The conservative answer to America’s crime plague is to put more guns on the streets. If that’s not counterintuitive, I don’t know what is. The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 26 rejection of Washington, D.C.’s gun ban is an antediluvian retreat into la-la land. Its decision to strike down the 32-year-old law has put America’s cities in jeopardy, and that should be… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (35)Page 1 of 1 pages“If thats not counterintuitive, I dont know what is.”
You’re right you don’t.
Posted by whattheheck on Jul 10, 2008 at 1:07 PM It’s time to grow up, Ms. Washington. There are bad people out there, who will kill and rape and rob until someone stops them. Ideally it’s a policeman, a jury and a judge who sends them to prison for a very long time or has them executed. But since too many “progressives” have largely emasculated that process, then often it must be one of their intended victims who puts a stop to them. For that to happen usually requires the intended victim to have a gun.
May it never happen to you. But if you are so lucky as to live a long and productive life in peace, remember this: you were only able to do so because there were others willing to do violence in order to protect you.
Posted by rfguys on Jul 10, 2008 at 1:17 PM Bleeding Hart Liberals.
That cant read simple English.
It is a GOD given right to be able to defend yourself.
You are the ones that will destroy this country.
Every State that does not have heavy regulating on gun’s have less crime. These are proven stats.
Take TEXAS per example if you where to do a Bank Robbery that would probably be the worst place to do so.
Everybody is Packing even Granny!
She may not shout strait but she could get Lucky.
GOD Bless America!
Posted by Horace Smith on Jul 10, 2008 at 2:47 PM “The People of the Gun dont have to live in the cities that are desperate to stay safe. The mothers of Chicagos Englewood, Miamis Overtown and D.C.s Anacostia are losing their boys and girls by the dozens to guns that are peddled at countless gun shows and gun shops outside city limits.”
Wake up, Laura If guns get into supposedly “gunless cities” like Chicago and D.C., it is only those who are disobeying these laws who are causing those deaths they have them and will have them regardless of any ban.
Take a look at the effect of the banning of drugs. They are illegal in our cities, states and nation, so they come in from other countries at a huge profit to the illegal suppliers. Banning is a naive idea leading to a false sense of security.
The people you distrust are the ones who could save some of these kids.
I live in Illinois and carried a gun to work when the neighborhood where I worked began to witness hold-ups and shootings. Then the penalty for carrying without a permit went from a $50 misdemeanor to a felony. I moved my office home where I can have one of several handy if needed.
Posted by whattheheck on Jul 10, 2008 at 4:31 PM You write: “The conservative answer to Americas crime plague is to put more guns on the streets. If thats not counterintuitive, I dont know what is.”—Putting more law-abiding gun-toting citizens on the street is no more counterintuitive than adding more gun-toting cops. The advantage of relying on private citizens is that they can be passive and respond only when threatened—thereby avoiding the need for racial profiling and the infringement of people’s privacy.
You write: “Its decision to strike down the 32-year-old law has put Americas cities in jeopardy”—Nonsense, save for NYC, Chicago, and DC America’s cities have long been in compliance with the Supreme Court ruling.
You sarcasticly write: “...to keep America safe, we have to extend the right to bear arms from the military to pops having a beer on the couch in the living room.” —Except for those three cities (possibly), nothing has been extended, because we’ve _always_ had that right. Outside of those three cities, all the Supreme Court did was forbid the government from taking that right away from us.
You write: “The National Rifle Association (NRA) has poured hundreds of millions of dollars into ensuring that our national Weapon of Mass Destruction is as accessible as a pack of gum.” —The NRA isn’t pushing for guns to be any more accessible to private citizens than they already are to cops. When a mugger demands your wallet, threatening your life should you refuse, your gun had better be extremely accessible if you are to have any hope of killing him before he kills you.
