# Did Gore "shoot" himself in the ballot box? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 14, 2001, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gore-shoot-himself-in-the-ballot-box/76125 "2001-08-14T01:06:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2001, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gore-shoot-himself-in-the-ballot-box/76125/121 "2001-08-27T04:52:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by 2sense \* > **Anthracite’s description of how to amend the [Constitution](http://www.movieprop.com/OtherInterests/Political/usconstitution.htm) is incorrect. (snip)** So is your main objection in this case because I used the word “only”? > [@](#): > > **More importantly, Anthracite overlooks the most fundamental manner for changing the Constitution. > The mercantile and landed elite that decided to break from the old country justified their action by positing a natural right of The People to “_alter or to abolish_” the current regime. That this claim to democracy was hypocrisy ( as Adams famously alludes to ) is unimportant. This democratic right is the theoretical underpinning of our system. The People can change their government and they don’t need to follow the old rules to do so. Did our secession conform to British law? Of course not. Nor was the Constitution constitutional. It violated the [Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union](http://www.constitution.org/cons/usa-conf.htm) ( check the last articles of both documents ).** IANAL, and am confused by this. It almost seems as if you are saying that we can change the Constitution without following the guidelines set forth in the Constitution itself. Is that the case? And has that ever been done after 1800 in the US? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2001, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gore-shoot-himself-in-the-ballot-box/76125/122 "2001-08-27T06:09:46Z")
Yes, **Una**. I wasn’t contradicting you just to nitpick; I was using Article V to lead into my main point. I did choose “incorrect” rather than “incomplete” due to your use of “only”. My point is that our system recognizes the right to change the Constitution without following its guidelines. The Constitution is founded on this democratic right ( thus “We The People” ). Whether it will happen again or not depends on the muscle of those seeking change. Only if they are powerful enough to get their way will change occur. Of course at that point it is moot whether the previous government recognized the right, or for that matter whether the new regime is popular enough to be considered democratic or not. I wouldn’t say that this right has been exercised since 1787. I did say that an argument could be made that this occured in 1937 but I have never seen anyone do so nor would I. I don’t often get into strict v loose debates because I feel that construction is overrated in our judicial system. What I think should matter is precedent. I oppose the idea of judicial activism ( though I’m not above seeing the benefits of the occasional liberal decision since I’ll be paying the price for decisions based on originalism ). The courts should apply the law rather than seek to create it. Writing the law is the job of the representatives we elect for that purpose. * * * Just my 2sense _We are pious toward our history in order to be cynical toward our government_ - [Garry Wills](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684844893/qid=977866020/sr=1-4/104-1528190-7528723) ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2001, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gore-shoot-himself-in-the-ballot-box/76125/123 "2001-08-27T12:05:23Z")
That’s a fair criticism, **2sense**. My use of “only” was indeed not 100% correct. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2001, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gore-shoot-himself-in-the-ballot-box/76125/124 "2001-08-27T21:36:59Z")
**Elvis:** > [@](#): > > When they’re caused by items that are intended to cause deaths, it’s not a stretch to say that a higher percentage of those deaths are preventable, and should be prevented. And herein lies the great difference: you seem to feel that restrictions upon instrumentality will have the efect you desire, whereas most of us in the pro-gun side do not, or a limited one at best. People commit crimes. Guns don’t fire on thier own; cars don’t speed or engage in road rage without drivers, drugs don’t sneak up on people and into their bloodstreams. By addressing and eliminating the underlying causes of the anger, greed and what-not driving the human impulses to pick up a gun and act out, you reduce the violence inherent in the society. I never claimed it would be easy, but the net long-term effect, IMO, will be more beneficial than incrementally restrictive gun control half-measures advocated by an agency with the avowed aim of eliminating private ownership of firearms. > [@](#): > > As if you’d own a weapon without ever even considering the possibility of using it? Are you suggesting that there should be licenses to fire guns, but not to own them? If you’re going to use analogies, please do so reasonably. I was using the analogy reasonably, but under the false assumption that we’re on the same sheet of music. My analogy of carrying concealed was to driving on public roads. Obviously, if I’m licensed (a permit holder) to carry concealed, then forethought has gone into the distinct possibility of having to draw and fire (operate) in public. FYI: in many western states, farm-use only vehicles get temporary tags just to get them to the farm/ranch, where they are never again licensed. This is one of