Tuesday, March 25, 2008

The Right Kind of Gun Rights?

Reasonable self-defense leaves room for firearms regulation. Exotic and highly destructive weapons could be restricted or banned, because no one needs a machine gun or grenade launcher for protection against ordinary crime.

...Most of the government's gun laws, in fact, would have no trouble passing the self-defense test (as the Heartland Institute calls it in an amicus brief), because most gun laws are reasonable and don't leave people defenseless. As for the insurrectionary purpose of the Second Amendment, the Court could either repudiate it explicitly or pass over it in silence, consigning it to irrelevance.

The self-defense test is good policy, because it aligns the Second Amendment with modern needs and sensibilities. It is good law, because it rescues the amendment from being a dead letter or an embarrassment.

Jonathan Rauch, the only thing irrelevant and embarrassing in this debate is you.

This is what happens when you let the "moderates" drive the bus--they can't find enough of "those people" to run over. It's happened with the "Big Tent" Republicans, and it's happening in the gun rights movement--with the complicity of many who claim political expansion through compromise is more important than fidelity to principles and core constituency.

You would think as someone who champions rights (or at least exploits that perception) for a disaffected minority, Rauch would be more sensitive to first alienating and then abandoning any "subculture." But strict constructionists are an embarrassment. And those militia yahoos? Forget it! Besides, he says, borrowing a line from the Brady Playbook, "No one needs a machine gun."

There were once urbane dandies like Jonathan in 1920's-era Berlin. Many were literate, fashionable, sophisticated...and we know what happened 10 years later under an administration that deemed them "socially aberrant."

But Jonathan is no student of history. Jonathan thinks it can't happen here. Why, the very idea would be laughable if it wasn't such an embarrassment.

Because, you see, the "insurrectionary purpose" according to Jonathan, is "a dead letter." If we bring it up, we relegate the Second Amendment to "irrelevance."

But what Jonathan and those like him can't (or won't) answer are some questions I've addressed before:

[W]hat about human nature has changed?

In a century that has seen two world wars, continual violent political upheaval, genocide and systemic, brutal tyranny and repression, has humanity truly demonstrated a benevolence and maturity that distinguishes our era from those that preceded us? In a culture that breeds gang warfare, rampant violence, city-crippling riots and a national murder rate measured in the tens of thousands, how can anyone credibly claim that the need for individual defense is a relic of the past?

And ultimately, what is this "outdated" Second Amendment really about, if not the preservation of a free people when all other options to defend life and liberty have been exhausted? Against all enemies, individual and aggregated, foreign and domestic. Here is where we must face the core meaning of the awesome power and responsibility that this "obsolete" right places squarely in the hands of the people. Because, ultimately, what this right guarantees you is not a gun, but a choice. A choice, in the final analysis, to submit to evil or to fight it, literally.

You'd never know that if your only exposure to "gun rights" was from great thinkers like Jonathan. And isn't it curious how the reach of such people is always so much longer and their voices so much louder than those of we the embarrassing?

What we haven't established with Jonathan is if he's a willful subversive or just a blind fool. But in the end, it doesn't matter. All we really need to know is if we continue allowing ourselves to be led by him and his kind, he'll be proven right. The Second Amendment will be a dead letter, consigned to irrelevance.

Me, I plan on continuing to be an embarrassment as long as I draw breath.

[Via Carl S]

20 comments:

  1. "This is what happens when you let the "moderates" drive the bus--"

    They go fastly right into the ditch...and happily so!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good post.


    C.H.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What weapons should we be allowed to own? Wasn't the purpose of the second amendment to ensure that the people would be as well armed as the average soldier? And I would ask that author why a machine gun wouldn't be good for self-defense?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Technology is the only thing that has changed in the history of man. Hate, envy, and the desire to control everybody’s lives is the same as it has been from the beginning of time. Libs and moderates have no clue.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Technology is the only thing that has changed in the history of man. Hate, envy, and the desire to control everybody’s lives is the same as it has been from the beginning of time. Libs and moderates have no clue."

    I think they have an excellent clue: if we have guns then they cannot use the modern technology to control our lives -- thereby preventing expression of their hate and envy. Our possession of guns frustrates them.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Self defence against whom?

    Self defence against the State is a completely different prospect than self defence against some criminal mutant...

    ReplyDelete
  7. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."


    Just how are THE PEOPLE to do this without the arms appropriate to the task?

