I've never actually engaged with anyone on the gun issue, and I certainly don't want to start a whole thing, but out of genuine curiosity:

Is the desire to maintain the freedoms associated with gun ownership part of a larger project of maintain all freedoms. In other words, it's not so much that freedom to own guns is important, so much as any kind of freedom.

Or is there a concern that a society that restricts gun ownership is particularly dangerous.

I guess those two motivations aren't necessarily distinct from one another.

For me, it's both. Freedom isn't simply about having prosperity and it damned sure isn't about safety. It's simply about freedom. I think, taken as a whole, a more free society will both be more prosperous and more safe. However, it won't be uniformly safe nor always prosperous. And there will be things that a more controlled society will do better than a less controlled one. I certainly don't argue some sort of anarchic utopia.

In practical terms, I've lived in rural Oklahoma where guns are simply part of life. People grow up with them, learn to use them and do use them in the acquisition of food - not that that is where all their food comes from, obviously. I've also lived in Baltimore where they mostly did damage. The idea that gun laws should be the same in the two places is, to me, absurd. However, I don't think a farmer in Oklahoma, a really good shot who knows a lot about guns and makes his own ammo should be allowed to own a tank. I also don't think a well trained individual in Baltimore should be prohibited from owning a shotgun. Like many things, a rational, coherent policy probably can't be formulated on a message board. In the end, I think more freedom will be, net, good.

Doesn't the quote in [8500] assume that Wal-Mart workers won't strike as well? They've already started doing that, despite fierce union-busting from Wal-Mart.

my perceived odds of needing to take up arms against the government in my lifetime have gone from 0 to like .000001%. That's a pretty big relative increase.

Some would say it's infinite.

I know a lot of people that didnt cross the lines in the Sac area when this was going on. The scary part about the strike is what was mentioned in this paragraph:

Hey, don't worry. If Obama's promised amnesty goes through, those legal low-skilled workers will have even more competition for their jobs, and Raley's' competitors' costs might even be even lower than they are now.

[8504] Isn't the amnesty for the already-employed? Isn't that competition already there? Fewer illegal jobs create upward wage pressure, not downward.

Does anyone named Robinred want to count up the number of liberals on the past couple of pages vs. the number of non-liberals?

So, this is the second time this week that you have called me out by name in a discussion I wasn't involved in. Basically, for various reasons, some of which are obvious, the righties here, except for you and Kehoskie, aren't posting much or at all at the moment. One of them
publicly bowed out of these discussions quite some time ago.

I could name them, but I think it would be better for you, as sort of a memory exercise, to see how many you can remember.

[8504] Isn't the amnesty for the already-employed? Isn't that competition already there? Fewer illegal jobs create upward wage pressure, not downward.

Not when there's already an excess of low-skilled labor.

Amnesty might create upward wage pressure in industries that rely heavily on illegal-immigrant labor and suddenly face a labor shortage, but it will also send some formerly illegal laborers into the wider job market (e.g., from the fields into stores like Raley's), thus creating competition for the current low-skill workforce.

Yes it is. The US is a Democracy.

Strike two.

Good, well-reasoned argument that response.

Are you going to pretend that liberals haven't been in favor of gun control, or of the nonsensical "collective" interpretation* of the Second Amendment?

You mean liberals like Wyatt Earp and Bill Hickok?

Tell me: is it your position that the Second Amendment when it was enacted, as you interpret its meaning, was also to apply to states?

Do you know if there were laws, state and local, that place restrictions on guns, use and possession, before the Second Amendment? Did the Second Amendment change any of them?

Good, well-reasoned argument that response.

If I can't needle Bitter Mouse (and Lassus), who can I needle?

Tell me: is it your position that the Second Amendment when it was enacted, as you interpret its meaning, was also to apply to states?

It is, indeed.

What justifies such a reading?

What justifies such a reading?

The 14th amendment and a 2010 Supreme Court case. Joe can hardly be faulted for the fact he was right 219 years before the Supreme Court.

8315. Bitter Mouse on atheists arguing the IRS must punish 501c3s (in this case, religious organizations) involved in political campaigns.

I'm begging this lawsuit goes forward. I'm begging the IRS tries to enforce the Johnson Amendment. I'm begging that they stop using as a scare tactic and give standing for a religious organization to challenge the law.

It was convenient of the founders to write the 14th Amendment in early like that.

Latest e-mail from my favorite right wing pool playing buddy, edited only for length.

*THAT THING* was edited for length?!

Well, it was written by a Rabbi, and you knew how Jews love to argue. They're almost as bad as Norwegians.

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

It is true that many states and cities have very restrictive gun laws, of the sort that a fair reading might find unconstitutional. However, the idea that the Democrats are "after the guns" is ludicrous. I think a lot of their supporters would like them to be - I would believe it if you said "Andy" or "Zonk" or "Robinred"* wanted to ban private ownership of guns.

For the record, I believe in the REGISTRATION WITH EXTENSIVE BACKGROUND CHECKS and ownership of revolvers for self-defense, and rifles for hunting.

OTOH it's a very low priority on my laundry list, slightly above a Koch Brothers show trial but considerably below forcing phony non-profits to disclose their donors' names if they want to run attack ads.

I also respect the Supreme Court's far broader interpretation of the Second Amendment, but would hope for some of those decisions to be reversed in the future.

