The article points out that:
A quick scan through the list continues the point. Chile (10.7) comes in with the same arms rate as Venezuela, but the nations present starkly divergent civil freedoms. Russia (8.9) is slightly more armed than Ireland (8.6). The Netherlands (3.9) is on par, as far as weapons go, with oppressive Turkmenistan (3.8). Israel and Georgia see the same arms rate as Iran and Belarus and yet exist on opposite ends of Freedom House's rank.The best quote:
"This relationship between gun rates and [democracy] isn't based upon social science - it's based upon philosophy," said Aaron Karp, a political science professor at Old Dominion University and one of the Small Arms Survey's senior consultants. "Part of the reason why people who are advocates of individual gun rights tend to be opposed to social science is that they're not comfortable with it."And while you are reading that article, check out the related Great Gun Gobbledygook: The Paradox of Second Amendment Hardliners:
In the current debate over gun control, the pro-gun lobby has an ace card up its sleeve: We need weapons to prevent government tyranny, they say. These self-styled champions of liberty see guns as the ultimate insurance policy to protect the Constitution. The problem is that most of those making this argument also strongly support a massive U.S. military -- exactly the behemoth we must be armed against. It's the great gun gobbledygook.The irony isn't lost on me that the Second Amendment was supposed to protect against a large, standing military. On the other hand, the historically ignorant can be led. BAAHHHHH!BAAHHHHH!BAAHHHHH!BAAHHHHH!BAAHHHHH!
A typical rant from Laci and his control freak fellow travellers. That study and your fawning fail to note the following:
ReplyDelete1. Did you watch the news during the Boston bombing and aftermath? How about when that ex-LA cop went berserk? How about the DC sniper case from more than a decade ago? In each of those cases, one person or a couple of persons paralyzed whole cities.
2. Perhaps you and yours have also failed to learn about the term, asymmetrical warfare. We've seen that practiced in Iraq and Afghanistan. We're watching it practiced in Syria right now. The fact that Iraqis and Afghans didn't employ this against Saddam or the Taliban possibly means that they weren't all that interested in getting rid of a home-grown tyrant. But the lesson is that when the populace doesn't want a dictator, no amount of disparity of force can change the outcome, even if it takes years and many lives.
3. There are also significant cultural differences among the nations named. The fact that most of us in America have roots from somewhere else has left a lasting oppositional legacy. Our armed forces are made up primarily of people who come from the least cooperative parts of the country. I find it hard to believe that many in our military would obey an order to fight against the citizens--especially not for any length of time.
But Greg, poor Pooch doesn't have a lick of common sense to figure any of that out.
Deleteorlin sellers
"The problem is that most of those making this argument also strongly support a massive U.S. military -- exactly the behemoth we must be armed against."
ReplyDeleteThe size of the military is directly proportional to what the government needs to support its foreign adventures. Perhaps we should cut back on that.
There are many checks and balances in place to protect from potential government excesses, the first amendment is one of these checks because often all that is needed is to expose these to the light of day to be stopped.
The second amendment is in place for when everything else fails.
The British knew every American had a gun to put food on the table and protect their wilderness home. It wasn't the individuals who lived miles away from each other (with guns) the British were worried about, it was a group force armed militia the British war strategy was aimed at.
ReplyDeleteI'll try again to get answer from Laci. You may be just missing the question:
ReplyDeleteUnder your interpretation of the Second Amendment, please explain why the Miller decision examined the gun Miller possessed and determined that a sawed-off shotgun is not suitable for militia purposes, instead of examining the man (Miller) and determining that he has no right to keep and bear any arms because he was not actively involved in a militia. Why would the gun matter under your interpretation? It shouldn’t matter if it was a sawed-off shotgun, a full length shotgun, a machine gun suitable for militia purposes, or a musket suitable for militia purposes in the 18th century- Miller had no right to keep and bear any arms because he was a part of the “people” and not part of the “militia”. That is what you say, but it is not consistent with the Miller decision. So what would the decision have been if the gun Miller possessed had been determined by the courts to be suitable for militia purposes? The decision infers that it would be protected for individuals to keep and bear, yes?
