To reduce gun-related murders, get the guns out of the hands of private citizens...
Indiana economist Morton Marcus has studied and written about the Indiana economy for more than 30 years...
You'd think in that time the fool would have learned something. This is the most addlepated hit piece I've yet read, and I've been reading them for decades.
[Thanks to Jason M]
14 comments:
Just got done thoroughly educating MM. It might be good to reaffirm though, (you know how these types are). You can do so here:
morton_marcus@yahoo.com
Come on....you know you want to!
Have emailed the following:
(Dear Marcus)
Sir, you are a coward who wishes to legislate your fear on others. I have to wonder if you have a daughter. I have to wonder if you would turn and run for safety if your daughter were being raped right in front of you. You are a poor, poor soul. I pity you and all those who would be influenced by your ignorance.
I believe the following to be fitting:
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams
I pray you take that to heart. I also pray that the families of thousands and thousands of men and women who FOUGHT and DIED for your right to be an idiot will forgive you. Have a nice life.
J.T. McAdams
Louisville, KY
E. David,
It is soooo tempting to take this clown to school. But I'm certain it would be a total waste of time.
His writing exudes all the hallmarks of a closed, disassociated, and irrational mind.
Wonder if he was the genius who persuaded Indiana to reduce the number of beer distributers in order to increase competition.
Yeah, Indiana seems to breed Morons in certain quarters.
And academia seems to be one of them.
But not all of them are idiots. I know a guy there (who is also a college student) who is a Deagle owner, and is having fun with his recently-bought Five-SeveN.
1894C - True, but we are all entitled to a little entertainment. And ruffling liberal feathers has become a favorite past time of mine.
Besides that, it give an opportunity to expend pent up frustration... ;)
p.s. - good shot jt!
I'm not Morton Marcus, but I subscribe to his way of thinking.
I believe that if we pass enough laws, all the “bad people” will stop being bad.
I believe that if guns are outlawed, no more bad things will happen.
Even though I have a college education, I can’t really understand English – including present participles – like the one in Article II of the Constitution. So I guess that makes me a college educated maroon.
So, for the purpose of brevity, please refer to me as “Maroon.”
Since I’m a maroon, I believe that a government that can’t even properly administer a school lunch program can make me safe if they pass enough laws. (see 2nd sentence above)
If bad things can happen to people because of inanimate objects, those objects are to be feared.
On that note, since at least 6 televisions “fell” on children and crushed them this year alone, TV sets are to be feared, and should be outlawed. I know that I’ll not have one in MY house. Likewise automobiles. I’ll either walk, or take public transportation. (I’m not brave enough to ride a bicycle…)
Oh hell – just lock me up in a rubber room so no harm can befall me. Oh yeah – I’ll lick the boots of the folks who lock me up for my own good – as long as it keeps me safe. You see, I’m a spineless idiot, who will petition away my rights to any government entity that will promise to protect me.
I’m not willing to actually consider facts. Screw reality. Just promise me that I won’t have to defend either myself or my family, and I’ll swear allegiance to any entity that promises me safety.
I’m actually a cross between a sheep and a lemming. A sheep has to follow the shepherd. A lemming will follow the paranoid masses off of the cliff, and as long as the lemming on front of me is as scared as I am, I’ll follow him. I’m also a lot like a lemming because I have no spine to stand up on my own two feet and take a stand for liberty. So I skulk around on my hands and knees.
Liberty is for idiots who aren’t smart enough to plead for safety. I’m good enough, smart enough, and, doggone it, people like me. So – please don’t hurt me. You can tell who I am. I’m the one with the college plank, the smarts, and the yellow stripe down my back. I’ll likewise promise to like you – even if you rape and kill my wife and daughter – as long as you only do it because you are bigger and stronger than I am – not because you use a gun.
Mind you, if you choose to use a gun, I’ll not like you anymore. But I’ll understand that it’s not your fault, because the tool that “caused” your criminal behavior should have been made illegal by our masters.
So – please, please don’t hurt me. I’m a spineless coward, and I’ll pledge allegiance to anyone who is bigger and stronger than me. I’m just hoping that the biggest, strongest entity is my government. But if it isn’t the government that kicks down my door, and if you – you bad man - show up in spite of them, I’ll be your bitch. Just take the little girl and my wife before you take me – PLEASE.
Yours truly,
A. Spineless Maroon
Yeah right.
All citizens bad.
Why trust them with automobiles, gasoline cans, etc?
Why trust them at the ballot box?
"Vie trust no one. Show us your papers, please. Now, please step inside this boxcar."
Idiot.
He is one reason why I'm glad I went to Purdue. I guess the Bloomington IN police have a Star Trek transporter that will zap a cop into certain people's living rooms if they just dial 911.
Oooops! I'm a bad, bad, man. I felt obliged to send Marcus a link to this post....here's hoping he bites! Poor, poor Marcus.....so sad, really.
[Sorry...I had to fix a typo.]
