Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Stay Out of Malibu


Nice Liberal Arguments about banning guns are totally incoherent. Oh, oh, 10,000 people died in "gun violence" last year? Yeah, well, there were 33,000 traffic accidents. I say we ban automobiles and tear up the highways. There were almost 700,000 deaths from heart disease. I say we all subsist on saltless bread and distilled water. In fact, I think the epidemic of mortality afflicting the human race represents the gravest threat to our species. I suggest we all kill ourselves in order to prevent avoidable death, that affliction.

The idea that the Second Amendment, uniquely in the Bill of Rights, does not apply to individuals is obviously crazy. Would a liberal ever make such an argument about the First Amendment? Oh, yeah, uh, well, it only means that the federal government can't engage in censorship; that's not to say that Chicago can't ban people from saying "persimmon!" in public or agitating against the legitimate reign of the aldermen. What? If you think that guns are so bad that they should only be owned by the government, then I suggest you 1.) check your premises regarding the entity that engages in the most "gun violence" and 2.) repeal the Second Amendment. Oh, is that not feasible? I wonder if there is a lesson in that? I mean, last night I actually fell out of Ardha Baddha Padmottānāsana when NPR interviewed some police chief who said that police were getting out-gunned by civilians (BTW, are police not civilians?), citing as an example the deaths by gun of several dozen cops last year. Yeah, well, how many "civilians" (and dogs!) were killed by police?

42 comments:

Mr.Fundamental said...

http://www.moveoveramerica.com/

Safety First said...

Step one: slow down
Step two: move over
Step three: pull up behind emergency vehicle
Step four: accelerate

the talking dog said...

"Anarchy is liberalism, cleansed of the police."--Leon Trotsky

David said...

There were almost 700,000 deaths from heart disease. I say we all subsist on saltless bread and distilled water.

Didn't NYC pass a salt limiting bill on just that logic, while the CSPI cheered?

J-Ho said...

Well, cars are not explicitly designed with the idea of killing people. At least, not since Nader wrote "Unsafe At Any Speed."

I have no data on how many people are killed every year because they are actively run down by other people in cars (I'm sure it's a disturbingly large number...). But we regulate the use of cars in all manner of ways to keep us safe. You can't drive 120 mph just because it's fun because you're probably going to hurt someone (also, because you drive a minivan). And we know that speech is regulated in a similar manner.

So, I think, fer sure, people should be allowed to own guns. But I don't think they should be allowed to own any gun they want. E.g. semi-automatic handguns with 15-30 round clips and etc.

I like to keep mass shootings by madmen sporting, y'know. They get off 5-6 rounds, then I get to try to tackle them and chew their face off before they can reload.

mds said...

Eh. Guns don't actually usually protect people effectively from gun violence; shooting back at the cops feeds the argument for further police militarization rather than for restraint of police powers; other "civilized" nations manage to avoid shooting one another nearly so much; and any bands of doughty liberty-loving yeomen with muskets will get crushed like bugs once the last vestiges of the old republic are swept away.

...Whew. Pwoggie's face now matches color of team jersey. In the meantime, yeah, it's in the Bill of Rights, incorporation, penumbras, und so weiter. Might as well adhere to the plain reading of one clause of one amendment, even if everything else is up for grabs. (Well, the Third doesn't seem to be in jeopardy, either, which is probably good, given what a lousy housekeeper I am.)

Professor Coldheart said...

What, Warrior 1's not good enough for ya?

Ethan said...

Whenever I see the nice liberals pissed off about guns I think about the Black Panthers.

Jack Crow said...

A good friend has a ridiculously large cache of weapons. Ridiculous. Here in NH, that's not so odd.

He cannot even bring himself to hunt, since he bad bagged a deer long ago.

He's probably got more guns per person in his household than the local cops have, in any one of their satellite locations.

He's never drawn on a human being.

I alone have been drawn on by the cops four times in my life. Never mind all the others.

He has never pistol whipped a person in his life.

I alone have been pistol whipped not once, but twice. Never mind all the others.

