New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | May 5, 2005

An armed society is a polite society, so we can expect pundit commandos Abigail Kohn, Wendy Kaminer, Don Kates, and Michael Krauss to debate gun control very politely indeed.

Comments

kgsam|5.5.05 @ 3:02PM|#

Gee, no one wants to talk about the intersection of gun control and drug prohibition.
Ending the later will reduce much of the demand for the former.

|5.5.05 @ 3:10PM|#

I thought this one of the most, if not the most, civilized discussion about this topic I've read so far. Kudos to reason for bringing these minds together.

No resolution was reached, naturally, but how refreshing is it to view a debate that not once resorts to ad hominem mudslinging?

|5.5.05 @ 3:15PM|#

From Wendy Kaminer's piece:

"While the NRA has sometimes rallied to counter direct threats to Fourth Amendment rights, recognizing their value to gun owners, it has been AWOL, at best, in the battle to protect the Fourth Amendment from the War on Drugs."

While it doesn't exactly address "the intersection of gun control and drug prohibition", it does recognize each in the realm of rights violations.

For an "East coast liberal" Wendy Kaminer is pretty sympathetic on 2nd amendment issues.

|5.5.05 @ 3:18PM|#

Civilized yes, especially insightful, I'm not so sure.

I'm struck with the feeling that if only I swallowed the Brady PR line that this has nothing to do with eliminating defensive use of firearms as a basic right, I could have a civilized conversation with people who are not interested in gun control but crime control.

Unfortunately, they aren't interested in crime control as much as they are the elimination of guns for defensive use, so I guess being civilized is out for me.

|5.5.05 @ 3:20PM|#

I found interesting Kaminer's suggestion that the awfulness of Waco should be taken as a sign that protection from an oppressive government is a non-functional argument for gun rights.

The way I see it this example shows that we need even more guns to protect us from this government, and possibly tanks. Kaminer's line seems to be that we're already so hopelessly outgunned by the government, that we should just get rid of guns altogether and play subservient.

|5.5.05 @ 3:27PM|#

Stretch - "Kaminer's line seems to be that we're already so hopelessly outgunned by the government, that we should just get rid of guns altogether and play subservient."

I've heard that from others before. The thing is, if the shit really hit the fan in this country, plenty of our boys in the armed forces would not side with the government, that's for sure. And I don't know about everybody else, but here in AZ, we're armed to the fucking teeth.

Of course, it would be nice if private citizens could own tanks. But now some anti-gun person is gonna scream at me: "Is it ok for private citizens to own nukes?!?!?" And I would say that it really shouldn't be restricted. The thing is, it would be extremely expensive and difficult to buy or try to make a thing like a tank or a nuke, so I don't know how many people actually would own them, even if it's "legal".

Fuck, I think everyone should be totally worried about what everyone else is carrying. Maybe people would chill out then. Or maybe we'd blow ourselves up. I don't know, but I sure hate the folks who think they have the right to decide that for me and everyone else.

|5.5.05 @ 3:32PM|#

Lowdog, you're opening up the slippery slope of private nukes.

As to just how much firepower you should have a right to own, I would say that you should have the right to own any lethal weapon that the police have the right to use, as well as any lethal weapon less effective, and any weapon that is normally non-lethal against healthy adults. (I make the qualifiers "normally" and "healthy" because there is no such thing as a 100% non-lethal weapon, but there are weapons that are non-lethal in most cases.)

|5.5.05 @ 3:35PM|#

"The thing is, if the shit really hit the fan in this country, plenty of our boys in the armed forces would not side with the government"

But that's just it, the shit never will hit the fan. The shit will just pile up so slowly over time that it'll smother the fan. The boys in the armed forces won't even realize they're on the wrong side.

|5.5.05 @ 3:41PM|#

"Historian Garry Wills insists that �every civilized society must disarm its citizens against each other. Those who do not trust their own people become predators upon their own people.�"

Huh? Isn't disarming the populous a sure sign of not trusting their own people? As I see it, if you trust your own people, then it makes no difference whether they own guns or not. If you don't trust your own people, then you need to take the guns away.