An open letter to Morton Marcus:
Dear Sir:
I see that your column has inspired a fair amount of invective. Unfortunately, I can't say that it is undeserved. One can wish that the republic would be free of such historical misunderstanding, but it should come as no surprise that one is as likely--or more so--to find it in academia.
Rather than turn up the heat, however, let me see if I might shine a bit of light.
You state:
You and I are not constitutional lawyers,
Well, I'm not sure what a "constitutional lawyer" might be, but I am a lawyer, and I demonstrably have as fair an understanding of the Constitution as most, and certainly far more than any Supreme Court justice. Although, of course, that would be at best damning with faint praise. For example, I can see that proscription of recreational pharmaceuticals is found nowhere in the Constitution, let alone in Article I, Section 8. So clearly all federal drug laws are unconstitutional. Yet you may search in vain for a single justice who understands something so simple. But I digress--we were discussing the 2nd Amendment, yes?
but let's try to understand that single sentence.
Kudos to you for saying "understand," rather than "interpret." Now if only you would understand.
Why shall the right of the people to bear arms not be infringed?
Well, first of all, "why" is simply not an issue. The concept that you're misunderstanding is called "precatory language." One need not be a constitutional scholar (whether a lawyer or not) to understand this; any probate lawyer can explain it to you. Two examples may suffice:
Suppose a will says: "Because I know that Bob will always be a UCLA fan, I leave Bob $1,000,000.00."
Two months later, Bob falls in love with a USC cheerleader and switches teams. Does Bob have to give back the money? Nope.
A little-known fact: the original 1st Amendment said (OK, this is not actually true, but...): "A well-educated populace being necessary to resisting the British invasion, the right to own and read newspapers shall not be infringed."
Eventually the British gave up their colonial claims and went home. Is it now OK for the government to confiscate all of the printing presses?
According to this Morton Marcus fellow, it is. Is he correct?
Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.
At the time that these words were written, the word "regulated" meant "equipped." You can look it up. A responsible scribe might think that to be a good idea, in fact.
In other words, the 2nd Amendment isn't about taking orders from the government; it's about having good weapons. Native English speakers might be expected to know this, even if they are college professors. Or they can do their research and find out.
How many gun owners are members of a well-regulated state militia?
Well, as it turns out, that would be every male between the ages of eighteen (usually) and it "depends," depending upon which militia you're describing. You might want to look at the 1792 Uniform Militia Act, for starters, and then look at what different states have done from time to time. But the short answer to your question is: "...well, you are, just for starters." Your ignorance of the fact that you're in the militia (or were, anyway--some statutes limit the age to 45, and I don't know how old you are) doesn't change the facts.
Isn't a gun more likely to be used to settle private disputes that have nothing to do with the security of a free state?
And your point would be? I think that what you have here is called a non sequitur. But let's not flinch away from the original purpose of the right. This may surprise you, but the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was to protect the people (you can fall into arguing the false dichotomy of whether it's an "individual" right or a "state" right--it doesn't matter) from their government. That's right; it's not about shooting ducks. (Can you imagine if the right were "interpreted" to mean that you could pick tomatoes? That's how stupid the "hunters' rights" argument is.) It's about shooting soldiers and policemen. Now, you may be uncomfortable with this. But my copy of the U.S. Constitution is silent on the subject of Mr. Marcus's comfort level. Maybe it's missing a page.
Some of the founders' comments about this were rather inflammatory. I like Tench Coxe's, myself (emphasis mine):
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which might be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
Jayzus! What kind of wack-job talks openly about shooting cops and soldiers? Well, those would be the guys who wrote and signed the Constitution.
For the 2nd Amendment to be about rights possessed by the government, and not the people, would be simply extraördinary. It would be the only expression in the entire Constitution about such rights. (What about the 10th Amendment, say you? Nope--notice that the 9th, which talks about "the people," uses the word rights. The 10th, discussing the States, uses the word powers. Pretty sharp, those founders were! They actually could understand and use words in meaningful ways!)
This is why the so-called "standard model" of the 2nd Amendment has always been a lie, and why the overwhelming weight of constitutional scholarship--even among so-called "liberals" who aren't exactly happy about it--is that it means what it says. E.g., Lawrence Summers, Akhil Reed Amar, etc.
One last point--you say:
To reduce gun-related murders, get the guns out of the hands of private citizens.
This is not a constitutional issue of course; it's a practical argument. It's also one of the silliest damned things I've ever heard. You're familiar with the notion that an ounce of history is worth a pound of theory. Yes? Currently, if I recall correctly, and there hasn't been new legislation since I last checked, there are 17 "conservative carry law" states, where you apply for a permit to carry a handgun, and you don't get one unless the police want to give you one. There are 32 "liberal carry law" states, where you apply for a permit to carry a handgun, and you get one unless the police can cite a narrowly-defined statutory reason why you shouldn't get one. Guess which states have lower crime rates?
