Tuesday, August 19, 2014
Monday, August 18, 2014
It's tourist season--does that mean we can shoot them?
I guess it does in Georgia thanks to the guns everywhere bill:
Robert Young Pelton routinely lists the US as one of his World's Most Dangerous places in his books of the same name because of the high level of "gun violence". It's not cowardice to be concerned about your safety, especially if one is a tourist in a nation.
Personally, I would seriously reconsider going to places in the US with insane gun laws that allow for people to carry weapons in public and kill other people.
That is a sensible economic choice, which may soak in to the legislators if their constituents start losing tourist cash.
See also:
Stray bullet wounds man, kills woman in Helen, Ga. | www.ajc.com
Robert Young Pelton routinely lists the US as one of his World's Most Dangerous places in his books of the same name because of the high level of "gun violence". It's not cowardice to be concerned about your safety, especially if one is a tourist in a nation.
Personally, I would seriously reconsider going to places in the US with insane gun laws that allow for people to carry weapons in public and kill other people.
That is a sensible economic choice, which may soak in to the legislators if their constituents start losing tourist cash.
See also:
Stray bullet wounds man, kills woman in Helen, Ga. | www.ajc.com
The Latest Hysterical Paranoia by the Gun Rights Fanatics - Sponsored by Glenn Beck's The Blaze
Republican U.S. Senate candidate Joe Miller speaks during a debate Sunday, Aug. 10, 2014, in Anchorage, Alaska. (AP Photo/Mark Thiessen)
The Blaze
U.S. Senate candidate Joe Miller linked amnesty for illegal immigrants with more gun control.
The Alaska Republican said granting legal status to a large number of illegal immigrants would lead to more Democratic voters, who would in turn enact more gun restrictions and promote more anti-gun judges.
“If 20 million illegals vote, you can kiss the Second Amendment goodbye,” a recent Miller campaign mailer says.
During a Republican debate, Miller also made the correlation between the two issues, the Alaska Dispatch News reported.
“There’s a clear correlation, and the clear correlation is this: If you end up granting amnesty to those who don’t value gun rights, who have not been raised in an environment where the Second Amendment is cherished—is considered to be a God-given right—the reality is over a generation or two, the likelihood is very strong that the Second Amendment will not be here,” Miller said.
Quote of the Day
This seems appropriate given some of my posts, including the Andy Griffith Show clip:
I’m not anti-cop. And I am finding that many police want change as well: The good officers in the state of Wisconsin supported our bill from the inside, and it was endorsed by five police unions. But I also think the days of Andy Griffith and the Mayberry peacekeeper are over. As we can see in the streets of Ferguson, today’s police are also much more heavily equipped, armed and armored—more militarized. They are moving to more paramilitary-type operations as well, and all those shifts call for more transparency and more rules of restraint. And yet they are even less accountable in some ways than the U.S. military in which I served. Our citizens need protection from undue force, here in our own country, and now.
Sunday, August 17, 2014
No, "well-regulated" does not mean "well-trained"--it means that the organisation is firmly under control
The usual pro-gun argument about the term "well-regulated" in the Second Amendment is that it has something to do with the militia being well-trained, but like most of the mythology surrounding the Second Amendment this takes that passage out of historical and political context.
I like to cite to Adam Smith's comment in wealth of nations that:
Additionally, the Constitution was partially a response to Shays Rebellion, which was an out of control mob: not a militia. Shays Rebellion was firmly in the minds of the people who were debating the Constitution and its ratification. They would not have wanted a militia which was not firmly under control.
As I have said before, the issue isn't personal arms in the Constitutional debates as much as it is the nature of the defence establishment and civilian control over the military. To say that the term "well-regulated" does not refer to making sure that the militia is firmly under civilian control is to show a degree of historical ignorance which is staggering
Where this falls into the topic of a militarised police force isn't so much that a police force is like Scotland Yard or the French Gendarmerie Nationale as much as that it is firmly under civilian control and well-regulated by rules and procedures which protect the people.
A strong, independent judiciary is a necessary institution in such a society to make sure that the military/police are kept under control. That was why the Constitution specifically sets limits for the Judiciary and guarantees protections in the legal process, both civil and criminal.
As another commenter said, "well-regulated means exactly that", whether one is talking about militias or professional military.
[1] Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, Book V, Chapter I-Of the Expences of the Sovereign or CommonwealthPART I Of the Expence of Defence V.1.27
I like to cite to Adam Smith's comment in wealth of nations that:
This distinction being well understood, the history of all ages, it will be found, bears testimony to the irresistible superiority which a well-regulated standing army has over a militia.[1]This could would be scary if the meaning were "well-trained" rather than a standing army firmly under civilian control since the fear was that a well-trained, well-armed, professional military could indeed overrun a poorly trained civilian force.
Additionally, the Constitution was partially a response to Shays Rebellion, which was an out of control mob: not a militia. Shays Rebellion was firmly in the minds of the people who were debating the Constitution and its ratification. They would not have wanted a militia which was not firmly under control.
As I have said before, the issue isn't personal arms in the Constitutional debates as much as it is the nature of the defence establishment and civilian control over the military. To say that the term "well-regulated" does not refer to making sure that the militia is firmly under civilian control is to show a degree of historical ignorance which is staggering
Where this falls into the topic of a militarised police force isn't so much that a police force is like Scotland Yard or the French Gendarmerie Nationale as much as that it is firmly under civilian control and well-regulated by rules and procedures which protect the people.
A strong, independent judiciary is a necessary institution in such a society to make sure that the military/police are kept under control. That was why the Constitution specifically sets limits for the Judiciary and guarantees protections in the legal process, both civil and criminal.
As another commenter said, "well-regulated means exactly that", whether one is talking about militias or professional military.
[1] Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, Book V, Chapter I-Of the Expences of the Sovereign or CommonwealthPART I Of the Expence of Defence V.1.27
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)