And I'm sure we could all point to a number of so-called "civilized" societies that disarmed their people and the results of such an action.

|5.5.05 @ 3:50PM|#

You know what I find completely unfathomable about the debate about gun control? Every time the word "compromise" is brought up, it's always in the context of the pro-gun folks compromising some of their rights to the other side. This is a meme that is so pervasive that even the pro-rights side buys into it.

How about the anti-gun side compromises with us once in awhile? How about rolling back the idiotic laws that make sound moderators (silencers) prohibitively difficult to get ahold of?

(BTW, the public policy as well as health-related issues with regard de-regulation of sound moderators should be freakin' self-evident.)

That would go a lot further to engendering some good will between the two sides instead of the continual debate of the anti's asking for the moon, and gun owners giving them the ionosphere.

|5.5.05 @ 3:52PM|#

On the face of it, I had to laugh at one of Kaminer's comments:

While the NRA has sometimes rallied to counter direct threats to Fourth Amendment rights, recognizing their value to gun owners, it has been AWOL, at best, in the battle to protect the Fourth Amendment from the War on Drugs.

Well, it isn't called the National Legalize Drugs Association! While some organizations could definitely benefit by pooling resources, I think that many of their other beliefs would be at odds.

She also comments that the NRA is the "right arm of the GOP," with links to articles against the UN, Kerry, etc... They definitely run these types of articles, but as I recall it was always from a gun-control bent.

Definitely a good debate overall, though.

kgsam|5.5.05 @ 4:06PM|#

In light of the thousands of existing gun controls in this country, what other compromises can be made? Perhaps the more egregious infringments should be eliminated.

|5.5.05 @ 4:16PM|#

Wendy Kaminer sez:

Inside the bubble of the gun rights movement...

What about the bubble that is the gun control movement? I note that Abigail Kohn claims that gun control is alive and well, in the big cities. But I'm inclined to not care. On the national stage, gun control is dead. And even in most states, localities aren't allowed to ban guns because of state legislators.

And then over in Florida, Jeb just signed a sweeping self defense bill. I guess this is what state rights is all about. If you don't like gun control, fucking move to a gun-friendly state.

|5.5.05 @ 4:17PM|#

I would like to point out a minor technical quibble in Ms. Kohn's essay.

She states that:
Records of sale (kept by dealers now in several states, including California) accomplish most of the benefits of registration without nearly as much of the negative fallout.

As per the Gun Control Act of 1968, all Federally Licensed Firearms Dealers in all fifty states are required to keep on hand a paper form filled out by the purchaser of every gun they sell. That would be federal form #4473. Every time you purchase a gun from a dealer you are required by law to fill one of these out, and the dealer must keep it on record indefinately. If the dealer ever goes out of business, all of his 4473's (better known as his "bound book") are relinquished to the feds.

Now, some states still allow paperless sales of firearms to take place between private sellers. This would be the oft-lamented "gun show loophole" and the somewhat less lamented "Classified ad loophole."

|5.5.05 @ 4:20PM|#

Not to sound uncivilized but it seems a large part of the problem with the two sides talking past each other comes from the gun control side wanting to eliminate guns except for police and military. I thought it was the NRA's position - publicly anyway, and many gun owners also - that tougher enforcement of existing gun laws and the introduction of community programs are a way to reach compromise towards the goal of reducing crime. The deadlock comes when gun control advocates aim beyond current laws and propose new gun restrictions or oppose new legislation - such as concealed carry - which restrict law abiding citizens and do little to reduce crime.

And, as already mentioned, ending the war on drugs would make much of this debate irrelevant.

|5.5.05 @ 4:25PM|#

On another one of Kohn's talking points... I fail to see why it is the responsibility of law abiding gun owners to try to "reduce gun-related fatalities."