    ReplyDelete
  8. This is the same guy whose article back a few years directly led to the Pink Pistols.

    And now you want to kick him to the curb.

    Alan Gura, and most adults acknowledge that insisting on private machine gun ownership is a losing proposition right now. We didn't get into this situation overnight, and we're not going to repeal all of it overnight either. I wish it weren't so, but that is what we face.

    Yet you still want to kick him to the curb.

    He wrote this article in a non-gun forum, where there are readers who are undecided about the whole gun thing. Remember what Uncle has said (IIRC) about 'scaring the white people'?

    How is attacking this man for writing an article that the audience can hear going to get me my HK MP5SD?

    Going his route will get it for me eventually. Going your way will ensure that this is an unfufilled desire. If the publication date were 2012, after we win Heller, and the FOID in Illinois and the Sullivan Law in NY have been struck down (amongst other Infringements), then you'd be golden. But it's not at all innappropriate for right now, even though I disagree with most of it.

    He's got a wider audience than either of us can boast of right now. Let him do his 'reasonable' nonsense for now: it's laying the groundwork for Ultimate Victory. After we wrest suppressors from the NFA and we kill off the Hughes Amendment and he's still peddling this stuff, then he's fair game, not now.

    Yes, this was indeed pretty 'embarrassing', David.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Peter,
    Horse shit. Once again with the insulting of people who disagree with you. Sorry bub, what you are proposing will only get you your brand new MP5SD if you are an only one, or well-connected. You can not regain ground conceded in this manner. Either you speak the truth, or you do not. You obviously have no problem with lying. Many of us find that repugnant.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Gregg,
    What insult? And what 'once again'? Jonathan Rauch has done more to expand the ranks of shooters than you and me combined. Look up all the chapters of the Pink Pistols nationwide. Perhaps that even includes David, who admittedly is a published author, albeit one who mainly preaches to the choir. To attack someone who has brought people over to our side is both tactically and strategically stupid, at least right now.
    You want to be right. I want to win.
    And until you can prove that I'm lying, you need to go fuck yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Peter,
    You are obviously either a complete moron or you are lying to yourself. I assumed you were not a mental midget, guess I was wrong. Please move to Europe where they have reasonable laws and registration and ...

    I'm tired of this crap, and I'm tired of you mental midgets who believe that it is possible to negotiate and be reasonable with wannabe tyrants. History has shown that if you smack down tyrants when they have not consolidated their power there is less bloodshed. However, when you are reasonable, when you practice appeasement, there ends up being much more blood shed.

    This knowledge is readily available, it is not ancient history, it is readily apparent in living memory. Look at the record of the last century, heck look at the last 80 years, and yes I used appeasement on purpose, look it up, or don't.

    Fact is, David is not the embarrasment, you and your ilk are.

    Would you prefer to live on your feet or your knees?

    Looks to me like it is the latter.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Peter, being reasonable and allowing some reasonable restrictions for the sake of appearing reasonable and avoiding personal risk is exactly what got us here. Because the other side of this issue now believes we will cave, because they know our history, we will not ever successfully negotiate with them for the return to liberty. We trained them to believe when push came to shove we would leave town.

    To have people allegedly on our side keep preaching that, only assures the other side that they only need to bide time and push harder at an opportune moment. Even if they need to create such a moment.

    That is not some great revelation of discovery of mine I am imparting. It is a tried and true method that has been used the world over many times. Slavery and genocide always follow once the "moment" has fomented an outbreak of "reasonable relinquishment of personal rights."

    History is absolutely against you. It is not that we are against you. History is and we know it and you do not.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Gregg & straightarrow,

    This has not a blessed thing to do with being reasonable, and it never has. What this is about is taking the anti-gun tactic of bit-by-bit legislation and turning it against them.

    If you will actually read what I posted, I never said Mr Rauch's way is the true path. What I did say, and will continue to say, is that public opinion counts. As hard as it might seem to the two of you, there are people out there who don't love firearms the way we do, who don't realize that private gun ownership is the very root of the tree of Liberty.
    Getting rid of the NFA is going to be hard. Too many movies of bad guys spraying automatic fire all over the place.

    It's about public perception of the issue, not necessarily the facts, sorry to say. We're not going to get our automatic weapons until we have the antis backed into a corner and they have no other choice but to face the clear unambiguous text of the 2A.

