It's the cartoon version of what Joey's been saying ever since this thread began.

I always thought Joey was the cartoon version of something.

"Joey" was almost certainly the most boring song Bob Dylan ever wrote.

"Joey" was almost certainly the most boring song Bob Dylan ever wrote.

But it was also the best song Concrete Blonde ever wrote.

And neither Joey was as lame, bad, & boring as "Lay Lady Lay."

McCain can win in one of two ways.

He can continue to try to make an honest case for continuing the war in Iraq, much as he's done over the past year,..

Except it's important to keep in mind that over the past year he's made a confused, dishonest case for continuing the war.

I think that's an odd usage of "isn't true." Obama has even spoken up in favor of extremist anti-gun legislation like the DC law currently before the Supreme Court, and he's been on the board of the virulently anti-gun Joyce Foundation. (It's true that not all Democrats are anti-gun, but even though not all Republicans are anti-abortion, I think it's fair to describe the latter as anti-abortion. And the former as anti-gun.)

David, I know that, but I still just don't see how Democrats being in office is going to result in guns being taken away from people in small towns in Pennsylvania (or Kansas, or wherever). I know you think that this is all a slippery slope, but I don't see it getting there.

David, I know that, but I still just don't see how Democrats being in office is going to result in guns being taken away from people in small towns in Pennsylvania (or Kansas, or wherever). I know you think that this is all a slippery slope, but I don't see it getting there.

Christ, right here in my own neighborhood in liberal Kensington, Maryland, there's a big gun shop right there on the corner of University Boulevard and Newport Mill Road, that's been there for at least 20 years. I haven't heard one peep from anyone around here about closing it down. The gun issue is real in the sense that legitimate (i.e. non-criminal) gun owners have a perfect constitutional right to own most types of weapons, but it's bogus to the extent that the propagandists portray any sort of real threat to this in their lifetimes. New York and DC aren't about to be able to impose their sort of gun control laws on the rest of the country, no matter who wins the election. That spectre is complete, 100% bullshlt.

The gun issue is real in the sense that legitimate (i.e. non-criminal) gun owners have a perfect constitutional right to own most types of weapons, but it's bogus to the extent that the propagandists portray any sort of real threat to this in their lifetimes.

If the Democratic party - and most of my friends who are Democrats - truly believe I have a constitutional right to own most types of weapons, they've done the $hittiest job of communicating that belief in the history of politics.

Do I think Obama would seek to outlaw private gun ownership? No. But not because he doesn't believe that would be right and just and is his ultimate goal on the gun issue but because he's a saavy politician and knows he can't (yet) pull it off.

EDIT: I'd say the president has more influence on gun laws than he does on the economy. The three of them can't just say they can't help the folks suffering in the down turn and can't bring the jobs back. If Obama wins on a message of hope, he'd better pull it off, because the backlash in 2012 will be intense.

If the Democratic party - and most of my friends who are Democrats - truly believe I have a constitutional right to own most types of weapons, they've done the $hittiest job of communicating that belief in the history of politics.

Do I think Obama would seek to outlaw private gun ownership? No. But not because he doesn't believe that would be right and just and is his ultimate goal on the gun issue but because he's a saavy politician and knows he can't (yet) pull it off.

EDIT: I'd say the president has more influence on gun laws than he does on the economy. The three of them can't just say they can't help the folks suffering in the down turn and can't bring the jobs back.

100% agreement on the guns point.

To elaborate on the economy, if any US politician actually knew how to create a booming economy, they'd do it. They don't because they can't... the US economy is far too large and complex for presidential meddling to control (this is a good thing). Government has demonstrated a proven ability to break an economy (Zimbabwe and every People's Republic in history say Hi), but there's no evidence you can legislate your way into guaranteed economic growth. I think most people understand this on some level, which is why many of them on both sides "vote against their economic interest" and focus on values or social issues or whatnot.

In short, economics at the presidential level mostly consists of hoping something good happens, then taking credit for it. If good things don't happen, assign blame.

From MSNBC today:

They are also helping to test the limits of Mr. Obama’s appeal, a skeptical focus group that to varying degrees has become a proxy for his ability to calm concerns about his race, his values and whether he can connect with voters beyond the Democratic Party’s base.

“It seems he’s kind of ripping on small towns, and I’m a small town girl,” said Becki Farmer, 32, who lives in Rochester, Pa., another Ohio River town hit hard by the closed steel mills. “That’s where your good morals and good judgment come from, growing up in small towns.”

Indeed, advisers to Mr. Obama concede, his job has been made that much more complicated by his remarks about bitterness among small-town voters. Though it remains unclear what effect the episode will have in the long run, it has suddenly prompted a series of questions — and worry — from Democrats about whether Mr. Obama could weather a Republican onslaught in the fall, should he win the presidential nomination.

Interesting stuff.

I don't want to be rude, but isn't it possible that Obama, like most Chicago politicians, doesn't feel too strongly on guns, but just is sick of piles of corpses of Chicago Public School students and wants to do something to alleviate the problem--no matter how minor--in the meantime, before the deeper issues can be addressed?

I don't want to be rude, but isn't it possible that Obama, like most Chicago politicians, doesn't feel too strongly on guns, but just is sick of piles of corpses of Chicago Public School students and wants to do something to alleviate the problem--no matter how minor--in the meantime, before the deeper issues can be addressed?

This is the problem with the gun issue for Obama vis-a-vis rural America, and, in many ways, for America in general. When folks in the city think of guns, our first thought is of gangs and drive-by shootings. When rural Americans think of guns, their first thought is of hunting or the shooting range.

“It seems he’s kind of ripping on small towns, and I’m a small town girl,” said Becki Farmer, 32, who lives in Rochester, Pa., another Ohio River town hit hard by the closed steel mills. “That’s where your good morals and good judgment come from, growing up in small towns.”

Of course, "Becki" is wrong about where good morals and good judgment come from, but evidently she finds security in the notion that she has found the way to better living, a way that, if you aren't from a small town, must elude you. But I know that isn't the point here. The perception is the point. Oy vay.

And neither Joey was as lame, bad, & boring as "Lay Lady Lay."

Debatable. In any event, at least "Lay Lady Lay" had the virtue of being short. "Joey" goes on for what seems like 45 minutes.

“That’s where your good morals and good judgment come from, growing up in small towns.”

Not that this statement's "elitist" in and of itself, or anything.

Not that this statement's elitist in and of itself, or anything.

Were she running, this would harm Becki Farmer's campaign, I agree.

Will the election be won in the big cities or in the small towns?