You write: “The mothers of Chicagos Englewood, Miamis Overtown and D.C.s Anacostia are losing their boys and girls by the dozens to guns that are peddled at countless gun shows and gun shops outside city limits.” —These are the children of people who vote against law-and-order candidates; the children of people who view the police with suspicion and hostility; the children of people who resent it when the police kill drug dealers car thieves in their neighborhoods; the children of people who try to hijack every discussion about crime control and turn it into a brainstorming session about ways the government can give them more of other people’s money. The people in these communities are sleeping in a bed of their own making.
You write: “No matter. Its just black folks. Nearly half of people murdered in the United States in 2005 were African Americans. While blacks make up about 13 percent of the nations population, they make up 49 percent of all murder victims, according to a recent U.S. Justice Department report.” —It is not the color of their skin that makes the majority of these lives unworthy of our sympathy. The vast majority of these victims could have vastly decreased the danger to their lives simply by ending their criminal activities and associations. I certainly bear no moral obligation to give up my ability to resist robbers, merely in the hope of benefitting people who refuse to do what the God and the law already obligate them to do. My right not to be robbed (freedom from unwarranted searches and seizures) is more fundmental a civil right than even the right to vote.
If you don’t want black children to murder one another in today’s “Lord of the Flies” scenario, then encourage black people to form proper families (with father married to mother) before having children, and raise those children properly rather than passively waiting for them to “come up.” Far from justifying gun control, the existence of hundreds of thousands of young violent savages on our streets makes the means of armed self-defense all the more essential.
Posted by fsilber on Jul 10, 2008 at 5:59 PM The Heller decision is a PR victory for the sale of arms to Americans. It’s a winner for business—in guns shops and mortuaries.
Posted by Leif Rakur on Jul 10, 2008 at 6:53 PM Leif Rakur: “The Heller decision is a PR victory for the sale of arms to Americans. Its a winner for businessin guns shops and mortuaries.”
Look on the bright side. Radical ecologists claim the earth has too many people anyway.
Posted by fsilber on Jul 10, 2008 at 7:23 PM When will all the gun madness stop.Instead of running off and trying
to make the streets of IRAQ SAFE WHY CAN’T WE get rid of the guns
on our streets. I would feel so much safer if we were weaponless. How
safe do you feel when the person riding next to you on the subway has
a concealed weapon, the person at the laundromat is packing heat,
the person at the sporting event has a popper. Let’s let it hang out
but let’s not give every poor slob the ability to take another’s life.
Peace.
Posted by headed on Jul 10, 2008 at 9:18 PM The right to weapons for self-defense is a bourgeois value. All of the items in the Bill of Rights are bourgeois values. Marxists set out to destroy bourgeois values lo, these many years ago.
Marxists in the USA demand our weapons, establish speech codes, promote multiculturalism, create restrictions on the Christian religion (but usually not on other religions) precisely because our freedoms are a threat to the Socialist utopia they hope to establish. You can bet your ass the more Socialists whine, the more threatened they are by the freedoms they are whining about.
But every single Socialist experiment has ended in inefficiency and corruption at best (EU), and in destruction, death, and genocide at worst (USSR, Communist China, DPRK, Vietnam). If Socialism had a long history of success, it might deserve a second look, but it has a long history of failure, and usually abject, catastrophic failure.
The Constitution explicitly does not grant rights and freedoms to people, but, on the contrary, recognizes that people own these God-given rights and freedoms. The purpose of the Constitution and the republican form of government established by the Constitution is to protect the peoples’ rights, allow people the maximum amount of freedom limited, ideally, only by the recognition of others’ equal rights, while keeping the oppressive hand of government out of the peoples’ affairs. Socialists, on the contrary, want to establish the oppressive hand of government as a supreme Socialist value, quite contrary to our Constitution and its values.
So, American Socialists are actively campaigning against our rights because some smelly old German wanted to set up an entirely different unproven Socialist values system a century-and-a-half ago. (Karl Marx thought that personal hygiene, like freedom of speech and the right to self-defense, was a bourgeois value.)
