–Actually, the 2nd Amendment doesn’t legalize private gun ownership, but so what? There is a solution to gun violence.

Mitchell’s laws:
●The more budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes.

●Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.
●To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments.
●Austerity = poverty and leads to civil disorder.
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.

==========================================================================================================================================
Jesus: “all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.”
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

James Eagen’s rampage in Colorado will lead to more debate about the availability of guns in America, the world’s gun ownership capital. And this debate will lead nowhere. (But there is a solution, and you can see it near the bottom of this post.)

The May 21, 2010 post “Is gun control possible?” gives several reasons why gun control is not possible, some of which are:

1. Millions of Americans want guns. Prohibition of something people want never works.
2. There is widespread belief that anti-gun laws leave criminals armed and honest people unarmed.
3. Guns also have a legitimate use in hunting.
4. Most cities do not have fully staffed, fully trained police to enforce gun control. Money has gone elsewhere.
5. The Supreme Court ignores the beginning phrase of the 2nd Amendment.
6. Gun manufacture, import and sales are profitable.

1) Prohibition (of alcohol) didn’t work. Prohibition of recreational drugs doesn’t work. Prohibition of guns will not work. Mayors of gang-infested cities beg Congress for help in outlawing guns, but history shows that no law will prevent people from obtaining guns. What people want, people get.

2) The NRA says, “If guns were outlawed, only outlaws would have guns.” By definition, they are right. It’s doubtful whether the comparatively tiny number of personal defenses by honest gun users, justifies the enormous number of murders by criminals. Yet, I can empathize with a person, living in a high-murder area, wanting a gun for self protection. I don’t own a gun, but if I lived in a gang-controlled neighborhood, I probably would buy one.

3) Hunting for food is legitimate for an omnivore or a carnivore, like us. But hunting for “sport” is disgusting. Where is the “sport” in killing an unarmed animal? Personal opinion: Sport hunting is for cowards and sadists. And do you “sportsmen” really need an AK-47 or Kalashnikov to kill a rabbit or a duck?

4) Chicago was home to one of the most murderous neighborhoods in America. It was called Cabrini Green, ironically named after Mother Cabrini. For three weeks, in 1981, then Mayor Jane Byrne, moved into Cabrini Green. She was surrounded by police. For that period, murders ended, demonstrating that sufficient numbers of police greatly can reduce the murder rate in even the worst area.

Unfortunately, cities are not Monetarily Sovereign, so cannot afford “sufficient numbers” of police. And, of course, there is the social question of whether living in a police state would be an improvement over living in a murder state.

5) Our Supreme Court is blessed with self-proclaimed “Originalists” – most notably Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas – who believe their appointed mission is to read the minds of the Constitution’s framers, and divine their original intent, regardless of subsequent events. They are of the “If-you-don’t-like-the-Constitution,-change-it” mentality, conveniently ignoring reality — the extreme difficulty of changing it.

The fact is, Scalia, Thomas et al are not Originalists. They are “Originalists-when-convenient.” They are politicians — members of the far right — dressed in black robes, rather than the white robes of that other far right group.

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s and public’s perception, the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution does not read, “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” No, it reads, “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.”

Question: If the authors of the Constitution wanted everyone to have guns, why didn’t didn’t they simply write: “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Why did they feel the need to reference “a well regulated Militia”?

And lest one believe the framers of the Constitution just tossed in the words “well regulated Militia” as meaningless garbage, “Militia” is mentioned elsewhere in the Constitution — and given specific meaning:

Amendment 5 – Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings – No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger

And

Section 8. – Congress shall have the power to: Provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.
and
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

And

Section 2 – Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments – The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States

A normal reading of the Constitution says that the well regulated Militia is a group or groups, organized, well regulated, trained, armed and disciplined by Congress, and which the U.S. may employ, and for which the States may appoint officers and provide training, and which the President may call into service.

Does that sound like your neighborhood gang-bangers? Does that sound like hunting? Does that sound like a guy who wants a gun for protection? Are you, your family, your friends and neighbors in a well regulated Militia that is organized, trained and disciplined by Congress and whose officers are appointed by your state? If not, the 2nd Amendment does not include you.

Sadly, our “Originalist” Supreme Court has decided that when the framers of the Constitution wrote “well regulated militia,” they really meant, “unregulated individuals, not in the Militia.” How’s that for “original intent”?