Criminals can themselves reduce "gun violence" by not breaking into homes and cars, among other things.

|5.5.05 @ 4:27PM|#

Lowdog, ""Is it ok for private citizens to own nukes?!?!?" And I would say that it really shouldn't be restricted."

I draw the line at collateral damage. Bullets don't have quite as much as a nuke (or a grenade, for that matter). By the same token, just like it's supposed to be illegal for the CIA to operate on US soil, it should be outlawed for law enforcement to use tanks (and grenades...didn't the police use a grenade against some drug dealers in New York a few years back and started a fire that burned the whole building down?).

|5.5.05 @ 4:35PM|#

"Krauss amply demonstrates, some gun rights advocates now approach the very idea of debate, much less compromise, with such thinly veiled hostility that just having a discussion seems unlikely. If Krauss expresses this much contempt for people who ostensibly agree with him, heaven help those who dare to disagree."

You gotta admire Kohn's insistent level-headedness here. I was not really surprised when Kaminer attacked Kohn for being too soft on gun-rights advocates, or when Krauss attacked Kohn for being too soft on gun-control advocates...just a bit amused. It's funny how she frames her argument with the fact that both sides are too extreme and unwilling to compromise, then, unwittingly, the other people prove this argument correct, case in point.

Not that I think it'll change a damned thing, as is evidenced by the other debaters arguments, but, a good exercise, nonetheless.

|5.5.05 @ 4:37PM|#

This was the worst thing I've ever read in Reason (Kaminer excepted). Attacks on absolutist straw-man arguments, but no engagement with moderate positions. Invective against gun-control advocates for being intolerant and uncompromising, but completely uncompromising themselves. Frequent mention of guns being used for self-defense against violent crime, with no acknowledgment that guns are sometimes used to commit violent crimes.

There's a lot of middle ground on gun rights. Plenty of people are pro-gun in general but support some regulation and limits to protect public safety. Reasoned debate over real-world issues would be much more interesting than witless repetition of movement rhetoric.

|5.5.05 @ 4:42PM|#

I really loathe the whole "if you should be able to own whatever the cops/Army/Marines/Shriners have, then doesn't that mean you want to own nukes" argument.

I will happily debate that issue after we get past the point of State Senators like Don Perata trying to ban $1500 target pistols as assault weapons, or declaring fifty-year old surplus rifles to be extra special dangerous because you can put a bayonet on them.

|5.5.05 @ 4:49PM|#

Frequent mention of guns being used for self-defense against violent crime, with no acknowledgment that guns are sometimes used to commit violent crimes.

Yes, but the problem still remains that any time you pass sweeping gun control laws, be they limits on magazine capacity, types of firearms, or ammunition they are arbitrarily applied to everyone with no regard for who is law abiding and who isn't.

This would be tantamount to demanding regulations on internet bandwidth or processor speed on all computers because the occasionaly script kiddie cobbles together an email worm. Surly you can understand how such arbitrary rules are both amazingly unfair as well as anathema to the ideals of personal liberty.

tomWright|5.5.05 @ 4:53PM|#

"(The Fourth Amendment has been greatly eroded by the drug war, but confiscation of guns from private homes would generate much more resistance than confiscation of drugs.)"

Yup, and that resistance will be a lot more effective than flailing away at the swat team with your prized sinsemilla plant, yelling: "go away!"

Of course, 99% of folks would just meekly comply, as they nearly always do. But that 1% will cause a lot of damage.

--------------------------
"we need even more guns to protect us from this government, and possibly tanks"
I have always had a problem with this part of the gun-rights argument. While I agree an armed populace is more difficult to oppress, we must remember that our revolution was instigated and sustained by the elites and local legislatures of the various colonial governments. The militia and professional armies did not just rise up.

This belief that a populace will just suddenly coalesce into an effective resistance force is nonsense, both historically and now.

Not that that de-legitamize gun-rights in any way, but that argument is just adolescent testosterone poisoning for the brain.