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

Does anyone named Robinred want to count up the number of liberals on the past couple of pages vs. the number of non-liberals?

What is it, 20 to 2? 25 to 2?

Well, what do you expect, when liberals hire note taking Black Panthers?

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

OK, if 51 percent of the House and Senate vote to reinstate slavery and then the bill is signed into law by the president, will that result be OK since it was "democratically" enacted?

Sure, since by the time it gets passed and signed, the slaves will all be Republicans, and the geezers on the Roberts court will all have been replaced by young and fit community organizers. No escape hatches there.

"Go fetch my mint julep, Joe!"

"Peel me a grape, Ray!"

"Better tighten up on that Borax, David, those teeth of yours aren't as white as they should be! Gotta keep up those property values!"

What justifies such a reading?

Among other reasons, the fact that adult males were required to own firearms in many early U.S. states.

Beyond that, the idea that the founders intended or believed Second Amendment gun rights could immediately be written out of existence by any or all of the 13 states is fairly absurd. Add in the fact that many early state constitutions incorporated the same or even more explicit individual gun rights, and the whole idea that people misunderstood the Second Amendment for 200 years is little more than fantasy.

***

The 14th amendment and a 2010 Supreme Court case. Joe can hardly be faulted for the fact he was right 219 years before the Supreme Court.

Or, it took that long to reach the Supreme Court because there was little debate about the Second Amendment until the mid-20th century.

Or, it took that long to reach the Supreme Court because there was little debate about the Second Amendment until the mid-20th century.

Even the first amendment wasn't incorporated until the 1920s, I think. Honestly, I was only ribbing you a little. In retrospect, most of the bill of rights should have been applied to the states from the beginning with the benefit of the wisdom of hindsight -- including the second amendment.

It's just, legally speaking, that didn't even begin to happen until the 1920s. (That's even a good deal after the ratification of the 14th amendment.)

Among other reasons, the fact that adult males were required to own firearms in many early U.S. states.

This in no way indicates that a state couldn't ban guns if they wanted to, prior to the 14th. The Bill of Rights also explicitly denies the conflation of church and state, yet early states had religious test laws all over the place.

This in no way indicates that a state couldn't ban guns if they wanted to, prior to the 14th.

A "well regulated militia" without guns. Good stuff.

Among other reasons, the fact that adult males were required to own firearms in many early U.S. states.

So, the Second Amendment did allow the States to pass laws regulating the use and possession of guns?

Could the National Government have passed such a law?

Beyond that, the idea that the founders believed the Second Amendment gun rights could immediately be written out of existence by any or all of the 13 states is fairly absurd.

This isn't 1787 and there is much the founders didn't envision, don't you think? Why should that be absolutely dispositive. They didn't envision the privacy concerns of cellphone users either. Many rights of the arrested/detained/accused weren't envision. That the states would be bound to grant these rights is only about 50 years old--they didn't envision that either.

Are we locked into 1787 absolutely and forever? Nothing that has happened since then (a Civil War, legislation, judicial interpretations, executive and administrative acts) matters?

Add in the fact that many early state constitutions incorporated the same or even more explicit individual gun rights, and the whole idea that people misunderstood the Second Amendment for 200 years is little more than fantasy.

So you're back to admitting that states have indeed regulating guns.

Or, it took that long to reach the Supreme Court because there was little debate about the Second Amendment until the mid-20th century.

Guns have been regulated before the Second Amendment, after, and since. Sometimes making for easier access, sometimes making it more difficult or more restrictive (see my Wyatt Earp and Bill Hickok examples). Right? So, what's the problem?

Well, now there's at least one thing we can all agree on:

Access to contraception is a universal human right that could dramatically improve the lives of women and children in poor countries, the United Nations announced Wednesday in a new report.

It is the first time the U.N. Population Fund's annual report explicitly describes family planning as a human right.

Now that the UN has weighed in, I'm sure the problem will be solved in no time.

@8485 Joe was asked directly if he believed Americans had the right to own and carry grenade launchers.

@8486 Joe answered "(Serious answer: No.)"

Joe Kehoskie believes the right to keep and bear arms should be regulated by the federal government.

Are we locked into 1787 absolutely and forever? Nothing that has happened since then (a Civil War, legislation, judicial interpretations, executive and administrative acts) matters?

With respect to stuff of which the Framers were well aware, the correct instrument of change is a constitutional amendment. This is not analogous to cellphones.

What's your authority for that pronouncement?

So, the Second Amendment did allow the States to pass laws regulating the use and possession of guns?

Other than among some libertarian militia members, the "regulation" part isn't in question. The issue is the ability of government to ban the possession of firearms.

This isn't 1787 and there is much the founders didn't envision, don't you think? Why should that be absolutely dispositive. They didn't envision the privacy concerns of cellphone users either. Many rights of the arrested/detained/accused weren't envision. That the states would be bound to grant these rights is only about 50 years old--they didn't envision that either.

Are we locked into 1787 absolutely and forever? Nothing that has happened since then (a Civil War, legislation, judicial interpretations, executive and administrative acts) matters?

As I said on the last page, a constitutional amendment is the remedy here for liberals who want to fundamentally change the nature (or existence) of gun rights in America.

So you're back to admitting that states have indeed regulating guns.

Right, regulating, not banning.

Guns have been regulated before the Second Amendment, after, and since. Sometimes making for easier access, sometimes making it more difficult or more restrictive (see my Wyatt Earp and Bill Hickok examples). Right? So, what's the problem?

