Americans And Gun Control
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-12-18/americans-and-gun-control
The horror and outrage in the aftermath of last week's mass shootings in Connecticut are galvanizing new efforts to ban assault weapons. Diane and her guests discuss Americans and gun control.
Guests
James Fallows
national correspondent for The Atlantic magazine.
Laura Meckler
White House correspondent for The Wall Street Journal.
Adam Winkler
law professor at the UCLA and author of "Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America."
Congressman John Yarmuth
U.S. Representative from Kentucky's 3rd Congressional District.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
From the "Bill and Jill" story, to some psychobabble about "you" statements, to frogs boiling in water, to misguided and jingoistic Founder worship, which leads us once again to a Fascist - aka Progressive - conspiracy to make the nation defenseless. I bet you would have nipped this slow Fascist conspiracy in the bud and stood up to fight against Washington in the Whiskey Rebellion. :-)
On that note I wish you a Nightmarish Christmas (the Fascists want to abolish Christmas!) and a Fearful New Year! (We survived the end of the Mayan calendar only to be enslaved by Progressives! Oh well!) I hope Santa brought you a cuddly Teddy Bear. Please don't use it for target practice. The Fascists at PETSA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Stuffed Animals) might come after you. :-)
First, Hamilton was a big government guy, so ... thanks for making my point. His whiskey tax was a bad idea from the beginning. Another one of his brilliant ideas was to elect a President and Senators for life. Cool idea, eh? He's also at least partially responsible for the mess that today is the Federal Reserve, and ... oh yeah, an adulterer as well. You should read about Hamilton and Maria Reynolds. How's that for "Founder worship".
Thank you for that substantive reply, samcot. When you learn how to debate, come back and give it another shot, 'k?
Actually, you're making MY point. Yes, Hamilton (Federalist Party) was a "big government guy." Strange that you left out Washington. You do know that Washington was president, and it was he, not Hamilton, who led the army against what he called an insurrection? I suppose you'd say that Jefferson (Democratic-Republican Party) was a "small government guy." It's plain to see that, in fact, you don't agree with all of the Founders.
The question stands: Would you have stood to fight against Washington's army (aka "Big Government"), or not? Because that was a milestone in the "slow" Fascist takeover you're warning us about.
Even Jefferson and Madison were ambivalent about the role of "Big Government." I think it's unlikely that you are very familiar with the views of even one of the Founders. The entire foundation of your views on firearms is based on talking points that you've picked up from other fearful and paranoid people who imagine that guns are the answer to a problem that you don't really understand.
So you think that the whiskey tax was a bad idea. Maybe you think that ALL taxes are a bad idea. Maybe, like Grover Norquist, you'd like to drown the government in a bathtub. Maybe, like Sharron Angle of Nevada, you believe in "Second Amendment remedies" to the Democratic Party (you know, the party with the secret fascist agenda?). Maybe, like Governor Rick Perry, you'd like to treat Ben Bernanke "pretty ugly." If someone kills a bunch of kids at a school, the NRA proposes that we have armed police at all schools. And maybe you agree with plenty of other people who suggest that the principals and teachers themselves should be armed. Although, given the fact that most of the people involved in public education are liberal union members, are you sure you'd want to arm the fascists? :-)
Would you have fought Washington to defend your nation against Fascism, or not? What's it gonna be, tough guy? Or does your debate technique consist of avoiding questions?
Part 2:
Okay, I'll bite. What about Hamilton and Reynolds? What's that got to do with the Founder worship you try to use on gullible people? Should we also discuss the shenanigans of Jefferson and others? Do you consider adultery to be a "substantive" part of this discussion? Is this your idea of debate?
Your own comments are my best argument against you. :-)
samcot, you still haven't learned your lesson have you?
"It's plain to see that, in fact, you don't agree with all of the Founders. "
Show me where I said that I did or shut your pie hole, because you're misrepresentation and strawmen are beginning to wear on my nerves. I said that the founders and I are of one accord with the document they produced that is the final law of our land. If you think I said otherwise, put up or shut up.
"So you think...Maybe you think ... Maybe you'd like ...Maybe you believe ... Maybe you'd like to ... And maybe you agree ... are you sure you'd want to arm the fascists? "
I will ask you one more time. Why don't you tell me what YOU think and not what you think I think ... or "maybe I think". (hint: adding "maybe" does not improve your position). State a position, why don't you. Can you argue NOTHING on the merits? Is your entire debate strategy going to continue to be strawmen and innuendo?! Seems so. So far, every round has been strawmen, an automatic "lose", samcot, and I'm going to bet, you don't even know it!