Long live bourgeois values!
Posted by scorp on Jul 11, 2008 at 3:06 AM Finally some people who make some sense. My comment is not directed to the writer of the article. She has already been addressed by freedom loving individuals who can articulate a sentence better than I. Instead I will address the intelectual genious that wants to take all of the guns off the streets in America. Yes I do feel safe if someone regardless of were we are has a concealed weapon on them. I could care less as long as I have he ability if given the choice to also be armed. This is called fairness. If you choose not to arm yourself good on you. I for one will never give up my right to own a gun.
Posted by jjayh on Jul 11, 2008 at 7:20 AM Laura,
If you’re going to talk about people of the gun, at least refer your readers to their website.
http://www.peopleofthegun.com/
But back to your article.
What was I going to say? oh yeah, you’re an idiot.
Keep your damned hands off my guns!
Posted by robscottw on Jul 11, 2008 at 2:53 PM You can postulate all you like, but the reality is that forty, count ‘em, forty states presently have right to carry laws on the books. So where are the “wild west” shoot ‘em up stories? Some of those states have had carry allowed for over twenty years, one of them being Indiana. Now tell me, can you honestly say that would you feel less safe in Indianapolis than in Chicago? Illinois is a right denied state, there is no form of carry allowed in incorporated areas unless the gun is unloaded and in a case and of course in the city even that’s a complete no-no. Nevertheless, there were four shootings within blocks of the Taste of Chicago! Did the guns laws stop this? Did the police presence? I’ve read that one suspect has been caught; one. If you look at US crime maps and at those states which allow the carry of firearms, there is no correlation between the rate of violent crime and conceal carry. If anything you can point towards a trend of reduced crime in those places where carry is allowed.
Your ideas about what would happen if everyone had guns are completely unfounded and based on pure imagination, the problems is, forty states are already as free as you can get about carrying weapons (another eight allow permits, even California!), all the people who care to have them in those forty states already do! So where do you hear about the shootings? “Gun Free Zones” I guarantee that if you do your homework, those who had permits and then a violent record are next to nothing.
Your fear of the freedom to be armed for the purpose of self defense is just that, simply fear of a measurably greater risk for violence without rational basis. It is not enough for you to tell me that I have to go about my life without the option to meet force with force when faced with an attacker.
Posted by jdmac44 on Jul 11, 2008 at 3:32 PM I have noticed recently how few people are interested in commenting on most ITT articles. I guess not too many of your topics are all that meaningful.
However, each time Laura disses gun ownership, the overwhelming response is disagreeing with her.
Fifty states now realize that we who obey the law are not the problem. Perhaps she should try to reform those who are interested in avoiding work and choose to make their living off the fruits of others or engaging in illegal occupations.
Nothing she says on this issue is going to matter except to those of us who work, raise our families to do the same and want the best for this country. Her view seems to be that if Pop has a beer on the couch he’s prone to blasting someone if his team loses or the kids get on his nerves. Kind of reminds me of that guy who thinks “clinging to God and our guns” is a bigger danger than trashing the U.S. Constitution.
Watch it, Laura if the Second Amendment goes the First won’t be far behind. Got a back-up job in mind?
Posted by whattheheck on Jul 11, 2008 at 3:50 PM Ms. Washington,
I do believe OSHA has done a great service to our country, protecting our workers on the job, but I don’t believe there should be regulations to protect criminals doing theirs. That is exactly what your “Gun Free Zones” do, they tell the people who want to do you harm that you as a law abiding citizen cannot protect yourself.
I for one am a law abiding citizen (okay, a few traffic violations), who happens to own several guns (for self protection, bird hunting, deer hunting, target shooting, etc.) and do not feel that you, or anyone else, has the right to infringe on the RIGHT, not privilege, that was granted to all people by their creator. This is a RIGHT, not a privilege, that was specifically enumerated in the Constitution, the same Constitution that was written to protect citizens from the government, not the government from the citizens. The RIGHT of the PEOPLE covered in the 2nd ammendment are the same PEOPLE protected by the 1st and 4th ammendments.
