# BloodSuckers, HCI, Clinton and the needed Interpretation **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 14, 2000, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bloodsuckers-hci-clinton-and-the-needed-interpretation/17883 "2000-03-14T01:14:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2000, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bloodsuckers-hci-clinton-and-the-needed-interpretation/17883/81 "2000-03-24T05:54:00Z")
Let’s see, ignoring for the moment the simple truth that A before B does not imply causation and any questions about exactly what “established gun control” meant in each instance, is it possible to find other similarities in the cases mentioned? In 1929, the Soviet Union was ruled by a totalitarian regime. In 1911, Turkey was ruled by a totalitarian regime. In 1938, was ruled by a totalitarian regime. In 1935, China was ruled by a totalitarian regime. I am not familiar with the details of Guatemalan history. Perhpas someone eldse can supply them. In 1970, Uganda was ruled by a totalitarian regime. In 1975, Cambodia was ruled by a totalitarian regime (which in this one case had no part in passing the gun control laws in the first place). Of course – none of this is necessarily relevant to the question I asked. I asked for support for the often asserted idea that registration will necessarily lead to confiscation. Hint: if you wish to argue historical precedent you will need data about the population of all countries which have required firearms registration and the subset of those countries which have sunsequently confiscated all registered weapons. I am not sure why you felt it necessary to post instances in which governments have committed attrocities against populations under their control. I have certainly not argued that no government has ever done bad things to its citizens. * * * - The best lack all conviction The worst are full of passionate intensity. \* ---
**Author:** ![Spiny\_Norman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de0a6/32.png) [@Spiny\_Norman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiny_Norman)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2000, 9:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bloodsuckers-hci-clinton-and-the-needed-interpretation/17883/82 "2000-03-24T09:34:00Z")
Thanks, Spirit - I had problems with that list, but didn’t know how to phrase it. Freedom: You might want to add a number of countries to the list: most West European countries, Japan etc. I still haven’t heard about the Danish Secret Police rounding up anyone - and we’ve had gun control since 1945. That’s 55 years … What I’m trying to say is: It’s possible to run a democratic and free nation without having to arm the citizens. It CAN be done. I have NO idea whether it’s the right solution for the US - having read some of the gun control threads, I’ve more or less come to believe that it’s not, and that our cultures have bigger differences than I’d imagined. (Damn, I’ve learned something). Anyway, what I think about it is mostly irrelevant, it’s your issue to handle. Ok, my point: It annoys me quite a lot when people make a broad statement along the lines of: “Every nation with gun control is a tyranny or will arguably become one”. There’s a couple of us unwashed furriners who like to think otherwise and who’ll try to keep our countries free and our societies as unarmed as possible. Norman (Oh, and just to make sure nobody thinks I’m a New Age pain-in-the-ass who’s scared of things that go “bang”: I’ve done quite a lot of target shooting, served a year in the regular army and kept a Home Guard H&K G3 in my home since 1984 - except for the two years when I had a light machine gun instead.) ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2000, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bloodsuckers-hci-clinton-and-the-needed-interpretation/17883/83 "2000-03-25T02:33:00Z")
A light machine gun? Is that anything like a light saber? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![CalifBoomer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f1d935/32.png) [@CalifBoomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalifBoomer)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2000, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bloodsuckers-hci-clinton-and-the-needed-interpretation/17883/84 "2000-03-25T02:39:00Z")
Spiritus Mundi: > [@](#): > > Let’s see, ignoring for the moment the simple truth that A before B does not imply causation and any questions about exactly what “established gun control” meant in each instance, is it possible to find other similarities in the cases mentioned? Very good. You’ve gone part of the way, so keep thinking. A before B does not prove causation, but B surely wouldn’t have happened had A not been in place. The totalitarian governments to which you referred-could they exist in the absence of stringent gun control? There you go. ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2000, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bloodsuckers-hci-clinton-and-the-needed-interpretation/17883/85 "2000-03-25T04:10:00Z")
CalifBoomer: If you have no answer for the questions, it would save time if you simply say so. Is it your position, then, that there has never been a totalitarian regime that did not enact strict arms control _before_ coming to power? That is an entirely different question, of course, but if you are unable to answer my questions and wish to hang your reasoning on that particular peg we can discuss it. * * * - The best lack all conviction The worst are full of passionate intensity. \* ---
**Author:** ![CalifBoomer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f1d935/32.png) [@CalifBoomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalifBoomer)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2000, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bloodsuckers-hci-clinton-and-the-needed-interpretation/17883/86 "2000-03-25T04:24:00Z")
Spiritus: Sure, just explain what your point is in making the point the aforementioned were all totalitarian governments. No doubt they had many things in common. Or are you simply denying that gun restriction can lead to oppression? ---
**Author:** ![CalifBoomer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f1d935/32.png) [@CalifBoomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalifBoomer)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2000, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bloodsuckers-hci-clinton-and-the-needed-interpretation/17883/87 "2000-03-25T04:28:00Z")
Spiritus Mundi: > [@](#): > > I asked for support for the often asserted idea that registration will necessarily lead to confiscation. For your information, registration has been in place for many years. I really don’t know what else you’r talking about. ---