He has doesn't load a weapon with the idea that he has a right to shoot dead someone who doesn't obey him.

The cops do it every single day.

Inkberrow said...

Ethan---

Not the same at all. The brave Panthers stood up for the People, against the corrupted, warmongering Establishment.

Wait a sec.....

Anonymous said...

But then there's the whole "European countries ban guns and have far less people killing each other" thingy, even if it's a fucked-up solution to a fucked-up problem.

Anonymous said...

man is a bad animal.

David said...

The problem is that the liberal confuses banning guns (which does nothing) with magically blinking them out of existence (which I'd be fine with).

Anonymous said...

David: NYC appears to be mooting a bill which would limit the use of salt in restaurants et cetera. I haven't seen anything about limiting the amount of salt people can eat, only the amount restaurants can use in food. The article I found was dated March 20, and I don't know what's happened since then.

Nonetheless, it's prompted an astroturf campaign by right-wing operatives, specifically involving one Orit Sklar of Georgia, who registered the domain myfoodmychoice.com and whose conservative bona fides are easily findable via Google.

In other news, "magically blinking guns out of existence", what? I mean, what kind of fucking sense is that even supposed to make? Would you also magically blink out of libraries and people's heads the accumulated knowledge of how to build them? Would you also magically blink out of existence the knowledge that it's possible for one human being to kill another, or do you simply prefer that such killing be carried out differently?

-- Aaron (aaron@acephalo.us)

mds said...

I, too, love to point out to the Nice Liberal Establishment that their current desire to ban all guns doesn't square with their well-documented lifelong enthusiastic support of the Black Panthers. Once they start looking perplexed by this, I note that it's all of a piece with their vigorous embrace of everything ever espoused by Ward Churchill. Then I deliver the coup de grace by calling Julian Sanchez a pwoggie left-winger for defending Dave Weigel. Finally, lunch.

Inkberrow said...

mds---

You may find that there are options between "everything" and "nothing", and options besides "identical" and "unrelated". But maybe you really were true to that music back in the day. You considered Republicans David Duke and Pat Robertson to be crazy sui generis, right?

The factual distinction is so clear that it cries out for ad absurdum avoidance, eh mds? Bill Ayers and the brave, gun-toting Panthers then (not to mention the brave billyclub-toting, polls-guarding Panthers today) were like the good Bachelorette contestants---they were There For The Right Reasons. Heck, as the song said, back then we were on the Eve of Destruction by Conservatives. Not at all like these crazy anti-government types now....scaaa-reeee!

Ethan said...

I think someone might be misunderstanding me but I'm not sure who or how.

J said...

Jack Crow - you lead an exciting life.

Michael Dawson said...

"cars are not explicitly designed with the idea of killing people"

That's what you call splitting a hair. Cars are merely designed to maximize profits for the overclass at the known and unchanging and utterly inherent-in-the-machine costs of tens of thousands of lives a year. And that's just in the USA.

The Shinkansen has killed zero people since 1966.

David said...

Aaron

Nice to see such a strong reaction to a completely meaningless comment. Blinking them out of existence means, drumroll, absolutely fucking nothing as it's not possible. It's the people who clamor for gun bans that imagine that all guns will disappear upon a bill being signed. Hence the use of the word magic.

Also the salt issue is currently "voluntary standards" , which usually becomes "You had the chance to voluntarily meet these demands, but you chose not to, so we had make it the law.".

Anonymous said...

As long as minutemen type groups have guns I will want to have guns. If history is any indicator of expected behavior then I think your always a mob away from getting lynched.

Picador said...

While I've given up on the theory that something meaningful can be done about gun violence in the US, I also find it pretty pathetic and distasteful to hear rich, privileged, sheltered, white "libertarians" mouth off about the issue. I grew up in a town of about 600,000 people who managed to shoot each other to death at the rate of nearly 500 per year. The constant threat of being gunned down if you said or did the wrong thing, or just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, made the city into a pretty miserable place to live, especially if you were poor and black. So yeah, the 2nd Amendment, gun control is hard, freedom, etc. Please just shut the fuck up.