------------------------------------
"the intersection of gun control and drug prohibition"

All prohibition is based on what I call "black box" prohibition.

Take the arguments for the prohibition any item, use by whatever moralistic busy bodies are making them, and replace name of the item with "[insert noun here]", and they will work almost all the time.

Whether political writings, booze, porn, drugs, guns, steroids, sexy cheerleader uniforms, they are all the same arguments.

And they all reinforce each other. We all know that the porn industry is populated by a bunch of drugged out alcoholics that support the drug cartels that use guns as 'bad things' to hurt people and fund the terrorist infrastructure, supported by ultra-leftwing, America-hating professors and teachers unions, who all influence and encourage our children to emulate the celebrity culture of moral-relativism that encourages high-school athletes to use steroids to compete for the few slots available in college and professional athletics, in turn allowing them to engage in 'roid-rage' abuses of their cheer-leader girlfriends, thereby destroying their self-esteem, causing them to seek self worth in public displays of sexual depravity in skimpy uniforms, and driving them into alcoholism, drug abuse and finally the porn-industry.

Makes perfect to, well, not me, but lots of people.

I need a nap after that.

Tom

|5.5.05 @ 5:04PM|#

Daze,

What mediageek said.

One need not compromise with collectivists who want to tell you how to live your life.

|5.5.05 @ 5:08PM|#

"we need even more guns to protect us from this government, and possibly tanks"
"I have always had a problem with this part of the gun-rights argument. While I agree an armed populace is more difficult to oppress, we must remember that our revolution was instigated and sustained by the elites and local legislatures of the various colonial governments. The militia and professional armies did not just rise up.

This belief that a populace will just suddenly coalesce into an effective resistance force is nonsense, both historically and now.

Not that that de-legitamize gun-rights in any way, but that argument is just adolescent testosterone poisoning for the brain."
-------------------------------------------------

I wasn't necessarily making that argument (though I think there's one to be made), but rather exposing the flip-side of Kaminer's assertion that the government is too powerful to resist so let's get rid of guns.

The population at large only coaleces into an effective resistance force in the form of a mob, and then only when dire circumstance and a small group of influential "elites" helps them along. But that's not really an argument for or against gun control.

tomWright|5.5.05 @ 5:16PM|#

Stretch, I am not saying there is nothing to the argument, just that as it is usually used by the gun-rights folks, it is invalid and crazy-sounding to the gun-ban folks.

An armed and unregistered populace is needed for any local legislature, or any authority, to resist a tyrannical higher authority.

The colonial legislatures could never have done what they did with gun control in place, whether registrations, bans, discretionary licensing, any of it.

Tom

|5.5.05 @ 5:21PM|#

Damn, some folks with rational arguments against me having tanks and nukes! :)

Not that I was being totally serious, but I always hate it when someone trots that out. I do wish that law enforcement did not have a bunch of stuff we can't, though.

But what I really want is my very own Mig-29.

Larry A|5.5.05 @ 5:24PM|#

Kaminer: "While the NRA has sometimes rallied to counter direct threats to Fourth Amendment rights, recognizing their value to gun owners, it has been AWOL, at best, in the battle to protect the Fourth Amendment from the War on Drugs."

The NRA is effective precisely because it concentrates its resources on protecting the Second Amendment. I am far from being a fan of everything NRA, but that part of the plan I wholeheartedly agree with.

And, BTW, where are the civil rights organizations when it comes to gun law? If any other regulation brought the same discriminatory results as are common in gun licensing schemes, ACLU, NOW, NAACP, LULAC, and AARP would have hissy fits.

Kohn: "That being the case, the strongest position gun owners can take is to look long and hard at the laws on the books and decide how they can be improved. Gun owners should start thinking proactively and constructively about how they can contribute to a body of law that continues to respect their rights but more effectively prohibits dangerous and criminal gun use, gun dealing, and firearms trafficking."