Then, there is the question about what the framers mean by “Arms”? Did they mean the aforementioned AK-47s, or did they mean the single-load muskets that were used back then? What was the original intent? Wouldn’t muskets have more likely been in the minds of the framers?

Today, laws prohibit ownership of automatic weapons, bazookas, hand grenades, cannons and other powerful weapons. So clearly, even our self-proclaimed “Originalists” understand the need for some weapon restrictions. So, why not restrict everything but muskets? (Not that this prohibition would eliminate guns. It wouldn’t. But at least it would eliminate the phony legal justifications for guns, based on an intentional misinterpretation of the Constitution.)

6) And now we get to the crux of the problem: The huge profitability in gun and ammunition manufacture, distribution and sales. Consider any product so demanded by the public it approaches addiction, and add to that the great profits in manufacture, distribution and sales, and it would take a harsh law and strong enforcement to reduce usage. Recreational drugs and alcohol fall into that category. So do guns.

But what if the manufacture, sales and distribution of guns and ammunition were not profitable? What if the risks outweighed the profits? Might approaching the gun debate from the front end (manufacture), rather than from the back end (user), accomplish what typical gun control laws cannot not, even if our Originalist Supreme Court allowed every man, woman and child to carry a gun?

I suggest that Congress and the individual states pass an “aid and abet” law that reads:

“If a gun of any type and/or ammunition for that gun, is used in the commission of a felony, the manufacturer, distributor, importer and/or supplier of that gun and/or ammunition, shall be liable, civilly and criminally, in equal measure with the perpetrator of the felony.”

This means:

*If you make a gun or ammo that is used in a felony, you can be sued in civil court and tried in criminal court. (This is a cousin to the “dram shop” laws, making a tavern owner liable for damages where intoxication was at least one cause of the damages.)
*If you sell or give a gun or ammo to anyone who uses them in a felony, you can be sued and tried.
*If you sell or give a gun or ammo to anyone who subsequently sells or gives a gun to anyone who uses that gun or ammo in a felony, you can be sued and tried. There is no limit to the length of the liability trail.

So “Originalists,” you can say the Constitution allows all citizens to own guns, despite not being in a well regulated Militia. No problem. You NRA folks can own all the guns and ammunition you wish. However if you give or sell your guns or ammunition, and those guns or ammunition later are used in a felony, you pay up big time. It’s lawsuits and jail for you.

Within short order, all guns and ammunition will be sold only to the federal government. No one will dare sell or give a gun or bullet, to any private person.

Problem solved.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty


==========================================================================================================================================
No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia. Two key equations in economics:
Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption + Net exports

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

32 thoughts on “–Actually, the 2nd Amendment doesn’t legalize private gun ownership, but so what? There is a solution to gun violence.

  1. Sir,

    Your thoughts on the above subject fly in the face of what of our Founders, wrote in the Constitution, as well as writings outside of the Constitution .

    A few quotes:
    “The power of the Sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends, and countrymen, it is not so for the powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. The unlimited power of the sword, is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”

    Tench Coxe, Penn Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

    Thirty-nine (39) states have constitutional provisions on the right to keep and bear arms.

    South Carolina: “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. As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General Assembly. The military power of the State shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it. No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner nor in time of war but in the manner prescribed by law.” S.C. Const. art. I, § 20.

    Virginia: “That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.” Va. Const. art. I, § 13.

    Pennsylvania Constitution
    Section 21.
    The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

    Other States have similar wording, still others (11) don”t.

    “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

    George Mason, during Virginia’s ratification convention, 1788.

    “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms…To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…”

    Richard Henry Lee, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights. Additional Letters From the Federal Farmer 53, 1788.

    “No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state… Such are a well-regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen”

    Richard Henry Lee

    “…but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights…”

    Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist Papers 29

    “The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” -Samuel Adams, debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87.

    “The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age…” -Title 10, Section 331 of the U.S. Code.

    “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” -Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950).

    “(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” -James Madison.

    “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” -Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8.

    On and on, one could cut and paste for a time.

    Yes our hearts go out to the families of the ones murdered in cold blood by this nut case, the maimed, and scared for life. My initial reaction is to ban guns somehow some way, but that would not work any better that banning people from becoming insane in the first place picking up an inanimate object and killing another.

    I have a friend who grew up in England, largely a country without gun ownership. I asked, “How are most of the murders in England committed?”
    “Up close and personal, with a knife.” was his reply.