"I think it's unlikely that you are very familiar with the views of even one of the Founders."
I think it's unlikely that your education of our founders and our early history extends much beyond Wikipedia - if it did, you probably wouldn't have brought up the Whiskey Rebellion on this topic.
"Would you have fought Washington to defend your nation against Fascism, or not? What's it gonna be, tough guy? Or does your debate technique consist of avoiding questions?"
First, you called Washinton's actions fascism. I didn't. Again, I am not REQUIRED to answer ANY question you pose - that's the way a mb works, but for your edification, I will answer this one. In that time, in those circumstances, I might have stood with the rebels, but not living in the late 18th century, that's very hard to say for sure. But the whiskey rebellion is a poor example (big surprise). It was the rebellion that never really was and the actions of Washington had a very specific "big picture" purpose, so, from his point of view, I get why he felt he had to embrace Hamilton's idea. But considering the "taxation/representation" issues that were in play and a recently won independence on just those issues, I can see the rebels' point. What you don't get is that these issues were raw to America's new citizens. They did not have the last 225 years to let them scab over. You not only lack historical knowledge, you completely lack historical sensibilities. (The "by the way" on Hamilton - perhaps if you knew a bit more about the man and his judgment you would feel differently about the fact that he was so easily hoodwinked by a con-man and his wife). Since you claim to be so well versed on this chapter in our history, I'm sure you know that Hamilton's great idea (that's sarcasm) was done away with less than a decade later. Interesting that you and strudel bring up the events in our history that you do; Lincoln holding the union together; Washington legitimizing his new government. Poor examples both. But it certainly sounds like, based on your posts, you would have favored East India Co. over the Sons of Libery.
I look forward to schooling you once again on issues of public policy and American History, samcot, because the more I do it, it seems, the more PO'd you become.
Shut my pie hole? What has the Whiskey Rebellion got to do with Wikipedia, and why is that a reason for ducking my question? Like I said, your own comments are my best argument against you. Let's see if you have anything worth responding to in your next comment.
Since you haven't bothered to answer any of my questions, it's strange you feel the need to point out that you're not required to do so. On the other hand, I hear plaintive violin music each time you whine about strawmen arguments, and I thank you for that. I suspect that anyone who asks you questions or makes you think "wears on your nerves."
You're okay with heaping scorn on Hamilton, but apparently you can't bring yourself to heap it on George, even if he's the one who used "Big Bad Government" to enforce a "bad tax."
The Whiskey Rebellion is an excellent example for our discussion, and not only because the Founders you worship were involved. You say that the people need their guns to defend themselves against government overreach (I'm being kind here; you actually talk about a slow Fascist takeover, not mere overreach). People like you who thought the whiskey tax was a "bad idea" used violence against federal officials. You say that it was a rebellion that "never really was," which only demonstrates willful ignorance on your part. This "never was" rebellion went on for several years, with escalating violence, until Washington decided to flex some serious Big Bad Government muscle. No matter how you feel about the actual tax, the Whiskey Rebellion is seen as a significant landmark in US history which led to further questions about the people's right to challenge government.
Americans who thought the whiskey tax was a "bad idea" had already demonstrated they were willing to take up arms against "Big Bad Government." The only reason they didn't stand up against Washington was . . . well, since you've read Wikipedia, you already know the answer, don't you?
East India Company over the Sons of Liberty? Oh my, you're playing the Patriot Card again. Can we have some more of that Founder worship, too? Instead of violins, I'm now hearing Hail, Columbia. :-)
Here's a bonus question for extra credit:
When you talk about the people having firearms in order to protect themselves against Big Bad Government, you have to explain the devil in the details. Until you do, nothing you say will have any coherence. Many of the men who took up arms against the Big Bad Government in the Whiskey Rebellion were former Revolutionary soldiers. You'd have to explain who gets to decide when it is reasonable for citizens to take up arms against the government. If people can take up arms in protest of a "bad" whiskey tax, then it follows that they can take up arms against the Progressive/Fascist takeover you are warning us about. Unless you want to argue that a whiskey tax is more threatening to freedom and liberty than a Fascist takeover? And this is precisely why the Whiskey Rebellion is a good example for our discussion. It gets to the heart of your entire position on Second Amendment remedies, and it demonstrates how at odds you are with Washington.