The problem is when "more difficult" becomes "impossible." For several decades in D.C. and Chicago, for example, a gun permit was "unobtainium."

As I said on the last page, a constitutional amendment is the remedy here for liberals who want to fundamentally change the nature (or existence) of gun rights in America.

Either that, or change some votes on the Supreme Court, which may be a bit easier.

Right, regulating, not banning.

Now if only you could get the NRA crowd to see the difference between those two concepts, we might be getting somewhere.

What's your authority for that pronouncement?

The current supreme court would agree with the statement that unambiguous principles in the constitution, applied to unambiguous facts, should be applied absolutely.

Stepping back from that, the above princple is the definition of the rule of law. If not true, then the Constitution is of minimal value. How would it limit anything? You would always argue that the rule shouldn't apply now because of X, Y, and Z.

Even supporters of a living constitution don't futz with the unambiguous application of its rules. By your logic, if modern society seemed to be better served by a pure popular-vote election, we could switch to that with no need for a constitutional amendment.

Other than among some libertarian militia members, the "regulation" part isn't in question. The issue is the ability of government to ban the possession of firearms.

So, to your mind, "banning" and "regulating" are like macro and micro-evolution to the creationist mindset? There's a categorical difference--it's not a matter of mere degree. The greater cannot be derived from the lesser?

Again, what's the justification for that? What's your authority for holding that as an abosolute?

The problem is when "more difficult" becomes "impossible." For several decades in D.C. and Chicago, for example, a gun permit was unobtainium.

That's not stating an absolute universal principle--that's a reason for having one law being good, or better, one way or the another, and is what the political process is about and takes care of. You have your input; others have theirs. Some laws are bad; some are good. That in and of itself doesn't make them prohibitive ab initio.

I am anti 2nd amendment and anti gun law. What does that make me? Heck, I am not even anti grenade launcher. Blowing people (or for that matter, things) up is already illegal.

So, to your mind, "banning" and "regulating" are like macro and micro-evolution to the creationist mindset? There's a categorical difference--it's not a matter of mere degree. The greater cannot be derived from the lesser?

As discussed on the last page, there can't simultaneously be a constitutional right to x and a complete ban of x.

8527:

That's an argument (and a vague and general one at that), not authority.

Be that as it may: your holding that the Second Amendment is unambiguous?

Or does this reference the cellphones? For it does, they have most definitely often extrapolated from instances and cases. I mean, Jeez, how can you deny that? Just take the jurisprudence on when warrantless searches are justified, what constitutes a search, a detainment, an arrest. Yeah, that's all clear

By your logic, if modern society seemed to be better served by a pure popular-vote election, we could switch to that with no need for a constitutional amendment.

I bet there is a way to work that out. The SC has contorted principles and precedent a lot more than you concede. Everything is a popular vote--even with the court. Only there the electorate is nine.

And there are no absolutes.

There's only a position where it takes a miracle of sorts to overturn a SC decision.

As discussed on the last page, there can't simultaneously be a constitutional right to x and a complete ban of x.

That's only if the rule is an absolute one.

The First Amendment, unlike the Second Amendment, can be seen as being definitely cast as an absolute right that cannot be impinged upon. "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...." There's no conditional language here, unlike with the Second Amendment. How's that worked out throughout our history? Any laws abridging speech?

Much of the high-toned language about imperishable principles in the Constitution needs to be taken with a grain of salt--like with the Bible. They're just general pulpit proclamations. They are always abridged.

You obviously don't like the slavery example, so I'll go back to my question from the last page: If 51 percent of voters vote to confiscate 98 or even 100 percent of the wealth of the other 49 percent, would that be OK because it was democratically decided? If not, how and where do you draw the lines when it comes to taxation, "fairness," and property rights?

Well I am not a Constitutional lawyer, but I do believe in the process. I also believe that civil disobedience against immoral laws is more than OK.

So like I said before there is no governmental system that will ensure moral laws. That responsibility lies with an engaged citizenry. So you trust the process and you trust the citizens. That is where I draw the line.

If I can't needle Bitter Mouse (and Lassus), who can I needle?

Hey, I can't speak for Lassus, but the needling did not bother me.

I may have missed something, but is the same person who is insisting upon a literal, unevolved reading of the 2nd Amendment also saying that the Supreme Court shouldn't be listened to?

8531 - the Second Amendment is a classic example of an ambiguous constitutional provision. Which is why the cases cut both ways. But your argument, that in essence precedent and constitutional principles can be stretched to fit whatever you need to cover, is at odds with the way the Court actually operates (particularly with the decisions that get less media attention). It also eviscerates the rule of law and replaces it with equitable principles. Because equity is in the eye of the beholder, a society ruled by law is more protective of rights of all sorts (of the gun AND equal protection variety). The Constitution itself provides for a mechanism to change itself, if its unambiguous rules grow archaic. You are confusing the very reasonable, if highly debated position that ambiguous principles in the constitution (most famously equal protection) should be interpreted liberally and in conformity with modern mores, with a radical and nearly universally disfavored view that the ENTIRE constitution, both broadly worded principles and clearly defined rules, should be treated as malleable.

I may have missed something, but is the same person who is insisting upon a literal reading of the 2nd Amendment also saying that the Supreme Court shouldn't be listened to?

Why would that be incongruous?

