Media Matters
The Second Amendment was meant to stop the government from interfering with an individual's right to bear arms - it was meant to prevent exactly this kind of thing where lawmakers are trying to mess with somebody's firearm ownership.
Is that a fair way do describe the amendment? Or is it a gun-rights spin job?
Wasn't the Second Amendment about ensuring that an armed militia of individuals could come together if needed to protect against a tyrannical government or an invading army? What in the world does that have to do with modern-day restrictions on certain weapons and magazine capacity?
The answer: nothing at all. The Second Amendment is absolutely irrelevant to current discussions about gun rights and gun control and should be seen as such.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
More Guns, More Crime
Media Matters
FACT: Greater Firearm Availability Is Actually Linked To Higher Rates Of Homicide And Suicide
Economist Mark Duggan: Rate Of Gun Ownership "Significantly Positively" Correlated With Incidence Of Homicide. A study by economist Mark Duggan found that "changes in homicide and gun ownership are significantly positively related," as he reported in "More Guns, More Crime" in the Journal of Political Economy in 2001. Duggan wrote:My findings reveal that changes in homicide and gun ownership are significantly positively related. This relationship is almost entirely driven by the relationship between lagged changes in gun ownership and current changes in homicide, suggesting that the relationship is not driven simply by individuals' purchase of guns in response to increases in criminal activity.Harvard Injury Control Research Center Director David Hemenway: Guns Used "Far More" To Threaten Or Intimidate Than Protect. From a study published in Injury Prevention, "an international peer-reviewed journal for health professionals":
[...]
These findings contradict the results from recent work suggesting that legislation allowing individuals to carry concealed weapons (CCW) caused a significant decline in violent crime (Lott and Mustard 1997). [Journal of Political Economy, 2001]
Even after excluding many reported firearm victimizations, far more survey respondents report having been threatened or intimidated with a gun than having used a gun to protect themselves. A majority of the reported self defense gun uses were rated as probably illegal by a majority of judges. This was so even under the assumption that the respondent had a permit to own and carry the gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly. [Injury Prevention, vol. 6, issue 4, 2000]Hemenway: "States With Higher Levels Of Household Gun Ownership Had Higher Rates Of Firearm Homicide." From the Harvard Injury Control Research Center:
Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the U.S., where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide. [Harvard Injury Control Research Center, accessed 1/9/13]American Journal Of Epidemiology Study: Having A Gun In The Home Increases The Risk Of Violent Death. A 2004 study conducted by employees of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that individuals who had firearms in the home were more likely to be victims of firearm homicides and suicides than individuals who did not have firearms in the home. The risk occurred regardless of the type of gun or number of guns kept in the home. [American Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 160, issue 10, 2004]
How Do Other Countries Deal With Guns?
Business Insider
The debate over gun control in the United States doesn't take place in a vacuum.
Other countries all over the world play the same video games and have the same mental health problems as the United States, but manage to avoid a sky-high gun murder rate and frequent public shooting massacres.
The differences are due, in part, to the way that the different countries regulate gun ownership.
Here's how several other prosperous nations deal with the issue:
Without a license, a Japanese citizen isn't even permitted to touch a firearm. Failure to follow this law can result in up to 10 years in prison.
Japanese civilians hold a mere 710,000 guns, with 0.6 firearms for every person. In 2008, there were 11 gun homicides. For perspective, there are 122,800,000 people in Japan. That year is not an anomaly. In 2006 there were 2 gun homicides and in 2007 there were 22, a national scandal.
The debate over gun control in the United States doesn't take place in a vacuum.
Other countries all over the world play the same video games and have the same mental health problems as the United States, but manage to avoid a sky-high gun murder rate and frequent public shooting massacres.
The differences are due, in part, to the way that the different countries regulate gun ownership.
Here's how several other prosperous nations deal with the issue:
The United Kingdom
In 2011, the U.K. had 0.07 gun homicides for every 100,000 people; the U.S., by contrast, had 3 gun homicides for every 100,000. In 2009 there were 138 gun deaths in the U.K, where there are 6.7 firearms for every 100 people.Canada
The U.S.'s neighbor to the north also has outstandingly low gun casualty statistics. In 2009, there were 0.5 deaths per 100,000 from gun homicide — only 173 people. Still, the ownership is comparatively high — there are 23.8 firearms per 100 people in the country.Japan
Japan's gun policies are notoriously strict. Civilians cannot possess handguns, automatic assault weapons, semi-automatic assault weapons, military rifles, or machine guns. Japanese civilians aren't even allowed to own swords.Without a license, a Japanese citizen isn't even permitted to touch a firearm. Failure to follow this law can result in up to 10 years in prison.
Japanese civilians hold a mere 710,000 guns, with 0.6 firearms for every person. In 2008, there were 11 gun homicides. For perspective, there are 122,800,000 people in Japan. That year is not an anomaly. In 2006 there were 2 gun homicides and in 2007 there were 22, a national scandal.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
More on James Yeager, NRA Douchenozzle
As I've sagely noted previously, many gunloons engage in gunloonery because of a financial motive. IOW, when these NRA mouthbreathers talk about rights, history, 2A and whatever pseudo-philosophical nonsense falls out of their yaps---it's just a smoke screen. For many gunloons, gunloonery is about money.The NRA realizes this; for decades they've fundraised on the notion that the US was hours away from making Nazi Germany look like a trip to DisneyWorld. Yet, the NRA never challenged any law or legislation on the basis of the 2A.