    England not having gun ownership on the level of the US, does prevent mass killing of this type, however, I feel that the Founders are correct, that making the Second Amendment a part of our Constitution, is the larger picture that they had in mind.

    “The great object is that every man be armed and everyone who is able may have a gun” – Patrick Henry

    Like

    1. “I have a friend who grew up in England, largely a country without gun ownership.”

      The murder rate in England is about 1/4 that of the United States. What does that tell you?

      As for Constitutionality, who cares? The argument about Constitutionally devolves to a war of semantics. Just pass the law I’ve suggested.

      Problem solved.

      Like

      1. I care about Constitutionality, it is not just semantics for me. Sorry will not support the law. We will disagree on this issue.

        However your econ thinking is just brilliant! I am learning about Monetary Sovereignty via your site, my friends think I am daft when I tell them about what I have been reading -then the light bulb goes off, and they start to get it!

        Like

        1. Thanks.

          The law I suggest does not violate any possible interpretation of the Constitution. It does not bar people from owning guns any more than the dram-shop laws bar people from serving liquor.

          Since guns clearly are created for the purpose of killing and maiming, the suggested law just makes you liable if you sell or give someone a gun that is used to kill or maim someone.

          No Constitutional issue, there.

          Like

      2. The law you suggested is unconstitutional in the extreme. The idea that the Constitution would allow the manufacturer and every previous owner of a gun to be charged with murder because someone unconnected to them shoots somebody is ludicrous. Your attempt to make an end-run around the Constitution would never work.

        Like

        1. Red XIV,

          Many local governments have “dram shop” laws. A tavern is liable if he serves liquor to someone who subsequently has an auto accident while DWI.

          Not exactly the same, but the same general concept, where someone can be liable for supplying a dangerous product to someone who uses that product to commit a crime.

          Today, we have weak laws that say if you sell someone a weapon, knowing it will be used in a crime, you are liable.

          But, since the sole purpose of a gun is to kill or maim, can you really claim innocence, if that gun is used for its sole purpose, i.e to kill or maim? Seems a bit disingenuous to claim you didn’t know it would be used that way.

          Again not the same, but of course, if it were the same, the law already would exist.

          If I sell someone Anthrax powder, can I claim I didn’t know they wanted to use it to kill someone?

          The use of the Constitution to justify gun ownership, by omitting the first half of the key sentence, is in itself an end run — an end run around plain English and common sense.

          I’m just proposing a law that does not violate the Constitution, by any interpretation. Gun nuts and drive-by shooters will hate it, but more innocent people will live.

          Like

  2. issue is surrounded by irrational fear and not facts. Today according to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, crime and murder in particular is down in the United States to rates that have not been see since the 1960’s. And that is in a down economy.
    Total population in 1960: 179,323,175
    Number of Murders 1960: 9,110
    Murder rate per 100,000 in 1960: 5.1

    Total population in 2010: 308,745,538
    Number of Murders 2010: 14,748
    Murder rate per 100,000 in 2010: 4.8

    In theory if we could wish away over 350,000,000 firearms we could live with rainbows, unicorns and ponies. As Mexico has proven with the most aggressive gun control in the world, the cost is the massacre of 48,000 unarmed citizens.
    The fact that the narco terrorists use the millions of fully automatic weapons (not available in the US) left over from war zones all of the world shows that removing global firearms is like charging windmills. The real issue is the people and their ability to be civilized.
    Israel proves that if you can not stop global weapons, then an armed people is the only solution when you live next to a war zone like say the Narco Terrorist State of Mexico or Palestine. Britain has no such neighbors. Accidental deaths in Israel from guns is less than the total number of people killed by terrorists last year because gun education and training works even in the presence of fully automatic weapons and anti tank weapons.
    According to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in 2011 a total of 20 innocent Israeli civilians were murdered by terrorists.
    Florida proves that after issuing a total of 2,260,949 permits since 1987 a total of 168 of them have been revoked for firearm related infractions.
    Today 40 States with Shall Carry laws and a down economy, homicides and the death of innocent people has not been lower since the 1960’s according to FACTS from the FBI. Deaths under gun control proves the gun control fantasy in the US did not work.
How about we try gun education instead of gun phobia like sex education.
    Here is a link to the State of Florida official facts that Wild West Theory does not match FACT:
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.pdf
    This year in 2012, Said Fashapshe, 35, of Haifa was murdered by terrorists.
An educated and trained armed populist can work.
    http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Palestinian+terro

    http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2011/september/crime_091911
    http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/crimestats

    We need real security in public places and that includes movie theatres and sporting events. No one on either side of the gun issue will debate the merits and no one would object to that kind of protection since security at a movie theatre should not have allowed this to happen.
    Better security and more aware public is the solution to this type of problem. People in the theatre saw this man enter the theatre but no one said a word or reacted the way they should have if this guy was a terrorist.