Why would that be incongruous?

I'm honestly not sure, I'd have to give it more thought, but it really seems a bit anarchic.

I may have missed something, but is the same person who is insisting upon a literal, unevolved reading of the 2nd Amendment also saying that the Supreme Court shouldn't be listened to?

That seems like an internally consistent position to me. If you don't need to do any interpretation, why do you need a Supreme Court?

Does anyone named Robinred want to count up the number of liberals on the past couple of pages vs. the number of non-liberals?

What is it, 20 to 2? 25 to 2?

Does it matter? I mean we (Liberals) can't make everyone else post. It is what it is. But that is why I value you and Joe - you both jump in.

So, this is the second time this week that you have called me out by name in a discussion I wasn't involved in.

Maybe it means he trusts you?

You obviously don't like the slavery example, so I'll go back to my question from the last page: If 51 percent of voters vote to confiscate 98 or even 100 percent of the wealth of the other 49 percent, would that be OK because it was democratically decided? If not, how and where do you draw the lines when it comes to taxation, "fairness," and property rights?

In either case, the slavery example or confiscating wealth, when would it be okay and when wouldn't it be? If in a tribal community, it is judgment of the governing body of elders, say, as well as the consensus of the members of the tribe, that that elephant you killed today will be shared among everyone in the tribe, is that wrong? You're working here with some unexamined, taken-for-granted assumptions (what's confiscated, what's what you owe to the community for being a member of the community?). It's not as cut and dry as black and white as your hypos would have it--but then hypos are like that, unlike reality. Even right and wrong has to be seen in a context.

As discussed on the last page, there can't simultaneously be a constitutional right to x and a complete ban of x.

But what if a local community or state decides to prevent people with criminal records or mental disease from owning guns? Those people are banned from having weapons.

Also, if you ban certain types of weapons (belt fed machine guns, grenade launchers) then you have banned those as well.

But your argument, that in essence precedent and constitutional principles can be stretched to fit whatever you need to cover, is at odds with the way the Court actually operates

That's not exactly my view, or only my view. Saying "stretched" adulterates my position, which is that they have to be taken into account. They tell us something; they mean something. The Supreme Court is not a brain in a vat, and nor do principles exist completely isolated from all context. In fact, it's the exact opposite. And, simply put, part of context is the way we have done things, reacted, and addressed matters. If we have acted a certain way with regard to a certain matter, that should say something about what we think of the problem and how it should be resolved. A text without an interpreter looking at it within constraints is impossible and will be just as distorting as anything else. There has to be a method. And reverting to a let's go back and look at how the founder's really wanted it is not going to get you there. Plus it's dishonest. For one thing, the Founders are not gods. Their views are disparate and do not bind but rather only persuade. For another, you can't know with certainty what they "meant" as a whole. What did Marx say: history first plays out as tragedy then repeats itself as farce? Trying to determine what the Founders meant in their context two hundred years ago is farce.

It does not eviscerate the rule of law. Determining constitutional matters of law does not have to be determined in the way that has developed in this country. Lesser matters of law aren't. If you say, fine, but still we need to follow the procedures set forth when it comes to constitutional matters, my answer is that is not how the Supreme Court actually has acted throughout history. It has changed the constitution--it has been loose, amorphous, and encompassing in its interpretations. It has not waited for amendments. Moreover, its position is one it has carved out for itself. It has arrogated to itself this special--I would say overweening--place in our politics. There are formal ways of doing things, but there is also (and always) a folk way. The Supreme Court has used both, and played one against the other for its advantage. And it's great part of why our system is so ######.

This has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. It has to do with the way people and groups of people will act, if allowed to do so.

But what if a local community or state decides to prevent people with criminal records or mental disease from owning guns? Those people are banned from having weapons.

There's a big difference between banning convicted felons or the mentally ill or 8-year-olds from having firearms and banning everyone from having firearms.

Speaking of socialism, oh nerd friends of mine, I have a question about that should be right in the wheelhouse here with the WWII and the libertarianism and the everything else.

Facebook has a recent picture going around of Winston Churchill with this quote, gotten to my feed most recently from someone once removed, from a freeper of the highest order who could have written one of the crazy things on the I TOLD MY WIFE TO DO THESE THINGS bit pages ago. Some of you have most assuredly heard it:

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

Now, I thought I would look for the source of this quote. There seems to be none, but many many people have it as "Winston Churchill, as quoted by Adrian Krieg in the The New American Newspeak Dictionary."

Adrian Krieg, it turns out, has also written such measured, thoughtful works as VALE: The Illuminati and Their Plans for the Future.

I don't necessarily doubt that Churchill, having spent time in Cuba and fighting the Nazis, would have tossed that off in a speech somewhere. But I can't find WHICH speech. Granted, I've only spent 15 minutes looking for the ACTUAL source of him saying it, where and when, and I'm coming up empty. Seeing as how Churchill came up with The People's Budget, chock full of wealth redistribution, I do wonder what the hell the context for the quote is.

Any thoughts, anyone, anywhere?

Back to banning versus regulating: that's a good point. I wish it were taken seriously by gun rights absolutists.

However, consider this: suppose that there is place whose environment is volatile. Say that Indian reservation (there was a segment on NPR today) where an oil company (or companies) literally dump their petrochemical waste in creeks and in a pit about the size of a football field. Can the government, federal or state, ban all firearms in the area?

