Y’know, there should be a variation of Godwin’s Law that says "In a gun control debate, the minute someone implies that Guns are a “penis substitute” or “you’re afraid that without your guns you’ll be deprived of your manhood” or any other variation on the “guns=penises” theme, they’ve lost.
Tell me, Spavained:
#1) Since you’re apparently an adherent of Freud (guns being a phallic symbol and all), do you believe in the rest of Freud’s theories? Penis envy, immature orgasms, etc? Or just this one concept that guns=penises. (For that matter, how do you reconcile your phallic beliefs about guns with the fact that Anthracite is a woman?)
#2) Let’s grant your proposition for a moment and assume (for the sake of argument only) that guns ARE a penis substitute. What does it say about you, who resents the fact that others have penises?
This is a good thing regardless of the reason for it, because it means that it is somewhat less likely that private gun ownership will be greatly restricted. This means it is less likely that Americans ( on both sides) will die in the ensuing conflict.
It does seem out of character, since Ashcroft is generally statist, but there isn’t much correlation between a person’s views on firearms rights and on other issues.
Fenris, I didn’t bring up the gun = penis thing. It came up when Ex-Tank announced that (by a convolution of logic I did not follow) that any suggestion that the Second Amendment did not afford an individual right to gun ownership deprived him of his dignity and rubbed his face in it. I can’t imagine that he was talking about anything else and the Edsel analogy sprang to mind. I can well imagine a situation that there is a personal connection between self worth and firearms, after all: some men are big/ and some men are small/ but Colonel Colt/ made all men equal, and power comes from the barrel of a gun. That said, there does seem to be a psychological aspect to the vehemence of the reaction to my suggestion that reasonable minds may think that the Second Amendment has something to do with the militia.
My problem through out this defeugelty has been that we have a reading of the Constitution that seemed pretty well settled, which the US gov’t now sees fit to seek to change for commercial and electorial reasons. I think the change has been procured by a well financed public relations campaign designed to appeal to a streak of paranoia in a big hunk of the electorate. On further consideration, I don’t think that a change in view by the courts (which has not happened and may never happen) will result in any change in the ability of the gov’t, national, state or local, to regulate gun ownership and use. It seems to me that any move by the gov’t to further restrict firearms will run into real political trouble but that restrictions now in place will probably pass constitutional muster even under the stricter standard that goes along with a constitutional sanction for an individual rights reading of the Second Amendment.
If “the US Dept. of Justice has now gone on record as advancing the position that the Second Amendment grants an individual and personal privilege of firearms ownership and possession” it seems SLIGHTLY less likely that more restrictive firearms laws will be passed on the federal level.
I realize congress doesn’t have to pay any attention to the Justice Dept.'s opinion, but still it might have A LITTLE influence.
I can’t say exactly where the line in the sand is, but if excessively restrictive laws are passed (and enforced), there will be armed resistance, and people on both sides of this conflict will die.
I am generally not in favor of killing and dying, so anything that makes it slightly less likely to be necessary is probably a good thing.
-I have no idea what a Spavined is, but at least I can spell it. Besides, a dyke is an impolite colloquialism for a female homosexual. I’m pretty sure you meant a dike, or low dam that retains and diverts water.
If you read some of the online articles discussing the KTW round, you might see that story a little differently.
What happened was, in short (and incomplete) is that a news show “discovered” this evil armor-piercing round, and decided to do a news “expose`” on it. The makers of the round, current or retired law-enforcement officers themselves, pleaded with the show to not air the data, because in doing so, they would “reveal” that police officers were in fact wearing body armor, a fact that, at that point, was not widely known to non-LEOs.
The show aired the “evil bullet” and dubbed it the “Cop Killer” since it was, by their logic, designed to defeat armor, and since only cops wore armor, ipso facto, it was designed to kill cops.