This is the problem with the gun issue for Obama vis-a-vis rural America, and, in many ways, for America in general. When folks in the city think of guns, our first thought is of gangs and drive-by shootings. When rural Americans think of guns, their first thought is of hunting or the shooting range.

Well, that, and we've lost our connection to guns. That sounds odd, given all the guns floating around all over the place. What I mean is, kids don't grow up learning that a gun is a tool with specific uses and purposes and that, used properly, are relatively safe and effective. When used improperly or carelessly, they're dangerous as hell. Instead, kids learn either that guns are evil and can kill without warning or any apparent reason or that they are the key to their masculinity and all that stands between them and a long queue at a Whole Foods. Thus we have a dichotomy between those that worship guns and those that fear them. When what we need are people comfortable in their use but still wary of their dangers. The idea that the pro-gun folks have that the world would be a safer place if everyone had a gun only makes sense in the context of a society in which people learn to use and secure guns as automatically as they learn to use and secure a motor vehicle (well, ideally, better than that, given how we are with cars). In that context, sure, the good guys will be equally armed with the bad guys and they'll outnumber them. In the society we live in, handing out guns everywhere to the current population will be disaster*.

* as this is what we essentially have in crime ridden areas of many cities. Freely flowing guns and little responsible use.

It seems he’s kind of ripping on small towns,

Becki doesn't sound too bright, but she hits on the Democrats problem going back to 2000. The party and the candidates do come off this way. My friends who are Democrats, many born in small towns, come off this way. That to be rural or small town is "wrong" and to be city is "right". Modern liberals really do come off as if they think they're smarter than everyone else and therefore should be able to tell everyone how to live. I don't think most really believe that, though some clearly do (just as some conservatives really do) but until they stop coming off that way, they're going to lose.

Anyway, I won't be voting for Becki even so.

Modern liberals really do come off as if they think they're smarter than everyone else and therefore should be able to tell everyone how to live. I don't think most really believe that, though some clearly do (just as some conservatives really do) but until they stop coming off that way, they're going to lose.

Why does this hurt liberals more than conservatives, who "come off" the same way?

Maureen Dowd weighs in.

The gun issue is real in the sense that legitimate (i.e. non-criminal) gun owners have a perfect constitutional right to own most types of weapons, but it's bogus to the extent that the propagandists portray any sort of real threat to this in their lifetimes.

If the Democratic party - and most of my friends who are Democrats - truly believe I have a constitutional right to own most types of weapons, they've done the $hittiest job of communicating that belief in the history of politics.

No question about that, bunyon. The problem is that the debate on guns has been largely defined by the NRA on the one hand, and the congenital gun haters on the other hand. The middle ground, which consists of people who want strict licensing and criminal background checks, but no bans on legitimate sporting and self-protection firearms, are left stranded. I have nothing against hunting rifles or pistols bought for protection, etc. But I do like to know that they're not being sold to criminals.

And yes of course I know that this sort of licensing isn't a panacea, but to a great extent that's for two reasons: The licensing we have now is strictly local, and there are already millions of illegal firearms floating around out there, which makes any idea of real gun control more than problematical in the first place.

And we're about as likely to prevent gun smuggling as we're likely to prevent Mexicans from smuggling themselves into Texas and California. IOW it's mostly a hot button and hot air political issue, and little else.

All of this means that in effect, we're never going to have any sort of effective gun control, no matter what. And to be honest, that doesn't worry me nearly as much as perhaps it should. But for the last 40 years the only real effect of gun control laws has been to elect Republicans. That should possibly be a lesson for us Democrats. There are far more important issues to risk political realignment over.

Ah, c'mon. Lay Lady Lay is a great song. I captures a man's sexual yearning quite nicely.

Why does this hurt liberals more than conservatives, who "come off" the same way?

I don't think it's true that they do, Joe, and that's the point. I think this is partly explained in Dowd's column. Many Americans don't resent wealth: either its display or its pursuit (and protection). Conservatives seem to embrace that, and many poorer Americans do as well. But they do resent being told what to do with their money and in particular resent being told this by "eggheads." As a professional egghead, I have experienced this and even grew up with it. As you know, I grew up in NH as a transplanted NYer. One thing that fascinated me about NH and indeed I admire about it is that despite its poverty, the people are fiercely independent. They don't (typically) want government help. Part of that is pride, but part is their understanding that gov't help comes at the price of greater gov't involvement in their lives. I'm not sure BO gets that. I'm not sure other "liberals" get that. Conservatives (rich and poor) seem to, as they (usually) agree that gov't help is a two edged sword.

You're focusing on wealth. How about how social conservatives attempt to tell us how to live, as if they know better?

What I mean is, kids don't grow up learning that a gun is a tool with specific uses and purposes and that, used properly, are relatively safe and effective.

I just don't get it. Safe and effective for what? I understand that it is a right, and the debate is valid and needs to be taken seriously. But under what circumstance is a gun safe? And for anyone not hunting, how is it effective for anything but shooting people, which strikes me as not really that safe at all?

I had the debate with someone (Szym?) over taking guns away from the people who needed them to protect themselves in the bad parts of Baltimore, but I've never heard any stats regarding how many or what sort of crimes were stopped by gun owners. Does anyone have these figures?

To be clear, this is not a debate about the right of gun ownership. I'd like to know of what actually provable, tangible use guns are. I'm expecting folks to use the "armed society = polite society" argument, but I think as a society we're armed pretty well, and I'm not sure we're any more polite because of it.

Since JC's been posting Maureen Dowd (a very blunt and honest take on her part, IMO, even if it hurts to say so), here are a few others from today's Washington Post:

The first shows the increasing futility of Hillary's campaign tactics:

Poll Shows Gains In Key Areas For Obama

The second shows the devastating effect that her smear tactics are having on her own already negative ratings:

Poll Shows Erosion of Trust in Clinton

And the third is an op-ed piece by a former Clinton operative who's a partner of Mark Penn. It's going to stick to Hillary like glue, as it's already producing a firestorm of backlash from everyone but her most diehard supporters. You have to read it to believe it. And BTW it's curious that the author's connection to Mark Penn isn't mentioned:

Hillary Should Go Negative

Guns seem to me an issue that points up a huge fault line in contemporary America. Hunters like them and target shooters like them (and both groups overwhelmingly use them responsibly, and neither is the focus of any gun-control movement). Paranoid suburbanites convinced that they have to keep moving to more and more distant suburbs because gangs of "them" are moving in with arcane designs to do them harm also like guns, and on the whole are not affected by gun control movements either, since their guns are used very rarely (as Ann Richards liked to say, she didn't carry a concealed handgun because she would never be able to find it in her purse).