Warning: Answering this question requires the kind of thinking that may wear on your nerves. :-)
@Samcot:
This is going to be my last set of posts to you on this subject. I will give you the last word, which, I suspect will consist of additional strawman arguments and more innuendo - and the shame of that is, you will not even realize it.
Here are the reasons:
"Like I said, your own comments are my best argument against you." No. They aren't. Your twisted INTERPRETATION of my comments are what you use. You NEVER quote me. That is the hallmark of the strawman argument. The problem is, if you were forced to quote me, it would make the task of making your little points and asking your little questions much too difficult for you.
"On the other hand, I hear plaintive violin music each time you whine about strawmen arguments".
Secondly, and primarily, your inability to recognize and take seriously how the use of the strawman argument invalidates any point you try to make and makes you less than a formidable opponent for debate.
So here we go:
"What has the Whiskey Rebellion got to do with Wikipedia, and why is that a reason for ducking my question?"
Well, what Wikipedia has to do with the Whiskey Rebellion is, that seems to be the depth of your understanding of this incident in American history. Ducking your question?! I answered your question! Directly! Yet you insist, "Since you haven't bothered to answer any of my questions"!
Part deux:
Here was my answer:
"I am not REQUIRED to answer ANY question you pose - that's the way a mb works, but for your edification, I WILL ANSWER THIS ONE. (emphasis added this time). In that time, in those circumstances, I might have stood with the rebels, but not living in the late 18th century, that's very hard to say for sure. But the whiskey rebellion is a poor example (big surprise). It was the rebellion that never really was and the actions of Washington had a very specific "big picture" purpose, so, from his point of view, I get why he felt he had to embrace Hamilton's idea. But considering the "taxation/representation" issues that were in play and a recently won independence on just those issues, I can see the rebels' point. What you don't get is that these issues were raw to America's new citizens. They did not have the last 225 years to let them scab over. You not only lack historical knowledge, you completely lack historical sensibilities."
As you seem to be less than strong on reading comprehension, I will summarize for you as follows; I get why the rebels did what they did. I also get why Washington did what he did. Washington had to enforce the tax once implemented because it was a test of the authority of the new government. That is why I am unwilling to "heap scorn on him".
Part trois:
The world and its issues are frequently not as black and white as you pretend they are, samcot. The right to bear arms because of government force was not the central issue here as much as you would like it to be. In fact, the Whiskey Rebellion did go on for a few years, but if you had bothered to know even the details of same that appear in the Wiki article, you would know that the total (maximum) casualties over a three year period were a grand total of ... drum roll please ... six! (more on that later) and that the rebels dispersed even before Washington and his troops arrived. That is the context in which the WR was the rebellion that never was. Like I said, the Whiskey Rebellion is a poor example relative to the subject at hand (more on that later too).
You continue to trot out the term "Founder worship" as a pejorative even though you negate that very point in noting my disdain of Hamilton - who was clearly a Founder. Place the point next to its contridiction in the same post! Brilliant strategy, samcot!
But, you want to stick to the subjects of second amendment and insurrection? Great. Lets do it. And I'll even use your "questions" to do it. (You have a hell of a lot mnore questions than answers, samcot).
Part quatre:
Now, your position seems to be that the Whiskey Rebellion demostrates that resistance to FG force is futile. You're the one that said, "I don't think that owning a few firearms would protect me against a Fascist government in possession of the world's premier shock and awe military." and you claim "the Whiskey Rebellion is seen as a significant landmark in US history which led to further questions about the people's right to challenge government". Perhaps you might have considered another example of the "people's right to challenge government"; a little thing called the Civil War. Perhaps you've heard of it? If you think that resistance to the "Big Bad Government" is futile, as your statement indicates, you should try telling that to the 600K dead souls that fought for their respective views - regardless of the ideologies and regardless of the outcome - so don't even go there.
Now I'm sure your low-information response will be something like, "that was different. It was before the modern military came along". Well, that's true. Why don't you ask the Branch Davidians about that. They held off the Feds for 51 days! Shock and awe, indeed. A handful of ARMED individuals somehow managed to hold off that "shock and awe" and put a permanent stain on the use of that shock and awe against it's own citizens. How do you think that might have developed had they been unarmed, samcot? That is both the point and the purpose of the second amendment.
Part cinq:
"When you talk about the people having firearms in order to protect themselves against Big Bad Government, you have to explain the devil in the details. Until you do, nothing you say will have any coherence".
That's your opinion - nothing more and I'm about to demonstrate that that opinion is hooey.