There are no absolute rights. The government can even discriminate on a racial basis in certain cases. We saw this with Korematsu. Always making it seem as if what you believe is on the order of Moses fresh from the mountain with his tablets is a mug's game. It always ends up being like Monty Python's 'What Have the Romans Done For Us' skit. It absolutely prohibits--what about this--well, other than that--what about this--other than that and this....etcetera etecetera.

There's a big difference between banning convicted felons or the mentally ill or 8-year-olds from having firearms and banning everyone from having firearms.

Case closed. Once you start temporizing your absolute, it's over.

Case closed. Once you start temporizing your absolute, it's over.

What case is closed?

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

I don't necessarily doubt that Churchill, having spent time in Cuba and fighting the Nazis, would have tossed that off in a speech somewhere. But I can't find WHICH speech. Granted, I've only spent 15 minutes looking for the ACTUAL source of him saying it, where and when, and I'm coming up empty. Seeing as how Churchill came up with The People's Budget, chock full of wealth redistribution, I do wonder what the hell the context for the quote is.

Indeed. Given that Churchill's Collected Works take up 38 volumes plus 8 fat volumes of speeches, I'm sure you can find more than a few quotes somewhere along those lines, since before he became an accommodating Tory he was a not-so-accommodating Tory. But it's telling that once he was re-named Prime Minister after the election of 1951, he didn't utter a peep about abolishing the National Health Service, and in fact domestically Churchill governed very much like a Social Democrat. He wouldn't have lasted a minute in a Tea Party convention, and 99% of the American conservatives who light cigars in his memory would likely flee the country in horror if some of his domestic policies were introduced here today.

The restrictions placed on our gun ownership are ridiculous. I hate to see the U.S. in 10th place in gun-deaths per capita. Without the restrictions, I'm sure we could climb to at least 7th.

Country Total firearm-related death rate Homicides Suicides Unintentional deaths Year Sources and notes
Colombia 51.77 51.77 NA NA 2000 UNODC 2000[1]
El Salvador 50.36 50.36 NA NA 2009 OAS 2011[2]
Jamaica 47.44 47.44 NA NA 2009 OAS 2011[2]
Honduras 46.70 46.70 NA NA 2007 OAS 2011[2]
Guatemala 38.52 38.52 NA NA 2009 OAS 2011[2]
Swaziland 37.16 37.16 NA NA 2004 UNODC 2006[2]
Brazil 14.15 10.58 0.73 0.28 1993 Krug 1998[3]
Panama 12.92 12.92 NA NA 2010 OAS 2011[2]
Mexico 12.07 9.88 0.91 1.27 1994 Krug 1998[3]
United States 10.27 4.14 5.71 0.23 2004-2006 CDC[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Speaking of socialism, oh nerd friends of mine, I have a question about that should be right in the wheelhouse here with the WWII and the libertarianism and the everything else.

Sam and Andy, I'll let you guys take this one, since Lassus directed the question to you.

If 51 percent of voters vote to confiscate 98 or even 100 percent of the wealth of the other 49 percent,

Yes, but since this would never happen, so what?

Side note linking Churchill to Babe Ruth: One of the last sets of Churchill's Collected Works that I sold, in 1990, was to a grandson of Mark Koenig, the Yankees / Cubs shortstop who was the focal point of the bench jockeying war between those two teams in the 1932 World Series, that eventually led to Babe Ruth's called shot home run. About a month after Koenig's grandson bought the set, he sent me a letter telling me that he'd been looking for it for years, and that at $3500 it had drawn his bank account down to less than $100. Now that was a Churchill fan.

The restrictions placed on our gun ownership are ridiculous. I hate to see the U.S. in 10th place in gun-deaths per capita. Without the restrictions, I'm sure we could climb to at least 7th.

Only 7th? You liberals and your soft bigotry of low expectations.

I understand if we were all hard-working conservatives, we could compete with Columbia and El Salvador.

Now, I thought I would look for the source of this quote. There seems to be none, but many many people have it as "Winston Churchill, as quoted by Adrian Krieg in the The New American Newspeak Dictionary."

People have a tendency to credit Winston Churchill with anything that sounds even remotely clever. If it's not in his published writing, it's probably not true.

I understand if we were all hard-working conservatives, we could compete with Columbia and El Salvador.

That chart has a lot of old info. There's no way Colombia is No. 1 in the world these days. Among others, the socialist paradise next door is far more violent.

People have a tendency to credit Winston Churchill with anything that sounds even remotely clever. If it's not in his published writing, it's probably not true.

The website of the Churchill Centre and Museum in London has a page devoted to quotes that are often misattributed to Churchill. Here's the most blatant one:

"Conservative by the time you're 35"

"If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain." There is no record of anyone hearing Churchill say this. Paul Addison of Edinburgh University makes this comment: "Surely Churchill can't have used the words attributed to him. He'd been a Conservative at 15 and a Liberal at 35! And would he have talked so disrespectfully of Clemmie, who is generally thought to have been a lifelong Liberal?"

Thanks for the link, Andy. I've been searching the site's MUCH BETTER THAN OURS search feature, and still absolutely nothing. I wonder now if Krieg himself made it up, or if it was quoted even prior to that. Very interesting.

Thanks for the link, Andy. I've been searching the site's MUCH BETTER THAN OURS search feature, and still absolutely nothing. I wonder now if Krieg himself made it up, or if it was quoted even prior to that. Very interesting.