Urban police departments, urban mugging victims, urban community activists, and hence urban city councils, tend to hate guns. Inner cities where police aggressively get guns off the streets (New York) tend to be safer, and those where police let guns proliferate (Philadelphia) tend to be more dangerous.

The key problem here is that the gun lobby sees any public-safety measure like the DC law as being the thin end of a wedge. They have zero clue about city life and have zero sympathy for working people of color getting shot in the city; they just see any attempt to reduce urban violence as an attempt to strip folks in the suburbs of their (largely imaginary) defense against that violence. It's a rotten, cynical divide.

The idea that the pro-gun folks have that the world would be a safer place if everyone had a gun only makes sense in the context of a society in which people learn to use and secure guns as automatically as they learn to use and secure a motor vehicle (well, ideally, better than that, given how we are with cars).

In other words, Fantasyland.

We're supposed to let innocent people get shot up by the thousands because rural gun owners can't properly perceive the real world?(**)

**Please excuse the condescension.

Also as an egghead from poor, small town Oklahoma, I'll echo exactly what JC says in 622. I agree that the "conservatives" currently populating the Republican party aren't much different than the Democrats in that they seek and believe they deserve to tell other people how to live. IMO, they do a much better job of hiding it. Maybe less admirable, but more politically effective.

Part of that is pride, but part is their understanding that gov't help comes at the price of greater gov't involvement in their lives. I'm not sure BO gets that.

None of the three get that, unfortunately. None of the three dissents in the least from the "government is inherently more noble than business" catechism.

As you know, I grew up in NH as a transplanted NYer. One thing that fascinated me about NH and indeed I admire about it is that despite its poverty, the people are fiercely independent.

Meh -- you make NH sound like a slum when it has the lowest percentage of residents below the poverty line of all 50 states and DC. Just 'cause we ain't spendin' all owah money on baseball stadiums and skyscrapas don't mean we're poah!

/NH-Accent

But under what circumstance is a gun safe?

1: Every gun is always loaded all the time.
2: Keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to fire.
3: Never let the muzzle cover anything you're not willing to destroy.
4: Be sure of your target and what's behind it.

(That's only a semi-flip answer, by the way.)

Does anyone have these figures?

It is difficult for anyone to get accurate figures on how many crimes are prevented by gun ownership -- crimes that don't get committed are hard to keep track of. The people who were thinking about committing them certainly aren't going to report them, and the people who prevented them may not, either, especially if their having a gun in that situation was legally questionable.

You're focusing on wealth. How about how social conservatives attempt to tell us how to live, as if they know better?

There's no shortage of outraged liberals speaking out against this.

A longer response would be that most people don't seem to believe that social conservatives will manage to be as intrusive in their lives. Outside of trying and failing to ban abortion, what are they going to do? Make church attendence compulsory? Ban premarital sex? The vast majority of people don't see those as realistic threats. Social conservatives are very interested in telling everybody else how wrong and bad they are, but their actual impact on government policy has been pretty minor. The general state of America's public morality is, from the social conservative perspective, bad and getting worse. It's not like their views are gaining any traction.

I had the debate with someone (Szym?) over taking guns away from the people who needed them to protect themselves in the bad parts of Baltimore, but I've never heard any stats regarding how many or what sort of crimes were stopped by gun owners. Does anyone have these figures?

I agree with practically everything you say, but as a rabid anti-utilitarian, I find it impossible to avoid the observation that you can't morally ask someone to not protect themselves because the means of protection he uses, on balance, cause more harm than good.

Many Americans don't resent wealth: either its display or its pursuit (and protection). Conservatives seem to embrace that, and many poorer Americans do as well.

My personal tastes as to display or protection of wealth matter much less than the fact that wealth inequality has a distortive effect. It distorts not only outcomes but eventually even potential outcomes.

From a world perspective, it's why, for instance, malaria remains a global menace while billions are spent on research and marketing of ever-so-slightly bigger and better boner pills for rich old men. (Men who apparently keep two bathtubs full of water out on the front yard in case they get frisky.)

The smaller a percentage of the population whose opinions carry weight and whose contributions can potentially be recognizes, the less likely innovation is to happen. Entrenched aristocracies of wealth are not known for being innovative, and if given the power to, they will entrench themselves, not because they are (necessarily) less virtuous than the rest of us, but simply because they can.

David, I know that, but I still just don't see how Democrats being in office is going to result in guns being taken away from people in small towns in Pennsylvania (or Kansas, or wherever). I know you think that this is all a slippery slope, but I don't see it getting there.

...and...

New York and DC aren't about to be able to impose their sort of gun control laws on the rest of the country, no matter who wins the election. That spectre is complete, 100% bullshlt.

Perhaps you missed the now-thankfully-expired (so-called) assault weapons ban, Andy. That was a national law, not one limited to DC or NY.

You also may have missed the attempt by certain activist groups and trial lawyers to essentially litigate the firearms industry out of existence. This attempt would indeed have imposed NY and DC laws on the entire country. This has been thwarted for the time, not by local action, but by a federal law, a law which a Democratic president almost certainly would not have signed.

Laws passed under Clinton were being used illegally by Janet Reno to create a national gun registry; Democrats were trying in recent years to demagogue guns and terrorism by arguing that people suspected (not convicted) of terrorism ought to be forbidden -- nationally, not locally -- from having a gun. Under the Lautenberg Amendment, signed by Clinton, anybody with a domestic violence restraining order against them is forbidden from possessing a lawfully-acquired firearm or ammunition. (That would be reasonable, except that a DVRO is about as tough to get as a parking ticket.) The (federal) Gun Control Act, signed by a Democratic president, prohibits 18 year olds -- adults -- from buying handguns from gun dealers.

Right now the Supreme Court is considering whether the DC gun ban is constitutional; the Solicitor General filed a relatively wishy-washy brief in support of the RKBA. A Democratic administration would likely not have gone that far.

That's just off the top of my head, in terms of national actions which restrict gun rights.


In any case, Andy's argument is contradictory; to the extent that New York and DC can't impose their sort of gun control laws on the rest of the country, it's because people care so strongly about the gun issue and vote on it. So arguing that it's ######## to care about it because they can't do it is completely nonsensical.

I just don't get it. Safe and effective for what? I understand that it is a right, and the debate is valid and needs to be taken seriously. But under what circumstance is a gun safe? And for anyone not hunting, how is it effective for anything but shooting people, which strikes me as not really that safe at all?


