody burst my bubble by revealing that Republicans support bigger government?

|2.15.05 @ 3:09PM|#

Joe,
Bush strategy on second amendment issues this last election was genius.

He let the assault weapons ban expire, without saying a word about it. This thrilled most gun enthusiasts like myself, who knew about it. But the vast majority of the ignorant public that supported the law, because they know nothing of its worthlessness were largely unaware.

Then Kerry tries to get points because he knows the numbers of oppose vs support on the issue. But in talking about it, he confirms the northeast liberal stigma. He enrages hunters who think he is coming after them next, giving Bush more support. And then Kerry does his dumbass goosehunting stunt where he may or may not have alienated PETA knuckleheads.

The only way Democrats can win political points on gun control is by lying effectively about guns.

And Republicans just have to quietly support gun rights and they get the vote of most gun enthusiasts. Not a big vote but it helps

|2.15.05 @ 3:13PM|#

Joe,

Apparently you don't pay attention to Kerry's Senate record. He tried to ban centerfire rifle ammunition the very year he was trying to win the presidency.

Gun owners aren't stupid. You don't seem to know much about how guns work, so I doubt you'd pick up on the "nuances" of what Kerry was doing. Kerry is a lot more anti-gun that Clinton. (I personally didn't think Clinton was as bad on guns as most people did. He just was lampooned by the NRA.)

Ok, so you're sticking to your platform, and calling Kerry a model gun owner. Fair enough, but I'm calling bullshit.

|2.15.05 @ 3:19PM|#

Joe,

What I'm trying to say is, Dems are trying to look sympathetic to gun owners, without changing any policies. And it's really easy to see right through their charade.

I'm not talking about paying lip service, I'm talking about really, truly, ceasing the attempt to ban any and every gun.

I'm talking about seeking an official endorsement from the NRA, or something like that.

|2.15.05 @ 3:32PM|#

Forty-four states have arms rights provisions in their state constitutions; forty-three of those states recognize an individual right to bear arms. Massachusetts is the only state with a "collective" arms rights and that came only into being in the late 1970s.

Note that since the 1960s about a half a dozen states have enacted individual arms rights provisions to their state constitutions. Wisconsin is the most recent of these as I recall, their provision being enacted (via the legislature and popular assent) in 1998.

For the most part, the early inspiration for gun control legislation was racist in nature. Indeed, gun control laws were part of a broad legislative effort to curb the independence of blacks in the post-bellum South. This effort included changes in fencing laws, the creation of "neutral" impediments to voting, real estate taxation, etc. They also included (as they did in South Africa*) the creation of state parks in at least some states, where the government could curb usage by blacks so as to push them back onto the plantations.

*Indeed, almost all of South Africa's national parks had their origins in efforts to control the labor of black South Africans.

|2.15.05 @ 3:40PM|#

What I find interesting is the intersection between race, class, etc., and the imposition of many "progressive" laws during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. We've largely forgotten these intersections because government wilderness areas, gun control laws, etc., are now justified for different reasons, but those intersections exist and they likely still have an impact on people of color, the poor, etc., in ways that we simply don't appreciate because we generally lack the historical background to appreciate those intersections.

|2.15.05 @ 3:43PM|#

Joe,

In all this back and forth, I'm starting to wonder if Dems are sincerely, honestly trying to reach out to gun owners, and they're so unfamiliar with the subject, they don't know they're failing miserably.

If you are honest in wanting to support gun owners, it might do you well to stop jerking your knee, and actually listen to how we think. FWIW.

|2.15.05 @ 3:47PM|#

For example, Alabama's real estate tax, regulation, etc. system dates largely to the 1901 constitution, which was specifically written so as to continue the dominance of the anti-black "redeemer" government that took hold in Alabama in the 1870s. It has allowed for (to the best of my knowoledge) a "latifundia" like system of land ownership in Alabama that ultimately drags down Alabama's economic fortunes. Now I know a number of environmentalists who like the system because it "protects" the land from use by encouraging land owners just to "sit" on the land (in the past such "sitting" of course kept blacks from getting land of their own). However, it continues to serve its original purpose as far as I can tell - it depresses black land ownership.

|2.15.05 @ 4:01PM|#

Hmmm.

Joe wants to ban guns that facilitate mass homicide. To my knowledge, shotguns tend to result in a higher fatality rate per usage*, so maybe Joe and his fellow Democrats can go about banning duck guns and leave the semiauto rifles and large capacity magazines alone.

*I've seen data indicating that, statistically, shotguns result in more fatalities per usage than any other weapon, and I've also seen data comparing wounds from 7.62x39 (AK-47, SKS, etc) to 12 Gage, and the death rate due to the 12 was significantly higher than the death rate due to 7.62x39. Oh, and the infamous San Yasidro McDonalds shooting back in the 80s was done with three weapons: Uzi (4 dead), 9mm pistol, and Winchester 12 gage (most of the 21 dead fell to the 12).

|2.15.05 @ 4:09PM|#

Don,

That's why a shotgun is one of the best weapons for defense of your home's interior.

joe,

I have to ask this: have you ever used a firearm?

|2.15.05 @ 4:13PM|#

Wherever the Democrats retain power, gun control remains part of the agenda. To the extent that they are backing off on the issue, it is due to the realization that it is a politically stupid thing for them to be supporting. More significantly is the fact that the Democrats are loosing political influence, and consequently they can't push the gun control agenda--which they would continue to do, if they could.

Even so-called Democratic moderates like Clinton and Gray Davis signed significant and politically devicive gun control legislation. Kerry and Pretty Boy took time off from their presidential bid to vote for extending the AWB. Feinstein, Boxer, Shumer, et al haven't changed their tune.

|2.15.05 @ 4:13PM|#

guns are to democrat identifying voters as homosexual marriage is to republican identifying voters, as a general rule.

|2.15.05 @ 4:21PM|#

Gary,

There is considerable debate on shotgun vs AR15 vs handgun for home defense. The current opinion of those "in the know" seems to favor the AR15. My personal opinion is that the shotgun and AR15 are about equal for home defense, although the AR gets the nod for use by people who have trouble with the shotgun's recoil. The AR15 is also much more versatile as a combat weapon, it would prove more useful in LA riot / hurricane Hugo situations. The handgun remains valuable because it has advantages over long arms for several defense applications, although it also has significant disadvantages. Consequently, you probably want a handgun and an AR15, and maybe a shottgun as well.

|2.15.05 @ 4:22PM|#

Don,

Vermont, despite being dominated largely by Democrats, has very limited gun control laws; indeed, one has a constitutional right there (via a 1890s court decision) carry a concealed weapon. Now, anti-smoking legislation is mushrooming there.

|2.15.05 @ 4:35PM|#

Gary,

I am aware of Vermont. Dean had a rep as a moderate on gun control and markets, although I think that was partially lost during the primaries as he played to the Party's base. I'm not sure why Vermont is the way it is, but I'm sure that there are some red state Democrats who also go against type. Yet to a large degree, the Democrats seem wedded to gun control, and a number of other loosing issues. Clinton was able to "seperate" when it came to welfare reform (and free trade, etc), but I think that too much of the Democratic Party is special interest, and the Democrats have to keep their special interest coalition happy. That's why the Dems have trouble changing, and why they continue to loose elections.

|2.15.05 @ 4:53PM|#

Don,

I still like the shotgun option; but I see the wisdom in having my .357 handy as well. :)

|2.15.05 @ 4:56PM|#

Don,

Vermont is the way that is because there is a very large group of "liberal" hunters in this state; its liberal and rural at the same time.

|2.15.05 @ 5:09PM|#

I too would like to know if Joe has ever used a firearm.