Ah, but say you, they have lower crime rates for other reasons. OK, try this: the historical trend has been for states to move out of the conservative column into the liberal one. What has happened to crime rates in those states as they have made it easier to carry guns?
I think you can see where this is going, yes? Why don't you do the research yourself? Then you can write a column retracting the silly one you wrote.
Oh, by the way, 32 + 17 = 49. That leaves Vermont, which last I checked, had no permit system, period. You want to carry a gun? You carry one. You don't ask the police for the "permission" which was guaranteed to you long before there was a 2nd Amendment.
Guess where Vermont is on all kinds of crime statistics... Again, I think you can see where this is going, yes?
Cordially,
Terence Geoghegan
The Law Offices of Terence Geoghegan
4510 East Thousand Oaks Boulevard, Suite 200
Westlake Village, CA 91362-3876
tg (at) iswest.com
"In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, 'Make us your slaves, but feed us.'"
--Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor
Terence,
Bravo! Good show. You made the statement; "(you can fall into arguing the false dichotomy of whether it's an "individual" right or a "state" right--it doesn't matter)"
Perhaps this will help in determining the original intent:
"Journal of the Senate of the United States of America,
"WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1789.
“...On motion to amend article the fifth, by inserting these words, 'for the COMMON defence,' next to the words 'bear arms:'"
“It passed in the NEGATIVE."
“On motion to strike out of this article, line the second, these words, 'the best,' and insert in lieu thereof 'necessary to the:'"
“It passed in the affirmative.
“On motion, on article the fifth, to strike out the word 'fifth,' after 'article the,' and insert 'fourth,' and to amend the article to read as follows: 'A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'"
“It passed in the AFFIRMATIVE....”
“...Resolved, That the Senate do concur in the resolve of the House of Representatives, on "Articles to be proposed to the legislatures of the states, as amendments to the constitution of the United States," with the amendments; two thirds of the Senators present concurring therein.
Our Right preceeded the Constitution, and was looked upon as being one of the inherent, God-given, natural and inalienable rights. Which are based upon "the laws of nature and of natures God".
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/SenateJournal09091789.html
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/LawsofNature.html
They were also intended to be "perpetual":
"It is a fortunate thing that the objection to the Government has been made on the ground I stated; because it will be practicable, on that ground, to obviate the objection, so far as to satisfy the public mind that their liberties will be perpetual, and this without endangering any part of the Constitution, which is considered as essential to the existence of the Government by those who promoted its adoption...."
"In some instances they assert those rights which are exercised by the people in forming and establishing a plan of Government. In other instances, they specify those rights which are retained when particular powers are given up to be exercised by the Legislature. In other instances, they specify positive rights, which may seem to result from the nature of the compact. Trial by jury cannot be considered as a natural right, but a right resulting from a social compact which regulates the action of the community, but is as essential to secure the liberty of the people as any one of the pre-existent rights of nature."
-James Madison, June 8, 1789 House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution 8 June, 21 July, 13, 18--19 Aug. 1789 Annals 1:424--50, 661--65, 707--17, 757--59, 766.
E. David:
Thanks for the kind words. It means a lot to me, especially from someone like you, who has obviously done his research carefully and thoroughly.
Note that the natural rights argument is not necessarily a theïstic one--I'm agnostic on such matters, but if forced to choose, would probably be an atheïst. One of the advantages (supposedly) of being a citizen of these United States is that I don't have to choose.
Which doesn't stop me from being friends with Opus Dei Catholics, evangelical Christians, and serious Jews. (In fact, when I have money to give to the gun rights movement, I don't give it to the quislings at the NRA--I give it to a real gun rights organization: Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.)
But most of my friends are atheïsts, which doesn't stop them from being dedicated "natural law" gun-rights supporters.
And I would never look to the U.S. Constitution to protect any of my rights. I'm with Lysander Spooner on this one--I didn't sign the Constitution, so it isn't a contract binding on me. But my real objection is that it's a poorly designed document--history shows that it simply isn't very effective at stopping government usurpation of rights.
I agree with you--my right to keep and bear arms wouldn't be diminished one whit if the Second Amendment had never be enacted.
--Terence Geoghegan
Hello Terence,
Understand your viewpoint. Which, I believe is the whole beauty behind the 'natural rights' basis. (And, might have perhaps been done intentionally by Jefferson in the Declaration. For he had some major issues with doctrinal religion. Another example would be Thomas Paine).
To many, the existence of (a) God is a subject of debate. And this due, perhaps, to the lack of readily visible proof. Nature, on the other hand, cannot be disputed. It is plainly visible all around us. So, by nature, it is held that every form of life comes into being with some means of naturally defending itself.
Something to consider, if viewed from that angle, perhaps? For natural rights have a solid legal foundation, which can be readily traced to origin in founding documents. And, provides a rock solid base from which to argue. The court cannot possibly deny the argument, for it is irrefutable.
Post a Comment