Safe and effective for shooting things, of course. A gun is safe when it is secured until it is needed to shoot something. That something could be potential food, a dangerous animal, a criminal, or a tyrannical government. Shooting people is sometimes the safest course of action of the shooter. It is, obviously, not safe for the person getting shot.

The idea that the pro-gun folks have that the world would be a safer place if everyone had a gun only makes sense in the context of a society in which people learn to use and secure guns as automatically as they learn to use and secure a motor vehicle (well, ideally, better than that, given how we are with cars).

In other words, Fantasyland.

We're supposed to let innocent people get shot up by the thousands because rural gun owners can't properly perceive the real world?(**)

**Please excuse the condescension.

Not fantasyland at all. I grew up with a bunch of folks who have an average IQ probably below that of the posters here and yet almost all of them knew how to handle a gun and not once - not one time in the history of my hometown that I'm aware of - was anyone accidentally shot. On the other hand, every couple of years someone was killed by a car despite the fact that there were more guns than cars in town.

I'm not arguing how guns should be distributed in urban environments. To me, that is an issue for the state or, better, for the city. However, it is the "big government" types who have really cut into the authority of those places (both right and left). I'd be in favor or NO federal regulations on guns and let cities and counties regulate as they see fit. But I promise you that if you raise a kid around guns with proper training, that gun will be less prone to accidental death than automobiles.

Now, if you have a lot of crime and young men running around without much in the way of prospects or investment into their society, you'll have a problem; guns or no.

Look, if the liberals and Democratic party want to concede that I have a right to my gun and ammunition and then want to construct a system that keeps guns out of criminals' hands rather than simply being an inconvenience for law abiding citizens, I'll be all for it. But the response here is generally what you get when you state that guns have redeeming qualities. You get condescenion and mockery from ######## who think you're an idiot (please excuse the insult (there - does that work for you, asking for excuse?)).

but I've never heard any stats regarding how many or what sort of crimes were stopped by gun owners. Does anyone have these figures?

It happens. I don't know any figures but I know it happens (reading stories, talking to people with guns, etc.). The most common anecdotal story - and I've heard it several times - is running someone off during a burglary attempt simply by cocking a weapon. Does this happen as often as accidental shootings? No idea.

I think the "armed society = polite society" is crap. But an armed society is one that is less likely to be easily taken. Many think that is an anachronistic way of thinking about things but most socieities have thought themselves unlikely to fall until they do.


What to do about inner cities and gang violence? I have no idea. I'm quite certain gun laws won't do anything though. As Andy says, the guns are there already and the bad guys aren't likely to turn them over just because we ask. Given that, If I'm a good guy, I'd rather be armed than not, but I wouldn't delude myself that that is the complete solution, either. Basically, if you have gangs bent on violence, you have to deal with that, not their tools. So, FWIW, I do think gun laws should vary from locale to locale depending on the situation and the people living there. IOW, it shouldn't be a federal issue at all, except for the stipulation that a complete ban is unconstitutional.

The key problem here is that the gun lobby sees any public-safety measure like the DC law as being the thin end of a wedge. They have zero clue about city life and have zero sympathy for working people of color getting shot in the city; they just see any attempt to reduce urban violence as an attempt to strip folks in the suburbs of their (largely imaginary) defense against that violence. It's a rotten, cynical divide.

---

We're supposed to let innocent people get shot up by the thousands because rural gun owners can't properly perceive the real world?(**)

---

These two statements explain precisely why people fear a slippery slope on guns from the Democrats, even if it's politically impractical. Or are you going to try to claim that the majority of DC's gun violence stems from rednecks from St. Mary's with shotguns driving up or retard suburbanites that never learned how to properly handle their legally purchased firearms?

Unlike a lot of libertarians, I don't have problems with things like background checks before handgun purchases, but on this issue, the 3 major candidates left haven't given me much reason to trust them. Obama and Clinton aren't Tester or Salazar and McCain isn't Vitter.

From a world perspective, it's why, for instance, malaria remains a global menace

Um, that would be the banning of DDT.

From a world perspective, it's why, for instance, malaria remains a global menace while billions are spent on research and marketing of ever-so-slightly bigger and better boner pills for rich old men. (Men who apparently keep two bathtubs full of water out on the front yard in case they get frisky.)

Scientists wiped malaria out in many areas and were close in most others with DDT but then got treated as if they were evil scum for, perhaps, maybe, thinning some bird eggs. I guarantee if I come up with a way to prevent malaria there will be lots of people yelling and screaming that my "cure" is racist, or too expensive, or not complete enough, or some damn thing I can't even imagine.

Whereas, if I get some rich guy laid, I'll be rich and appreciated.

The bathtubs full of water are part of the survival kit, by the way.

When the government got the bomb (and probably well before that) the only real reason to even consider allowing unlimited private ownership of most firearms (and of course the reason the Founding Fathers did consider it) vanished into thin air. An armed citizen militia is not going to be able to keep itself from being oppressed by the government in 2008. And it isn't needed to ward off the predations of would-be foreign oppressors. Quite frankly, in this day and age, the bigger worry is that some armed citizen group makes common cause with the goverment.

The whole idea is the product of a much earlier age and a much different society and, in 2008, borders on primitive.

Viagra was discovered accidentally, btw. It was going through clinical trials for some other indication and the erection thing was noticed by many of the participants.

Scientists wiped malaria out in many areas and were close in most others with DDT but then got treated as if they were evil scum for, perhaps, maybe, thinning some bird eggs.

If by "thinning some bird eggs" you mean "nearly wiping out thousands of species of birds" then you're right. There are also negative effects for humans, mostly carcinogenic and neurological, so it's not as if the DDT ban was solely to protect birds.

EDIT: I'd say the president has more influence on gun laws than he does on the economy. The three of them can't just say they can't help the folks suffering in the down turn and can't bring the jobs back. If Obama wins on a message of hope, he'd better pull it off, because the backlash in 2012 will be intense.

McCain actually has told people that he can't bring the jobs back; during the Michigan primary, he actually denounced Romney for claiming the opposite. There are a lot of things I don't like about McCain, but he can often be very bold.

Obama comes across less like a candidate in Pennsylvania than an anthropologist in Borneo.

Maureen Dowd must be reading my posts.

Ah, c'mon. Lay Lady Lay is a great song. I captures a man's sexual yearning quite nicely.

I'm not really a fan of the Nashville Skyline album generally. Lay Lady Lay's probably the best song on that album.