You imply that the Founding Fathers do not mean for this to be an individual RIGHT. Can you please provide me a single quote from any of the Founding Fathers that states the 2nd Ammendment was designed to protect states rights? I can provide you with a plethora of quotes from some people you may have heard of, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine and many others who make it perfectly clear that their thoughts were everyone should have a gun. There is also a scrap of parchment that you may have heard of, I think it is called the Declaration of Independence, there is the pesky little line in there that says “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” While I do not believe that today’s government, with all of its flaws, needs to be overthrown, what I do believe is that if you take away the People’s right to keep and bear arms they will have no protection against a Goverment that wants to remove all of their rights.
I have been in the military for 20 years, and I currently teach people how to shoot everything from a 9mm pistol to a grenade machine gun, and have access to hundreds of guns at work every day, but the state that I am currently stationed in will not allow me the privilege of carrying a handgun to protect my family. That is a disgusting abuse of power perpetrated by sick minds who listen to radicals like you preaching emotion over fact, and hysteria over common sense. I have fired hundreds of thousands of rounds, and not once has my gun ever committed a crime.
There is a problem with crime these days, it is the criminal justice system that has bowed down to the demands of liberals who fight to free convicted murderers, rapists and strong armed robbers. The death penalty may not be a deterrent to crime (although it does prevent recidivism), but a well armed populace is.
Posted by Sailor on Jul 12, 2008 at 1:04 AM Ms. Washington,
After my last rant I realized I missed a huge topic in current events related to gun control. Robert Mugabe, the tyrant who stole the election in Zimbabwe, is a firm believer in gun control. In fact, that could very well be the only way he stays in power, his subjects do not have the 2nd Ammendment there to help them. How else do you think he was able to intimidate his opponent, who was clearly going to win the election, to stand down.
I will use your quote here, “No matter. Its just black folks.”
Posted by Sailor on Jul 12, 2008 at 1:14 AM Right on, Sailor!
IMO the only time the death penalty is not a deterrent is…
when it is not imminent.
Posted by whattheheck on Jul 12, 2008 at 3:33 PM It’s surprising that many on the left are against the 2nd Amendment, which is one of the Bill of Rights.
The only logically plausible reason is the thinking that., “most gun owners are part of the right-wing”, and that therefore leftists should be anti-gun. The problem with this argument is that it can also be applied to things such as freedom of the press; “Most of the media are owned by the right-wing”, and therefore leftists ought be against the 1st Amendment.
A more likely reason is that shrill anti-gun fanatics (like Ms. Washington) have hijacked the issue. Similar examples abound: “You can’t be progressive unless you are a vegan”, ” Only LGBT are truly progressive”, and “Anyone who owns a car does not care for the environment”.
The trouble with guns as opposed to cars is that many people are ignorant on the topic of firearms and can be taken in when they hear lies that are continually repeated.
When a fanatic anti-car person claims, “the only purpose of trucks is to mow down innocent bicyclists”, most can see through the statement.
Posted by AlbertParsons on Jul 12, 2008 at 6:16 PM Dear Ms. Washington.
Thank you for your entertaining editorial titled Gun-Toters in La-La Land. It always gives me a chuckle when someone who has no sound argument immediately reverts to an insulting adolescent, and at the same time, believes that they are the intellectual superior.
You hit all the bases:
1) You make a racial slur against Justice Anthony Scalia.
2) You label people who support the second amendment racist.
3) You dont consider any of the historical evidence. (Youre right, youre no Constitutional Scholar). Did you even read any of the justices opinions?
4) Then you ignore the fact that every state that has adopted pro-gun right-to-carry laws has had a significant drop in almost all violent crimes.You also make reference to that fact the bill of rights are 217 years old, as if they are out of date, and we lose our rights unless renewed. Well the first and the fourth amendment are the same age and I support them too.