Cüneyt said...

That's a stupid equation, IOZ. The second amendment mentions a god-damned militia. The first doesn't say that we have freedom of the press and stop there.

But why bother reading the damn thing? Half the time you say that the Constitution is a dead document and that the Supreme Court is hopelessly absurd, but today they're the excuse to grind some kind of axe, which is odd seeing as though it seems like your stance kinda won here.

Personally, I think we should have individual gun ownership rights just because we should, but if you want to believe that the founding skygods thought that the common man ought to have a surface-to-air missile but not the vote, then that's fine and dandy.

Anonymous said...

The Black Panthers made a gun-grabber out of Ronnie Raygun hisself.

Anyway:

Would a liberal ever make such an argument about the First Amendment? Oh, yeah, uh, well, it only means that the federal government can't engage in censorship; that's not to say that Chicago can't ban people from saying "persimmon!" in public or agitating against the legitimate reign of the aldermen. What?

Ah ha ha ha. Oh ho ho ho. In fact, Digby indeed recently said something much like that over the topic of ineffectual pwoggie boycotts of people like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, etc. The first amendment only protects against federal censorship, she said, when individuals try to do it, it's okay. Unless it's right-wing individuals doing it to the Dixie Chicks; then it's bad. Or something. I'm so confused.

Jack Crow said...

J,

Led. Have kids now.

*

Dawson's spot on about the Japanese rail. We probably will find a way to disagree about how to get one built, but he's right all the same.

Most capitalist machines are designed to maximize profit not only at the point of sale, but all along the usage chain.

Yes, a gun is explicitly designed to punch holes into living bodies.

And a coffee plantation is explicitly designed to grind peasants into dust so that rich white folks can sell for dollars on the pound what they own at pennies on the ton.

Drink coffee, kill poor people all over Central and South America, Africa and Asia.

Literally.

By design.

So, if the state represents the interests of those who design all these systems, machines and weapons - and it wants an exclusive on the bullet shooting tools as well, fight it tooth and nail.

On principle alone.

~Jack

davidly said...

I'm for the Cindy Brady Bill cuz I remember when my dad taught me to shoot when I was a little girl in....Scranton.

IOZ said...

Picador - you're silly. I invite you to peruse Mexico's gun laws and then pay a visit to Ciudad Juarez.

Cüneyt - you're silly. All I said was that within the context and purview of the Bill of Rights, it's perfectly obvious that "the people" refers to a right held by individual citizens. The phrase is actually used almost identically in the First Amendment, the order of which clauses you seem to have confused. My point, brah, is that if you are going to make an argument against the private ownership of firearms, you can't begin by pledging allegience to the American Constitutional system and then pretend that the document doesn't say what it says.

Cüneyt said...

I referred to the press not to suggest priority but rather equate the institutional contexts used in each amendment. Some rights can be clearly enjoyed by individuals, organizations, and many rights are enjoyed by both. I just don't know how we're supposed to consider the "well regulated Militia" part. Skip over it like all the parts in Shakespeare we no longer understand?

Jack Crow said...

Cuneyt,

A "well regulated militia" was all able bodied men between the age of majority and almost near death.

If you include for the various amendments and laws which have brought women, blacks and non-whites into the body politic, that means "all citizens."

Granted, the Constitution also explicitly demands of them that they put down insurrections, and the whatnot, and that the State may of its own power command them to do so.

But, neither the right or left are really correct, on this subject.

IOZ's point all the same, I think, amounts to this: if you're going to pay some lippy to the paper god, pay it with consistency.

A Piece of Wood said...