Given how many websites and commentators have claimed to "know" that Eric Holder "knew about" Petraeus's e-mails in late Summer, when the source for all of those websites and commentators was a single attribution to anonymous "U.S. officials", I never put anything past people with a bee in their bonnets.

I would say that Mark Twain is credited with more stuff that's not his than anyone. Because he said and wrote a lot of great quotable stuff, if it's droll, cynical or misanthropic, it has to be his.

Snopes even commented on this:

Mark Twain didn't say it

In the list of gun deaths per capita, I initially misread "Swaziland" as "Switzerland" and wondered how being neutral led to gun deaths.

As best I can find online, Churchill said:

Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy.

in a speech to the Scottish Unionist Conference at Perth, Scotland on May 28, 1948.

It appears he later said:

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.

in a speech to the House of Commons in 1952.

But this is all based on some cursory internet research, I'm not finding original copies of the speeches.

Snopes even commented on this:

Mark Twain didn't say it

Snopes has also commented on the phenomenon of Churchill quotes. I mean, you have to go back to Usenet, but still.

(It is just barely possible that I'm trying to avoid doing real work)

Even supporters of a living constitution don't futz with the unambiguous application of its rules.

Wrong.

"Congress shall make no law . . .abridging the freedom of speech". Aside from Hugo Black, nobody has ever in fact accepted that "no law means no law".

If it wasn't Churchill or Twain, it must have been Yogi.

That also depends on what Churchill really meant by socialism, I'm guessing that back then people didn't differentiate between socialism and communism in the way they do today. There's a huge gap between, for instance, the USSR and modern-day Sweden. If Churchill said something like that I'd assume that he was referring to something more like communism.

In the list of gun deaths per capita, I initially misread "Swaziland" as "Switzerland" and wondered how being neutral led to gun deaths.

In Switzerland, they actually have a well regulated militia, and as a consequnce, basically everyone owns a gun. They're fourth on Guns per capita list, also from our friend Wikipedia - of course, here's where everyone starts chanting "USA! USA! USA!"

That also depends on what Churchill really meant by socialism, I'm guessing that back then people didn't differentiate between socialism and communism in the way they do today. There's a huge gap between, for instance, the USSR and modern-day Sweden. If Churchill said something like that I'd assume that he was referring to something more like communism.

Well, if he'd spoken those words in 1952 that wouldn't have been true, since by that time every real socialist and social democrat in the western world had made the distinction clear. And even in the United States, a red-baiter would've used "Communist" as a scare word. For a Joe McCarthy, calling an opponent a "socialist" wouldn't have had much sting.

If Churchill had spoken those words earlier in his career, though, especially in the 1920's, it would have been more ambiguous. Socialist parties in the West were beginning to split over the issue of the Russian revolution, and the Soviets themselves were using "socialism" and "communism" almost interchangeably, which often could lead to some confusion on the part of those who didn't follow those intra-left wing feuds too closely.

8520. Don't confuse the UN assembly for UN organizations. Especially when that organization is staffed by radical Malthusians and funds supporting activities for various country's coerced sterilization and abortion programs.

Ah, thanks, Guapo - do you have a link for where you found the references to those speeches as the source.

The Second Amendment sums it up nicely:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


Like I said, I haven't put a great deal of thought into guns, but the experience of my entire life, lived thus far in two states that I consider to be free, tells me that that isn't necessarily true.

Do nations with stricter gun laws that America not count as free states?

I don't mean this to be as combative as I'm sure it sounds...what is the perception of the gun laws of other nations from advocates for gun freedom?

GregUK - BBrianson sort of beat me to it, but the case of Switzerland is likely what the Framers had in mind regarding the Second Amendment. I'm going from memory, so don't jump down my throat if I'm not 100% correct, but all fit adult males are required to do military training and are considered part of the country's militia, even if they aren't in the active military. All are provided with rifle to keep in their home. Many women also volunteer, but they are not conscripted like men. As a result, at least 2/3 of the adult population are proficient marksmen with a rifle in their home. Not the kind of country that is likely to be invaded or that would allow any kind of totalitarian government to take hold.

Not the kind of country that is likely to be invaded or that would allow any kind of totalitarian government to take hold.

Because the government doesn't have - or have access too - anything better than rifles?

Because the government doesn't have - or have access too - anything better than rifles?

Well if someone wanted to blow the #### out of their own country and kill a good portion of its labour force I'm sure it could, but that wouldn't necessarily work. Have you not heard about the war the in Afghanistan these last 10 years? A force of common people fighting for something they believe in and hold dear will always be stronger than a simple accounting of their weaponry.

A force of common people fighting for something they believe in and hold dear will always be stronger than a simple accounting of their weaponry.

Which is why I am not convinced that having a gun in every home is very helpful. I think the spirit (for lack of a better word) matters more than the weapons.

Well a spirt with a gun is more effective than one with nunchuks.

Hey, I can't speak for Lassus, but the needling did not bother me.

Lassus can take a needle.

you guys should have been involved in the script update of red dawn

I'm anxiously waiting for zombie George Carlin to emerge from the grave and wreak a terrible vengeance on all the online jpg'ers who slap random, usually lame "quotations" over his photo.