    Julio Gonzalez blew up 5 gallons of gasoline at the Happy Land night club in New York City and killed 87 people. You do not need a gun to kill people.

    After 9/11 we pushed for real solutions to the problem. Today Americans are vigilant to watching out for bad guys and will not let them gain control of a plane again. Take the gun control hat off for a moment and imagine that someone had the sense to stop a man with a bag full of gas canisters, gas mask, body armour and a helmet. The aurora nut could have just as easily had a gallon of gas and explosives and could have done far more damage. We are lucky he only had guns. The bad guy understood explosives and even set them up in his house. Even Whole Foods supermarket has people with guns at the front of the store to stop the crazy people.

    Like

    1. Are you, your family, your friends and neighbors in a well regulated Militia that is organized, trained and disciplined by Congress and whose officers are appointed by your state?

      If not, the 2nd Amendment does not include you.

      Like

      1. That is so 1990’s thinking. I am actually interested in understanding your non-originalist position towards the Constitution and it may be best to have another forum for that. As you can tell I hold an Originalist position.

        Please show me the Supreme Court Ruling that holds your position that the militia must:
        *”Be organized, trained and disciplined by Congress and whose officers are appointed by your state”

        When not acting as the militia, men had weapons and maintained weapons. When the militia was called up for battle, it was then organized, trained and well regulated, by the state. Teddy Roosevelt made himself lieutenant colonel, of the First U.S. Volunteer Cavalry, soon popularly known as the “Rough Riders and was Secretary of War at the time. Bully! Remember the Maine!

        The regiment, consisting of over 1,250 men, from all over the United States and was composed of cowboys, Indians, Wild West types, Ivy League athletes and aristocratic sportsmen from the East. What did these groups have in common ?
        They could ride and shoot and were in shape, and thus could be ready for war with little training. Roosevelt brought canon from his home for the Spanish American War.

        So what part of your militia theory stands against President Roosevelt militia?

        Scalia said it best when discussing the Miller case and the modern militia interpretation before Heller that is the opinion of the court. First you are a member of the militia according to the United States v Miller. Here is what the Miller case held:

        “Well-Regulated Militia.” In United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939), we explained that “the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.”

        “In The Portable Thomas Jefferson 520, 524 (M. Peterson ed. 1975) (“[T]he militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms”).”

        “Had the Court believed that the Second Amendment protects only those serving in the militia, it would have been odd to examine the character of the weapon rather than simply note that the two crooks were not militiamen.”

        “It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment.”

        “The defendants made no appearance in the case, neither filing a brief nor appearing at oral argument; the Court heard from no one but the Government (reason enough, one would think, not to make that case the beginning and the end of this Court’s consideration of the Second Amendment).”

        “Not a word (not a word) about the history of the Second Amendment. This is the mighty rock upon which the dissent rests its case”

        Click to access 07-290.pdf

        “None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual- rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.”

        Like

        1. “Please show me the Supreme Court Ruling that holds your position that the militia must: *”Be organized, trained and disciplined by Congress and whose officers are appointed by your state”

          It’s not the Supreme Court. It’s in the Constitution itself. Section 8 says:

          “Congress shall have the power to: Provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.”

          and

          “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”

          Note, it doesn’t say “A” Militia, which would imply that there was no militia, but rather “THE” Militia, which implies an existing organization.

          If you truly are an Originalist, as you claim, and not just a gun-lover pretending to be an Originalist, you will understand that “THE” refers to something that exists.

          Today, there is no Militia. You don’t belong to THE Militia, nor do I. THE Militia doesn’t exist, but the government has the power to organize A Militia, if it chooses to — something like THE (not A) National Guard.

          You seemed to agree, when you wrote “The regiment, consisting of over 1,250 men . . . ” THE regiment sounds like something that already existed.