Um, that would be the banning of DDT.

False.

An armed citizen militia is not going to be able to keep itself from being oppressed by the government in 2008. And it isn't needed to ward off the predations of would-be foreign oppressors.

How can people make this idiotic claim w/o any reflection? Do you really think even our military could suppress a widespread armed insurrection? Look at Baghdad (smaller than NYC). Look at the Soviet's experience with the mujahadeen. Look at friggin Mogadishu. You know what? An armed citizenry is an amazing check on gov't ambitions.

In any case, Andy's argument is contradictory; to the extent that New York and DC can't impose their sort of gun control laws on the rest of the country, it's because people care so strongly about the gun issue and vote on it. So arguing that it's ######## to care about it because they can't do it is completely nonsensical.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't care about guns one way or the other. I'm only saying that outside of a small number of localities, there hasn't been any effective banning of the sort of weapons that one ordinarily uses for hunting or self-protection. (If you want to remind me of what the exact definition of "assault rifle" is, please do so. You told me once but I've forgotten.)

Not that this particularly bothers me one way or the other. As I said, gun control is one of those social issues whose chief purpose seems to be to elect Republicans. Sometimes you just got to know when to fold em.

An armed citizen militia is not going to be able to keep itself from being oppressed by the government in 2008.

So pacifying Iraq should be no problem then, right?

If by "thinning some bird eggs" you mean "nearly wiping out thousands of species of birds" then you're right. There are also negative effects for humans, mostly carcinogenic and neurological, so it's not as if the DDT ban was solely to protect birds.

Sure, there are negatives to DDT use. Which is why I think it's a good idea not to use it in places where malaria isn't a problem. But the negatives are far outweighed by the good of controlling the malaria in places where it is a problem. If you want a perfect solution, science can't give it to you; I recommend church. At least you'll feel better. Every drug will have side effects. Every solution, unintended outcomes. The more you minimize side effects or unintended outcomes the more expensive it will be. Pretty much anything we've come up with to substitute for DDT is too expensive for use. Yes, I know, you think we should all bankrupt ourselves to solve the problem. The trouble is, you can't get everyone to agree to do that (including me).

When the government got the bomb (and probably well before that) the only real reason to even consider allowing unlimited private ownership of most firearms (and of course the reason the Founding Fathers did consider it) vanished into thin air. An armed citizen militia is not going to be able to keep itself from being oppressed by the government in 2008.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If the government's technological warfare abilities made an armed rebellion by citizenry impossible, then, well, the Iraqi war must have been won, with Iraq currently being a stable democracy. And if anything, our soldiers would be *less* effective against an American rebellion.

Dan, I'm still waiting for suggestions for classical closer music over at the other thread. ;-)

Dammit, 2 of you beat me to it - that's what I get for rewording!

Dammit, 2 of you beat me to it - that's what I get for rewording!

The linear format of this thread just gives the perception that we were faster.

How can people make this idiotic claim w/o any reflection? Do you really think even our military could suppress a widespread armed insurrection? Look at Baghdad (smaller than NYC). Look at the Soviet's experience with the mujahadeen. Look at friggin Mogadishu. You know what? An armed citizenry is an amazing check on gov't ambitions.

I looked. They all possessed non-personal modern weaponry. Pretty obvious distinction.

Not to mention that our citizen-militias might very well be able to avail themselves of such weaponry in the unlikely events that worry you.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If the government's technological warfare abilities made an armed rebellion by citizenry impossible, then, well, the Iraqi war must have been won, with Iraq currently being a stable democracy. And if anything, our soldiers would be *less* effective against an American rebellion.

We aren't losing in Iraq from want of firepower -- another point I'd hope would be obvious.

I just don't get it. Safe and effective for what? I understand that it is a right, and the debate is valid and needs to be taken seriously. But under what circumstance is a gun safe? And for anyone not hunting, how is it effective for anything but shooting people, which strikes me as not really that safe at all?

Well, safe for the one holding the gun.

I had the debate with someone (Szym?) over taking guns away from the people who needed them to protect themselves in the bad parts of Baltimore, but I've never heard any stats regarding how many or what sort of crimes were stopped by gun owners. Does anyone have these figures?

I won't cite Lott, because he's controversial, but I will cite Kleck, who's well-respected, who found 2 - 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year. (Just to be clear, the vast majority of those did not involve the gun being fired, let alone someone being killed.)

Sure, there are negatives to DDT use. Which is why I think it's a good idea not to use it in places where malaria isn't a problem. But the negatives are far outweighed by the good of controlling the malaria in places where it is a problem. If you want a perfect solution, science can't give it to you; I recommend church. At least you'll feel better. Every drug will have side effects. Every solution, unintended outcomes. The more you minimize side effects or unintended outcomes the more expensive it will be. Pretty much anything we've come up with to substitute for DDT is too expensive for use. Yes, I know, you think we should all bankrupt ourselves to solve the problem. The trouble is, you can't get everyone to agree to do that (including me).

I know there aren't more cost-effective solutions than DDT, but the question remains: Is the potential harm to humans from malaria greater than the potential harm from DDT? I would say no, given the high rate of birth defect, neurological disorders, cancer, and digestive effects. I'm not looking for a perfect answer, just an answer that is significantly better than the affliction.

Do you really think even our military could suppress a widespread armed insurrection? Look at Baghdad (smaller than NYC). Look at the Soviet's experience with the mujahadeen. Look at friggin Mogadishu. You know what? An armed citizenry is an amazing check on gov't ambitions.

JC, in the real world, who's going to organize such a "widespread" insurrection? Where would it take place? Point Barrow, Alaska? What grievance would it represent? What "government" would it be focused against? And how on Earth do you think that it could possibly survive the first serious counter-assault?

The most hot button local issue in my lifetime has been racial integration in the South, which white southerners were figuratively up in arms against. And fairly often not so figuratively. No part of the country has ever been much more heavily armed than the white South, and few parts of a citizenry have ever been more egged on in their sense of grievance by local officials and their local media than these same white Southerners.

If there were ever a time and place where armed insurrection might have been a real possibility, that was it. Yet nothing of the sort ever happened, because as many a southern demagogue had to admit, the Feds had all the (real) weapons. Your scenario is one of the purest fantasy scenarios I've ever read on BTF, and that's saying quite a bit.

But perhaps you didn't really mean it quite as literally as your words seem to imply. If so, my bad.