In following your position, you are denying the most basic right of human beings; the right of self-preservation. If you are in the position of someone trying to end your life, there will be only one person there to defend it. You. The odds of a police officer being in the area to help you are astronomical. Ask any police officer, their job mainly consists of drawing a line around your body, and trying to find the murderer, after youre dead. Thats not enough for me. If it is enough for you, thats ok. But dont disarm me just to give you a false sense of security.
Posted by davefysers on Jul 12, 2008 at 7:05 PM Posted by “headed” (apparently from Germany according to the flag):
“Yo!u gun owners are bunch of nuts!”Finally, someone who makes Ms. Washington seem thoughtful and well reasoned by comparison.
Wasn’t Germany the country that started WWII, where the government imprisoned and killed millions of it’s OWN citizens?
The Jews in the Warsaw ghetto did not benefit from the, “safety”, provided by European gun control laws which conveniently disarmed the victims of state violence.
Posted by AlbertParsons on Jul 13, 2008 at 2:58 AM Al -
A more likely reason is that shrill anti-gun fanatics (like Ms. Washington) have hijacked the issue.
And why do you suppose that they would want to do that? People like Ms. Washington also want to restrict the free expression of the Christian religion, as the ACLU does, and restrict our freedom of speech, as Bill Moyers does in another ITT article this week.
These people are called Socialists, and they have been attacking American values for nearly a century. They have also tried to win political office, with poor results, here in America. When they could not win political office as Communists and Socialists in the 1930s, they began calling themselves Progressives and Liberals in the 1940s and 1950s. Same shit, different day; the American people always recognize a Socialist phony, or a phony Socialist, and vote them down: McGovern, Dukakis, Mondale, Gore, Kerry.
Socialists did gain political power in some countries (USSR, China, North Korea, Vietnam) through force and deception, and then pretended to be democratic, so powerful is the democracy brand: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Democratic Peoples’ Republic of Vietnam. But the old Soviet Union and its bastard spawn are falling apart and/or going capitalist, as China is.
The EU has always had a strong Socialist streak, and, since WWII, an aversion to force. But the European people (Germany, France, Ireland) keep voting down the Socialist EU Constitution, and the Socialists keep trying new plots and schemes to install Socialism without the necessity of messy elections. When they succeed, they will undoubtedly call themselves the EUSSR.
The practical result of all Socialist experiments is inefficiency and corruption at best, and destruction and death at worst
So now American Socialists have decided on a radical new tack in their pursuit of the White House. Instead of nominating an accomplished Socialist politician for the office of President (such as Hillary), they have now gone with a young, shallow, callow candidate with no accomplishment whose only known associates are communist organizers (Davis, Alinsky), criminals (Rezko), terrorists (Ayers, Dohrn), racist radicals (Wright, Pfleger), radical Muslims (Farrahan), and corrupt politicians (Daley, Blagojevich).
The one talent that Obama does have is his golden voice, and the American Socialists have bet hundreds of millions of dollars that they can talk their way into the White House using Obama as a mouthpiece. But after winning the Democratic nomination, Obamas obligatory pivot to the center was handled awkwardly and inartfully, and his eager followers were shocked shocked! when the things he promised while trying to win the nomination were no longer applicable, and he had to appeal to a larger base. Meaningless platitudes delivered in a golden voice are one thing, dishonest flip-flops delivered in a golden voice do not have quite the same effect.
Posted by scorp on Jul 13, 2008 at 4:28 AM Ms. Washington primarily wants to lower the rate at which drug dealers and gang members kill one another, without requiring them to stop being drug dealers and gang members. The argument is that these teenagers have no choice but to join gangs due to their inadequate legitimate opportunities.