    Some guy bleating about 'reasonableness' in 2008, before the Heller decision is handed down is fine. The same conversation later on is not. Perhaps we'll need to toss Mr Rauch over the side in July, mayhap in a couple of years. Try looking up the concept of 'useful idiots'. If we can use and exploit them now, it will make our path easier later on.
    If I knew that a Hillabeast or Obamarama administration was going to pull another Waco/Ruby Ridge, I would have kept my big mouth shut, as that show of illegal force would do more than the steady non-stop challenging of the UnConstitutional Infringements that seems to be the way now.
    Another thing: I've seen all the Ruby Ridge stuff, including a Google Earth search of the area. Getting past the Batfags and setting up defensive fire positions was clearly doable, yet nobody did so. Lots of folks screaming in front of the barriers, but no direct action.
    I already have two battle rifles, each of which has a full set of spares. I'm also spending $200/month on ammunition, because if they show up on my doorstep it will be me and me alone. It's not going to help me to have you armchair warriors screaming in some pro-gun blog about the tragedy when my body is lying in the Coroner's refrigerator.

    Speaking of history, how has shouting 'shall not be infringed' been working for you? If you two actually opened a history book, instead of simply referring to one, you would see that the NFA and the GCA were both enacted by lowlife politicians exploiting current affairs. The whole FFL nonsense was put in place in 1958, but was toothless until after the Kennedy/King/anti-war violence had scared the poor white people into accepting such nonsense.
    Since the publication of the Harvard Law Review article on 'collective rights' 94 years have passed. We didn't get here overnight, and we're not going to get out of the swamp overnight.
    And please try to remember that the suit that resulted in Heller was started by an attorney who doesn't own a single gun.
    Your day of waving an M4 around has not yet arrived. Please allow those of us who wear suits and dine with tablecloths and a full set of silverware to lay the groundwork, OK? I, for one, know when to pass the baton, and it's not March of 2008.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Just so you know, I have no use for a fully automatic weapon. As you have said, I expect if it comes to my door, I will not want to waste ammo, but use as many aimed shots as my time left will allow. Being alone automatic fire will not allow the rest of me to maneuver while I keep their heads down. I have no desire for a full auto weapon, nor use for it.

    What you don't seem to understand is the Bill of Rights was written to ensure that the tyranny of the majority did not deprive the individual of his rights. So I don't care about popular opinion. I care about what is right. If all your neighbors decided they wanted your car and your wife and they voted on it and the HOA approved their vote, would you then bow to that majority while you tried to convince a larger number of people to vote to repeal? Or would you state your opposition on the front and give them an "or else"? Thereby being unreasonable.

    Just answer those questions. And not with a remark about how silly a scenario it is, because it is what we have now, just in another area.

    As far as your supposed cultural superiority goes, that's just pathetic. Of course, when your position is wrong you argue the person and not the issue or at the least try to marginalize the person. But go ahead, be brave, I'm not worried neither of us will live long enough for to incremetalize me to death with pragmatism over principle. Anyway as I said above when push comes to shove some of us tend to leave town. Guess which one I'm betting on to do that.

    ReplyDelete
  15. We're on the same side. We're disagreeing on tactics.

    Speaking of a HOA, mine, some years ago, banned all pets because some of the dog owners couldn't be bothered to clean up afterwards. I explained to them that since my cats never go outside, this didn't apply, and moreover, their writ does not extend past my threshold. They agreed, but not enough to give in. I then reminded them that since I am 25 years younger than they are, I could afford to drag this out, knowing that their heirs and assigns wouldn't want to deal with this. That won the day, and now the ban is on dogs only. That is still interference, but I have put that fight off to another day. Both of my statements were true, but the prospect of never ending court costs trumped the better (IMHO) argument of leaving people alone.
    You might not care about public opinion, but the spineless politicians that we all have to deal with do. You are speaking the truth about the BoR, no argument there.
    And it's not about 'cultural superiority', it's about what will work. So long as I'm getting invitations to join the local yacht clubs, I'll be pulling on my navy blazer, polishing up my Bostonian accent, and going into the dragon's lair to fight the good fight. I don't get dismissed as a 'redneck with a pickup truck'. Nor does my method get me banned from other's websites, although I might be pushing it here at David's.
    My way isn't the only way, but it is the right way right now. Let's get rid of the laws in DC, NYC and Chicago. Then we can go after the Hughes Amendment. One day, one target at a time.
    Let me do what I can, and you will find your path made much easier. Keep your eyes on the prize, and I'll roll around in the mud. Being able to cite Jonathan Rauch (oh no! we can't criticize the gays, it's just Not Done!) helps me.
    You've been fighting this battle long before I showed up, and I thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "And it's not about 'cultural superiority', it's about what will work." Peter

    Can't quite buy that. Not with all your comments about suits and tablecloths and rednecks and their pickup trucks.