The key problem here is that the gun lobby sees any public-safety measure like the DC law as being the thin end of a wedge. They have zero clue about city life and have zero sympathy for working people of color getting shot in the city; they just see any attempt to reduce urban violence as an attempt to strip folks in the suburbs of their (largely imaginary) defense against that violence. It's a rotten, cynical divide.

Actually, gun rights activists have great sympathy for working people of color getting shot in the city, which is why we don't think the government ought to disarm them, leaving them at the mercy of criminals who don't obey gun laws.

We aren't losing in Iraq from want of firepower -- another point I'd hope would be obvious.

You just finished arguing, however, that rebellion is impractical because of that firepower.

JC, in the real world, who's going to organize such a "widespread" insurrection? Where would it take place? Point Barrow, Alaska? What grievance would it represent? What "government" would it be focused against? And how on Earth do you think that it could possibly survive the first serious counter-assault?

First off, couldn't one argue that our laws are more important for situations we don't anticipate rather than situations we do?

And secondly, the effectiveness of an insurrection is irrelevant to the issue. Otherwise, you could say the same thing about free speech - that extreme and unpopular political speech should be banned because it's ineffective at making a point.

gun rights activists have great sympathy for working people of color getting shot in the city, which is why we don't think the government ought to disarm them, leaving them at the mercy of criminals who don't obey gun laws

DMN, with respect, this vision of grandmothers in the projects as wannabe Dirty Harrys is fantasy :)

DMN, with respect, this vision of grandmothers in the projects as wannabe Dirty Harrys is fantasy :)

I'm not surprised that you cite Hollywood; that seems to be where most anti-gun people get their information about firearms.

Note that, like vaccination, gun ownership provides herd immunity. Everyone doesn't need to carry a gun for criminals to be forced to worry that their victims may be armed.

If the Bush doctrine of unlimited monarchy in "domestic military operations" is put into practice, can the citizenry morally resist with arms?

Can the "terrorists"?

Okay, so what is the solution in DC? DC already has the strictest gun laws in the country and yet there is a wave of gun violence. So what law will solve the problem?

I know there aren't more cost-effective solutions than DDT, but the question remains: Is the potential harm to humans from malaria greater than the potential harm from DDT? I would say no, given the high rate of birth defect, neurological disorders, cancer, and digestive effects. I'm not looking for a perfect answer, just an answer that is significantly better than the affliction.

With respect, I think you overstate the harmful effects of DDT. Of course, you're right in principle: whatever treatment is used can't have greater negative effect than the intended positive.

If there were ever a time and place where armed insurrection might have been a real possibility, that was it. Yet nothing of the sort ever happened, because as many a southern demagogue had to admit, the Feds had all the (real) weapons. Your scenario is one of the purest fantasy scenarios I've ever read on BTF, and that's saying quite a bit.

This is a bit of tunnel vision. Just because there hasn't been a reason for an armed insurrection in our times doesn't mean there won't ever be. I think you're far overestimating the seriousness of those particular demagogues - they wanted government to oppress blacks and wanted to help oppress blacks themselves, but very few of them were willing to die for Jim Crow. At some point in the future, there could very well be such an issue.

If there were ever a time and place where armed insurrection might have been a real possibility, that was it. Yet nothing of the sort ever happened, because as many a southern demagogue had to admit, the Feds had all the (real) weapons. Your scenario is one of the purest fantasy scenarios I've ever read on BTF, and that's saying quite a bit.

LOL. What scenario? The one where an insurrection occurs and the military would have to go house to house as militaries do in such scenarios? It's interesting how in the South to which you point, the Southerners were only figuratively up in arms. Is it just possible they felt that wasn't a cause worth literally fighting over?

Re getting one's hands on modern weapons, I just finished reading a history of the Afghan resistance to the Soviets and one of the many fascinating parts of that story was how late the mujahadeen got modern weapons and how far they got using outdated rifles, their knowledge of the terrain, local resistance, and recovered weapons. And to Andy's point about "organization", there was very little organization until the late stages of the conflict as initially the conflict was waged locally (and tribally).

There's no fantastic scenario here except the abstraction proferred by those who believe possession of modern weaponry by itself will put down an armed population. One imagines that, were anything remotely like this to happen, there would be significant desertion of the military and reluctance to use "the bomb." Even in Afghanistan, when the Soviets wiped out 10000s in cities in response to Afghan resistance victories, it didn't defeat the resistance, but galvanized it.

Not to mention that our citizen-militias might very well be able to avail themselves of such weaponry in the unlikely events that worry you.

I'm sure the AK-47 fairy will bring them some.

If the Bush doctrine of unlimited monarchy in "domestic military operations" is put into practice, can the citizenry morally resist with arms?


IMO, yes. Violence is a perfectly acceptable answer to out of control government. We'll all disagree on where that line is and how often it has to be crossed before violence is called for, but that line is there somewhere.

And to Andy's point about "organization"

You generally want less organization in an insurrection.

While I agree that there's no immediate prospect of eliminating privately owned firearms, it's not hard to see why people worry about it. There're sitting U.S. Congressmen right now who've publicly expressed their desire to ban handguns entirely; that's not a small thing. One ill-chosen sentence from Dianne Feinstein on "60 Minutes" is grist for NRA fundraising until she's out of the Senate. One handgun confiscation proposal from John Conyers is enough to make gun enthusiasts eye him suspiciously for the rest of his career in politics.

If it's paranoia to think that there's imminent danger of a total civilian gun ban, it's equally irrational not to acknowledge that politicians have given gun owners reason for suspicion.

I think you're far overestimating the seriousness of those particular demagogues - they wanted government to oppress blacks and wanted to help oppress blacks themselves, but very few of them were willing to die for Jim Crow.

Then they sure changed a lot in the four generations after their forefathers showed en masse their willingness to.

Then they sure changed a lot in the four generations after their forefathers showed en masse their willingness to.

And of course there are no significant differences in the two scenarios, separated as they are by nearly 100 years.

We aren't losing in Iraq from want of firepower -- another point I'd hope would be obvious.

You just finished arguing, however, that rebellion is impractical because of that firepower.

I would tend to think that a government intent on keeping it's grip on the country would be more likely to resort to nuclear attacks and less concerned about collateral damage.

I'm not surprised that you cite Hollywood; that seems to be where most anti-gun people get their information about firearms

Well, Hollywood is also the only venue where crime victims smoothly draw their weapons and face down muggers and robbers.

Jesus Villahermosa makes many interesting points about defensive use of guns in the linked piece, prompted by the anniversary of the Virginia Tech shootings. Fantasy about how safe we'd all be if we were packing is brought up against many sober realities, in Villahermosa's article.

