Guns,guns,guns..Sam Harris's Opinion Piece

[Devil]

But they do have a dog in this fight, you see if we Americans kill ourselves off then who would bail them out of the next world war??

Shut the **** up, Bnet. Let them answer.

[Resonance10]

He has drunk the gun control kool aid to some degree, and it taints his logic.

"In fact, it can be easily argued that original intent of the Second Amendment had nothing to do with the right of self-defense—which remains the ethical case to be made for owning a firearm. The amendment seems to have been written to allow the states to check the power of the federal government by maintaining their militias. "

The intent can be argued, unless, you know, you read what the men who wrote and voted in the amendment had to say.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams

"... who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country...? I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
George Mason

"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights

"Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
-- Patrick Henry

"... of the liberty of conscience in matters of religious faith, of speech and of the press; of the trail by jury of the vicinage in civil and criminal cases; of the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; of the right to keep and bear arms.... If these rights are well defined, and secured against encroachment, it is impossible that government should ever degenerate into tyranny."

-- James Monroe

ETC ETC ETC

Do you have a context for these quotes please? The ones in bold seem to be arguing your interpretation as if it was under contention. I'm just asking for clarification.

There is no argument that the second amendment did not confer an individual right of firearm ownership, other than one generated from whole cloth as wish fulfillment.

There clearly is argument or this wouldn't even come up, it seems that interpretation is the key which is why I would like context for your quotes.

The original federal gun legislation was the 1934 GCA. It passed constitutional muster on the argument that the guns banned (sawed off shotguns and rifles, a ref others) had no military application, and as such, were not required for a militiaman, and, therefore, outside the scope of the amendment.

Are you saying this is the origin of the 'militia' idea? Or that this legislation was because of that misunderstanding?

Otherwise, he constantly allows himself to suffer the same, emotional, reflexive fallacious thinking that he simultaneously decries. How many times does he mention how frightening it is that, for example, private citizens may resell firearms to one another, even as he then admits that further regulating those sales would do little or nothing to limit crimes committed with guns.

He mentions it once.

To argue about gun control is to miss the point. Crimes are committed by people with a motive to do so, who have an opportunity to do so, who judge that the reward of the crime outweighs the potential of being caught and punished. The tools required are a tertiary issue at best. Note: from his article, 6% of murders are committed without weapons, compare to the sub-2% rate committed with so-called "assault weapons, (which we will waste untold time and political capital on in the coming months).

We can reduce the usage of guns in crime quite easily. Increase the penalties for illegal possession, dramatically. Increase the penalties for illegal sales, dramatically. Increase the penalties for commission of crimes while in possession of a firearm, dramatically. None of these things bother a law abiding person in the least, but act as a substantial tool separating violent criminals from firearms, immediately upon passage.

In cities as dissimilar as Richmond Virginia and Boston Massachusetts, a pilot program that simply enforced existing federal firearm laws on criminals accused of gang related crime reduced murders by 40% in a year. The feds complained that they didn't want to be in the warehousing of street criminals business, and the pilot was abandoned.

50% of all US murder revolves around the drug trade. A solution is obvious. Legalized drugs, or at a very minimum, marijuana. Defer the personnel and funding of the DEA to the ATF. Prosecute the bejeezus out of anybody carrying illegally.

Result: motive behind 50% of all murders is gone. Street criminals either disarm themselves, or go to prison until they are retirement age. The resulting massive reduction in violent crime affects the change in attitudes towards violence the author of the article wishes to see.

Yet, not a single law abiding citizen loses a single thing.

But, you know, "who would want a gun that looks like that?" and "won't anyone think of the children?" are way easier arguments to make. So screw gun owners.[

Those are all good points, personally I find them compelling.

[Mr. Machette]

The continued "that's not what it means" attacks against the second amendment not only contradict the stated intent of the founding fathers but also a slate of recent legislation from the US Supreme Court affriming not only firearms ownership as an individual right (just like every other right on the BOR) but also our right to self defense. This includes the ownership, carry and use of current issue military small arms.
http://www.lawnix.com/cases/dc-heller.html

You will also find in that document certain "common sense" restrictions wich already exist.

"What the second amendment means" is already established, codefied and re-affirmed in absolute opposition to the ignorant stances taken by it's most vocal opponents. (Including those of dissenting justices, Stevens and Breyer)

Any argument that ignores these facts is plainly ignorant and uninformed. The opinion is unqualified at best. (That is putting it politely.)

I would also caution strongly against trying to preasure (with violence) people who are not only equiped and trained to defend themselves, but absolutely certain of their right to do so.

[Resonance10]

Question for OP (and other Brits). This is a serious question and not intended to be smartass. I'm genuinely curious.

It seems like we constantly have Brits chiming in on discussions about gun control in the U.S. Even starting threads like yourself. Often, they'll argue the issue quite passionately. Why does this subject interest you?

I can say without hesitation that I don't give one iota about politics in the UK, unless perhaps it's something related to foreign policy that could have a direct impact on the U.S. The gun control debate is clearly a domestic issue and has zero impact on British folk. Why do you care at all? I really would like to understand.