GregUK - BBrianson sort of beat me to it, but the case of Switzerland is likely what the Framers had in mind regarding the Second Amendment. I'm going from memory, so don't jump down my throat if I'm not 100% correct, but all fit adult males are required to do military training and are considered part of the country's militia, even if they aren't in the active military. All are provided with rifle to keep in their home. Many women also volunteer, but they are not conscripted like men. As a result, at least 2/3 of the adult population are proficient marksmen with a rifle in their home. Not the kind of country that is likely to be invaded or that would allow any kind of totalitarian government to take hold.

Sounds just like Obama. More free government gifts to buy voters.

OBAMA, CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS TO MEET ON `FISCAL CLIFF'

The mental image I got when I read this amused me.

Wow...the GOP is really going nuts on this Benghazi thing. This is like Plamegate in reverse with all the manufactured outrage coming from the Halls of Congress.

GregUK - BBrianson sort of beat me to it, but the case of Switzerland is likely what the Framers had in mind regarding the Second Amendment.

Oh definitely, I can certainly see how guns in the hands of a properly training citizenry can be a good thing for a nation. I'm just not sure it's necessary for a free state. Maybe I'm just naive and complacent.

Interestingly enough apparently there was a referendum last year in Switzerland on gun laws.

I'm a little fuzzy on it...the wiki article is a bit vague, but it seems to have been about restricting gun possession by holding them in central arsenals rather than individual homes. It was defeated with 56% of the vote.

A force of common people fighting for something they believe in and hold dear will always be stronger than a simple accounting of their weaponry.

As long as you are not fighting Nazi Germany. The Afhganis, like Blanche Dubois, are depending on the kindness of strangers--that the US will not act as a brutal repressor, for reasons that have to do with how it wants to be viewed by the world.

As it is somewhat germane to the topic, in looking up the Swiss referendum I came across this site. I'm not sure who puts it together, but its a regular update on all elections of any kind around the world. It's latest post deals (in some depth) with municipal elections in Brazil, Chile, Finland, and Sicily. Just poking around, there was a 22,000 word essay posted about the Quebec provincial elections earlier this year. It appears to be mostly written by the same person too...my God it is a prodigious output.

EDIT: The best part of the site are the posts under the heading "fake elections". Which mostly deal with Russia. His post on the 2010 election in Belarus is introduced nicely, "President Alexander Lukashenko, avid skiier, held an electoral-type event in Belarus on December 19."

I think there are a few million Afghans, Iraqis, Yemenis and Pakistanis who would be deeply offended by your assertion that the US is not a "brutal repressor".

I think there are a few million Afghans, Iraqis, Yemenis and Pakistanis who would be deeply offended by your assertion that the US is not a "brutal repressor".

You're not satisfied with the "at least we're not Nazis!" defence?

I think Joe K should stick to second amendment arguments, he's managed to string together several logically cohesive posts and is leading that debate fair and square (imho of course, ymmv).

If it wasn't Churchill or Twain, it must have been Yogi.

"I never said most of the things I said."

So, my two cents on gun control and the Second Amendment.

The first question I would ask is does the right to bear arms in Second Amendment reflect an actual fundamental human right? It's a Constitutional right, but slavery was protected by the original Constitution, so a Constitutional right does not necessarily reflect a fundamental human right. After careful consideration, I think the answer is yes. So then what is the fundamental right protected by the Second Amendment? What right, necessary to a free democratic society, does it represent?

The usual answer by conservatives is that it reflects the fundamental right to self-defense. You need guns to protect yourself against a tyrannical government, or against casual brigandage. This is a useful argument, as almost all liberals recognize a right to self-defense, but is inadequate by itself as the right to self-defense doesn't mean a right to any and all means of self-defense.

The problem with this conservative argument is that if the right to bear firearms specifically (as opposed to other kinds of weapons) in self-defense is so important that somebody with the right to self-defense who is able to own a gun is significantly more free than somebody with the right to self-defense who cannot own a gun, then the logical conclusion is that somebody who is unable to own a gun for economic reasons is as deprived of liberty as somebody who is unable to own a gun for legal reasons. And yet I have never seen the NRA promote legislation that would create government subsidy of gun ownership of the poor, nor has it established any voluntary charities for the distribution of guns (for those who are more skeptical of interventions by the state). That would dramatically increase the liberty of the populace, but it isn't in any way an objective. Indeed, if gun ownership is a critical protection against tyranny, then we ought to see the NRA championing the distribution of guns to peasants and the urban poor of authoritarian regimes such as Burma, Yemen, or Liberia. And yet we don't.

The reason is that the poor is exactly who conservative gun-rights advocates fear the most. It is they that they want to defend themselves against. That's why Switzerland is referenced so positively. It is a nation mainly consisting of white, middle-class citizens. But the NRA would never support the creation of urban non-white militias. As is so often the case, libertarianism here means the defense of white male privilege. I conclude that gun supporters don't really think that gun ownership enhances liberty in and of itself. One could also note that far from tyranny generally being imposed from above, in the modern age at least most totalitarian movements rise from below. Mao came to power by arming the peasants, not disarming them. Other authoritarian regimes frequently rise to power with the support of an armed paramilitary force, such as the Brownshirts, the Blackshirts, the Revolutionary Guards, or what have you.