Just tangentially, I learned to shoot at a gun range in suburban Texas, and I took a concealed-handgun class. Most of my knowledge of guns comes straight from the NRA. I find target shooting to be interesting and have a lot of respect for trained handgun users. And I would as soon have a gun in my house as a bottle of cyanide Tylenol or a barrel of rattlesnakes.

And of course there are no significant differences in the two scenarios, separated as they are by nearly 100 years.

Yes -- the difference is that by 1965 they would have had zero chance to prevail even in the dreamiest of their imaginations.

Then they sure changed a lot in the four generations after their forefathers showed en masse their willingness to.

I would say yes to that.

And it should be noted, of course, that for the first century and a half of our republic, the primary purpose of arms control was to keep blacks unarmed.

Actually, gun rights activists have great sympathy for working people of color getting shot in the city, which is why we don't think the government ought to disarm them, leaving them at the mercy of criminals who don't obey gun laws.

Does that sympathy extend to the two-year-old whose house gets penetrated in a drive-by?

Whether it's punishment for my views or you're all making me sick, I'm suddenly overcome with nausea. Sorry to bail out on the discussion, but I'm off to lay down.

Yes -- the difference is that by 1965 they would have had zero chance to prevail even in the dreamiest of their imaginations.

Because there weren't enough people willing to do it. As Iraq has shown, our army can have great difficulties with an armed insurrection. These problems become greater when fighting in the US, not lesser - soldiers are going to be far less willing to fire on their adversaries and far more willing to join them in the event of a domestic insurrection.

Does that sympathy extend to the two-year-old whose house gets penetrated in a drive-by?

Yeah, I'm sure someone killing children in a drive-by-shooting is such an upstanding citizen that they would obey gun control laws.

"Murder someone? Of course I will! But I draw the line at illegally obtaining a weapon without a background check and waiting period!"

Whether it's punishment for my views or you're all making me sick, I'm suddenly overcome with nausea. Sorry to bail out on the discussion, but I'm off to lay down.

You really need to stop flavoring your coffee with DDT.

I would tend to think that a government intent on keeping it's grip on the country would be more likely to resort to nuclear attacks and less concerned about collateral damage.

Less concerned? Are you kidding me? When the US government starts showing the least concern for "collateral damage*" in Iraq, you let me know.

*And by the way the fact that you choose to refer to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people by this dismissive euphemism is disgusting.

And by the way the fact that you choose to refer to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people by this dismissive euphemism is disgusting.

That's simply an unavoidable side effect of war, however, not the army being particularly unconcerned with civilian casualties.

Were she running, this would harm Becki Farmer's campaign, I agree.

You're responding to a point I wasn't making, of course, and I suspect you're being deliberately obtuse. I was commenting on the obvious elitism of her comment, which is not dependent on whether she's running for office or not, and which points up the irony of those who hold *clearly* elitist views objecting to Obama on the basis of his allegedly elitist views.

If Becki Farmer really had the "good small town judgment" she trumpets, she wouldn't spell her name "Becki" at age 32.

That's simply an unavoidable side effect of war, however, not the army being particularly unconcerned with civilian casualties.

Do you know the ratio of civilian deaths caused by the US to civilian deaths caused by Iraqi "insurgents"?

My friends who are Democrats, many born in small towns, come off this way. That to be rural or small town is "wrong" and to be city is "right".

My roots/relatives are small-town Kentucky and Ohio, and I have two close friends who have relocated from LA to small cities in Indiana. I grew up in San Diego and went to college in Los Angeles. For years, even though I have no accent at all, when I have told people that I am from Kentucky originally, I have gotten "Kinn-TUCKEE" and Do Y'all date your cousins?" etc etc

That said, as Becki Farmer's quote indicates, superiority complexes flow in all directions, both ways. A few of my relatives visit CA, go to the beach, and talk about all the "freaks"; some of them ask me where "all the gays are" and "if it's safe there." The imagery here--Obama at the closed door fundraiser in gayland, musing about the desperate (cling to) small minded and powerless (bitter) violent (guns) bible-thumping (religion) schlubs in PA, is very bad. But I have heard the other side of it ad nauseum from Geoff Davis to Becki Farmer, so I am not that sympathetic.

The political problem, as DMN and many have noted, is that Obama sells himself as a crossover type, and Wright and the SF remarks, for many, poke a hole in that. Many scholars, with varying levels of insight and complexity, have written about the two historical branches of the black civil rights movement, assimilation, as emblematized in the popular mind by Jackie Robinson and MLK, and separatism, as emblematized by Malcolm X. After I saw Obama speak at the DNC in 2004, I told a mixed-race friend that the guy had a real chance to be the first black president, and I said, "He is like a Kennedy but not a white guy. The media and young people will go apeshit if he runs." And they did. I saw several people openly mock Obama supporters, incluidng Orinoco and Nieporent here, calling it "cultish" and a hard-core Hillarista I work with said, "People are acting like he is a combination of MLK and JFK. What a crock." That means he had a great chance to win.

So part of that package had to be Obama being firmly ensconsed on the MLK side of the ledger in the popular mindset. Wright compromised that. The SF remarks compromised him on another level, in that it seems to put him with the "liberal elite" that supposedly thinks "they're smarter than everyone else." But the guy is a talented pol, IMO the most talented in that regard of the three remaining candidates, so I think he can still get the job done. But it is going to be difficult.

As to gun control, this issue is one of those where I am pretty agnostic, in that I have certain traditional "gut liberal" responses to it, but realize that actual legislation will be a cost/benefit issue. Arva, a gun owner who was heavily involved in the last gun-control thread, had some good thoughts. My other take is that gun control debates are generally like education debates, in that everyone wants obvious things (safer streets, better schools) but the politics get so personal, nasty and divisive that it is hard to approach the issue. The discussions here have been pretty good.

Do you know the ratio of civilian deaths caused by the US to civilian deaths caused by Iraqi "insurgents"?

You're obviously dying to share it with us, so why don't you just go ahead?

Do you know the ratio of civilian deaths caused by the US to civilian deaths caused by Iraqi "insurgents"?

No, I don't, but I also know that we never killed 40,000 people in a single day like we did in Dresden.

JC, in the real world, who's going to organize such a "widespread" insurrection? Where would it take place? Point Barrow, Alaska? What grievance would it represent? What "government" would it be focused against? And how on Earth do you think that it could possibly survive the first serious counter-assault?

First off, couldn't one argue that our laws are more important for situations we don't anticipate rather than situations we do?