those things you gotta be out on a farm in the country to know, most likely. _This_ is analogous to my taking my firearms to private property (as most shooting ranges are) to shoot [operate] recreationally. If I own sufficient land, I can sit on my back porch (unincorporated rural areas) and fire (operate) my firearms until the ammo runs out, w/o needing a license or any other form of state sanction. > [@](#): > > No, it’s been aimed at limiting the consequences of either misuse or accidents, whoever is responsible. Which laws, which devices, have been installed into my car to prevent me from speeding? From succumbing to road rage and ramming someone? From deliberately running a pedestrian down? None. Only laws that punish those actions, and then rely upon my inherent sense of worth to _not_ commit those acts, so as to _not_ get caught and prosecuted, thus surrendering personal liberty. If I have no regard for personal liberty (or haven’t considered the consequences) then there is nothing to prevent me, legislatively or mechanically, from engaging in criminal behavior with an automobile. Same with the firearms. There are already sufficient laws in place to deny firearms to the wrong sorts; to allow law enforcement to track firearms and apprehend criminal sellers and purchasers. Opposition to new laws needn’t be on ideological grounds. Take mandatory storage and mandatory trigger locks? How do you propose that those laws be enforced _proactively_ to _prevent_ misuse, theft and accidents? Without stepping all over the 4th Amendment? IMHO, they cannot; they can only be used _reactively,_ that is in response to an incident that has already transpired. Thus the emphasis by us pro-gun types that basic education and training (another recent Gun Control thread) raises the level of awareness and consequence _prior_ to any act taking place. Essentially, as I see it, we both agree that prevention is the cure; but the manner and implementation of our respective methods of prevention are in dispute. > [@](#): > > You left out hunting and target shooting. As for the other item, I would suggest that “subjective value judgments” are what the entire debate is about - if you’d rather not go there, that says a great deal. Because subjectively speaking, it turns into “he said/she said/they said”. When discussing a national policy which will effect approximately 50% of the American population, I much prefer objectivity and facts, such as they may be found here-and-there. If _you’d_ rather not go there… > [@](#): > > Gotta use some kind of shorthand. What term would you suggest instead? How about pro-gun? pro-rights? anti-control? > [@](#): > > If everyone thinks it’s a good idea, where are they? Somebody is fighting regulation, responsible or not, right? You assume the opposition is against the legislation because they propose safe storage and use of trigger locks? Again: consider implementation of such laws; the 4th Ad. implications of mandatory storage laws and mandatory trigger locks. How will it be enforced proactively, as most pro-control types want? Remember, the goal is to _prevent_ accidents and misue. Not every 2nd. Ad tpye is _just_ about guns; having spent a lot more time around them than you have (I’m quite willing to bet), I can say with considerable confidence that it is a quite small minority. Thus the NRA, the 2nd Ad. Foundation, the CCRKBA and others oppose such laws. It has nothing to do with the practical use of trigger locks or storage devices. > [@](#): > > Sure. All we have to do is eliminate poverty and crime will go with it. Even then, you’re qualifying it with “hopefully”. Are you word-picking just for the fun of it? No, I’m trying to see a way to reduce criminal misuse of firearms without undue restrictions upon the members of society who can behave themselves. If the need for instruments of violence for criminal purposes are reduced or eliminated, the need to restrict, infringe or even suspend the rights of free citizens goes with it. > [@](#): > > No, citizens exercising their rights, and working for the betterment of society, is something the anti-gun-control lobby claims for itself. Are you saying that people who disagree with you don’t have the same rights and responbilities of citizenship, but should just shut up? My Hypocrisometer is flashing red. That must be due to your proximity to it. You will not find extravagant claims about “what all Americans want” coming out of Chuck Heston’s mouth. Sweeping claims by Sarah Brady that “all Americans want sensible gun control” is factually correct without revealing that her version of sensible gun control is the elimination of firearm ownership by private citizens. H.C.I.'s now just smart enough to _not_ come out in the open and say it anymore, which would leave them with a vastly depleted membership and support base. They are instead content to whittle, one law at a time, at the 2nd Ad. Licensin, registration, mandatory storage, mandatory trigger locks, restrictions by type, caliber, _appearance,_ etc., all add up to eventually the only gun you can own is the non-functioning replica from _Sharper Image_ to set upon your shelf. > [@](#): > > Where the hell did you get THAT from anything ANYONE has said here? Sorry, my editing wasn’t up to snuff. It should have read like this: [quote] Copout. The anti-control platform is based on fear of what might happen. When presented with an example of what has happened, in as similar circumstances as you’ll find, it’s incumbent upon them to address it. Otherwise, it looks like simply denying any facts which are inconvenient. > [@](#): > > Copout? Tell that to Prof. David Kopel, NYU School of Law. He wrote a book about