Let's see. Just off the top of my head we have Don't Lie for the Other Guy for straw purchases, Project Exile and all its clones for felons in possession, and Operation Game Thief etc. for poaching. Not to speak of Eddie Eagle to teach children and NRA Basic Firearms Courses for adult education.

Kohn: "Massive amounts of guns can move quickly and easily into the black market through consistent straw purchasing, which should be heavily penalized on both the supply and demand sides."

Just how much more "heavily penalized" than ten years in Federal prison per violetion does she want to go?

Kohn: "When I conducted research with shooters in Northern California, I found it was no secret which dealers were selling guns to straw buyers. If such dirty dealing was public knowledge (or quasi-public knowledge), why didn't shooters notify local or state authorities?"

Do we really think the average shooter has information that local law enforcement doesn't? Perhaps shooters are reluctant to speak up because local and state (and federal) law enforcement puts a very low priority on such information.

Kohn: "Despite the lack of evidence, many Americans continue to believe that gun control will prevent gun violence, or at least reduce it."

A more accurate statement would begin, "Despite overwhelming evidence that gun control doesn't work..."

It's a little difficult to meaningfully dialogue with folks who, even after dozens of failed predictions over the last twenty years, still greet every suggestion of civilian gun ownership with the prophesy that "blood will flow in the streets."

Kaminer: "Kohn does not press gun rights advocates to rethink their categorical opposition to modest regulations such as waiting periods, but if they don't like being viewed as gun nuts, they might consider doing so."

Once again we have exactly what Kohn noted: A gun cuntrol advocate promoting "modest" restrictions on legal gun owners even though in her own words "researchers have concluded that waiting periods have only marginal effects on gun violence." (Actually, the CDC review of studies said "no measurable effect.")

Kohn did miss one suggestion. I'd be a lot more likely to talk with gun control advocates if, before the ink on each compromise was dry, they didn't hold a press conference bragging that the new agreement was a "first step to effective gun control."

|5.5.05 @ 5:26PM|#

"This was the worst thing I've ever read in Reason (Kaminer excepted)."

See, Daze, I thought Kaminer's piece was largely off topic, as she does nothing but lambast the NRA for being a GOP lapdog, but since Kohn seemed okay with that argument I let it go.

Despite the lapses in her argument, Kohn makes a mostly honest attempt to bridge the gap between gun control and gun rights, stating that both sides are so trenchent in their ideology that rational discourse is not possible.

This is followed by Kates, who suggests that no compromise can be had and that gun controllers ultimately want not a peaceful environment but an enslaved populous.

Then Kaminer who derides the NRA even though Kohn specifically states that " Not every gun owner is a member of the National Rifle Association; in fact, some gun owners dislike the NRA". She further suggests that the government is too powerful to resist, so that gun right's arguments along those lines are inept.

Finally, Krauss (so many K's) says gun control is rampant and the NRA doesn't go far enough.

If anything, those resposes perfectly illustrate Kohn's assertion that "until gun control supporters and gun enthusiasts re-examine some of their assumptions, neither will get far in achieving policies that are likely to reduce violence, the stated objective of both sides."

Xrlq|5.5.05 @ 5:49PM|#

Kaminer's objection to the politics of the NRA would be more credible if she had simply said the NRA should butt out of all political issues that are not directly related to gun control. Instead she said this:

If gun rights advocates want to gain credibility with advocates of gun control (and others not enamored of right-wing Republicanism), they might re-examine the politics of the National Rifle Association. It is not only a gun rights organization; it is effectively a right arm of the GOP, promoting the party line on issues having nothing to do with guns.

Fair enough, but then this gem appears among the examples:

In fact, the NRA lent support to some of the most abusive criminal justice practices in effect today. During the 1990s, to counter rising concern about violent crime and gun violence in particular, the NRA advocated harsh mandatory minimum sentences, including California's notoriously draconian three strikes law.