Sure, but that doesn't really answer my point, which was historical rather than ideological.

And secondly, the effectiveness of an insurrection is irrelevant to the issue. Otherwise, you could say the same thing about free speech - that extreme and unpopular political speech should be banned because it's ineffective at making a point.

Again, this ignores our history, at least since the Civil War. We have a long and honored tradition of free speech, however imperfect. We do not have much of a tradition of armed insurrection against any level of government, honorable or otherwise, beyond the Civil War, which was hardly the sort of insurrection JC was referring to.

-------------

If there were ever a time and place where armed insurrection might have been a real possibility, that was it. Yet nothing of the sort ever happened, because as many a southern demagogue had to admit, the Feds had all the (real) weapons. Your scenario is one of the purest fantasy scenarios I've ever read on BTF, and that's saying quite a bit.

LOL. What scenario? The one where an insurrection occurs and the military would have to go house to house as militaries do in such scenarios? It's interesting how in the South to which you point, the Southerners were only figuratively up in arms. Is it just possible they felt that wasn't a cause worth literally fighting over?

Again, come down to Earth for a moment. If the destruction of an entire region's most cherished set of social mores wasn't felt to be "worth literally fighting over," then please tell me what cause would be? Feel free to take as many Timothy Leary sugar cubes as you wish before attempting an answer. And you're going to need those sugar cubes, because you're venturing way, way into Fantasyland here.

Re getting one's hands on modern weapons, I just finished reading a history of the Afghan resistance to the Soviets and one of the many fascinating parts of that story was how late the mujahadeen got modern weapons and how far they got using outdated rifles, their knowledge of the terrain, local resistance, and recovered weapons. And to Andy's point about "organization", there was very little organization until the late stages of the conflict as initially the conflict was waged locally (and tribally).

There's no fantastic scenario here except the abstraction proferred by those who believe possession of modern weaponry by itself will put down an armed population. One imagines that, were anything remotely like this to happen, there would be significant desertion of the military and reluctance to use "the bomb." Even in Afghanistan, when the Soviets wiped out 10000s in cities in response to Afghan resistance victories, it didn't defeat the resistance, but galvanized it.

And now we're getting beyond Fantasyland. Wake me up when we get invaded by a foreign country. All I can say to that is that you've been reading too many Posse Comitatus comic books, either that or too much Tom The Dancing Bug. I hate to break it to you, but we're not living in Iraq or Afghanistan. And no armed insurrection is going to be able to protect us from airplanes flying into buildings.

And BTW, what sort of armed insurrections are you planning yourself these days? I promise I won't rat on you to my friends the Mooselims.

Does that sympathy extend to the two-year-old whose house gets penetrated in a drive-by?

Well, we'd better outlaw guns so that that never happens.

Oh come on!

Dresden wasn't ALL civilians. I'm sure there were a few German soldiers visiting their mothers on leave.

Less concerned? Are you kidding me? When the US government starts showing the least concern for "collateral damage*" in Iraq, you let me know.

The US government shows immense concern about collateral damage. If you want to know what lack of concern for collateral damage looks like, I suggest you take a gander at (what's left of) Grozny. (Or, since SBB brought it up, Hiroshima.) Don't let anger over the Iraq debacle lead to ridiculous claims.

Just so I'm clear on this...

Widespread armed insurrection in Iraq against the US military = unbeatable.

Widespread armed insurrection in the US against the US military = no chance of victory whatsoever.

Again, come down to Earth for a moment. If the destruction of an entire region's most cherished set of social mores wasn't felt to be "worth literally fighting over,"

That's your characterization. When the entire region's cherished set of social mores was actually threatened, it did fight, as we've already discussed.

Well, Hollywood is also the only venue where crime victims smoothly draw their weapons and face down muggers and robbers.

Spike TV has a show called World's Most Amazing Videos (narrated by Stacy Keach). Decidedly _not_ Hollywood; real life situations. They've shown several gas station and convenience store robbery attempts, captured, of course, by a security camera. The armed robbers show not the slightest regard for the life of the cashier (if the robbers had such regard, they wouldn't have armed themselves in the first place), and have no qualms about simply shooting the cashier -- even one who is trying to cooperate. The defense mechanism that is most effective for the cashier -- often the _only_ defense mechanism that is effective -- is when the cashier has a gun of his own. A gun is the only weapon that puts the cashier on equal footing with the robber. Often, it's the only weapon that will save the cashier's life.

Outlawing guns would take away a law-abiding victim's best path to defending himself. It would not, however, take the gun away from the criminal. Gun bans value the lives of criminals over the lives of victims.

And now we're getting beyond Fantasyland. Wake me up when we get invaded by a foreign country. All I can say to that is that you've been reading too many Posse Comitatus comic books, either that or too much Tom The Dancing Bug. I hate to break it to you, but we're not living in Iraq or Afghanistan. And no armed insurrection is going to be able to protect us from airplanes flying into buildings.

Yes, because The Way Things Are Now are The Way Things Will Be Forever. Ask the Romans or Byzantines how a lack of imagination as to what the future could bring how that worked out for them.

Dresden wasn't ALL civilians. I'm sure there were a few German soldiers visiting their mothers on leave.

Contrary to some revisionist accounts, Dresden was an important military target. It was a manufacturing, transportation, and communications center.

Spike TV has a show called World's Most Amazing Videos (narrated by Stacy Keach). Decidedly _not_ Hollywood; real life situations. They've shown several gas station and convenience store robbery attempts, captured, of course, by a security camera. The armed robbers show not the slightest regard for the life of the cashier (if the robbers had such regard, they wouldn't have armed themselves in the first place), and have no qualms about simply shooting the cashier -- even one who is trying to cooperate.

I am shocked and appalled that you would suggest that an armed robber willing to kill wouldn't display the utmost piety and reverence for gun regulations.

Just so I'm clear on this...

Widespread armed insurrection in Iraq against the US military = unbeatable.

Widespread armed insurrection in the US against the US military = no chance of victory whatsoever.

You might want to pass that point on to JC.

Again, come down to Earth for a moment. If the destruction of an entire region's most cherished set of social mores wasn't felt to be "worth literally fighting over,"

That's your characterization. When the entire region's cherished set of social mores was actually threatened, it did fight, as we've already discussed.

Both JC and I were referring to the 1960's, not the 1860's. And anyway, IIRC the Civil War was seen by its instigators as a "war between the states" rather than any private insurrection.

But granting your example for the sake of argument, I'll leave it to you to judge as to whether the Civil War is exactly a compelling argument against gun control.