Instead, the NRA reaps buckets of cash from the firearms industry and providing a multi-level marketing scheme not unlike MaryKay cosmetics to insecure fat, white males.
Think about it. If one looks at Yeager's resume (remembering some of it is bogus), it's terribly thin. Much of it involves taking 'courses' from those whose own credentials are pretty thin yo non-existent.
But such is the world of gunloonery. Here's how it works. Suppose I'm a gunloon and thoroughly enjoy my gunloonery. So, I decide--'hey, how can I make some cash off of this?'
It's easy.
First, take a whole bunch of courses from other grifters. Don't worry--you're not going to fail, the beauty of these courses is that once you pay your fee, you're guaranteed a certificate suitable for framing.
Second, the grifters you patronized will, in turn, refer other clients to you. This is known as 'multi-level marketing. IOW, I take a course from A and A refers others to me and I refer them to B, who refers them to C and D. All the while, those at the chain reap the benefits.
This is how James Yeager earned a living. He had no particular skill or expertise--just a gun fetish. And many gunloons believe their fetish is an occupation.
More on the Unorganised Militia
Usually, you get someone pointing to 10 USC §311(b)(2) and saying they are part of the Unorganised Militia. Unfortunately, this section of the Code doesn't give a gloss on what exactly this means, but I have gone into it before in other posts: Asked and Answered--Unorganised, Sedentary, reserve, etcetera militias explained and Still more on the Unorganised Militia.. Basic info being:
As I have said before, you need to actually be a member of the National Guard to actually claim that you are a member of the militia. And that Constitutionally, the only body that can call itself a militia is one which is organised under Article I, Section 8, Clause 16--not the Second Amendment.
See also
The Sedentary, reserve, inactive, unorganised, general (or other term indicating INACTIVITY) Militia, has always been unorganized and untrainedOf course, legal method would tell you that there might be another part of the US Code that addresses this issue. In fact, Title 10 is the Section of the US Code that covers the Armed Forces and there are sections that further elaborate on this topic. 10 USC Chapter 1003 - Reserve Components Generally--specifically addresses who the national guard happens to be:
Active Militias, that is THE organised, enrolled, embodied, active (or other term signifying active) Militia, can be supplemented if necessary by the ballot (selection by lot)--in other words drafted from the Unorganised militia draft pool.
The term "unorganized" did not begin to emerge until the 1830s and 1840s, when a massive wave of opposition destroyed the compulsory militia system. Nobody wanted to serve in the militia. State governors and legislators wanted to be able to accommodate this desire, but they were bound by the 1792 Uniform Militia Act, which stated that every white male aged 18-45 would be in the militia.
Militia service was so unpopular that Delaware abolished its militia system altogether in 1831. Massachusetts eliminated compulsory service in 1840, followed by Maine, Ohio, Vermont in 1844, Connecticut and New York in 1846, Missouri in 1847, and New Hampshire in 1851. Indiana classified its militia according to age in 1840, and exempted all but the young men from service. New Jersey withdrew the right to imprison a man for failure to pay a militia fine in 1844; Iowa did the same in 1846, Michigan in 1850, and California in 1856." - Mahon, John K, The History of the Militia and the National Guard, p. 83
The term "unorganized militia" was kept in use in subsequent decades as a statutory "reminder" that the state could still obligate its citizens to perform military duty, should it ever want them to. Eventually, U.S. law in the early twentieth century picked up this same usage for the same reason: by creating the "unorganized militia," the United States could guarantee usage of this manpower for military purposes, should the (remote) need ever arise.
10 USC 10101Also 10 USC § 312. Militia duty: exemptions, addresses who exempt from service in the militia. 32 USC § 313 deals with who can enlist to serve in the militia.
The reserve components of the armed forces are: (1) The Army National Guard of the United States. (2) The Army Reserve. (3) The Naval Reserve. (4) The Marine Corps Reserve. (5) The Air National Guard of the United States. (6) The Air Force Reserve. (7) The Coast Guard Reserve.
10 USC 10105 - Sec. 10105. Army National Guard of the United States: composition
The Army National Guard of the United States is the reserve component of the Army that consists of - (1) federally recognized units and organizations of the Army National Guard; and (2) members of the Army National Guard who are also Reserves of the Army.
As I have said before, you need to actually be a member of the National Guard to actually claim that you are a member of the militia. And that Constitutionally, the only body that can call itself a militia is one which is organised under Article I, Section 8, Clause 16--not the Second Amendment.
See also
Captain Beefheart Festival 2012 - 2013 - The Last Night of the Living Van Vliet
Instrumental track called Ice Rose
I Feel Like Acid - Track #1 from the album Strictly Personal (1968)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)