(However, I'm guessing the answer is no.)

So Joe, do tell!

|2.15.05 @ 5:13PM|#

Joe,

I support belt fed machine gun ownership for all but only if it is a "7.62 millimeter, gas operated, fully automatic, disintegrating link, belt fed machine gun fired from the open bolt position".

Damn, I really miss the 60. The 240 is just too boring and Belgian.

Dragoon!

|2.15.05 @ 5:16PM|#

kwais,

"At that point wouldn't it be beneficial for the citizens to be able to cut short the man's killing spree, given the well documented shorcomings of local constables?"

And this would require an automatic weapon, artillery piece, or 30 round clip because...?

How do you carry a McDonald's tray to your table with an assault rifle on your person, anyway?

Good analysis of the politics of the assault weapons ban. The opposition is fairly small, but committed and knowledgeable, so Bush's actions, not words, were most important to them. The supporters are much larger, but few consider it a top tier issue, or know a great deal about the subject, so Bush's transparent assertions that he really, really wanted Congress to renew was good enough to quell any discontent. Of course, it helps when the leadership in Congress is collaborating, and willing to be set up as the bad guy.

|2.15.05 @ 5:21PM|#

kmw,

"Dems are trying to look sympathetic to gun owners, without changing any policies." 15 years ago, there was a significant movement to ban handguns. There was a considerable number of public figures who spoke openly about the superiority of the English model of no private gun ownership. The Brady Center, a broadly anti-gun group, was one of the most powerful lobbying shops in the Washington. In 2004, an NRA member very nearly won the party's nomination for president.

It is you who are doing the knee jerking, if you can conclude 1) that the Democratic Party has the position on gun control in 2004 (when it nearly nominated an NRA member to be president) and 2) that I don't actually listen to what the gun toters on this board say.

|2.15.05 @ 5:25PM|#

Gary, kmw,

I've shot handguns, no long guns.

Not that it really matters. Have either of you ever applied for or reviewed a land use permit, or written a study about an area's development? It doesn't seem to stop you from spouting off about that topic.

|2.15.05 @ 5:27PM|#

ahem,

"1) that the party has the same position on gun control in 2004, when it nearly nominated an NRA member to be president, as it did during the Dukakis campaign."

But, yes, I attribute this shift more to electoral politics than genuine changes of heart. Then again, most of the support for gun control resulted from electoral politics, rather than principled beliefs. These are politicians we're talking about.

|2.15.05 @ 5:28PM|#

Aw, joe, no one said you didn't have the right to spout off about guns. But I am surprised you own any guns at all, you seem to have a lot of silly notions about them. But that's probably a Boston attitude. Living in AZ, I always get a laugh when I run into people from the east coast who are reflexively afraid of firearms.

|2.15.05 @ 5:32PM|#

Joe,

You've given me no indication that you understand the gun owner's position. Part of showing your listening is understanding what a farce Kerry's "pro-gun" appearance was.

You continue to claim that gun control wasn't a 2004 Dem position, when in fact it was. Kerry's hunting photo-opts were thinner than a bridal veil.

I think that in your heart of hearts, you believe it wasn't, and that's noble of you. But the facts are just the facts.

I'd really like to vote Dem, and if it was Dean I would have.

|2.15.05 @ 5:47PM|#

Q: "How do you carry a McDonald's tray to your table with an assault rifle on your person, anyway?" - joe

A: "You use the sling, of course." - rob

|2.15.05 @ 5:49PM|#

joe,

Yes I have applied for a land use permit. The process was onerous, idiotic, illogical and ultimately cost the community it was proposed for a couple hundred jobs.

The ASW ban had far more to do with the irrational fear of "scary looking" weapons than than anything. It had nothing to do with crime control, public safety or anything else like that.

And this would require an automatic weapon, artillery piece, or 30 round clip because...?

Anyone with an ounce of knowledge realizes that arms rights provisions in Anglo-American law have never covered artillery pieces and items beyond the weapons that have traditionally been used for personal use (either for defense, hunting, etc.). I suggest you read the following to further your education on these matters:

State v. Kessler, 614 P.2d 94 (Or., 1980).

David Kopel, The Second Amendment in the 19th Century, 1998 BYU L. Rev. 1359.

There was a considerable number of public figures who spoke openly about the superiority of the English model of no private gun ownership.

The so-called superiority you mean. Armed crime has increased in Britain since the ban on handgun ownership in 1997.

|2.15.05 @ 6:02PM|#

Given that only a small % of Americans are interested in gun control as an issue its easy to see why the Democratic position on the issue has collapsed. It is a "wedge" issue for those voters who dislike restrictions on their right to bear arms.

Anyway, the 2004 DNC platform supported the "individual" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, but called for the renewal of the pointless ASW ban and a closure of the so-called "gun show" loophole.

|2.15.05 @ 6:06PM|#

"I've shot handguns, no long guns." - joe

"Oh, well that explains THAT then..." - rob

joe, it's been claimed that gun control laws would be for the common good. However, I suspect that what it means is that it's commonly good for the government to be the only entity it's citiznes can turn to for "protection" and that it's historically been commonly good for governments that want to bully its populace.

If we can agree that odious, inflammatory and even dangerous speech is the price we pay for the inalienable right to freedom of speech, why is it so hard to accept that firearms ownership is the odious, inflammatory and even dangerous price we pay for the inalienable right to self-defense?

The desire to prohibit law-abiding citizens from owning the most effective and cost-efficient means to protect themselves from violence (criminal or govenrmental) is perhaps the strongest, most reliable indicator of a tendency toward tyranny.

|2.15.05 @ 6:18PM|#

rob,

Well, the entire debate also ignores the fact that arms rights include more than merely a right to bear guns; they include other weapons as well, including knives, clubs, axes, etc.

Furthermore, you are correct, arms rights are not merely rights by themselves, they are in the words of Blackstone:

"auxiliary subordinate rights ... which serve principally as outworks or barriers to protect an maintain inviolate the three great and primary rights, of personal security, personal liberty and private property."

Commentaries on the Laws of England 1765

|2.15.05 @ 6:21PM|#

In one Florida Congressional district last election both candidates (both women) got the same score on the NRA questionaire. The NRA endorsed the Democrat incumbent because she already had a proven track record of pro-2A votes.

Better the devil you know and all.

This was a mixed suburban/rural district.

|2.15.05 @ 6:22PM|#

With Brady passed, gun control has basically dropped off the Democratic radar. Kerry made a passing reference to the sunset of the assault weapons bill for about two days, but other than that, it was completely absent from the presidential campaign.

Comment by: joe at February 15, 2005 02:58 PM

John Kerry was absent from the Senate for 65% of the votes in 2003. He missed every vote in 2004, until it came time to vote on a renewal of the assault weapons ban -- which was on Super Tuesday, the biggest primary day of the season.

Two months later, "the Senate rejected by one vote ... a proposal to extend unemployment benefits to jobless Americans." John Kerry was absent.

It kind of shows you where his -- and the Democratic Party's -- prorities are.

|2.15.05 @ 6:23PM|#

"Oh, and the infamous San Yasidro McDonalds shooting back in the 80s was done with three weapons: Uzi (4 dead), 9mm pistol, and Winchester 12 gage (most of the 21 dead fell to the 12)."

You see, Don, the Uzi and the 9mm were semiautomatic weapons, not automatic.