Gee whiz, if California's wildly popular three strikes law is really some far-right wacko law that appeals only to those "enamored of right-wing Republicanism," how on earth did it manage to pass overwhelmingly in 1994 and have its proposed "reform" fail so miserably in 2004, in one of the bluest states in the nation?

|5.5.05 @ 5:52PM|#

Stretch,

I see what you're saying, but I'm having a hard time believing that one of the NRA's goals is to reduce "violence."

The NRA has two main missions: let the law abiding keep their guns, and take away the criminal's guns.

I think Kohn herself doesn't fully understand all the issues involved. She pats herself on the back for figuring out for herself that guns cannot be wholesale grabbed, and thinks that based on that, there must be some middle ground for gun control. There really isn't any. Any near future gun restrictions will be at the state level, and those states probably already have a shitload of gun bans.

|5.5.05 @ 6:01PM|#

The NRA has two main missions: let the law abiding keep their guns, and take away the criminal's guns.

Actually, the NRA was a sporting and safety education organization long before it ever got into the political advocacy business. That has simply been an inevitable result of the politicizing of the gun issue that started in the late 1930's. However, even then it wasn't that big a deal until the 1960's.

|5.5.05 @ 6:06PM|#

I'm not convinced of that either, kmw, but if they accommplished their two main missions, gun-specific violence would most likely decrease, admittedly mostly because of taking away criminals guns.

I believe there's a middle ground to be had, but it will never be reached. As this piece shows, depending on who you talk to we're either way too regulated or not nearly regulated enough. In the end, if this issue helps politicians mine votes, this issue will never go away.

|5.5.05 @ 6:21PM|#

It's not necessary for citizens to own heavy weapons to achieve the most important benefits of an armed citizenry.

Legal citizen ownership of non-automatic weapons gives the law abiding defensive advantage in their own homes, and it also balances the scales on conflict with bad people outside the home.

Having non-automatic light weapons in the hands of citizens also ensures that the police remain reasonably wary and polite in approaching and dealing with groups of citizens.

The Elian Gonzalez case is another example of the benefit of widespread light firearms ownership. When, in that case, the Federal Government decided to improperly intervene it had reveal its true nature by sending in heavily armed goons to be photographed.

|5.5.05 @ 6:35PM|#

I fail to see why I should compromise with any gun control advocates. Their efforts will only effect myself and other law-abiding gun owners. Criminals by definition do not follow laws.

|5.5.05 @ 7:10PM|#

I fail to see why I should compromise with any gun control advocates.

Agreed. The idea of compromising with gun prohibitionists seems as alien to me as asking a card-carrying member of the ACLU to compromise with L. Brent Bozell.

|5.5.05 @ 7:12PM|#

My big issue with the "control" crowd is that they are never happy banning just one thing. We have been down this road before when the weapon of "choice" was knives. It all has the same flavor but back in 1916 it was the fear of anarchists that led to "controlling" "daggers" and it was switchblades in the '50s.

How long will it be before we need to ban cars that don't get 30 mpg? Oh don't worry, elected officials and celebritys will be able to keep their suvs, limos and maseratis because they clearly have a "need".

|5.5.05 @ 7:20PM|#

Girth,

And indeed, you and I needn't compromise.

The gun banners are probably going to go apeshit, and eventually ban all guns in California. After a decade of roving gangs shooting at will, the public will suddenly get the bright idea that maybe prohibition wasn't such a good idea after all.

At that point, even the ban happy states may start to relax some of their gun laws. Or die with their heads in the sand.

|5.5.05 @ 7:21PM|#

...an organization that promotes gun ownership partly as a means of controlling or deterring crime and partly as a check on repressive government should at least avoid supporting criminal justice policies that increase the arbitrary power of government at the expense of individuals, particularly those involved in nonviolent crime.

I couldn't agree more.