it called “The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies?”, named 1992 Book of the Year by the American Society of Criminology Division of International Criminal Justice. And he’s about as ardently pro-gun as you’ll find. There are major differences historically and socially between us and Canada, much less us and England. > > I’d rather be accused of denying or otherwise ignoring incomplete or inconsistent data than of outright fabrication (“43 times” and “13 children a day”). > > And, if you listen to “international opinion” the U.S.A. is either horrible, horrible people for tolerating so much crime; or we’re horrible, horrible people for locking up so many violent criminals. Basically, we’re just horrible, horrible free people, so no matter what we do, we’re pissing somebody off somewhere. > > Tough shit, I says. > [@](#): > > Yes, and citing somebody else’s copout doesn’t help. What do YOU think? What ARE the relevant differences, IYHO, that invalidates an inconvenient comparison? If you’ve thought about it yourself, you must have some idea. Of course. The differences seem less when discussing Canada, but they are there. But let me address England and Japan. Both have long feudal histories, where the common people (peasants) were denied the use and possession of arms, where obediance to your lord and master was mandatory. Or else. Those who owned and possessed arms were the nobles; the elite, the educated and wealthy. Or, like the Samurai, the elite warrior caste, beholden to a liege lord and no one else. Or Australia: a penal colony. Of course there wouldn’t be widespread use of firearms. Who the hell wants a country of criminals armed? The British troops and settlers, perhaps, had them. But again, you have wealthy land owners and professional soldiers, while the commoners (convicts, ex convicts and the decendants of them) largely did without. With a vastly desolate interior and an indigenous population even more primitive than the native Americans, their frontier culture is a mere shadow of ours. And all three are fairly ethnically and religiously homogenous. Even the differences between Catholic and Protestant is _still_ a bone of contention in the U.K., and they’re essentially the same religion, with minor points of difference doctrinally. Now America has dozens of ethnic groups: Anglo, Scots and Irish (with their historical animosities); Frech, Germans, Poles, and Italians (with their historical animosities); Russian\*\*\*\*\*, Lithuanian, Georgian, Estonian and Finn (with their historical animosities); Chinese, Japanes, Korean, Vietnamese, Thai, Cambodian and Phillipine (with their historical animosities) perhaps hundreds. Catholics, Protestants (of every stripe), Orthodox (Greek and Russina), Jews, Muslims, Animists… Have you ever casually suggested to a Puerto Rican that there’s not much difference between them and Mexicans? Or Cubans? If so, how are the new teeth doing? How’s about going into an Irish Pub and, in an English accent, shouting “God Save The Queen!” I’ve seen Irish Pubs _in America_ with donations jars for the I.R.A. Calling the militias “terrorists” is a sure way to get an extended stay in an I.C.U. There are historical, social, political and cultural differences that may invalidate the policies of one applying to another. Most have feudal/autocratic histories, and culture based upon it (the Russians just substituted one set of autocrats with another in their revolution). The Brits _still_ venerate the royal family to superstar status. Outside the Northeast, the Kennedy’s are just another bunch of wealthy degenerates. \*\*\*\*\* Considering the scope of the Russian Empire (and the Soviet Union) you can just about guarantee that any country whose name ends in “-stan” hates ethnic Russians, Beylorussians and Georgians. Hell, the Georgians don’t even like the Russians. I’m also getting extremely pissed at your cavalier dismissal of _any_ pro-gun source while quoting H.C.I. chapter and verse. I (and others) have cited from FindLaw, the Supreme Court, U.S. Code, quotes and exerpts from the people who wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the extensive research conducted by the F.B.I. and the Centers For Disease Control and at least one legal scholar, and you have yet to even address them, much less refute them. Your free ride’s over. Don’t make me pull out Cecil on your ass. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2001, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gore-shoot-himself-in-the-ballot-box/76125/125 "2001-08-27T21:53:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ExTank \* > \*\* > Of course. The differences seem less when discussing Canada, but they are there. But let me address England and Japan. Both have long feudal histories, where the common people (peasants) were denied the use and possession of arms, where obediance to your lord and master was mandatory. Or else. Those who owned and possessed arms were the nobles; the elite, the educated and wealthy. Or, like the Samurai, the elite warrior caste, beholden to a liege lord and no one else. > \*\* Sorry to disagree with you ExTank (and contribute to the hijack, but in England, at least, there is a tradition of weapon ownership by the common people. In fact, at times in England, weapon ownership and training were mandatory. You see sports like tennis being outlawed because it’s taking time away from weapons training. The feudal levy, which was the concept that everyone owed military service upon request to their lord, developed into the millitia system enshrined in English common law (and passed over to America), where everyone had an obligation to bear arms for the state. ---