The news organization knew the round had been developed and marketed BY cops, and very likely knew it was not publicly available on a retail level, and yet still referred to it as a “Cop Killer”. One is left with the conclusion that the show had a bias and an axe to grind, but of course we all know there’s no such thing as biased news reporting. :rolleyes:
The fact is, the “law enforcement groups” were already “prohibiting” the sale of the round to the general public.
In response to the show, however, several officers were shot in the unprotected groin, legs or head, by perps that deliberately targeted those areas since they now had reason to suspect the cop’s torso was armored.
Further, due to the manufactured negative publicity and the “cop killer” nomenclature, there was pressure for the Government to “do something” about the evil bullets. The Gummint, in it’s infinite wisdom, couldn’t simply ban “KTW-brand teflon-coated Tungsten projectiles”, so they came up with a convoluted formulae that considered bullet material, weight, velocity and energy. Over a certain value, it could defeat a “bulletproof” vest, and was thus illegal.
However, due to the specifications, something like 75% of all current, legal, normal hunting and rifle ammunition would have been rendered illegal at a lick. Including all US Military ammunition- our soldiers are, apparently, issued and train with “Cop Killer” ammo.
A typical vest worn today is resistant but not proof against most handgun calibers up to around .40 S&W or .45 ACP. Some larger, bulkier vests are good to .357 and .44 mag, and most can add what’s known as a “trauma plate”, which is a titanium or ceramic plate added to the base vest to increase the rating over the critical central solar plexus area.
The problem here is that a rifle has many times the power of a handgun. A standard .308 rifle firing what no sane infantryman would dare call ‘armor piercing’ ammo, in the form of a softpoint or hollowpoint bullet, will sail right through a standard vest, often with or without the “trauma” plate.
Armor piercing ammo does not expand. Hunting ammo does. Expanding ammo is by definition NOT “armor piercing”. The Government specifications would have banned expanding ammo as “evil armor piercing” rounds simply due to it’s power.
Had the bill passed, about the only ammo that would have been legal after that would have been small pistol rounds.
So the NRA fought the bill, and was, naturally, labelled as trying to keep “cop killer” bullets in the hands of civilians and other evil-doers, by our unbiased and balanced news media.
So, Spavined, for lobbying to defeat a bill that would have outlawed roughly three-quarters of all currently-legal firearm ammunition, the NRA was simply overreacting to imagined and apparently implausible “horrors of gun control”?
UB, I think maybe you missed my point about civility of response, but that’s nothing new for you. Doc Nickel’s posts in response have been much more informative, pointed and useful than whiney little complaints about “he aint listening” (especially those which indicate incomplete understanding of SG’s argument).
For the record, I’d like to identify myself with Spavined Gelding’s major argument; that the Second Amendment confers no purely individual right to gun ownership and that the Att’y Gen’l’s position is a purely cynical -and ultimately meaningless- contradiction of longstanding US policy.
As for this, I understand it just fine. SG knows nothing about "armor-piercing** projectiles. He seems to be insisting they carry a Teflon coating. Which obviously ain’t the case. Additionally, I made constructive comments and criticisms way back on page one and two. Minty Green refuted them with a bunch of half-baked legalese, malformed opinions, twisted logic and outright untruths.
As for the Second Amendment and it’s meaning regarding individual rights to gun ownership, you guys, despite Minty’s citations, seem to have begged the question entirely. You began from this, to my view, un-established position. Minty provided citations that tend, by his words, to support the view that the courts say there’s no individual right. Those cases were given a bit different look by Max Torque and flaws in the rulings were identified; I provided cases with an entirely opposite conclusion, cases which hold that the Second Amendment does indeed recognize an individual right to ownership of firearms. What does this mean? It means that you guys are taking as a given, something that is yet to be proved. You cannot argue from an unfounded assertion as a starting point. But since you and the other pro-control folks are, I have no choice but to dismiss your entire arguments as based on a faulty premise.