I look at it this way. If I were a teenager dissatisfied with my opportunities, would I choose to join a gang and get shot at in a gang war over drug selling territory, or would I prefer to “borrow” a car and follow some unarmed suburban dad or mom home and take his wallet as he emerged from his car? I’d certainly prefer to do the latter—it’s much safer. I give high priority to the right of people with clean police records to own and _carry_ loaded handguns specifically to deny these disadvantaged youth the option of robbing me.
It’s not because of their race that I don’t want these teenagers to rob me; I don’t want to be robbed by people of any race. Their willingness to murder one another does not make me any more willing to be robbed, nor does it obligate me to allow them to do so.
Find some other way to keep them from killing one another (as if you even _could_ keep guns from people who have no trouble getting marijuana, heroin and cocaine despite its illegality).
Posted by fsilber on Jul 13, 2008 at 11:33 AM Why is it that we don’t hear of armed criminals invading police stations in order to rob and kill cops? Is it maybe because the police are armed and robbing them is too risky? It is far less of a risk from a criminal’s point of view to target a home in a city where gun ownership is prohibited and where the occupants are very likely disarmed. Gun prohibition along with drug prohibition has done far more to encourage violent crime than anything else.
All those who think that gun prohibition will reduce violent crime should do their part in the fight against crime and place signs in their home windows announcing that their’s is a gun free home. They can also follow up this crime fighting gesture by publicly wearing tee shirts sporting the same message. At least criminals, who have no respect for any laws, will leave the rest of us alone as they gorge themselves on the risk free sheep.
Posted by MetaCynic on Jul 13, 2008 at 10:22 PM Just as 9/11 was the blowback for the failure of military intervention abroad, street crime is the blowback for the failure of “social justice” intervention at home. The right wing demands yet more foreign wars in response to the failure of earlier aggression to attain their stated goals of American global domination, and the left wing demands a war against guns in reaction to the failure of their wars against poverty, illiteracy, discrimination and drugs to achieve their stated goals of social virtue and prosperity for all. In either case, failure of policy redoubles the effort for more money, power and control in the hands of the ruling elites. Failure is always rewarded. It never results in the abandonment of policy.
What is so ironic is that the gun-grabbing left is just as in love with guns and raw physical force as is the war mongering right. Every beloved “social justice” program is financed by taxes stolen at gun point. Anyone who refuses to pay up will be menaced by men with guns. Anyone who resists will be killed. Furthermore, the enforcement of every “social justice” law compromises someone’s right to the use of his property or to his freedom of choice or to his freedom of association. Once again, anyone who violates these laws will be menaced by men with guns. Anyone who resists will be killed.
Some will argue that the welfare/warfare state is democracy in operation. Perhaps so, but It should be pointed out that, in reality, democracy is but two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for dinner! Once a precedent has been set, today’s wolves can be outvoted and become tomorrow’s lambs. We are in a perpetual legalized civil war as gangs of official victim groups scramble for the gun of the state and the power to be the wolves. Why should we cherish such a might makes right system?
The left’s elitist hypocrisy on the issue of guns is breathtaking. We serfs, no matter how honest, peaceful and capable, cannot be trusted with the possession of guns. Yet agents of the welfare state, who are drawn from the same gene pool, are to be trusted with unlimited firepower just because they are on the public payroll and claim to be taking care of us.
Posted by MetaCynic on Jul 14, 2008 at 12:38 AM Scorp,
Here we are agreeing once again. Our only point of disagreement has been regarding the economy. I say this not as an “I told you so” but as a friend.
Without going into all my old arguments and reasons why I’m still pessimistic, here is an investment which has been paying off for me and I expect to for the foreseeable future. The symbol is SKF. It’s an inverse financial ETF which trades at 2X up or down of group of financial companies.
Things have gotten so bad here in Illinois’ rust belt that every week for the past month a parade of pickup trucks and people with trash bags “shops” for anything they can resell from our garbage.
There are eight houses in my immediate neighborhood which have been for sale for a long time. One was abandoned last fall, two more have been vacant for our one year and one for two years. My neighbor is a real estate agent who told me she averages 30 house per year the first half of 2008 she sold only one.