Do you need me to explain the difference to you?

|2.15.05 @ 6:28PM|#

"The ASW ban had far more to do with the irrational fear of "scary looking" weapons than than anything. It had nothing to do with crime control, public safety or anything else like that."

For the most part, I agree. The bayonette clip ban, for example. Though limiting the size of clips, for example, still passed my McDonald's test - having to stop and change clips six times more often will reduce the death toll in that situation.

"There was a considerable number of public figures who spoke openly about the superiority of the English model of no private gun ownership.

The so-called superiority you mean. Armed crime has increased in Britain since the ban on handgun ownership in 1997."

Yes, "so called" superiority. I believe the context of my sentence makes my meaning clear to anyone who isn't determined to read an extremist, prohibitionist position into my post.

|2.15.05 @ 6:32PM|#

"If we can agree that odious, inflammatory and even dangerous speech is the price we pay for the inalienable right to freedom of speech, why is it so hard to accept that firearms ownership is the odious, inflammatory and even dangerous price we pay for the inalienable right to self-defense?"

Er, because neither of us considers gun ownership in general to be particularly odious, inflammatory, or especially dangerous?

But the free speech metaphor is right on - just as the First Amendment does not preclude carving out narrowly-drawn exceptions to account for particular threats to public safety, so does the Second.

|2.15.05 @ 6:33PM|#

joe,

Quit being so "sensitive." I didn't claim that you claimed it was superior after all; indeed, the "context" of my statement clearly indicates otherwise.

Though limiting the size of clips, for example, still passed my McDonald's test - having to stop and change clips six times more often will reduce the death toll in that situation.

Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of these issues can fashion very large clips by hand.

|2.15.05 @ 6:33PM|#

Josephus,

I have never reviewed a permit or done a land use study because I don't have too. The property owner should be able to do whatever he damn well pleases with his property without having some little comissar make him fill out a form or perform a study to tell him how he should do things.

I can't believe you can make a living by telling other people what to do and get the courts and police to back up your bossy little ass. And your pay comes from your victims' taxes. Brilliant!

On the subject, I recommend a surplus M1. Excellent weapon and it is archaic, hence, cool.

QFMC cos. V

|2.15.05 @ 6:33PM|#

Here is my point though, as long as the local police don't need to carry them to use against US populace, I would say that civilians don't need to have one.

That is where I draw my rationale for what the government should not be allowed to forbid it's citizenry from owning. If the cops need bullet proof vests, then so does the 7-11 worker if he wants one. If the cops need a fully automatic weapon (which they don't) then I need one for home defence. After all, theoretically they will only be confronting the criminals after the criminals have victimized some citizen right?

Comment by: kwais at February 15, 2005 12:59 PM

Dave Kopel had a column expressing similar thoughts back in June 2002.

If the police have nuclear artillery, I want some too! If not, I won't worry about it.

|2.15.05 @ 6:35PM|#

Nobody Important, I don't think you're up on how the Senate works. Once the noses are counted and its known how a vote is going to turn out, the members act on an honor system to allow colleagues absences not to change the outcome. Senators will abstain or even switch their vote to make sure somebody's presence on the campaign trail or illness doesn't effect the outcome.

"Passing the Senate by one vote" could mean the "real" vote was 50-49, or it could mean it was 65-35.

|2.15.05 @ 6:35PM|#

joe,

I'm curious about something: who has claimed here that the Second Amendment is an unlimited right? Aside from you throwing up the a few strawmen along those lines, no one on this thread (to my knowledge) has claimed that the Second Amendment is an unlimited right.

|2.15.05 @ 6:39PM|#

Gary,

Good point. I think I should also be allowed to wear a Claymore sword to defend myself with.

However, while I think that commentaries on the Laws of England are interesting for their historical influence on the US - and am astounded at your familiarity with them! - I find that in the US their applicability is about as useless as a fully-automatice belt-fed machine gun with no ammunition. (I'm grateful for this as a citizen of a former colony, but occasionally wish I could pick and choose jursidictions to maximize personal freedom!)

The interesting thing about the politics of the Democratic Party is that they fall apart at the level of basic principle, and that often the planks of their platform contradict one another at the basic level. I may not care for the Republican Party, either, but generally the planks of their platform are somewhat traceable to some sort of principle.

Generally where the Republicans lose me is when it's a theological rather than an intellectual principle... But then I was the kid in Sunday School complaining that "because God says so" just isn't good enough.

|2.15.05 @ 6:40PM|#

Fabius,

No! The "experts" know how best to use your property. Indeed, why even call it "your property?" Really, the state is just loaning it to you. :)

|2.15.05 @ 6:41PM|#

"You continue to claim that gun control wasn't a 2004 Dem position, when in fact it was."

No, what I've stated is that gun control has become less important as an issue, and that the position of mainstream Democrats has moderated. No one's claiming that John Kerry's position on gun issues passes the libertoid purity test.

|2.15.05 @ 6:46PM|#

rob,

Well, the case out of Oregon that I cited above overturned a Oregon law which forbid the possession of billy clubs; the court essentially argued that clubs fell into the meaning of "arms" as used by Oregon's Constitution. They also indicated - in dicta - that hatchets, knives, swords, pikes and other like arms also fell under the definition of "arms."

|2.15.05 @ 6:52PM|#

Hard core liberals (the backbone of the Democratic party) generally favor severe limits on gun possession*; they likely don't represent the majority view in the Democratic party, but they are vocal enough to taint the Democratic party with the image of being "gun grabbers."

Kerry was likely out of touch on the issue because its just not something that he has much personal experience with.

*In a class I had last year a fellow student worried outloud what was going to happen to happen to all those gun owners in a national emergency when communication was cut-off from the Federal government. Apparently the student assumed that gun owners would simply go nuts and start shooting each other if the Federal government was around to control them.

|2.15.05 @ 6:53PM|#

BTW, my wife and I have learned not to mention that we have guns to our liberal friends; they tend to go apeshit about it.

|2.15.05 @ 7:05PM|#

Gary,

I like the way Oregon is thinking! But did they actually use English law in their ruling? That would be amazingly cool...

Also, thank you for batting down joe's straw man regarding my 1st and 2d Amendment comparison. joe, please read Gary's response. There is no such thing as an unlimited right or I would have the unlimited right to drive my truck through your house.

|2.15.05 @ 7:05PM|#

No one's claiming that John Kerry's position on gun issues passes the libertoid purity test.

And that's my point. He might have gained 5 million more votes if he had passed that test. There's a lot of semi-libertarians who just usually vote Republican. If 2.5 million had defected - being zero sum - it would have gained 5 million for the other side.

There's a lot of gun owners out there that are uneasy with the theocratic aspirations of today's GOP. But the Democratic Party doesn't give a shit about them. Hopefully with Dean, that will change.

Joe, your ability to erect strawmen and flail away at them is just astounding.

Larry A|2.15.05 @ 7:07PM|#

Joe: [You found a racist historical precedent that kinda sorta can be stretched into a parallel of a modern political movement, and ran with it.
Of all people, proponents of laissez faire capitalism should know better than to dwell on superficial similarities between modern political movements and repugnant episodes from the 19th century.]

MmmHmm. There are a number of political jurisdictions in the modern U.S. that have "discretionary" gun registration/licensing/control laws. In those systems a person who fully qualifies for a license to possess or carry a firearm according to the written law can still be disqualified if local authorities don't approve the application.

New York City and Los Angeles County are prime examples. Check out the results of their policies in terms of race, gender, and economic status.

If any other set of modern laws was enforced with the same result that gun control policy often is NAACP, NOW, LULAC, AARP, ACLU, and the Democratic Party would have hissyfits.

|2.15.05 @ 7:12PM|#

Democratic Platform 2004

"We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do."

