realclearpolitics.com — "Guns are dangerous. But myths are dangerous, too. Myths about guns are very dangerous, because they lead to bad laws. And bad laws kill people."This was originally written in October of 2005, but it is just as apropos today as it was then.
Jan 3, 2007 View in Crawl 4
itazuraJan 3, 2007
From a man who believes Wal-mart is a great resource to this country and that Washington wasn't at fault at all for Katrina comes another genious article. All the criminals have guns so I should have one to protect myself from them, that is how we solve problems...
itazuraJan 3, 2007
This is exactly what ever gun loving idiot always says, and it is almost like tasting a delicious ignorance sandwich. By its very meaning Gun Control means the control of guns...all guns..in the possesion of all who enter the realm of this nation. What I am saying is not that we should just high five criminals with guns while we carry none but rather we learn to control all guns. Tighter restrictions on gun manufacturers, better border and oceanic frieght inspections, and a resolve to re-educate the nation in a way that makes them fear gun violence rather than think of it as the ultimate protection are just a few steps to start. I can go out and get a gun right this instant and be locked and loaded within the hour. If I can do it that easy than even the dumbest criminal can get one even easier. That is the problem, and it is a problem with some very simplistic solutions that will never be implemented because of the complex nature of politics, lobbying, and the sheer wealth and power within the weapons industries.
goback2europeJan 3, 2007
When will politicians and others realize that CRIMINALS become CRIMINALS because they don't follow the law?CRIMINALS could give a s**t about gun laws. It actually enables them. For example, California has some of the strictest gun laws. What are the odds of a carjacker coming into contact with an armed driver? Very rare. They know this.Plus, they don't work. Case study: Washington, D.C.
Closed AccountJan 4, 2007
Guns are addictive. People mistake the ownership of a gun with power, so they act like a freak when confronted with rational reasons why we are all safer without them.Plus, second amendment is for arming a MILITIA. If you are not a registered member of the US militia, you have no right to bear arms.
xilchJan 4, 2007Submitter
We are all safer without them? Interesting argument, albeit presented without any proof to back it up what so ever. Here's some actual facts for you.Fact: Though the number of firearms owned by private citizens has been increasing steadily since 1970, the overall rate of homicides and suicides has not risen. There is no correlation between the availability of firearms, the homicide rate, or the suicide rate in America.Fact: “ . . . a detailed study of the major surveys completed in the past 20 years or more provides no evidence of any relationship between the total number of legally held firearms in society and the rate of armed crime. Nor is there a relationship between the severity of controls imposed in various countries or the mass of bureaucracy involved with many control systems with the apparent ease of access to firearms by criminals and terrorists.”Fact: Five out of six gun-possessing felons obtained handguns from the secondary market and by theft, and "[the] criminal handgun market is overwhelmingly dominated by informal transactions and theft as mechanisms of supply.”Fact: The majority of handguns in possession of criminals are stolen, although not necessarily by the criminal in question.Oh yes, the age old "well regulated militia" bulls**t. Here's some more facts for you, mightydavefish.Fact: “Militia” is a Latin abstract noun, meaning "military service", not an "armed group", and that is the way the Latin-literate Founders used it. To the Romans, "military service" included law enforcement and disaster response. Today “militia” might be more meaningfully translated as "defense service", associated with a "defense duty", which attaches to individuals as much as to groups of them, organized or otherwise. When we are alone, we are all militias of one. In the broadest sense, militia is the exercise of civic virtue. Fact: The Dick Act of 1903 designated the National Guard as the "organized militia" and that all other citizens were the "unorganized militia" – thus the National Guard is only part of the militia, and the whole militia is composed of the population at large. Before 1903, the National Guard had no federal definition as part of the militia at all.Fact: The first half of the Second Amendment is called the "justification clause". Justification clauses appear in many state constitutions, and cover liberties including right to trial, freedom of the press, free speech, and more. Denying gun rights based on the justification clause means we would have to deny free speech rights on the same basis. See <a class="user" href="http://www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/volokh/beararms/testimon.htm">http://www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/volokh/beararms/testimon.htm</a>Fact: The origin of the phrase "a well regulated militia" comes from a 1698 treatise "A Discourse of Government with Relation to Militias" by Andrew Fletcher, in which the term "well regulated" was equated with "well-behaved" or "disciplined".Any more?SOURCES:Prof. Gary Kleck, “Targeting Guns: Firearms and their control”, with supporting data from the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1972 to 1995Colin Greenwood, “Minutes of Evidence”, Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, January 29, 2003James D. Wright, U.S. Dept of Justice, The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons 2 (1986)Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control 97 (1997)Clayton Cramer, historian, author of For the “Defense of Themselves and the State” (Praeger Press, 1994), citedas an authority in USA v. Emerson (N.D. Texas 1999)Stephen P. Halbrook, “Where Kids and Guns Do Mix”, Wall Street Journal, June 2000Tucker's Blackstone, Volume 1 Appendix Note D., 1803 – Tucker's comments provide a number of insights intothe consensus for interpretation of the Constitution that prevailed shortly after its ratification, after the debates had settled down and the Constitution was put into practice.“Militia”, The Constitution Society, www.constiution.orgEugene Volokf, Prof. Law, UCLA
xilchJan 4, 2007Submitter
Thomas Jefferson himself thought there should be a revolution every twenty years or so.Does the phrase "all enemies, foreign or domestic" mean anything? :-)I recommend everyone read the founding documents of The United States, in order:The Declaration of Independence.The ConstitutionThe Bill of Rights and the additional amendments 11-27The Federalist Papers...and others I can't think of right now.Everyone of these is available for free on the internet, just do a search.These would go a long way toward illuminating what rights people do have in this country, and to recognizing the abuses that some of these rights are being subjected to, present day.