Fair point. For me its just a bit facinating as our cultures are similar in so many ways yet so far apart in others, this being one of those others. I wouldn't dream of having too strong an opinion of my own on it as its so culturally alien a subject, I've attempted being 'devils advocate' to both sides of the argument when its come up amongst friends.I am interested in being informed on it, though the strong zeal of the right or left makes me distrust some of the info..

One of the reasons I posted Harris's op was I find him happy to step out of 'left' 'right' thinking. Also where he's wrong and it's pointed out he will own it or explain a misunderstanding.

Also you people are like cousins who only visit at weddings or wartime...we care man we care..

It must be fucking irritating to you guys..

[Devil]

Fair point. For me its just a bit facinating as our cultures are similar in so many ways yet so far apart in others, this being one of those others. I wouldn't dream of having too strong an opinion of my own on it as its so culturally alien a subject, I've attempted being 'devils advocate' to both sides of the argument when its come up amongst friends.I am interested in being informed on it, though the strong zeal of the right or left makes me distrust some of the info..

One of the reasons I posted Harris's op was I find him happy to step out of 'left' 'right' thinking. Also where he's wrong and it's pointed out he will own it or explain a misunderstanding.

Also you people are like cousins who only visit at weddings or wartime...we care man we care..

It must be fucking irritating to you guys..

I appreciate the answer. I hope more limeys will speak up.

Understand it's not just about right wing / left wing though. I actually have some views that are way to the right, some way to the left and everything in between. The gun issue is a hot button for me, but it isn't because I want to line up with the Republican party.

To me it's about protecting my way of life. That may sound cliche to those with a different way of life, but it's real to me. I grew up with a house full of guns. I have countless memories from childhood of going out shooting with my father and other relatives. Them teaching me about guns. Cleaning guns with them. Hunting with them. Target practice with them. We continue those activities today. I've probably had more hours of conversation with the men in my family about guns than any other topic. I've taught my wife to shoot and I'm continuing all those experiences with my children now.

I have never committed a crime with a gun nor has anyone in my family. Neither have my friends. To me, guns are tools more than anything else and I like tools. I appreciate the design, appearance and function of them the way many people appreciate antique cars. The idea that people (almost all of which lack even a rudimentary understanding of firearms) would take ANY of those experiences away from me burns my ass beyond belief.

And that's before I even begin to consider self defense applications - both general day-to-day self defense and potential civil unrest type situations. I don't want any new gun laws. We have enough. Before I would be willing to consider the merit of additional gun laws I would want to see a willingness to aggressively prosecute those who break the laws currently in existence. Otherwise, additional laws are just a burden on law abiding citizens with no real safety payoff.

But a passion for gun rights does not mean someone is a right wing zealot.

[MrGalt]

This is one hole: "Given the changes that have occurred in our military, and even in our politics, the idea that a few pistols and an AR 15 in every home constitutes a necessary bulwark against totalitarianism is fairly ridiculous. If you believe that the armed forces of the United States might one day come for you—and you think your cache of small arms will suffice to defend you if they do—I’ve got a black helicopter to sell you."

I'll explain why this line of thinking is incorrect. It is very likely that in a situation where a large portion of the population feels the need to take up arms against the government that the military would already be in a weakened state. The military is made up of people, after all. If their friends and families feel things are so dire they're prepared to risk death to make change, then many, many members of the military probably feel the same way. When those people leave, the government's military might is compromised.

I hate it when people declare that civilians with rifles would be useless because of atom bombs and stealth bombers. As if the way a totalitarian government operates is to glass major cities and scorch the earth. A totalitarian government starts out any evil purge phase, as far as I can get from my cursory studies of history, by picking a single group and separating it from the population. Small arms would be ideal for opposing this.|

EDIT: I should mention my military experience is zero. Hell, I'm not even a hunter. Just spouting off in a thread I probably should shut up and read instead.

[Resonance10]

I appreciate the answer. I hope more limeys will speak up.

Understand it's not just about right wing / left wing though. I actually have some views that are way to the right, some way to the left and everything in between. The gun issue is a hot button for me, but it isn't because I want to line up with the Republican party.

To me it's about protecting my way of life. That may sound cliche to those with a different way of life, but it's real to me. I grew up with a house full of guns. I have countless memories from childhood of going out shooting with my father and other relatives. Them teaching me about guns. Cleaning guns with them. Hunting with them. Target practice with them. We continue those activities today. I've probably had more hours of conversation with the men in my family about guns than any other topic. I've taught my wife to shoot and I'm continuing all those experiences with my children now.

I have never committed a crime with a gun nor has anyone in my family. Neither have my friends. To me, guns are tools more than anything else and I like tools. I appreciate the design, appearance and function of them the way many people appreciate antique cars. The idea that people (almost all of which lack even a rudimentary understanding of firearms) would take ANY of those experiences away from me burns my ass beyond belief.

And that's before I even begin to consider self defense applications - both general day-to-day self defense and potential civil unrest type situations. I don't want any new gun laws. We have enough. Before I would be willing to consider the merit of additional gun laws I would want to see a willingness to aggressively prosecute those who break the laws currently in existence. Otherwise, additional laws are just a burden on law abiding citizens with no real safety payoff.