Republican Platform 2004

"We believe the Second Amendment and all of the rights guaranteed by it should enable law-abiding citizens throughout the country to own firearms in their homes for self-defense."

Libertarian Platform 2004

"The Bill of Rights recognizes that an armed citizenry is essential to a free society. We affirm the right to keep and bear arms. We oppose all laws at any level of government restricting, regulating or requiring the ownership, manufacture, transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition. We oppose all laws requiring registration of firearms or ammunition. We support repeal of all gun control laws."

Only the LP really supports the Second Amendment.

|2.15.05 @ 7:58PM|#

I'm sorry Fabius, but unless you can name the court case that upheld municipal zoning, delineate the majority's reasoning, explain how a TDR works, and name the national objectives of the CDBG program, you're really not in any position to enter into a discussion of the principles that should undergird land use regulation ;-)

|2.15.05 @ 8:16PM|#

'No! The "experts" know how best to use your property.'

Actually, Gary, the first principle that underlies modern planning is the conviction that the planner DON'T know best, and have a responsibility to collaborate with the public in the course of their work, for ethical reasons, but also for practical reasons, since the people closest to the property or issue will have both a right to have a say into important decisions that effect their lives, as well as local expertise (distinct from professional expertise) relevant to the planning process.

So you're going to have to drop the phony populist argument, and go back to your more familiar contempt for the masses.

|2.15.05 @ 8:23PM|#

"You see, Don, the Uzi and the 9mm were semiautomatic weapons, not automatic.

Do you need me to explain the difference to you?"

The shotgun was pump action, and held 7 rounds in the magazine and one in the chamber.

The Uzi and pistol were semiauto, and with standard magazine capacities of 25 or 32 for the Uzi, and 13 for the pistol. The pistol could also carry one in the chamber, not sure about the Uzi (depends if it was an open bolt design, IIRC open bolt semiauto Uzis were imported for awhile).

Point of fact: a slower, lower capacity weapon was significantly more deadly in this case.

Incidently, the Mosque killing in Israel, where the killer used a Galil assault rifle. His weapon was selective fire (do you know what that means Joe?), and he "selected" semi auto to do his killing. Various Euro types made a big deal of the fact that he choose semi, and the fact that only "elite" operator types would know that semi was more deadly than full auto. Full auto on hand held weapons is for "keeping their heads down". Killing is usually best accomplished on semi auto, using the sights.

|2.15.05 @ 8:28PM|#

Joe: "I'm sorry Fabius, but unless you can name the court case that upheld municipal zoning, delineate the majority's reasoning, explain how a TDR works, and name the national objectives of the CDBG program, you're really not in any position to enter into a discussion of the principles that should undergird land use regulation ;-)"

Joe:" Actually, Gary, the first principle that underlies modern planning is the conviction that the planner DON'T know best, and have a responsibility to collaborate with the public in the course of their work, for ethical reasons, but also for practical reasons, since the people closest to the property or issue will have both a right to have a say into important decisions that effect their lives, as well as local expertise (distinct from professional expertise) relevant to the planning process."

Well, which is it joe?

|2.15.05 @ 8:39PM|#

Gary,

Aymette v State (and consequently Miller) indicate that the guns protected are those suitable for militia duty; the right to own arms is individual (per Aymette), but this right does not apply to dirks, daggers, or (per Miller) sawed off shotguns; or in general, weapons only useful in personal brawls. But weapons useful to the militia, of a type in common usage at the time, are protected. Based upon that, snub nosed revolvers are not protected, while certainly assault rifles (and probably SAWs and GPMGs) are.

Aymeete and Miller don't take into account owning guns for personal protection, most likely because doing so would "infringe" on the government's "right" to restrict our rights.

|2.15.05 @ 8:52PM|#

Don,

That would depend on state law of course. The point is that "arms" means more than handguns or shotguns or rifles.

Nice fisking of joe. :)

joe,

Actually, Gary, the first principle that underlies modern planning is the conviction that the planner DON'T know best...

Sure. Tell me another lie (see Don's juxtaposition of your claims). :)

I don't have contempt for the "masses."

Fabius,

We apparently too ignorant to discuss land use issues until the "experts" are ready for us to discuss them. :)

|2.15.05 @ 8:57PM|#

Don,

Also, quite a number of state cases recognize an individual right to keep and bear arms (as does the Oregon case cited above), and most of the modern arms rights amendments to state constitutions (be they new to a constitution or a retooling of existing language) do specifically recognize an individual right.

|2.15.05 @ 8:58PM|#

Nobody Important, I don't think you're up on how the Senate works. Once the noses are counted and its known how a vote is going to turn out, the members act on an honor system to allow colleagues absences not to change the outcome. Senators will abstain or even switch their vote to make sure somebody's presence on the campaign trail or illness doesn't effect the outcome.

"Passing the Senate by one vote" could mean the "real" vote was 50-49, or it could mean it was 65-35.

Comment by: joe at February 15, 2005 06:35 PM

If you had read the article I linked to (at at February 15, 2005 06:22 PM), you would know:

The proposal to extend benefits was offered by Democrats as an amendment to a corporate tax bill. Senators voted 59-40 in favor of the measure -- but that was one vote short of the 60 needed to win the procedural vote under Senate rules.

Instead, you just make a lame and pathetic defense of Kerry's actions that has no basis in fact, while insulting my intelligence.

I'm well aware of vote-pairing. But you offered no evidence that this was the case in the unemployment vote, nor explained why John Kerry would fly back to Washington -- on the most important day of the primary campaign, after an extended absence from the Senate -- to vote for gun control.

The gun control vote was merely symbolic, but important to Kerry. The unemployment vote was not, but Kerry couldn't be bothered to make the difference he could have.

|2.15.05 @ 8:59PM|#

Josephus,

Unless you explain to me how "national objectives" apply to how a free individual disposes of his property I will ignore your pathetic use of supposedly arcane knowledge that is only used to plunder and coerce people.

I don't care about Community Development Block Grants except to the extent that they are employment programs for "we know best" do-gooders such as yourself, slush funds to bribe already rich corporations, subsidies that protect cities from the consequences of the policies that drove business away in the first place and to the extent that they violate free market principles.

I am not a big fan of zoning, either, and don't care what the courts say about it except to note that the courts also uphold the use of eminent domain to take from lawful owners and give to nother private persons - let's call them thieves and the government and courts accomplices - just because the thieves might pay more taxes. Now that's justice!

I'm not interested in transfers of devlopment rights either. It's a cute little game to buy off resistance to your and your buddies' plans with the taxpayer's money. If the "Joe Foundation" does it with private money, I don't care. If the government does it because of currently fashionable idea about land use, it is wrong.

Don't talk of cooperation and consultation when you have the money, the law and the police to back you up. That's rich, all right, it's for your own good. Shit give me enough money and the power to coerce people and I'll build you a twelve mile tall constructivist tower tha covers 100,000 acres and call it Post-Neo-Radiant-Urbanism. And I'll make the peons like living there or they can go back to the Tasker Homes.

The most pathetic things about bossy little bureaucrats is that they always think they're smarter than the people their coercing - sorry helping - they always think they know best and it never occurs to them that they are parasites.

Oh, and they never learn from the failures of the past - "this time we'll get it right!" Haven't gotten it right the 10,000 times we've tried some variation of it in the past, but this time it's really going to work.

If you were trying to piss me off with your smug attitude, you did it.