"Many of the men who took up arms against the Big Bad Government in the Whiskey Rebellion were former Revolutionary soldiers. You'd have to explain who gets to decide when it is reasonable for citizens to take up arms against the government".
That would be up to the rebels, now wouldn't it, samcot? Another BRILLIANT observation! - despite the attempt to shift the subject from the ability of individuals to defend themselves against their government to one of when it is "reasonable" to take up arms against same. We'll just put that in the dust bin with all your other scintillating questions.
Part six:
"If people can take up arms in protest of a "bad" whiskey tax, then it follows that they can take up arms against the Progressive/Fascist takeover you are warning us about. Unless you want to argue that a whiskey tax is more threatening to freedom and liberty than a Fascist takeover? And this is precisely why the Whiskey Rebellion is a good example for our discussion. It gets to the heart of your entire position on Second Amendment remedies, and it demonstrates how at odds you are with Washington."
No. It doesn't. And No. I'm not. And I've demonstrated both in the preceding paragraphs. And the Civil War negates your position entirely - regardless of the ideologies and regardless of the outcome. Otherwise, Southerners would have said, "what the h--- we don't stand a chance against samcot's Big Bad Government - remember the Whiskey Rebellion?". Again, Brilliant!
What you still seem to not get, which DOES get to the heart of my position on the Second Amendment, is that the Second Amendment has never been about overthrowing "the Big Bad Government". Regardless of the "shock and awe" capability of the "Big Bad Government", an armed citizen vs. an unarmed citizen changes the context of the relationship between a citizen and his government, and most importantly, the psyche of the citizen himself - something you will never understand.
Part sept:
"East India Company over the Sons of Liberty? Oh my, you're playing the Patriot Card again."
Yet, you seem unwilling or unable to address the question without sounding like a hypocrite.
I repeat, "But it certainly sounds like, based on your posts, you would have favored East India Co. over the Sons of Libery".
It is not the only choice. See
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/false-dilemma/
and learn how to make logical arguments.
Gargamel on December 18, 2012 @ 10:20 am wrote: “The shootings are a symptom of a sick society, not a cause. I can't fathom why this is so hard to understand.”
Maybe because it’s false?
In almost every case (Tucson, Aurora, Newton), mass shootings are committed by mentally or emotionally disturbed individuals. These persons are sick, but the attempt to link their psychosis to “society” utterly fails.
Adam Lanza (the latest shooter) is a prime example. We know that he had a mental disorder of possibly genetic origin (Asperger Syndrome) that may (or may not) have played a part in his violence. There are indications he had other disorders as well. We also know that he and his mother regularly attended Church, had easy access to legal guns, and (apparently) he had been trained and encouraged in their use (by his mother). That’s it! That’s all we know (at present). Yet the NRA and its “fellow travelers” cast furiously about for any “cause” they can name (without proof, of course), rather than look at the obvious.
Sorry, Gargamel, but until you produce evidence that “a sick society” somehow caused Lanza’s massacre, your contention is devoid of either fact or reason, and is worthless.
One final note: Isn’t it interesting how “conservatives” will deny social responsibility when it comes to spending money (caring for the poor, the sick, the homeless, the mentally ill), insisting instead on “individual responsibility”. But on this issue, suddenly, society’s responsible!
P.S. - Though in one sense I agree: Society is responsible for the easy availability of assault weapons and multi-round magazines.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
P.P.S. - Oh, and two points about the "Clinton bans":
1) They were so full of loopholes as to be useless. But just because one example of gun legislation didn't work very well, that doesn't prove all gun legislation is useless. After all, people still commit murders despite all the laws against it, but no one wants to repeal our homicide laws.
2) Is it just a coincidence that the number, frequency, and deadliness of these massacres increased after the ban was lifted?
Dear twittarmykindle:
Your Comment would be more informative if you had provided some indication what "choice" you were referring to (such as by including a quotation of the Comment by others you were replying to, or some other reference).
However, assuming you are referring to the false dichotomy the NRA and its followers indulge in, under which the only choices are complete unrestricted access to all weapons, or banning and confiscation of all weapons, then I agree with you.
If you meant something else, then I have no idea.
ecgberht on December 29, 2012 @ 12:42 am wrote: “And the Civil War negates your position entirely . . . .”