May I take a stab at it? The Supreme Court got that wrong, just like the got things wrong more recently in Heller and McDonald.
DeleteChief Justice Burger had it right.
But Laci is always telling us that Miller supports his interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Now We have Laci claiming that Miller supports a collective right and saying that it is good law, and we have You admitting that Miller fits better with the assumption of individual rights and therefore wanting to toss it out.
DeleteApparently, according to you, the Supreme Court has misinterpreted the Second Amendment in all of its significant jurisprudence. Also, according to your interpretation of and dismissal of Miller, the individual rights interpretation dates back at least until the 30's rather than being an invention of the NRA in the 90's as your side likes to claim.
But the Miller decision is the one that Laci says they got right. It spawned the collective right interpretation, but I don't see how. They never questioned whether or not Miller was in a militia. Don’t you think that would have been important if the right belongs to militias instead of people? But you already said “they got it wrong”, which I would think you would disagree with a decision that says individuals have a right to keep and bear arms provided that those arms are military in nature.
DeleteBy the way, Burger still says there is an individual right:
Americans also have a right to defend their homes, and we need not challenge that. Nor does anyone seriously question that the Constitution protects the right of hunters to own and keep sporting guns for hunting game any more than anyone would challenge the right to own and keep fishing rods and other equipment for fishing -- or to own automobiles.
http://www.guncite.com/burger.html
He was just lobbying for lots of additional restrictions and bans- basically the same opinion that Obama and Biden publicly claim. But Burger is offering an opinion not a decision. He was not on a court that decided a Second Amendment case.
As Greg notes, there are cultural differences that Laci's drivel doesn't take into account. Yes, Yemen and Iraq have lots of guns. They do not, however, have histories of self government, and so the people were not that interested in it. However, in Iraq, they did try once--an occasion where we betrayed the people the same way we did the Cubans at the Bay of Pigs. Not every attempt is successful, but the possessions of arms enables people to fight against tyrants.
ReplyDeleteWe just watched the Lybian people overthrow their government. We're watching attempts by Syrians to do the same.
Just like in self defense cases where a gun is not a talisman that protects safety, but a tool that enables people to fight back against danger, guns are not talismans that preserve freedom, they just enable freedom fighters to fight back.
Finally, Laci points out that supporting massive military growth goes against the intent of the Second Amendment. What do you know! He got that right! Yes, some people don't think things through very well and hold contradictory positions.
But what is Laci's solution?
Well, having recognized that the Constitution promotes individual arms, militias, and a small Military, Laci doesn't support those things--instead, he supports violating the second amendment and having a large military that he can taunt us with.
BTW, Laci--you probably won't answer this since you prefer hit and run posts--but you always like to point to the size and power of the US military as making revolution impossible. My question is: How do you expect the US military would accomplish this rolling over of people who are spread throughout the population? Sure, they can carpet bomb whole cities, but that kinda loses you the moral high ground, just like it did for Saddam, Moamar, Al-Assad, etc.
It ain't gonna happen. The whole discussion is so fanciful that you guys engage in it as a self-aggrandizing device, nothing more.
DeleteWow! First you're saying that if we practiced what we preached, we'd already be in the field (an assumption you make because you don't understand or refuse to understand what we say). Then, Laci makes a bunch of disjointed arguments crammed together into a post, making a bunch of disjointed statements regarding the lack of statistical linkage between guns and freedom and the futility of any attempt to fight for freedom.
DeleteSome of us try to point out flaws in his argument, and rather than argue back, you just dismiss everything we say with an insult and a refusal to discuss the matter.
If that's how you want to handle the issue, that's fine, but it means that you're an ostrich who'd rather bury his head in the sand then have try defending his thinking in the arena of ideas. Don't worry, you're in your good buddy Laci's company--the difference is that he buries his head as soon as he posts his screeds and never comes back to defend them. You at least argue back sometimes--when it's not too uncomfortable.
Mikeb, if you'd ever listen to what we actually say and respond to that, instead of attacking a caricature of us, you'd be forced to see the logic of our positions. That's the real reason that you never address our points.
DeleteBy the way, Pooch, there's medicine for those hairballs you were hacking up at the end of that post.
ReplyDelete