    As for your assertion that we should do one step at a time by getting rid of onerous laws in DC, Chicago, NYC, I don't have a problem with the tactic. I do have a problem when someone allegedly on our side states upfront he is willing to accept certain specific violations of our rights as a pre-issue bribe, so to speak.

    I may have done the same over my cats, but you didn't answer the question. Would you have used the same tactics if they had collected your wife? Your cats aren't as important, or at least, they shouldn't be.

    ReplyDelete
  17. All right, straightarrow, enough.

    Your assertion about 'certain specific violations' is without any basis in fact. In case you've not had enough coffee, I'll be more clear: you made that part up, and then proceeded to indict me with it. What I've been saying all along is that so long as someone like Rauch is carrying any of our water, we should let him. That's not a blanket endorsement of his article, far from it. Nearly half of it is total crap (and the rest is suspect), but so long as his antics can calm the waters for the more difficult tasks we have before us, then I say "Go get them, MaryAnne!". Trying to remove the Hughes Amendment is a waste of time right now, at least so long as either of us can open a paper and see a reader's poll asking if the 2A 'grants' anything. After everyone gets that the BoR limits the Government and not us, then the situation changes. That's where Jonathan comes in handy, and the criticism of him, before the Heller decision, is to say the least, premature.
    That was and is all.

    And yes, I did answer your question with a real-life example of a real-life HOA with a real-life situation, not some hypothetical. You say you 'might have' done the same with your cats. Maybe you would, maybe you would have folded, no-one can say. I did do something, I did draw a line in the sand, and I did say No, You Will Not. And I have a printed copy of my revised Homeowners Rules to prove it. Would this have been better for you had I waited until gunfire was unavoidable? And I don't understand the distinction between wife and cats. How is allowing control over animals under my roof any different than allowing control over a human? The loaded rifle in my closet isn't there for decoration.

    And I agree with you about automatic weapons. I don't really want one either, but I insist on having one so long as the PD has them, hence my continued reference to the Hughes Amendment.

    Stop being angry with anyone who doesn't toe your line. All you've accomplished with that tact this year is to get yourself banned from a pro-gun blog.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Peter, you simply do not know what you are talking about. Your method is one step forward and two steps back, we will get nowhere following your silly ideas. Enough is enough, time to stop be "reasonable" and refuse ANY compromises. Get a grip on yourself!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Fine, Henry, keep shouting 'shall not be infringed'.

    Let me know how that works out for you.

    And how is Repeal one step forward and two steps back? If by some miracle the Supremes indicate that all gun-control laws aren't binding, then I'll apologize for my position. Until then, I'll go to my precious little cocktail parties and continue to try and influence the people who write out the checks for the politicians.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I don't believe I actually personally attacked you, I attacked Raush's premise and the idea that it is a winner for us, when it is self-limiting with the ultimate end being defeat.

    I didn't get banned from the site for anything other than treating them exactly the way they treated me. Only difference is I waited a long time to respond to all the personal attacks and name-calling. It seems, though every comment of mine up to that time was about the issue, they preferred to belittle me rather than discuss the issue. When called on it, they went straight to Reasoned Discourse. As to how that's working out for me, it's working out fine. I now know of several more people in whom one would be foolish to place any trust. That knowledge can be more valuable than knowing whom you can.

    "And I don't understand the distinction between wife and cats"-Peter

    No more need be said, does it? your impaired.

    But that was all before I realized you do not know the difference between a house cat and woman one would supposedly love.

    I truly didn't know of your impairment until then. I just thought you were being arrogant,elitist, argumentative and ego-centric. I apologize for my late realization of your deficiency.

    Even so, I get to say when I say enough, not you. Now go to the cocktail party. Try not to seduce a house cat. People will talk. Hopefully that little bit of advice will help. Either way my apology stands.

    ReplyDelete

Keep it on topic. Submit tips on different topics via left sidebar Contact Form.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.