While the NRA has sometimes rallied to counter direct threats to Fourth Amendment rights, recognizing their value to gun owners, it has been AWOL, at best, in the battle to protect the Fourth Amendment from the War on Drugs. In fact, the NRA lent support to some of the most abusive criminal justice practices in effect today. During the 1990s, to counter rising concern about violent crime and gun violence in particular, the NRA advocated harsh mandatory minimum sentences, including California�s notoriously draconian three strikes law. According to Families Against Mandatory Minimums, the NRA helped derail congressional efforts to alleviate the effects of mandatory minimums on nonviolent offenders.

If this is accurate, I guess I'll need to rethink my support of the NRA. Are there any pro-gun groups I can join that don't actively support such draconian sentences?

|5.5.05 @ 7:44PM|#

The Californian political influence of the NRA is minimal at best. As someone who grew up in CA, my observation is that in no state is the NRA more reviled.

I have a hard time believing they supported the three-strikes rule. I've never heard any mention of them backing it.

For what it's worth, Gun Owners of America (gunowners.org) is a worthy organization to join, whether or not you're an NRA member. They tend to be less willing to co-opt culturally right issues, which makes them less appealing to the God and Guns type.

|5.5.05 @ 8:15PM|#

For what it's worth, Gun Owners of America (gunowners.org) is a worthy organization to join, whether or not you're an NRA member. They tend to be less willing to co-opt culturally right issues, which makes them less appealing to the God and Guns type.

Thanks, kmw. I'll check them out.

|5.5.05 @ 9:25PM|#

Frequent mention of guns being used for self-defense against violent crime, with no acknowledgment that guns are sometimes used to commit violent crimes.

I don't think you read very closely. Most of Kohn's talk about what the gun-rights lobby needs to do concentrated quite specifically on their being willing to appear as willing partners in helping reduce gun-related crimes. Frex, " Gun owners should start thinking proactively and constructively about how they can contribute to a body of law that continues to respect their rights but more effectively prohibits dangerous and criminal gun use, gun dealing, and firearms trafficking . . . Until now, gun control has largely been about attempting (generally unsuccessfully) to reduce or eradicate gun crime by controlling legal access to guns . . . [criminologists] have documented the ways in which crime guns move quickly through a community by means of informal transactions . . . Dirty dealing and gun trafficking don�t just provide literal weapons to violent criminals . . . Shooters should remember their own stake in ridding the community of gun crime . . . "

Fuck, man, if that's "no acknowledgement," I'd like to see what you think "acknowledgement" is.

|5.6.05 @ 3:11AM|#

Re: Private nukes, I've always liked this line of logic:

You have every right to possess a weapon, but you don't have a right to threaten people with it (aside from in self-defense). So, I can have a gun, but I can't point it at your kids while they play on the yard. I can have a cannon, but I can't point it at your house. Now, with a nuke (or a big conventional bomb), merely possessing one that's capable of detonating is similarly a threat to anyone around you. You don't have to aim a nuke, much less take it out of the closet. This is not so much a problem if you live in the middle of nowhere, but by this logic, a nuke isn't permissible within inhabited areas...

|5.6.05 @ 8:15AM|#

Eric,

Along that same thought line, the fact is that a nuclear ordinate cannot be detonated safely, unless it is in an extremely controlled environment (and even then, it's iffy). There will be radioactive fallout, which is a direct externalized effect that cannot be resolved. Thus, pragmatically speaking, there is no safe civilian use for such a weapon, and the effects of its use are inherently externalized. This makes it pretty unique, as you cannot choose where the wind blows your fallout.

|5.6.05 @ 9:04AM|#

Two quick hits:

My issue with the NRA is that it doesn't realize guns = drugs. We can't support the ban on one withoug helping ban the other. Each is personal property that can be used responsibly, or not.

On the issue of `can I own a nuke,' as a strict constructionist, I say no. The second Amendment keeps gov't from infringing on the right to bear arms. It does not extend to artillery.
Artillery and arms existed at the founding. So you can't have a nuke. Would you settle for a Stinger?

|5.6.05 @ 10:03AM|#

The problem with the NRA as far as I am concerned, and that I have heard others complain about also, is the amount of junk mail begging for money you get from them. Shit - they act like the commies are going to be taking over tomorrow if you don't send them $5, $10, $25 dollars - and if you fall for it, they are like Publishers Clearinghouse and triple your solicitations thereafter.