I still maintain that the Second Amendment confers nothing. It merely recognizes a pre-existing right of individuals to possess firearms. I have legal citations, as well as quotations from the guys who actually wrote the damned Constitution and Bill of Rights, that support my view. Not to mention the current attorney general. You guys have naught but some equivocal federal court holdings. Nor have you adequately explained how the Second Amendment is the only one of initial ten that confers a collective right in view of the fact the other nine clearly refer to individuals.
Anyway, I don’t know why you are arguing so vociferously about this issue now. Ashcroft made his views known over a year ago. And you’ve completely neglected Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson as a target of your ire. He’s the guy that wrote the briefs that recently went before the Supreme Court saying the Second Amendment recognizes an individual right. A position Ashcroft stated way back in May of 2001 in a letter to the NRA http://www.nraila.org/images/Ashcroft.pdf
The comment by **Don Nickel **, who seems to be a stand up guy, are certainly authoritative. I’m not sure he and I are talking about the same incident. In any event my comments about armor piercing ammunition were illustrative of my developing point that the change by the Dept of Justice in the Dept’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is probably of no real significance and those who do think it prefaces a sea change in the government’s ability to restrict private fire arms are deluding them selves. His criticism of my spelling is, however well founded.
Uncle Beer’s continuing assertion that the courts have not consistently held the Second Amendment to confer a collective right to firearms possession in conjunction with the existence of a sanctioned state militia is just baseless. Minty Green has produced a pretty extensive list of citations to the relevant cases. I have reviewed the annotations to the US Code. Surely no one claims that the West Publishing Company has a bias and is just not telling us about the contrary cases. While the annotations are head notes there is not one citation to a case that holds the Second Amendment to confer an individual right and the holdings that the right is collective and militia connected are overwhelming. Our good moderator can decry this as half baker legalisms, etc., all he wants but it doesn’t change the fact that there is no support in the decided cases (which is, after all, what counts) for his claim that the Amendment grants an individual right. Assuming our moderator does not want to go to the expense of organizing a search through one of the computerized law libraries, all he has to do is go down to the county law library, pull the USCA volume on the Second Amendment and read the annotations for himself. Once he does that I would think that, as a reasonable and honest man, he would withdraw the comments about Minty Green’s postings.
As for the claim of a pre-existing right to individual firearms, as a matter of law that right would have to exist under the common law of England as it existed before the formation of the United States. I don’t think that Blackstone or any of the other the 18th century commentaries on the law make any reference to the question. In any event, any dependence on the law as it stood in the time of George II or James I or any other English monarch is irrelevant to the extent it has been displaced by statutory and case law in the new republic. Uncle B may be referring to some sort of Natural Law protection for firearms ownership. If so I am stumped since this gets us into the area of theology, not law or politics.
With respect to the propriety of beating up on the Solicitor General, the SG did not make the decision, the AG did. As UB pointed out, the AG had telegraphed his decision some time ago. I don’t see much point in beating up on the horse that Mr. Ashcroft rode in on.
Uncle Beer, you could not be any more wrong. Kalashnikov and Crafter Man could not be any more wrong headed.
-Possibly. What I mentioned above really wasn’t a single particular event, but rather a series of happenings that took place over several years. And it’s not the first time that certain types of “evil” ammunition were in danger of being banned; California, for one, attempted to ban certain sorts of bullets at a State level, as I recall in the mid-90s.
However, the original wording of the Government “ban” I was referring to- which I can’t find a cite to the preliminary text- would have banned the use of copper, brass, steel, iron, Tungsten and a host of other materials (including bronze and beryllium, believe it or not, and yes, Teflon, which was used only to protect the barrel from the hard bullet) as a firearm projectile.
This would have left essentially only lead.
While lead alone does make a good bullet, denying the use of copper, brass or steel as a “gilding metal” for the bullet, would have made it all but impossible to manufacture a projectile that would survive the speeds and forces involved in firing a high-powered handgun or nearly any rifle.
The upshot of the whole deal was that, if the ban were enacted, it would have become essentially illegal to manufacture a usable cartridge for a great many firearms.