          Which organized, armed and disciplined Militia are you in? Who are your officers?

          Anyway, I hope you realize that your entire NRA/gunner interpretation of the Constitution is irrelevant to he proposal I made. If you wish to believe the Constitution allows everyone to have a gun, that’s fine with me.

          My proposal allows everyone to have a gun. They just have to be liable for its use — by anyone.

          Like

        2. “The regiment” never met or trained together before shipping off to Cuba.
          Before that they were folks like you and me that met and knew Roosevelt.

          I am glad you read Section 8 of the Constitution but you are confusing active militia and in-active militia. As your quote points out, the active Militia is controlled by Congress. Agreed. Roosevelt called up friends to form a militia. They never met or trained before.

          You see when the Spanish American war was over, the men did not turn in their firearms and go home. Using all the times the militia was called up, they went home with their weapons of war. Using Miller or Heller, as well as all quotes from the people that wrote the 2nd Amendment, it is clearly stated “the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.”

          When not acting as the militia, men had weapons and maintained weapons at home. When the militia was called up for battle, it was then organized, trained and well regulated, by the state under Section 8.

          Teddy Roosevelt made himself lieutenant colonel, of the First U.S. Volunteer Cavalry, known as the “Rough Riders and was Secretary of War at the time. He did not train with any of them. He did not practice with any of them. He became the President of the United States and did not go to jail for possessing weapons of war at home.

          The regiment when formed in Cuba, consisting of over 1,250 men, from all over the United States and was composed of cowboys, Indians, Wild West types, Ivy League athletes and aristocratic sportsmen from the East. Before they arrived they could ride and shoot and were in shape, and thus could be ready for war with little training.

          You and I are both members of the militia. When called to duty, it is our responsibility to go. When not called to duty it is our responsibility to own weapons and know how to use them. And I would proudly fight by your side when that day comes because you are a real American that does not take your right for granted.

          Like

  3. Hmmm . . . Murders are down since 1960, so that proves . . . guns don’t kill? Guns aren’t dangerous? How about this: Since 1960, obesity has gone up, so I guess that proves guns cause obesity. Ain’t statistics wonderful?

    I wonder why I so seldom hear of someone committing a murder with a can of gas. I guess I’ll carry one with me, as protection, when I visit a dangerous neighborhood or Whole Foods.

    But, I agree with you that gun control doesn’t work, for the same reasons Prohibition and the War on Drugs doesn’t work. I said it at the beginning of the post.

    But that doesn’t mean drinking and taking drugs are good things — nor is carrying a gun.

    Like

    1. Why this statistic is important is the total number of murders has not been this low since 1960, while the largest purchase of firearms in the history of mankind took place. While 40 our of 50 states passed shall carry laws and crime did not go up. Even if your argument says that they are not related, then you have to agree that more guns and more public carrying of guns has no negative impact crime.

      To me the real issue is no one should be able to walk into a crowded event with a bag full of bombs or gas canisters. I believe Concealed carry prevents crime and so does gun ownership. I know if I the man in body armour and a bag full of unknowns, I will be the first person to start the dog pile. Same on a plane.

      Like

  4. i totally agree with you, rodger, but guns/ammo manufacturers and, perhaps more importantly, speculators, will not stand idly by and allow congress to destroy their market share and profits. they make a killing, literally and figuratively, off dangerous streets. besides, how many congressmen have some of their money “invested” in guns & ammo? talking about the fox guarding the chicken coop…

    that said, i have heard that all mass-murderers are on psychiatric medication or illegal drugs (many of which were actually used as psychiatric meds in the not-too-distant past). i would love to know if this guy is/was on something, but medical records are private, so we may never know unless someone “leaks” that info to the public. but such a revelation could potentially damage a pharmaceutical company. and so it goes…

    Like

  5. Your suggestion that “arms” in the 2nd Amendment means only “muskets” is asinine in the extreme. By that “logic”, all forms of media except newspapers would be denied the protection of the 1st Amendment. After all, the framers had no concept of radio, television, or the Internet. All of those things would have been MORE inconceivable to them than the idea of a semi-automatic rifle.

    Also, your proposed law would be unconstitutional in probably dozens of different ways.

    Like

    1. Of course it’s asinine. That’s exactly the point I was making about “Originalists.” Thanks for understanding.

      If the proposed law would be unconstitutional in “dozens of ways,” how about giving me just three. Should be no problem to pick three reasons out of dozens.