Damn, I really loathe nosey parker, self-righteous, do-gooders. If you're some kind of pervert libertarian masquerading as a moron, you're doing a good job.

QFMC cos. V

|2.15.05 @ 9:06PM|#

...Though limiting the size of clips, for example, still passed my McDonald's test - having to stop and change clips six times more often will reduce the death toll in that situation....

Comment by: joe at February 15, 2005 06:28 PM

How many times did Julio Gonzales or Timothy McVeigh change magazines when they murdered 87 and 168 people, respectively?

|2.15.05 @ 9:19PM|#

"Well, which is it, joe?"

FYI Don, this little thingy...

;-)

is called an "emoticon." See how it looks like a little guy winking? It's used to mark a statement as being playful or sarcastic.

Glad I could clear that up.

|2.15.05 @ 9:26PM|#

joe,

No emoticon followed this comment:

Have either of you ever applied for or reviewed a land use permit, or written a study about an area's development? It doesn't seem to stop you from spouting off about that topic.

Sorry, on numerous occassions you've strutted around as "expert" who should not be questioned on urban planning, etc. issues; your attempt to claim otherwise at this point should fall on deaf ears.

|2.15.05 @ 9:31PM|#

I really should know better than to tease the libertoids about land use regulation. There there Fabius. It's ok.

Nobody important, who cares? What does that have to do with the debate?

It's good to see that there's such wide acknowledgement that there are limits to the rights granted by the Second Amendment. If it makes you all feel better to use terms like "straw man" and "fisk" while admitting you agree with me, so be it.

So the issue then becomes, how to draw the line? I propose that specific circumstances that pose a substantial threat to public safety can constitutionally be banned; that the task of drawing the line will inevitably be arbitrary to some extent; that the responsibility for making such judgement calls rightly falls to the legislature; and that the proper subjects of regulation are weapons that can cause an inordinant amount of damage, and individuals who pose a high risk of violent behavior.

|2.15.05 @ 9:37PM|#

I take exception to that, Gary. I have always welcomed people questioning me about urban planning, and have done my best to explain where I'm coming from. When somebody makes a factually wrong statement, I correct them, but I'm hardly the only one to do that on this board.

Also, the comment you quote was in reaction to repeated claims that a lack of knowledge about the details of firearms reders me incapable of having a worthwhile opinion about the principles that should guide public policy. The point of my comment was to draw attention to the absurdity of that position, by demonstrating that specific knowledge about the details of a subject is NOT a requirement for holding a broad opinion about the direction of public policy.

I thought that would be clear enough without the emoticon, but apparently I thought wrongly. Knowing how I'm guilty until proven innocent, I should probably include disclaimers in such posts.

|2.15.05 @ 9:43PM|#

joe,

I really should know better than to tease the libertoids about land use regulation. There there Fabius. It's ok.

Yes, everytime you are caught in something you don't want to admit to it becomes merely an issue of "teasing."

It's good to see that there's such wide acknowledgement that there are limits to the rights granted by the Second Amendment.

If you had spent your time reading the posts of others instead of creating strawmen you might have understood this more readily and saved us your false accusations.

I propose that specific circumstances that pose a substantial threat to public safety can constitutionally be banned...

That's largely been the standard since the eighteenth century (indeed, its largely what informs state court cases and constitutional provisions that allow for the outlaw concealed & carry laws - again I urge you to educate yourself and read the cited works above). You aren't saying anything particularly new here in other words. Why you waste our time with things that are so obvious I can't say.

What of course is protected are arms rights which fundamentally support the greater rights in question; the rights listed by Blackstone: self-defense, liberty and property.

|2.15.05 @ 9:48PM|#

joe,

I have always welcomed people questioning me about urban planning...

Until they disagree with you; then your primary line of defense rests on your claimed "expertise." Sorry, quit trying to snow me; I know very well how you operate.

Also, the comment you quote was in reaction to repeated claims that a lack of knowledge about the details of firearms reders me incapable of having a worthwhile opinion about the principles that should guide public policy.

Misrepresentation (indeed, more like flat out lie). When did I ever claim that you lacked such knowledge? Please point it out. I'd like to see it.

|2.15.05 @ 9:50PM|#

So the issue then becomes, how to draw the line? I propose that specific circumstances that pose a substantial threat to public safety can constitutionally be banned; that the task of drawing the line will inevitably be arbitrary to some extent; that the responsibility for making such judgement calls rightly falls to the legislature; and that the proper subjects of regulation are weapons that can cause an inordinant amount of damage, and individuals who pose a high risk of violent behavior.

Comment by: joe at February 15, 2005 09:31 PM (emphasis added)

Consider that gun owners make up 15% - 30% of the U.S. population (depending on which figures you believe), and that guns are used in 7% of violent crimes.

Also consider that African-Americans make up 13% of the U.S. population, yet account for 25% of violent crime offenders.

Which group poses a greater "threat to public safety?" Who is more likely to "pose a high risk of violent behavior?"

What are the public policy implications?

source for crime statistics:

U.S. Department of Justice. National Crime Victimization Survey.
Criminal Victimization in the United States. (1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 Statistical Tables).
Available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cvusst.htm


Table 40: "Percent distribution of single-offender victimizations, by type of crime and perceived race of offender"
Table 46: "Percent distribution of multiple-offender victimizations, by type of crime and perceived race of offenders"
Table 66: "Percent of incidents, by victim-offender relationship, type of crime and weapons use"

|2.15.05 @ 9:51PM|#

OK Gary, you got me, I was completely serious that only people with masters degrees have anything to add to discussions of planning. The people I keep dragging out to public meetings sure are going to be surprised.

"What of course is protected are arms rights which fundamentally support the greater rights in question; the rights listed by Blackstone: self-defense, liberty and property."

But that's pretty meaningless. Weapons we'd all agree should be banned could be used to defend life, liberty and property. A noble sentiment, but not much good in explaining the shape and limits of government authority.

|2.15.05 @ 9:52PM|#

joe,

For your edification, this is what I wrote on the matter:

I have to ask this: have you ever used a firearm?

How you spun that into you what you now claim I can't say.

|2.15.05 @ 9:55PM|#

Nobody, you can't create regulations based on statistics. No one is looking to ban "gun owners" or "black people." I'm sure semiautomatic small to mid caliber pistols are most commonly used in gun crimes, but banning them on that basis would make no more sense than banning Louisville Sluggers because they're used in most bat crimes.

Anyway, only a tiny fraction of gun owners are ever involved in a violent crime, so there is not nearly enough correlation to conclude that gun owners as a whole pose a threat to public safety.

|2.15.05 @ 9:57PM|#

OK, Gary, then why did you consider it relevant to ask about my experience firing guns?

|2.15.05 @ 9:57PM|#

joe,

Its not meaningless at all. Its the starting point from which to make decisions on the matter. Having anchored and fundamental rights is one of the most important considerations regarding this issue. Why? Because government bureaucrats will inevitably try to strip people of these rights. I would suggest that you have a differing governing philosophy though, and that's likely evidence by the disdain you have for property rights.

|2.15.05 @ 10:00PM|#

joe,

I was curious. Again, I made nothing like the claim that you wrote I did.

|2.15.05 @ 10:01PM|#

Are you high tonight? You're posts are really obtuse.

The quote is useless AS A GUIDE TO THE PROPER SUBJECTS OF GOVERNMENT REGULATION. It provides no guidance in determining what the proper criteria are for distinguishing between a legitimate regulation and an illegitimate one, mainly because it grants the government too much lattitude.