Before I get into the middle of your discussion (and I do mean the middle, since I’m only responding to this one Comment), may I offer a piece of advice: better composition. You keep placing quotations you are responding to right next to your reply. That makes it very difficult to tell who’s doing the talking (you, or the person you’re quoting from). At least put the quotes in a separate paragraph (as I do). Better yet, try offsetting them with indented margins using the “ul” and “/ul” codes.
Now, on to the “substance” of your remarks.
If anything, the Civil War negates your position. I mean, it ended so well for the South that surely they should try that again, and again, and again. (At least, until, the rest of the nation decides it’s had enough of such treason, and makes the South occupied territory, with none of the rights normally guaranteed by the Big Bad Federal government under our Constitution.)
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
“What you still seem to not get, which DOES get to the heart of my position on the Second Amendment, is that the Second Amendment has never been about overthrowing ‘the Big Bad Government’.”
Gee, that’s news to the NRA (etc.), who constantly argue it’s precisely a key reason for the Second Amendment. (Me? I always thought the Amendment was more about “a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State. But then, unlike the NRA, and a majority of the present Supreme Court, I believe in both reading and interpreting the Constitution as it’s written!)
“ an armed citizen vs. an unarmed citizen changes the context of the relationship between a citizen and his government, and most importantly, the psyche of the citizen himself - something you will never understand.”
Just wonderful. People (including children) are being slaughtered in grocery stores (Tucson), in movie theaters (Aurora), in shopping malls (Portland), and in schools (Newton), and you respond with psychobabble! Yes, I understand very well, “packing heat” deludes people into thinking they’re “Rambo” (a fictional character played by an actor who “hid” from the Vietnam War in a Swiss girl’s school), and propaganda like yours (and the NRA) deludes them into thinking they’re “patriots”, because they are willing to escalate a political disagreement into an insurrection.
Guess what? One of the purposes of the militia is to execute (enforce) the laws of the United States, and to “suppress insurrections”. (Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 15.) So it seems the “well regulated militia” the Second Amendment talks about is intended to be part of, and used in the service of your “Big Bad Government”. Funny how people making your argument (including the NRA, etc.) never mention that!
"Is it just a coincidence that the number, frequency, and deadliness of these massacres increased after the ban was lifted?"
Statistically false. The AW ban made no appreciable decrease in gun crimes with these types of weapons when it was in place and no appreciable difference for years after it was lifted in 2004. In fact, as more states have enacted concealed carry, gun crimes have decreased nation-wide. With one exception, Tucson, EVERY massacre of the kind you list, took place in a "gun-free" zone. There's a reason for that. Mother Jones has done great research on this. Google "Mother Jones mass shootings".
"may I offer a piece of advice: better composition."
I think you meant "better formatting". I would offer the more apt piece of advice to you; Your posts are long, wordy, and tedious. They could be as nicely formatted as you please, but they're begging for "better composition"! Hope that's clear enough.
"If anything, the Civil War negates your position."
No it doesn't! My position was that it is the quintessential example of the application of the 2nd amendment (not the "whiskey rebellion"), "regardless of the ideologies and regardless of the outcome". Try reading more critically.
"At least, until, the rest of the nation decides it’s had enough of such treason, and makes the South occupied territory, with none of the rights normally guaranteed by the Big Bad Federal government under our Constitution."
I'm sure a fascist like you would like that. I'm so glad that Lincoln didn't feel that way.
"you respond with psychobabble! Yes, I understand very well, “packing heat” deludes people into thinking they’re “Rambo”"
Thus sayeth the strawman!
"So it seems the “well regulated militia” the Second Amendment talks about is intended to be part of, and used in the service of your “Big Bad Government”.
False on two counts. First, if you were paying attention, you would know that "Big Bad Government" was samcot's invention, not mine. So it is not MY "Big Bad Government".
Second, let's keep the 2nd amendment in its proper context, shall we? And actually, we can do that at TWO LEVELS of context. "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."
The well regulated militia is to be used to ensure the security of a free State - not "used in the service of your "Big Bad Government"". And secondly, you've yet to explain, why the second amendment, which in your view ensures that the government is armed, potentially against its own people, sits smack in the middle of nine other provisions designed to protect the people FROM their government. (And you "believe in both reading and interpreting the Constitution as it’s written"?!) If your meaning were intended, the 2nd amendment would say something like, "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the people should keep their arms at the ready". The meaning of the 2nd amendment AS WRITTEN is better interpreted "because it will be necessary to maintain a militia to ensure the security of a free society, its citizens should be empowered to be armed as well; "the RIGHT (not the "duty" or the "necessity") of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be INFRINGED". Get it?