      Like

      1. I will work onthe three examples as soon as I figure out what that means. Why many laws will be deemed unconstitutional is because District of Columbia v. Heller case set as law that the right to keep and bear arms is the “right of the people” and not the National Guard.
        Originalist arguments make sense when you understand the reason behind the law in the same way we protect the media with new forms of communication.

        Read the entire ruling on the Heller case to understand how they came to their conclusion and how it will be ruled. The original intent of the 2nd Amendment was to allow for an armed populist and that is where you will have your challenges. It is not about hunting or defense of home. It is also to allow the people to stand against a future Nazi type government.

        After over 200 years on the books, the 2nd Amendment was finally reviewed by the Supreme Court in the District of Columbia v. Heller case on June 28th, 2008. Over simplifying the case, the Heller case dealt with the Washington D.C. 32 year ban on firearms. The Supreme court ruled that the 2nd Amendment is “an individual right” and that a ban on firearms “infringes” on the right of the People.
        On June 28th, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled and Justice Scalia states in the Courts Ruling Opinion that “Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right”.

        The Supreme Court borrowed heavily from the works of the founding fathers and looked at the laws on the books when the Constitution was written. Thomas Jefferson drafted the Constitution based on the Virginia Constitution, George Mason wrote the Bill of Rights and James Madison proposed them to Congress for ratification. Judges Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito voted in favor on the individual right of the 2nd Amendment. The vote was 5 to 4 but if you read the dissenting judges opinion, Breyer states “(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right” but should have more restrictions. The vote in favor of the individual right was really a 6 to 3 vote.

        I will provide three examples as soon as you explain what type of examples you are looking for.

        Here are two quotes that go to intent of the two people that wrote the 2nd amendment. If you dont agree with them then please feel free to repeal the amendment. Its your right.

        “The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
        James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

        “The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that… it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”

        Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.

        Like

        1. If Madison and Jefferson wanted everyone to be armed, why didn’t they simply write, “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”? Period.

          Why did they feel the need to add that prefix about the Militia?

          Like

        2. The reason why they attached a statement about the militia was to point out that all Americans have a duty to protect their State and must have a protected right to this type of assembly. To keep and bear arms was to enable that right and not limit it. They make that clear in many interviews and published works from the founding fathers. To imply that a group of revolutionaries would setup a Constitution that did not protect their right to keep the tool of their freedom is silly.

          The reason they wrote the 2nd Amendment the way they did, is because they did not speak the same American we do today. Especially in a legal context. Constitutional law is an entire subject all its own. Having a Scottish mother you realize at an early age that English is a term used loosely.

          Legal writing had evolved a great deal over the centuries and Judge Scalia spends a number of pages explaining how the use of language has changed in the Heller decision as well as citing source data for that explanation. Read that data for yourself if you doubt it does not impact your understanding of the 2nd Amendment. That is why you have to also look at the interviews with the Founding Fathers as well as their many published writings to get a clear picture.

          I have a fundamental problem with non-originalist thinking in that it circumvents the mechanism of Amending the Constitution which is the proper tool to use to create gun control and represent the will of the people. Adolph Hitler used the courts to strip German Jews of their rights and not the Amendment process.

          Like

        3. Yukon,

          I feel better knowing Scalia uses obsolete linguistics to interpret obsolete law for today’s world. I also feel better knowing that the “Militia” statement actually is subtle code for “duty to protect your state.”

          There’s an old joke about that: Christ complained to God that people didn’t seem to understand or obey His parables. God replied, “Maybe you should stop speaking in parables.”

          🙂

          Like

  6. States With High Gun Ownership & Weak Laws Have Most Gun Deaths

    States with the Five HIGHEST Per Capita Gun Death Rates
    — Louisiana–Rank: 1; Household Gun Ownership: 45.6 percent; Gun Death Rate: 19.87 per 100,000.
    — Mississippi–Rank: 2; Household Gun Ownership: 54.3 percent; Gun Death Rate: 18.32 per 100,000.
    — Alaska–Rank: 3; Household Gun Ownership: 60.6 percent; Gun Death Rate: 17.62 per 100,000.
    — Alabama–Rank: 4; Household Gun Ownership: 57.2 percent; Gun Death Rate: 17.55 per 100,000.
    — Nevada–Rank: 5; Household Gun Ownership: 31.5 percent; Gun Death Rate: 16.21 per 100,000.