There are few jobs of any kind and if they can’t sell they can’t afford to go anywhere else.
It’s a sad situation and neither candidate is proposing realistic solutions. Obama has raised a lot of money with his “golden voice”, but it’s our money he’s offering in bribing voters with $1,000 bills. I guess if politicians can be bought why not voters?
McCain wants to pay for his ideas with tax cuts and spending cuts, but congress is not likely to go along with either.
Good luck,
What the Heck
Posted by whattheheck on Jul 14, 2008 at 1:14 PM WTH -
You are correct, we agree on most things except the economy. Economic arguments are meaningless to you because of your personal experience in your home state.
But look, you live in a relatively high-tax state, a state without Right-to-Work laws, and a state that routinely elects corrupt Democratic machine politicians. And you wonder why your economy is bad?
I understand that Prius was going to build a new automobile manufacturing facility in California, but decided that the California tax structure and regulatory environment made the project not worthwhile. So, Prius is going to Mississippi.
If you can’t go to Mississippi or some business friendly environment, just put a bumper sticker on your forehead that says “LOSER”, and put a “Kick Me” sign on your back. It won’t make you feel any better, but at least you will have accurately identified the problem.
God help us all if Obama brings his tender Socialist ministrations to the economy.
Posted by scorp on Jul 19, 2008 at 6:02 AM Scorp,
Neither candidate has had an original, long range economic proposal or idea yet. Therefore I expect to see the dollar continue to fall, our taxes continue to rise, regulation reinstituted, and nationalization (as in Ibdymac, Fannie and Freddie) to spread to other areas.
We have been following essentially the same ill fated path as Great Britain took a century ago.
Your “loser” label will eventually become a one-size-fits-all as our nation slips to second class status.
My net worth hit an all time high last week because I am investing (trading) according to a real world perception of the total US economy .
How’s yours doing?
By the way, the last I knew Prius was a foreign car. Take a look at Detroit. Our country is being bled dry by an opportunistic joint venture of corporate leaders, congress and Wall Street.
Posted by whattheheck on Jul 21, 2008 at 6:05 PM I come to this argument late since today I am resting and playing with my grand daughter. Hope someone reads this and decides that it may be worthy.
I won’t attack the writer since the piece is clearly labeled as viewpoint or oped.
But, I would like to ask her or those that agree with her a few questions to gauge their mindset.
First; Do the police exist to protect society at large or to serve as individual citizens personal security details?
Next; Does it logically follow that one who commits murder would observe a gun ban?
Finally; Why is it ok to remove our second amendment rights but it isn’t ok to remove the protections afforded a free press?
I would appreciate anyone responding who can answer those questions from the article writers perspective in a rational, productive manner.
I will begin holding my breath now :-)
Posted by Phillip on Sep 1, 2008 at 8:34 PM if the modalities of a gun ban are in place a murderer will have no choice but to observe a gun ban because guns will not be available.
Secondly a free press is really a sham anyway and what does it have to
with a gun ban
Posted by headed on Sep 2, 2008 at 3:43 AM if the modalities of a gun ban are in place a murderer will have no choice but to observe a gun ban because guns will not be available.
1. The fact, state, or quality of being modal.
2. A tendency to conform to a general pattern or belong to a particular group or category.
3. Logic. The classification of propositions on the basis of whether they assert or deny the possibility, impossibility, contingency, or necessity of their content. Also called mode.
4. modalities The ceremonial forms, protocols, or conditions that surround formal agreements or negotiations: “[He] grew so enthusiastic about our prospects that he began to speculate on the modalities of signing” (Henry A. Kissinger).
5. Medicine. A therapeutic method or agent, such as surgery, chemotherapy, or electrotherapy, that involves the physical treatment of a disorder.