And why do we need an organization, anyhow? All we really have to do is "just say no" in the correct way. If it should happen that "they" come for my guns, bring it on. If every one of us kills one of the people that come for them, pretty soon they won't get anybody to be knocking on our doors.

True, we'll be missing a few gun owners, but the ones left will be quicker and more cunning, and thus the race will be improved by the process of natural selection - on both sides of the question. Fewer people with the meddling genes and faster, smarter people with the leave me alone genes.

|5.6.05 @ 10:41AM|#

jdallen-

So, you're willing to "give 'em hot lead" if the Brute Squad come for your guns, but you won't join the NRA because you're too lazy to throw junk mail into a trash can?

Sorry bud, but you're not helping to pull the wagon in this particular civil rights fight, you're riding on the donations and grass-roots activism of others.

BTW, the reason the NRA uses direct mail solicitation is because it works. Among the world of direct mail, a response rate of slightly less than 1% is quite profitable. The response rate to NRA direct mail campaigns regularly approaches the 2% mark, which is unprecedented. The NRA uses direct mail because it's a strategy that works.

|5.6.05 @ 11:41AM|#

Someone mentioned collateral damage. Seems to be "weapon insurance" not unlike automobile insurance could cover something like this.

Then again, there doesn't seem to be any malpractice insurance for the police.

Larry A|5.6.05 @ 1:45PM|#

[Then again, there doesn't seem to be any malpractice insurance for the police.]

Sure there is. It's called "soverign immunity."

|5.6.05 @ 3:36PM|#

For what it's worth ...

As long as goyim exist I'm not giving up my rifle.

Shame on Wendy Kaminer who should know better than to give gentiles unarmed minorities to rule.

|5.6.05 @ 3:45PM|#

No, I reckon I'm not pulling any wagon. I've joined several times, and lapsed several times. The hysterical squawking about how the sky is falling kind of wears me down after a while, is all.

I was sort of joking - because I can't imagine "them" coming for anyone's guns. For one thing, "them" is us. And I live in rural Texas, not an urban state or location. And if "they" can't stop drugs or people smuggling, how is it that gun possession can be stopped?

Larry A|5.6.05 @ 6:04PM|#

Be gentle. I've been in this since 1968.

Every so often someone like Ms. Kohn comes along with the remarkable idea that we should just sit down with the gun control folks and have a meaningful dialogue. Then the two sides will be able to better understand each other, emphasize common objectives and learn to cooperate, make some minor compromises, and resolve the issue to everyone's benefit.

These well-meaning rookies to the political arena typically make about half-a-dozen efforts to talk with the reasonable moderates on the gun control side.

Then they start wearing camos and buying assault rifles.

The NRA does indeed sound shrill at times. Okay, lots of times. But at least they aren't all over the media shouting that any day now blood is going to flow in the streets, fenderbenders are going to turn into firefights, pilots are going to shoot their passengers, assault rifles are going to cause massacres, Five-n-seveNs are going to slaughter police, fifty cal rifles are going to knock down airliners, and gun owners are going to come into your favorite family restaurant wearing muddy boots and spitting tobacco everywhere.

|5.9.05 @ 8:35PM|#

Evan Williams,

Ever hear of the Davy Crockett Nuclear Bazooka?

Ayatollah Usoe: Artillery and arms existed at the founding. So you can't have a nuke.

Huh? At the founding, private citizens owned cannon. What do you think the Brits were up to when the "shot heard around the world" was fired, anyway? Private citizens also had cannons on ships, you may have heard of them, they were called privateers.

jdallen,

I'd rather this remain a political fight, thank you very much. More power to the NRA. It remains the preeminent gun rights group.