    States with the Five LOWEST Per Capita Gun Death Rates:
    — Hawaii–Rank: 50; Household Gun Ownership: 9.7 percent; Gun Death Rate: 2.82 per 100,000.
    — Rhode Island–Rank: 49; Household Gun Ownership: 13.3 percent; Gun Death Rate: 3.51 per 100,000.
    — Massachusetts–Rank: 48; Household Gun Ownership: 12.8 percent; Gun Death Rate: 3.63 per 100,000.
    — Connecticut–Rank: 47; Household Gun Ownership: 16.2 percent; Gun Death Rate: 4.27 per 100,000.
    — New York–Rank: 46; Household Gun Ownership: 18.1 percent; Gun Death Rate: 5.07 per 100,000.

    The Violence Policy Center defined states with “weak” gun laws as those that add little or nothing to federal restrictions and have permissive laws governing the open or concealed carrying of firearms in public.

    Like

    1. many thanks for the post and the links, rodger. this is the info i’ve been wanting to hear for a long time now…

      Like

    2. If you associate that guns cause higher gun deaths then you also have to accept that guns reduce the total number of deaths as well. You cant have it both ways.

      I guess the actuary in me had to look at the raw numbers. Here is the list of all murders by State according to the FBI Uniform Crime Report lets see how that matches up to the non-biased VPC data from 2007. I don’t trust statistics without source data. People do strange stuff with them. Either more guns equal more murders or they don’t. Lets see what this looks like in comparison to gun laws:

      2010 Highest Total Murder Rate
      1-District of Columbia – 601,723 population / 131 murders (Strictest Gun Control)
      2-Louisiana – 4,533,372 population / 437 murders (Shall Carry State)
      3-Maryland – 5,773,372 population / 424 murders (Strict Gun Control)
      4-Missouri – 5,988,927 population / 419 murders (Shall Carry State)
      5-South Carolina – 4,625,364 population / 280 murders (Shall Carry State)
      6-Nevada – 2,700,551 population / 158 murders (Shall Carry State)

      2010 Lowest Total Murder Rate*
      1-New Hampshire – 1,316,470 population / 13 murders (Shall Carry State)
      2-Vermont – 625,741 population / 7 murders (No Restrictions at all)
      3-Iowa – 3,046,355 population / 38 murders (Shall Carry State)
      4-North Dakota – 672,591 population / 9 murders (Shall Carry State)
      5-Idaho – 1,567,582 population / 21 murders (Shall Carry State)

      *Lowest number of total murders in states with shall carry laws.
      Shall Carry laws means unless you are not legally allowed to have a gun they MUST give you a permit. 40 States have that today.

      The VPC is not exactly a non-biased group, try the raw data.
      That’s why I would not quote the NRA either.

      http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl20.xls

      Like

      1. thanks for the fbi crime stat link, yukon. it quite succinctly makes the same point that the stats rodger referenced immediately above make.

        guns beget gun violence, which begets more gun sales, which begets more gun violence, which begets even more gun sales, which begets even more gun violence and so on and so forth.

        unfortunately, the gun/ammo manufacturers’ lobby is just too powerful here in this country, so this story will soon disappear and nothing will change…

        Like

  7. why not apply this to drugs, alcohol, gambling, prostitution, etc.?
    It’s totally NOT prohibition. It will work.

    Like

  8. Slim, you’ll find this interesting:

    Official Court-Approved Settlement Website for Chinese Drywall Builders, Installers, Suppliers, and Insurers Settlement

    A Settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit involving drywall imported to the U.S. from China. The lawsuit claims that this Chinese Drywall caused property damage and personal injuries. The companies being sued deny they did anything wrong.

    The companies participating in this Settlement are distributors, suppliers, builders, developers, and installers who were associated with Chinese Drywall (“Participating Defendants”), along with many of their insurance companies (“Participating Insurers”).

    Group liability — exactly what I am suggesting for guns.

    Like

  9. I think the best way to reduce gun violence is for the U.S. government to increase its deficit spending. Statistically speaking, a prosperous society is a less violent society. Indeed, there is much less gun violence in affluent comunities than in impoverished ones. Statistically speaking, gun violence tends to increase in direct proportion to the average poverty of a community.

    Solution: reduce poverty by increasing government spending. When people have decent jobs, they have much more to lose by engaging in violent crime.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s