**Author:** ![CalifBoomer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f1d935/32.png) [@CalifBoomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalifBoomer)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2000, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bloodsuckers-hci-clinton-and-the-needed-interpretation/17883/88 "2000-03-25T04:31:00Z")
Spiritus Mundi: If you’re trying to prove that prohibition of private firearms ownership will substantially decrease crime, you’ve chosen an indefensible position. Just what _is_ your point? (if any) * * * “Buy a gun – piss off a liberal” ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2000, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bloodsuckers-hci-clinton-and-the-needed-interpretation/17883/89 "2000-03-25T04:42:00Z")
You just quoted the relevant passage, CalifBoomer. Here – let me highlight it even further: > [@](#): > > registration **will necessarily** lead to confiscation. (bolding added) As to your next post: > [@](#): > > If you’re trying to prove that prohibition of private firearms ownership will substantially decrease crime, you’ve chosen an indefensible position. I might have a better chance if I decided to demonstrate that CalifBoomer’s were behind the curve in reading comprehension. Will you kindly call to my attention anywhere in this thread (or others) where I have advocated prohibiting firearms to competent citizens? My initial point was simply that there is a middle ground to this debate, but it is often obscured by the vehemence and fallacious reasoning of the extremes. I appreciate your providing me this support. * * * - The best lack all conviction The worst are full of passionate intensity. \* ---
**Author:** ![Neenah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/958977/32.png) [@Neenah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neenah)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2000, 11:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bloodsuckers-hci-clinton-and-the-needed-interpretation/17883/90 "2000-04-04T11:54:00Z")
Freedom, you asked if the 686 only comes with a 6" barrel. It’s available with barrel lengths of 2 1/2, 4, 6, and 8 3/8 inches. Incidentally, it’s also available with a 7-shot capacity. That’s what I’ve got. Now, back to your regularly scheduled program… ---
**Author:** ![CalifBoomer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f1d935/32.png) [@CalifBoomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalifBoomer)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2000, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bloodsuckers-hci-clinton-and-the-needed-interpretation/17883/91 "2000-04-04T13:04:00Z")
Spiritus Mundi: > [@](#): > > My initial point was simply that there is a middle ground to this debate, but it is often obscured by the vehemence and fallacious reasoning of the extremes. I appreciate your providing me this support. “Middle ground” is the territory occupied by those with neither courage nor conviction. “Extreme” is a code word used by the left. You think a literal interpretation of the Constitution is ‘extreme’? I think it means what it says. "The **right** of the people to **keep** and bear arms **shall not be _infringed_** :: :: ---
**Author:** ![Boris\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/fbc32d/32.png) [@Boris\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boris_B)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2000, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bloodsuckers-hci-clinton-and-the-needed-interpretation/17883/92 "2000-04-04T20:45:00Z")
> [@](#): > > “Middle ground” is the territory occupied by those with neither courage nor conviction. Yeah, the real problem with David Owen, Ross Perot, Nelson Mandela, Jose Napoleon Duarte, and Dwight Eisenhower is that they lacked courage and conviction. (That sentence was intended ironically.) > [@](#): > > “Extreme” is a code word used by the left. So the term “extreme left” is only used by leftists? > [@](#): > > You think a literal interpretation of the Constitution is ‘extreme’? Yes. Communist agents are people, and nuclear arms are arms. It’s pretty extreme to intepret the U.S. Constitution to mean that the government cannot infringe the right of communist agents to keep and bear nuclear weapons on U.S. territory. > [@](#): > > I think it means what it says. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” I do too. I also think the Constitution means what it says about Congress having the power “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia”, meaning all private armed citizens. Licensing, training mandates, and safety requirements seem like reasonable ways to organize and discipline private armed citizens, but I suppose the courts would make the final decision. ---
**Author:** ![Boris\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/fbc32d/32.png) [@Boris\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boris_B)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2000, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bloodsuckers-hci-clinton-and-the-needed-interpretation/17883/93 "2000-04-04T20:52:00Z")
Congress also has the power (Article I, Section 8, Clause 15) to create a process for calling out the militia. You can’t call people out if you don’t know who they are, so Congress obviously has a right to create an exhaustive roster of gun-owners. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2000, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bloodsuckers-hci-clinton-and-the-needed-interpretation/17883/94 "2000-04-04T20:52:00Z")
CalifBoomer wrote: > [@](#): > > “Middle ground” is the territory occupied by those with neither courage nor conviction. Yeah, like the Framers of the Constitution, for instance. Those spineless yellow-bellied delegates were willing to give in to having a single president (Jefferson wanted 3 of them, to impose checks and balances within the executive branch itself), a bicameral legislature (to appease both the high-population and the low-population states), and having a slave count as 3/5 of a person. That whole Constitution was just one great big pile of middle-ground compromises. Feh. Let’s burn it to the ground. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Freedomx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4af34b/32.png) [@Freedomx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freedomx)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2000, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bloodsuckers-hci-clinton-and-the-needed-interpretation/17883/95 "2000-04-05T01:17:00Z")
I think I would be hard pressed to call the framers of the COnstitution “moderates.” They were extremists through and through. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bloodsuckers-hci-clinton-and-the-needed-interpretation/17883.md?page=4)