As it is, the legislation was pared down some, but still passed, in the interests of appearing to “do something” about a nonexistent problem and in response to an artificially manufactured situation. The bill banned, as I recall, the use of a nondeforming “core” of certain materials (including Tungsten and steel) and the use of some exotic materials altogether (I seem to recall beryllium copper and manganese bronze being listed… I’m looking, I’m looking.)
Of course, the bill also specifically exempted those manufactured for police and military uses.
And since essentially no one was using the exotic materials to actually make bullets, and the few who were were doing so specifically for police or military use, the legislation was wholly pointless and largely irrelevant.
However, it all well illustrates why the “gun nuts” often have legitimate reason to fear that which you might consider “reasonable” gun-control measures.
-I’m still pretty sure there’s a C somewhere in my name.
Yeah, that’s why I left this thread too, and I won’t be back in this one when “you have joined that vast army of whiners who think they ought not to have to pay alimony, that their street wasn’t fixed fast enough, that a Black man got a job they should have gotten if they had only bothered to apply for it, and generally that they are not Emperor of the Universe.”, plus charges of phallocentricism, are going to be the level of discourse here.
My best work was posted about 3/4 a year ago, where I did successfully show that the original intent of the founding fathers and authors of the Bill of Rights was to apply the 2nd Amendment as an individual, and not a collective right, to the point where even a macaque could understand it.
In my opinion, it is irrelevent that the Supreme Court chooses to be a political body that can read into the Constitution whatever it chooses. It’s like they never had even heard of The Federalist. I can lend them a few copies if they can’t find them.
Reference:
talk.politics.guns FAQ (public domain)
(“Commentaries on the Laws of England”,by Sir William Blackstone, Oxford, (1765), Bk.I ch.I pp.136-139)
Reading this editorial really summed it up for me.
"A virtual consensus of constitutional historians and legal scholars today – including not only conservatives, but also such left- liberals as Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe and libertarians, such as Boston University law professor Randy Barnett – agree that the individual-rights view, not the states’-rights view, is the correct interpretation of the Second Amendment.
The aberration is not the Bush Justice Department but rather the U.S. Supreme Court, which in its 1939 decision in United States vs. Miller held that the Second Amendment right extends only to arms that are related to the militia.
In following the states’-right view suggested by the Miller decision, federal courts over the past 60 years have perpetuated an erroneous interpretation of the Constitution from an era in which the U.S. Supreme Court was notoriously insensitive to individual rights. (The infamous Korematsu decision, upholding the Roosevelt administration’s order confining Japanese Americans to concentration camps, came just a few years after Miller.)
The Bush Justice Department may be going against the views of past Justice Departments and of most federal courts of appeals, which have endorsed the states’-rights view of the Second Amendment. But as Volokh noted, “Attorney General Ashcroft and Solicitor General Olson are hardly promoting their personal views. They’re promoting the views of the Framers, and of the American legal system throughout most of American history.’’”
Doc, I think you need to re-read my selection from Hyperbole Theatre up above. It doesn’t matter that we have disproven the armor-piercing bullet myth, as people are already sidestepping around the issue and brushing it under the rug, as if they never made any claim in the first place.
When the anti-gun side will finally come out and just admit that they lied openly and repeatedly about the NRA’s stance and intent behind opposing “cop-killer armor piercing bullet” legislation that was both wildly impractical and clearly inteneded to ban most all ammunition and guns, they will get some respectability. Repeatedly claiming that the NRA just wanted to encourage cop-killing, acted with a phallocentric “he-man” motive, or is just plain evil on this issue, is dishonest, ignores the facts of the political slant of the legislation, ignores the practical laws of physics needed to have working firearms, and is really just sad.
In other words - there’s no point, Doc. Just walk away.
I keep working from time to time on a little mini-novel of mine, tracing through the entire pro-gun and 2nd Amendment issue from the 1200’s on to present, trying to make an unassailable case for individual rights that cannot be disputed. It’s up to about 15 pages now, and I’ve thought from time to time that someday if I finish it, I may post it as my Final Post here. Not because I am afraid to defend it, but because I know that the first response back will be along the lines of “Yeah, that’s great, but the NRA just wants to kill cops, re-enslave the black man, and commit genocide. Hitler would have been a life member. Guten morgen, Herr Heston!”