"Hey, he doesn't need to own a rifle. You can defend your life, liberty, and property just fine with a pistol. So rifles are right out."

|2.15.05 @ 10:06PM|#

Fair enough, Gary. I'm glad you don't share Rob and Lowdog's opinion on the matter.

|2.15.05 @ 10:06PM|#

joe,

No, your posts are really obtuse (and chock full of false claims as well).

Merely repeating (as you've done) that the quote is useless doesn't do much for your argument, BTW.

It does provide legitimate criteria of course, since they are:

"auxiliary subordinate rights ... which serve principally as outworks or barriers to protect an maintain inviolate the three great and primary rights, of personal security, personal liberty and private property."

"Hey, he doesn't need to own a rifle. You can defend your life, liberty, and property just fine with a pistol. So rifles are right out."

That's the sort of farcical argument we should expect from a government bureaucrat.

|2.15.05 @ 10:08PM|#

joe,

Hey, I can't help it if your either too dishonest or too stupid to differentiate my comments from that of another poster.

|2.15.05 @ 10:10PM|#

joe,

Anyway, I and Don have both gone into some detail regarding what sorts of arms are protected what sorts of arms aren't and how the courts have dealt with those issues. I suggest you read up on the case law and law review articles that he and I have cited.

|2.15.05 @ 10:12PM|#

Nobody, you can't create regulations based on statistics. ...

Comment by: joe at February 15, 2005 09:55 PM

Then would should regulations be based on?

|2.15.05 @ 10:13PM|#

Then would should regulations be based on?

Comment by: Nobody Important at February 15, 2005 10:12 PM

Obviously, should read "what should."

|2.15.05 @ 10:16PM|#

Nobody Important,

Personal whim? What "looks scary?" :)

|2.15.05 @ 10:21PM|#

Nobody Important,

Weaponry that allows the citizenry to adequately protect itself against criminals and to resist state-sponsored tyranny (be it directed against liberty or property) should be the starting point of course.

|2.15.05 @ 10:28PM|#

"Weaponry that allows the citizenry to adequately protect itself against criminals and to resist state-sponsored tyranny (be it directed against liberty or property) should be the starting point of course."

All weaponry can be so used. The above criteria could be used to justify personal owernship of land mines or artillery.

If you don't like farcical arguments, provide criteria that don't allow for them.

|2.15.05 @ 10:40PM|#

Gary,

'"I have always welcomed people questioning me about urban planning..."

Until they disagree with you; then your primary line of defense rests on your claimed "expertise."'

The one and only time I have ever asserted my authority was in reply to a Gil Martin assertion "You're not recognized authority on anything," to which I recited by CV. Whenever I have been pressed on a planning-related argument, I have responded with arguments based on my beliefs, and the knowledge on which those beliefs are based.

The fact that my understanding of my profession allows me to make substantive arguments that you cannot answer is not a retreat into appeal-to-authority.

|2.15.05 @ 10:43PM|#

joe,

(a) Its the "starting point" as I stated (that you continue to mischaracterize my statements doesn't help your argument).

(b) Note such qualifying terms as "adequately protect" and the like. You assume that such criteria cannot be used to draw lines, yet line drawing is possible with the equally general terminology that is to be found say the First Amendment. How is this possible? Because the words do not stand alone; they are informed by the historical, sociological, etc. character that imbues the First Amendment. What is important is the language set out clear standards and goals, which I have.

|2.15.05 @ 10:43PM|#

You, on the other hand, have attempted a number of times to cover your ass by insisting that I was absolutely, deadly serious in a comment that was made in jest. Which is not terribly convincing, since I know when I'm kidding and when I'm not.

|2.15.05 @ 10:48PM|#

Fine, it's quite nice as a statement of principle. And government policy needs to be grounded in principles and values. But it isn't much help to the judge trying to determine whether a 30 round clip, or a 75 mm mortar round, can be legally banned.

Perhaps it's out different roles - government is my profession, your hobby - but I have little patience for people who confuse lofty language with applicable standards. What I'm saying is, taking it down a level of abstraction, do you find the standards I laid out above to be consistent with the principles you laid out?

|2.15.05 @ 10:51PM|#

joe,

If it was made in jest, why wasn't it followed by a emoticon? I assume seriousness when emoticons are missing from a person's statements. Its my default because its the same default I use for my statements. If you want the reader to understand your true meaning then I would suggest that you use them appropriately.

* Your property rights statement a few weeks ago lacked such.

* Your statement to me and kmw lacked such (that it also conflated our statements in a misleading way is also important to note).

|2.15.05 @ 10:56PM|#

joe,

It includes applicable standards of course; just as the language of the First Amendment has applicable standards.

|2.15.05 @ 11:03PM|#

joe,

BTW, you did exactly what I wrote that you do; you started down the "expertise" path.

|2.16.05 @ 12:21AM|#

"Weaponry that allows the citizenry to adequately protect itself against criminals and to resist state-sponsored tyranny (be it directed against liberty or property) should be the starting point of course."

All weaponry can be so used. The above criteria could be used to justify personal owernship of land mines or artillery.

Miller v US was bsed upon Ameyette (as I previously stated), and it went itno this matter in depth. The conclusion was that military arms in common usage were protected, as well as civilian arms that could fulfill the same duty. Weapons only useful for brawls (which would include dirks, daggers, and no doubt nunchucks and derringers) are not protected by this criteria. Of course, these leads to several conclusions a lot of people would have trouble with:

1) Most military weapons are protected by the Second.

2) Many personal defense weapons are not.

If you rewrite the decision so that personal weapons are protected, it becomes difficult to justify regulations of dirks and daggers. I'm inclined to think that you cn determine between weapons used by punks (eg, daggers and nunchucks), and those used by good citzens for defense (snub nosed revolvers). Granted there are good citizens who use daggers (due to restrictions of more effective weapons for the most part, I'd surmise), and bad guys use snubbies. But generalizations can be made . . .

On the other hand, a clear reading of the implications of Miller and Ameyette is something that even most conservatives don't want: most would no doubt have issues with court decisions that free modern infantry weapons including Stingers and RPGs for civilian ownership.

|2.16.05 @ 12:25AM|#

In my post above I was quoting this statement of joe's:

All weaponry can be so used. The above criteria could be used to justify personal owernship of land mines or artillery.

Just want everyone to know that it is joe's comment and not mine.

|2.16.05 @ 12:36AM|#

Fine, it's quite nice as a statement of principle. And government policy needs to be grounded in principles and values. But it isn't much help to the judge trying to determine whether a 30 round clip, or a 75 mm mortar round, can be legally banned.

Yes, it's a statement of principle, and yes, it only gives general guidance to any judge. These are great revelations. You should educate us more often.

By the way, I don't know of any 30 round clips--although there are quite a few 30 round magazines. And I'm not sure about 75mm mortars, although I'm inclined to think that the ownership of the 60mm and 81mm varities are a right. Oh, and it would be easy to make your own mortars. Most are simple tubes with a bipod, baseplate, and fixed firing pin. The sheels themselves are more difficult, but frankly mortars and their ammo are workshop level weapons.

|2.16.05 @ 1:00AM|#

Joe wrote: Nobody, you can't create regulations based on statistics.

Of course you can.

Joe wrote: No one is looking to ban "gun owners" or "black people."

There are people looking to ban gun ownership. I don't doubt that there are a few who would like to eliminate gun owners and a few who would like to eliminate blacks. Fringe minorities, no doubt, but I believe they exist.

I do admire your strawman, however.

Joe wrote: I'm sure semiautomatic small to mid caliber pistols are most commonly used in gun crimes, . . .