The second fundamental right that is often proffered as a justification for the Second Amendment is the right to support oneself. They point out that in many rural areas, hunting is an important supplement to the diet and firearms also are needed to keep away animal predators from livestock. Which is certainly true, but it's also clear that most of the population isn't in such a situation. The NRA would never have acquired its current power if it had limited itself to advocacy of rural hunting rights. So while I agree that traditional lifeways ought to be respected, that is a contextual right rather than a truly universally applicable right. Is there anything more to the Second Amendment?

I think there is. The fundamental right represented by the Second Amendment is the right of all able-bodied citizens to bear arms in defense of the country. That this is a right and not just an obligation of a democratic citizenry is due to the fact that military power is even in a peaceful democratic society a very potent source of power. We can see this in the struggles of free blacks to claim the right to fight for the Union in the Civil War. We can see its echoes in the battle to allow gay men and women the right to serve in the armed forces. If you are denied the ability to serve, you are denied access to a lever of power. Fighting and dying for one's country gives one a powerful emotional claim on that nation's people for justice and equal rights.

Now, was this the intention of the founders in drafting the Second Amendment? Partly yes and partly no. Certainly they wanted to ensure that there would be an alternative to a standing army, which they wanted to avoid. But since they themselves violated that objective by forming a standing army, I don't think that their intentions should be treated as Holy Writ. They didn't treat their intentions that way themselves. So I am comfortable interpreting the Second Amendment in a way that protects the fundamental right of all citizens to serve in the armed forces, but not necessarily the way that Second Amendment proponents tend to interpret it. As I show above, they themselves don't really believe their own arguments.

I also don't think a well trained individual in Baltimore should be prohibited from owning a shotgun.

Heigh-ho, the derry-o, indeed.

I think there are a few million Afghans, Iraqis, Yemenis and Pakistanis who would be deeply offended by your assertion that the US is not a "brutal repressor".

there are brutal repressors and there are BRUTAL REPRESSERS

our conduct towards civilians etc., in the places you mention is not nearly as bad as it was in Vietnam, which wasn't nearly as bad in areas that Japan occupied in WWII which wasn't quite as bad as some areas occupied by Nazi Germany in WWII

or to return to more recent regional history- our conduct has not been as nearly as brutal as say, Hafez Assad's forces' conduct in Hama in 1982... or even the conduct of Russian Force in Grozny and environs in the 1st Chechen War

I think there are a few million Afghans, Iraqis, Yemenis and Pakistanis who would be deeply offended by your assertion that the US is not a "brutal repressor".

Try to see and address the point. All "brutal repressors" are not the same--in quality or degree.

You're not satisfied with the "at least we're not Nazis!" defence?

My comment had nothing to do with defending the United States's behavior. It had to do with the extent of rebellion in relation to the degree its oppressor was willing to use brutality.

My comment had nothing to do with defending the United States's behavior. It had to do with the extent of rebellion in relation to the degree its oppressor was willing to use brutality.

I should probably note that I agree with that point, and the larger one of there being degrees of brutality.

Just never pass up an opportunity for snide comments!

I think Joe K should stick to second amendment arguments, he's managed to string together several logically cohesive posts and is leading that debate fair and square (imho of course, ymmv).

What is that logically cohesive argument?

there are brutal repressors and there are BRUTAL REPRESSERS

:>) I'm drafting "lessor-lessee" stuff right now. It's infected my Chomskian universal grammar.

Lassus can take a needle.

- golf clap -

The problem with this conservative argument is that if the right to bear firearms specifically (as opposed to other kinds of weapons) in self-defense is so important that somebody with the right to self-defense who is able to own a gun is significantly more free than somebody with the right to self-defense who cannot own a gun, then the logical conclusion is that somebody who is unable to own a gun for economic reasons is as deprived of liberty as somebody who is unable to own a gun for legal reasons. And yet I have never seen the NRA promote legislation that would create government subsidy of gun ownership of the poor, nor has it established any voluntary charities for the distribution of guns (for those who are more skeptical of interventions by the state). That would dramatically increase the liberty of the populace, but it isn't in any way an objective. Indeed, if gun ownership is a critical protection against tyranny, then we ought to see the NRA championing the distribution of guns to peasants and the urban poor of authoritarian regimes such as Burma, Yemen, or Liberia. And yet we don't.

Great, you've now given the NRA yet another peachy new idea to turn us into Baghdad West. The only thing you left out was their finders' fee.

The reason is that the poor is exactly who conservative gun-rights advocates fear the most. It is they that they want to defend themselves against. That's why Switzerland is referenced so positively. It is a nation mainly consisting of white, middle-class citizens. But the NRA would never support the creation of urban non-white militias.

What, you mean that conservatives didn't support these guys or these folks? I would have sworn....

If the U.S. is a democracy, why would the Supreme Court have the power to overrule democratically enacted legislation?

Because we voted that into the Constitution?

God knows I've quoted Jefferson on the matter often enough. But go ahead. Find the bit in the constitution that says the Supreme Court gets final say.

Basically the Supreme Court asserted that it had final say and it has stuck.

Now I have to say that Jefferson's proposed solution is almost certainly unworkable.

My comment had nothing to do with defending the United States's behavior. It had to do with the extent of rebellion in relation to the degree its oppressor was willing to use brutality.

Fair enough, but since the Afghans have never been conquered by anyone in recorded history, and the US certainly din't "win" in Vietnam, I don't think we can assume they would have eventually capitulated if the US had become even more brutal in their tactics. If enough people believe in something strongly enough to fight to the death for it, there's not much you can do.