In response to Ex Tank’s challenge, you say that he has “joined the army of whiners” outlined above, along with a subtle hint at lumping him in with racists (where the hell did that come from? ). Also, less importantly (but just as inaccurately), that the NRA “bought” the Attorney General.
I notice that you picked on that portion of my post, and did not acknowledge in any way my Blackstone reference. You know what I am referring to. This is the same old shit people keep pulling that I got tired of in GD. Where I could post a 5000-word refutation, with references and footnotes, and the response was never “Yup, you got me.” but instead was “You mispelled ‘right’. Obviously your entire argument is so invalid I will not even acknowledge it.”
**Anthricite **, apparently I missed any previous reference to Blackstone in this thread. Sorry. I doubt your reference however since at the time the Crown was actively disarming the Scottish Highlands and poaching laws widely prohibited possession of firearms by non-land owners. If you can give me a reference to the Blackstone text I will be happy to read it and concede error if error there is.
There is a wide spread tendency in this board, not just in this thread, to set up straw men and then beat up on the straw man rather than dealing with the issue at hand. That is just what you did in your imagined dialog between “anti-gun person” and “pro-gun person” in Hyperbole Theater some where up the page a ways. It would be helpful if you dealt with the question on the floor instead of dreaming up tangent questions that you can jump on. Let me, however, be the first to admit that I have not dealt with all the challenges to my view of the matter. For one thing there has been so much stuff coming that I can’t possibly have time to respond and for another thing I just to no have the resources to respond to every thing—for example references to 19th century state court decisions and letters to the Columbus Dispatch from professors I have never heard of at law schools I have never heard of.
When did race get into this? My comment was directed toward classes of whiners. You will be hard pressed to show anything in this thread or in anything else I have posted that even suggests racisms. I’m a little hot on this point. I may be willing to play the penis card but I don’t think I have ever played the race card. If it can fairly claimed that I have I will happily withdraw it.
Before we get too carried away with this thing, please remember that any firearms restriction has two hurdles to jump before any restriction go into effect. First any restriction has to go through the legislative process. That is essentially a political process. If enough people want a thing the political process will give it to them. If enough people want for a thing not to happen it will not happen. If enough money is thrown into a political dispute the side that throws the most money will get what it wants. Right now the NRA has a substantial block of voters, as shown by this thread, and a whole bunch of money. The people who think the Second Amendment means what the courts have said it means have little economic interest in the political fight. Where, after all is the great gun control industry? Do you see the gun control factories littering the country side? When was John Wayne ever in gun control Western?
It is only after a political consensus has been reached that the courts are even asked to vet the resulting legislation. So far, few such politically achieved measures have failed to pass Second Amendment or Due Process/Equal Protection muster. Even with the Atty Gen weighing in on the Individual Rights side, I expect the only change in the future will be on the political end of the problem.
The people who want to flee to a more gun friendly environment (try Central America) or who intend to bunker-up to the hills are only making the political process easier for the people who want to restrict fire arms. The Cold-Dead-Hands people have gained a tremendous victory with the Atty Gen’s conversion. I think that the conversion is cynical and smells corrupt. I don’t understand why all you people are complaining about a process that you are in a position to control.
And with that I did you a fond farewell. I trust that if I ever get into one of these gun control threads again, some one will point out how difficult it is to convert the heathen, especially when the heathen have a big investment in their own particular idols. You guys do what you want, I’m going to go try to shoot a turkey.
So, the best thing to do at this point is to put your fingers in your ears and say La La La I can’t hear you La La La… As to shooting turkeys, after the handguns, come rifles and shotguns that hold more than one round. I hope you’re a really good shot SG.
). Also, less importantly (but just as inaccurately), that the NRA “bought” the Attorney General.