I think the most used is still the .38 revolver, although in the last few years small semi autos have been catching up.

Joe wrote: . . . but banning them on that basis would make no more sense than banning Louisville Sluggers because they're used in most bat crimes.

You are on a roll, another nice strawman.

Frankly, it doesn't make sense to ban any guns. Some restrictions might be defensible, and, frankly, statistics would have to play some part in defending the restrictions. Statistics can show the potential efficiency of the law. For example, semi-auto rifles are used in a small % of crime, and they are not significantly more deadly than other arms when they are used (I suspect that that is due to the situations in which they are used: at longer distances and/or in more combat like situations between police and "perps"--but that doesn't much matter, there is very little "bang for the buck" in banning rifles).


On the other hand, if you show that a certain type of gun is used in a high % of crime, both in absolute terms and in relative terms, one would suspect based upon the statistics that there is at least a potential that some sort of well though out regulation might be effective. Of course, there is a high probability of unintended consequences, and there is still the individual rights considerations.

What I'm saying, in other words, is that those who support restrictions need to provide some sort of argument that the regulation will be effective at crime prevention, and that some sort of statistics must be part of the argument.

|2.16.05 @ 4:55AM|#

Perhaps it's out different roles - government is my profession, your hobby... - joe

Well, there's a sneering attitude if there ever was one. Worse, it is exactly the elitism we small-government types have accused the bureaucratic clerisy of harboring in their little red-taped hearts since the advent of Progressivism. Government isn't my "hobby". Self-government is the province of every citizen, and to dismiss the interest of amateurs, who get involved, as that word implies, from love of their community, their country, and their liberties, is as anti-democratic an impulse as one is likely to find.

Claiming expertise in various branches of government regulation doesn't cut any ice with those of us who are convinced that said regs are abusive extensions of state power. In this, the political philosopher trumps the technocrat. The President of my local state university can drone on for hours about the proper way to run a post secondary institution, frex. I don't care. The government should not run colleges, no matter how well or poorly they are operated.

Regulation of weapons must also bow to philosophy. At the time of the founding a yeoman could be expected to answer the muster call with arms appropriate to an infantryman of the day: musket or rifle, powder and shot, some type of blade - bayonet, pike, tomahawk, hunting knife. Those fighting as cavalry might bring a sabre and pistols, though in the 19th century the carbine came into vogue. Infantry and artillery officers could wear swords. Small units often owned their own artillery. The British were on their way to seize local militias' guns and ammo when they were met by Minutemen at Lexington and Concord. Owning such only fell out of favor once the state militias were organized into the National Guard.

Today the personal arms of an infantryman would include a rifle that can be set to fire auto or semi-auto, personal armor, bayonet, knife, and perhaps grenades. Much of this is "illegal" for the ordinary citizen, but if one relies on the Constitution and our traditions, it is hard to see how that stance is supportable.

Once the justification for the right to keep and bear arms is expanded from community to individual defense, as the more recent state constitutional amendments have done, and as some scholars contend is part of the U.S. Second Amendment*, pistols, blades, saps, clubs, etc. useful for fending off attacks become reasonable for a citizen to carry. Barring certain individuals from the use of arms under due process of law is certainly plausible, such as (violent) felons and the mentally ill, as is making suitable rules for minors, resident aliens, non-resident aliens and the mentally ill.

Kevin

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/MALKEE.html

http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/right.html

|2.16.05 @ 9:56AM|#

Wow.

What kevrob said.

|2.16.05 @ 9:58AM|#

One thing I didn't yet see in this rather long thread, and forgive me if I missed it, is that the second amendment protects our right to arms. At the founding, arms were distinguished from ordnance.

So maybe an honorable government employee would deny me a right to a nuclear missle, since it is not "arms." But suitcase nuke should fit in that definition just fine.

|2.16.05 @ 10:32AM|#

Joe says"

"The one and only time I have ever asserted my authority was in reply to a Gil Martin assertion "You're not recognized authority on anything," to which I recited by CV. Whenever I have been pressed on a planning-related argument, I have responded with arguments based on my beliefs, and the knowledge on which those beliefs are based.

The fact that my understanding of my profession allows me to make substantive arguments that you cannot answer is not a retreat into appeal-to-authority."

That's funny since your "profession" is not "substantiated" by anything other than an appeal to authority to begin with.

|2.16.05 @ 12:07PM|#

"Perhaps it's out different roles - government is my profession, your hobby - but I have little patience for people who confuse lofty language with applicable standards." - joe

"And now we see the violence inherent in the system!" - Monty Python's Search for the Holy Grail

So, what we have REALLY have here is a fundamental difference in approaches to government.

"Political tags such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal conservative, and so forth are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort." - R.A. Heinlein

Most people on this forum are apparently the latter, joe is very obviously the former.

On one hand is the intent of those surly and curmudgeonly Founding Fathers, which is that of self-rule. It's ably expressed as: "Self-government is the province of every citizen... who get involved, as that word implies, from love of their community, their country, and their liberties." - kevrob (no relation to me)

And then you've got joe, the professional bureaucrat, whose job is to tell those self-governing people that they're too stupid to do it themselves.

Hence joe's job, which is to rule - er govern - us poor, ignorant fools.

What gives joe his claim to power? Divine right? Trial by combat? Was he voted into office by those self-governing bumpkins?

No, it's because he's the expert, the authority, the guy who knows how to do it because it takes an expert to understand it, and that's joe's PROFESSION.

Looks like kevrob was on-target with the statement that joe's approach/attitude to gov't "is as anti-democratic an impulse as one is likely to find."

As I pointed out earlier, the "desire to prohibit law-abiding citizens from owning the most effective and cost-efficient means to protect themselves from violence (criminal or govenrmental) is perhaps the strongest, most reliable indicator of a tendency toward tyranny."

Of course, it's guys like joe who know best, because they are the self-proclaimed experts on how to rule - er, I meant govern, really... honest! Essentially joe's approach boils down to "we know best and these shackles are really in your best interest."

It reminds me of Heinlein's take on tribal shamans, which I think also applies to joe's brand of bureaucratic/technocratic priesthood:

"The profession of shaman has many advantages. It offers high status with a safe livelihood free of work in the dreary, sweaty sense. In most societies it offers legal privileges and immunities not granted to other men. But it is hard to see how a man who has been given a mandate from on High to spread tidings of joy to all mankind can be seriously interested in taking up a collection to pay his salary; it causes one to suspect that the shaman is on the moral level of any other con man. But it's lovely work if you can stomach it."

Now that I think of it, there's another Heinlein gem that should probably be applied to joe "Any priest or shaman must be presumed guilty until proved innocent."

|2.16.05 @ 1:00PM|#

rob:

Brothers in spirit, man.

Kevin

|2.16.05 @ 1:32PM|#

Wow, what a shocker, my comment was misinterpretted, and resulted in a "Braveheart" rant. Knock me over with a feather.

My point was not that my expertise gives me a special understanding of the proper scope of the government, the right system of government, or any other philosophical question. The point I was trying to make is that there are different levels of thought required to adminsiter a government. At the top are broad statements of principle, that every individual in a society is equally competant to hold. But if you want these principles to be expressed in policy, you need to apply them in specific circumstances and draw clear lines. This second level does require a degree of expertise. Anyone can say you can burn oil to run a steam turbine, but it takes an engineer to actually build the power plant. Me, I'm more like the guy designing the power plant, while Gary is more like the guy deciding his power company should invest more in oil fired power plants. It is not an insult to the CEO's intelligence, or suppression of his perogatives, for the engineer to note that he thinks about power plants differently than the CEO, or even to say that he has knowledge that the CEO lacks. On the other hand, the engineer probably lacks the capacity to make a good judgement about the future plant investments of the power company - although he'd certainly have information that could be useful to the decision makers. As someone who's had experience as a "government engineer," I'm aware that broad statements without guidelines to apply them don't actually answer the questions that the people in the trenches need answered. That was the entirety of my point.