**Author:** ![Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c67d28/32.png) [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weird_AL_Einstein)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2001, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gore-shoot-himself-in-the-ballot-box/76125/126 "2001-08-28T00:12:19Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \* > \*\* > How about simply having to pass a basic test to get a driver’s license, something gun owners generally don’t have to do? Please stay with facts._\* _This_ just sets my teeth on edge. I undertook at great length in [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=74735&pagenumber=2) to quash the ridiculous idea that there is a valid analogy to be made between driver’s licenses and gun licenses. Yet here we are, just two months later, and already it’s popping up again. You have already gone back and forth with **ExTank** on this a little. Nevertheless, as this is a particular pet peeve of mine, either go read that thread, or so help me I am gonna hijack _this_ one to disabuse you and anyone reading this thread of that absurd notion. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \* > \*\* > But cars are meant for practical purposes, and the goal is to minimize misuse to make them safer for everyone._\* You avoided **ExTank** ’s question here, and I don’t believe he has called you on it, so I am going to. Why not agitate to prevent auto manufacturers from making cars able to go higher than the highest speed limit? And while we’re at it, why not lower those speed limits? Both of these things would save lives, more than would be saved with any gun control proposals on the table. Aren’t you in favor of saving lives? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \* > \*\* > But most guns in existence are _intended_ to be able to hurt or kill people. \*\* Another fallacy. I have asked this question before, and not gotten an answer, perhaps you will be so kind. If guns can only be used to kill people, why do police officers carry them? ---
**Author:** ![Doc\_Nickel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5fc32e/32.png) [@Doc\_Nickel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doc_Nickel)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2001, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gore-shoot-himself-in-the-ballot-box/76125/127 "2001-08-28T07:26:40Z")
Originally posted by ElvisL1ves ## _“But most guns in existence are intended to be able to hurt or kill people.”_ **Or** maybe to help _prevent_ people from being hurt or killed. Or maybe to _stop_ those in the process _of_ killing or hurting a person. To use your logic, all matches were designed and intended to start fires. Fires are bad, they cause death, injury and major damage. So let’s get rid of matches? Put it this way: A criminal bent on mayhem WILL have a weapon. Read that again: A crook, robber or rapist **WILL** have a weapon to do his (or her) dirty deed. That weapon may be a gun, it may be a knife, it may be a machete, a slingshot, a baseball bat or a length of heavy chain. It could be a broken table leg, brass knuckles, an aluminum MagLite. The weapon could be a car, a broken beer bottle, a stick, a screwdriver, nunchuks, a broomhandle or a rabid dog. Various bad guys have also used forks, shards of glass, fenceposts, used syringes, rolls of quarters, lamp cords, molotov cocktails and golf clubs as weapons. Perhaps most often of all a criminal will use what’s legally known as “disparity of force” as his weapon- he’s bigger, stronger, more hopped-up on drugs or even just has the element of surprise. Maybe he has better “street fighting” skills or is simply acting more agressive. The typical example is the stereotypical 280lb man attempting to rape the 120lb woman. But disparity of force can also encompass the 120lb man- up on drugs or just with surprise and adrenaline on his side- attacking a 280lb man from his blind side. The criminal WILL have his weapon, whatever that weapon may be. Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. A law which bans or severely restricts firearms, affects only those who obey the law. So what would that leave us? That’s correct: The criminals still have all the weapons they had before, except that now, the Joe Average Victim can no longer carry the best, most effective all-around countermeasure to a personal attack. Now how smart is that? ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2001, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gore-shoot-himself-in-the-ballot-box/76125/128 "2001-08-28T22:34:19Z")
**Captain Amazing:** Are you referring to the acts of King James II? How long did it go on? Why was it abandoned around the beginning of the 20th Century? Why were Britons advertising in American newspapers during WW II for individual Americans to sell them their firearms? There may have been a tradition around the 17th & 18th Century, during the Catholic/Protestant troubles, but it doesn’t seem to have made much of an impact, culturally speaking, on today’s mass of Britons. **Elvis:** I’m now also calling upon you to address both mine and **Anthracite’s** posts concenring the english definition of militia, 10 USC 311 “classifications of the militia”, the Selective Training and Service Act, and their relation to the evident definition of the militia as evinced by Hamilton in **The Federalist Papers,** and his other contemporaries. As far as I’m concerned, this debate is over until you have addressed them with something more credible that your personal disdain. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-gore-shoot-himself-in-the-ballot-box/76125.md?page=6)