But a passion for gun rights does not mean someone is a right wing zealot.

Thanks.
This is why I say its not for me to say, though I'm interested in the arguments.
The background of guns in American culture is not as presented in popular media which unfortunately is pretty inaccurate. Pro gun folk are often stereotyped Right Wingers and dumb while 'anti' gun folk are often shown as cleverer liberal left types, not always but in general.

An ex cop friend of mine became an American citizen largely because of the freedom to have guns, he loves them much how you describe you do. He's one of the nicest and non violent people I know/knew.

The thoughtless disssemination of inaccurate 'facts' about guns and the people that use them is a big problem, and as it is presented in Britain it would prob make your toes curl.

I honestly feel the 'left' 'right' political paradigm is unhelpfull in general.

[ermghoti]

Do you have a context for these quotes please? The ones in bold seem to be arguing your interpretation as if it was under contention. I'm just asking for clarification.

The context of each of those quotes is that they were transcripts from the debate to adopt the second amendment at the Constitutional convention, or they were direct quotes on the matter of the private ownership of arms.

There clearly is argument or this wouldn't even come up, it seems that interpretation is the key which is why I would like context for your quotes.

The life blood of the gun control movement is to deny the clear and obvious fact that the amendment refers to an individual right to own defensive/militarily significant arms. They cling to the phrase "well-regulated militia," which, in fact, means "well trained militia," which, in turn, in context of the debates about militia themselves, meant the populace was intended to be comprised of citizens in a constant state of military-level marksmanship and firearm handling. The neatly avoid any discussion of the words "the people," since every time the authors wrote "the people," the meant... the people. To argue the framers wrote "the people" to mean "the various states and commonwealths," is to argue they were inept at writing the English language.

Are you saying this is the origin of the 'militia' idea? Or that this legislation was because of that misunderstanding?

No, the idea that the militia were the general citizenry, armed under the protection of the second amendment was completely uncontroversial. The attempt to ban these weapons, used to devastating effect by prohibition era gangsters, was apparently stymied by the constitution. The ruling allowed a limit to be put on arms not considered to have military value. This stands in diametric and baffling opposition to the ruling on the next major federal gun law, which simply ignored history, case law, and the English language, to enact mostly meaningless regulations.

He mentions it once.

Poorly written on my part. He, in a couple of places, adopts a sort of "well, of course you can't let people ..." attitude, the section I quoted being an example. It does allow him to mention the non-existent Gunshow Loophole, which he rightly qualifies with quotation marks.

[Resonance10]

The context of each of those quotes is that they were transcripts from the debate to adopt the second amendment at the Constitutional convention, or they were direct quotes on the matter of the private ownership of arms.

Thanks for the clarification.

The life blood of the gun control movement is to deny the clear and obvious fact that the amendment refers to an individual right to own defensive/militarily significant arms. They cling to the phrase "well-regulated militia," which, in fact, means "well trained militia," which, in turn, in context of the debates about militia themselves, meant the populace was intended to be comprised of citizens in a constant state of military-level marksmanship and firearm handling. The neatly avoid any discussion of the words "the people," since every time the authors wrote "the people," the meant... the people. To argue the framers wrote "the people" to mean "the various states and commonwealths," is to argue they were inept at writing the English language.

Cool, I see. I read Harris as not of the 'gun control' movement but more of a plug some gaps ie: mental competency/ unlicensed sales mentality, if only to stop these strawman arguments, I admit I may be reading him wrong but that was my impression from the article.

No, the idea that the militia were the general citizenry, armed under the protection of the second amendment was completely uncontroversial. The attempt to ban these weapons, used to devastating effect by prohibition era gangsters, was apparently stymied by the constitution. The ruling allowed a limit to be put on arms not considered to have military value. This stands in diametric and baffling opposition to the ruling on the next major federal gun law, which simply ignored history, case law, and the English language, to enact mostly meaningless regulations.

I see thanks again, could you indulge me on the bold/italic part? Or link me to something..I wouldn't know where to look.

Poorly written on my part. He, in a couple of places, adopts a sort of "well, of course you can't let people ..." attitude, the section I quoted being an example. It does allow him to mention the non-existent Gunshow Loophole, which he rightly qualifies with quotation marks.

OK. What do you think of the Gunshow Loophole? Thanks for the info.

[Devil]

The background of guns in American culture is not as presented in popular media which unfortunately is pretty inaccurate. Pro gun folk are often stereotyped Right Wingers and dumb while 'anti' gun folk are often shown as cleverer liberal left types

The thoughtless disssemination of inaccurate 'facts' about guns and the people that use them is a big problem, and as it is presented in Britain it would prob make your toes curl.

Oh, liberal media always goes out of its way to make anyone they disagree with look like an idiot. Conservative media does the same thing, but liberals control the vast majority of media in the U.S. The last place you want to try to get objective news is from the news. There is no unbiased news. If you want to know anything worth knowing, you have to do your own research - which will likely begin with some kind of bias.....See where this is going? It's pretty easy to understand how all the fighting and misinformation happens.