Yes yes, it's a lot of fun to play oppressed revolutionary, but you people are a little too strike that particular romantic pose.

|2.16.05 @ 1:44PM|#

The British were on their way to seize local militias' guns and ammo when they were met by Minutemen at Lexington and Concord.

IIRC, they were to sieze an arms cash, including cannon, as well as selected individuals.

At the founding, arms were distinguished from ordnance.

Please explain your point.

At the founding, there were "Privateers" who owned ships armed with cannon who took part in the various wars. While not up to the Ships of the Line, it is in effect like owning a missle cruiser today, abet an obsolete one (or poor man's commercial version).

That's funny since your "profession" is not "substantiated" by anything other than an appeal to authority to begin with.

Pretty much sums it up.

|2.16.05 @ 2:21PM|#

Hmmm... Maybe I'm misinterpreting the level of snide derision in joe's comments. Or maybe I'm mis-reading the disdain for anyone with an opinion who doesn't qualify as a bureaucratic "expert."

Perhaps I'm not adequately capable of appreciating the brilliant logic behind what appears to me to be merely a sarcastic dismissal of recent posts as a "Braveheart" rant without addressing the arguments made. Particularly the failure to address the idea that we have a fundamental difference in approach to gov't between us.

I'm no oppressed revolutionary, joe. I'm just a man of principle. Adherence to those principles keep me and mine from becoming oppressed, in fact, and tend to ensure that someone without respect for the rule of law doesn't hurt my family.

I'd think maybe I was wrong about joe's intent if there was any point at which joe had said something along the lines of "Hey! I think those are good principles, you're misunderstanding me. I just meant that it takes an engineer to build a power plant once it's decided that's what's needed in accordance with the principles you're talking about." But I'm re-reading joe and finding it tough to believe.

But we're not discussing engineering expertise required to build power plants here. We're talking 2d Amendment and the basic principle of the right to self-defense. It doesn't take an engineer, a judge or even a lawyer, to determine that infringing on people's right to defend themselves is a bad idea in principle and unconstitutional as well.

(And even if we were talking about land use, it seems that techno/bureaucratic 'experts' shouldn't have the final say in what someone does or doesn't do with their land. Our argument isn't about whether to use Widget A or Widget B in building the city's new "flux capacitor." It's about whether it should be built and THEN where, and whether it should be decided by the owner of the property or the gov't. That SHOULD be a simple choice based on the principles of our way of gov't in favor of the property owner.)

Ah, hell. kevrob said it better: "Claiming expertise in various branches of government regulation doesn't cut any ice with those of us who are convinced that said regs are abusive extensions of state power. In this, the political philosopher trumps the technocrat."

kevrob, brothers in spirit and apparently brothers in arms! (Cue the Braveheart music!)

"It may be better to be a live jackal than a dead lion, but it is better still to be a live lion. And usually easier." - Heinlein

|2.16.05 @ 3:00PM|#

"It doesn't take an engineer, a judge or even a lawyer, to determine that infringing on people's right to defend themselves is a bad idea in principle and unconstitutional as well."

My point exactly; it doesn't take an "engineer" for this level of thought. However, it does take a different level of detail to actually turn those ideas into case law and legislation.

"And even if we were talking about land use, it seems that techno/bureaucratic 'experts' shouldn't have the final say in what someone does or doesn't do with their land." Actually, we don't. The final say goes to the democratic body that writes the laws, issues the permits, or selects the people who issue the permits, and gives them their marching orders. Believe me, my job would be a lot easier if there weren't so many non-experts which strong principles involved in the process - but then, making job easy isn't the point.

"That's funny since your "profession" is not "substantiated" by anything other than an appeal to authority to begin with." Saying so does not make it true. Perhaps you should actually learn something about urban planning, and draw an educated conclusion about its intellectual framework.

|2.16.05 @ 3:34PM|#

My point exactly; it doesn't take an "engineer" for this level of thought. However, it does take a different level of detail to actually turn those ideas into case law and legislation.

Interesting comment, in a sense: specifically in the case of the various assault weapons bans, a complete lack of attention to detail resulted in various strang and silly consequences--perhaps due to the fact that these laws were more symbolic cultural statements than real crime prevention efforts.

For example, California's original Roberti-Roos banned guns by name, and that simply resulted in lots of guns getting renamed. It is also interesting that those pushing the law specifically avoided forensics data, because they expected the data to undercut the rational for the law.

With California's revamped SB-23, it was obvious that a loophole existed for ARs, etc., by simply removing the pistol grip. But CA DOJ refused to comment, until the law was ammended to ban most ARs by name. And CA law enforcement almost seems reluctant to enforce the law, probably because they don't know what to make of it.

|2.16.05 @ 3:43PM|#

Joe previously commented that most people supported the federal AWB. That is true, or at least was true some time back. Of course, most people don't know much about the AWB or AWs, their use in crime, etc. The facts would undercut support for such legislation.

Shortly after the OK City bombing, a poll indicated support for the AWB, but opposition to handgun bans and a belief that there is an individual RTKBA. Also, most polled had positive opinions of the NRA--surprising given the demonizing of the MSM. I'm inclined to believe that more knowledge of the above subjects would only improve the standing of the NRA and the RTKBA, while eroding support for the AWB.

|2.16.05 @ 6:10PM|#

"My point exactly; it doesn't take an "engineer" for this level of thought. However, it does take a different level of detail to actually turn those ideas into case law and legislation." - joe

Again, we're back to a fundamentally different view of the role of gov't. In my view, it DOESN'T take any level of detail NOT to infringe on other people's right to self-defense. It doesn't require case law, it doesn't require legislation to grant me the right to self-defense, or experts to mull these issues over.

Specifically, what is called for in the 2d Amendment is non-intervention: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Nope, no expertise required, because we're not building any bridges or writing any legislation that requires technical expertise. In fact, the 2d Amendment appears to prohibit such legislation entirely.

As for the land use issue, when you say that "The final say goes to the democratic body that writes the laws, issues the permits, or selects the people who issue the permits, and gives them their marching orders" I find it hard to believe that you can build whatever you want wherever you want simply because a committee says so. Since I believe that's a whole separate property rights issue, I still think it speaks volumes about our differing viewpoints regarding the role of gov't - but that's nothing more than Braveheart ranting, right?

|2.16.05 @ 8:18PM|#

Y'all are really giving Joe a much harder time than you need to. We all agreed a while back that there are some things individuals shouldn't have--say, a battery of nuclear-tipped ICBMs. We also agree that there are some things individuals have an absolute right to. As I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong), Joe's just saying that figuring out exactly where to place the line between the two is a rather technical question (can I own a stealth bomber? How about a howizter? Can I drive a tank down the interstate ?). Saying "I have a right to bear arms, within some broad limits" is easy; defining the broad limits is difficult.

|2.16.05 @ 9:14PM|#

Y'all are really giving Joe a much harder time than you need to. We all agreed a while back that there are some things individuals shouldn't have--say, a battery of nuclear-tipped ICBMs. . . .

Joe didn't seem to fond of us having "30 round clips" either . . .

By the way, how many people would be able to afford a nuke? George Soros?