You think I'm lying about my machine," said the sergeant. "I'm not. It's so small it can be hidden in this cigarette package. The effect of it extends for nine hundred miles. I could tour this country in a few days, with the machine set to a certain type of steel. The other nations couldn't take advantage of us because I'd rust their weapons as they approach us. Then I'd fly to Europe. By this time next month the world would be free of war forever. I don't know how I found this invention. It's impossible. Just as impossible as the atom bomb. I've waited a month now trying to think it over. I worried about what would happen if I did rip off the carapace, as you say. But now I've just about decided. My talk with you has helped clarify things. Nobody thought an airplane would ever fly, nobody thought an atom would ever explode, and nobody thinks that there can ever be Peace, but there will be."

Anonymous said...

Picador - you're silly. I invite you to peruse Mexico's gun laws and then pay a visit to Ciudad Juarez.

Seems like it has more to do with enforcement. The NYC murder rate went down once they started using fancy computer algorithms to flood "hot spots" with more coppers. Oh, and cuz Giuliani paid off the mob!

Anonymous said...

"The idea that the Second Amendment, uniquely in the Bill of Rights, does not apply to individuals is obviously crazy. "

I suppose you'll be demanding a jury in state court civil trials in which the amount in controversy exceeds $20 next?

YF

Anonymous said...

Oops, I see you were talking about Heller, not McDonald. . .

Isn't this post a little dated?

YF

t.m. said...

like all the parts in Shakespeare we no longer understand?

Aren't those often sexual references?

John Allen said...

Now what I'd like to know is how many NPR and Ashtanga related injuries there have been in this country.
I myself have never heard a better argument for listening to your Ujjayi breath, rather than listening to NRP.

TGGP said...

Your post would be more applicable to Heller. McDonald was about whether it's incorporated against the states. I don't think so, because I don't think anything is "incorporated". Scalia has admitted that "substantive due process" is a bunch of hooey that he goes along with anyway rather than rocking the boat. One of the few valid points the dissent makes is how vague talk of "fundamental" or historically important a right is. Their standards are worse of course.

IOZ said...

I suppose you'll be demanding a jury in state court civil trials in which the amount in controversy exceeds $20 next?

Absolutely, and on a related note, I have long been a proponent of litigation in place of regulation.

NutellaonToast said...

IOZ - You're silly. If you think we're going to buy that you're making such an impassioned and blunt argument for the mere purpose of academics.... well..... something bad about you then!

Anonymous said...

"I don't think so, because I don't think anything is "incorporated"."

So you didn't read Thomas's concurrence?

TGGP said...

I read Josh Blackman's summary, but I still haven't gotten around to reading NAMUDN, which is the last SCOTUS decision I assigned myself to read. As I mentioned here before, I found Hamburger's view of the P or I clause as enforcing the "comity clause" of the Constitution proper to be persuasive.

Anonymous said...

Some Other Person: There is WAY too much gun violence. The only reasonable approach is to ban individual citizens from owning guns!
Me: Well, I half way agree with you. I think that you, your family, and people like you should be banned, but not me or people like me. there's no need to ban guns from resonable, emotionally stable adults.
SOP: What?! What do you mean by that?!
Me: Hey, don't get mad! I am mostly agreeing with you. As you say, there is a lot of violence out there and obviously not everyone is up to the task of responsible self defense. I agree... YOU should not be armed.
SOP: Not just me! YOU too!
Me: No, I know myself. I am no danger to you. On the other hand, you know what kind of person you are, and if you think that we should restrict gun ownership for everyone, then you must think that YOU are not a potential responsible gun owner. I trust your self judgement on this matter. Of course, I know what kind of person I am, much better than you know me. Guns for me. No guns for you. Makes sense, huh?
SOP: Gun nut!
Me: I am just being resonable. Anyone -- such as yourself -- who has such a bad case of weapon-phobia is pretty obviously not capable of ration gun ownership or usage.
SOP: You're a gun nut!
Me: See? Doesn't your behavior prove my point? You wouldn't mind if I put a "Gun Free Home" sign in front of your house, would you?

Nullifidian said...

"Anarchy is liberalism, cleansed of the police."--Leon Trotsky

Whenever I see this quote, I think two things: first and most generally, that Trotsky was a moron, and secondly, I wonder why a society cleansed of the police shouldn't be regarded as a good start.