6. Physiology. Any of the various types of sensation, such as vision or hearing.No matter which definition you prefer to try, your statement is not reality based. Criminals always have ignored the laws and various “bans” and always will. Hence the name.
I notice you made no attempt to answer the questions I posted.
Secondly a free press is really a sham anyway and what does it have to with a gun ban
A free press is guaranteed via the first amendment to our Constitution. The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed via the second amendment. Both belong to the Bill of Rights comprised of the first ten amendments. I took the time to answer because it appears you may not fully understand the concept of liberty as it applies to an individual and a society.
Your assertion of a free press being a sham needs to be substantiated and placed in context before it can be considered worthy of discussion.
Posted by Phillip on Sep 2, 2008 at 4:36 AM headed wrote: “If the modalities of a gun ban are in place a murderer will have no choice but to observe a gun ban because guns will not be available.
Secondly a free press is really a sham anyway and what does it have to
with a gun ban.”How would the “modalities” of a gun ban differ from the modalities of a cocaine, marijuana or heroin ban? If a _real_ gun ban would make guns not available, why are drugs available? Why would you have any greater success with gun ban “modalities”?
Posted by fsilber on Sep 2, 2008 at 10:34 AM if we don’t believe governments can effect change is the attempt to
bring a democratic government to Iraq a legitamate policy option.Me
thinks a gun ban would be considerably easier ,less costly and
ultimately more pleasing.Think how many americans are slaughtered
each month with weapons of mass destruction.LET THE BAN BEGIN
Posted by headed on Sep 2, 2008 at 1:02 PM Since most of the killing is over the drug trade, instead of banning guns why don’t you just ban the drugs? This way the gangsters will have nothing to fight over.
A drug ban would be considerably easier, less costly, and ultimately more pleasing than a gun ban.
Posted by fsilber on Sep 2, 2008 at 3:40 PM if we don’t believe governments can effect change is the attempt to bring a democratic government to Iraq a legitamate policy option
No one has asserted that government cannot effect change IIRC. My argument is that the right to keep and bear arms is as sacred as free speech or religious freedom. Or privacy, or [fill in your favorite civil liberty here].
If you wish to redirect the conversation you will have to do better than simple avoidance.
Me thinks a gun ban would be considerably easier ,less costly and ultimately more pleasing.
While we are at it we can ban privacy as well. After all, if you have nothing to hide, then proving it is not an imposition is it? It would certainly make law enforcement considerably easier ,less costly and ultimately more pleasing.
Think how many americans are slaughtered each month with weapons of mass destruction.LET THE BAN BEGIN
I agree. Car accidents really suck. Ban cars and quarantine Detroit.
Still Holding My Breath.
Posted by Phillip on Sep 4, 2008 at 2:38 AM Phillip, Headed and fsilber,
The world’s problems are not due to gun or drug availabilty they are nearly all attributable to people.
We need to get rid of as many people as possible and as soon as possible in order to have a nice place for a few people (just like me).
We can make more drugs available to people, or tech people to be better shots. This drive-by stuff is so hap hazard. First you get them high, then they will be easier to round up. Have them count off by twos (or alphabetically, according to height) pass out the ammo and ...
Just a suggestion, but anyone who disagrees should be shot as a trouble maker.
——————————-
I figure the above makes about as much sense as trying to ban any more stuff.
Hasn’t worked with machine guns, booze, drugs, the bra, books, handguns, assault weapons, bombs, land mines, machine guns, dirty pictures… what have I missed here? Britain is trying to ban knives no kidding.
Posted by whattheheck on Oct 4, 2008 at 8:22 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Laura S. Washington
- Obama Needs a Black Agenda
- Honest Abe and Honest Obe
- The Whole World Was Watching
40 years ago this week, Chicago police battled protesters at the DNC. Two '60s radicals remember the madness, and look to Denver for change - Gun-toters in La-La Land
- The Great Election Robbery of 2008?
- Obama Not Feelin’ the Love from Smiley
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2008 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
