The CEO and executive vice president of the National Rifle Association is quoted as saying "The guys with the guns make the rules." It wasn't a statement about the philosophy of our Founding Fathers. It was a threat, leveled against our politicians and the American people. It was his way of claiming that the NRA and their followers had the political muscle and the lethal arms necessary to bully their way into our laws and push their extremist pro-gun propaganda.
And his followers took it to heart, just as they do the other bumpersticker slogans of the NRA.
I am reminded of this when I read a recent post over at the Common Gunsense blog, where the author illustrates how extremist gun guys gather at Tea Party rallies, brandish assault rifles and pistols, and claim dominance where they have none, while the police looked the other way and media glamorized their violent message. A conservative pundit claimed that gun control advocates "cannot win. We outnumber them in this country, and we have the guns. (laughter) I’m not kidding. They talk a mean game, but they will not cross that line because they know what they’re dealing with." If these things aren't armed threats, I don't know what is. Could you imagine if people showed up at any other sort of event with weapons like that? A school play? A football game? A county fair? There would be outrage! And yet, for some bizarre reason, people are willing to accept it at political rallies.
Recently a gun guy with a concealed carry license infiltrated an Occupy Portland camp, and when the protestors objected to him filming inside their tents, he brandished his handgun at them in a direct threat of force, several times. Is this what the NRA CEO had in mind when he said "the guys with the guns make the rules?" Does this excuse the man from using his weapon to threaten people? A commenter at Common Gunsense seemed to think so, and even suggested the man should have baited the protesters into attacking him so he could shoot them.
Really, it boils down to the flawed "insurrectionist" interpretation of the Second Amendment. The NRA and their extremists think our Founding Fathers wrote the 2A not to provide for state-supervised militia armies, but rather to allow for common people to overthrow the government whenever they feel things aren't what they want! So they hide their fetish for guns behind this belief that only the threat of rebellion keeps our government from become a tyranny, or communism, or whatever. Like all bullies, they justify the use of fear and the threat of violence.
But our government isn't a tyranny, it's a democracy, and if a majority of citizens aren't pleased with their representatives, they get voted out. The Founding Fathers intended it to be a peaceful transition based on reason, not force, and actively put down rebellions in their time (like the Whiskey Rebellion).
Really, what the NRA and their extremist pals fear the most, like all bullies, is that peaceful protest and non-violent transition will negate the need for force and render moot their justifications for violent talk. Like the guy in Portland, they just can't handle the fact that peaceful protesters can change our government, making null and void the flawed insurrectionist argument. They mock our message of non-violence, try to smear it, and attempt to infiltrate it, but brandishing weapons and posting fake photos won't fool the American people into believing. Peace worked in the 70's with the hippie movement. It worked in India, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and other countries. It worked recently in Egypt and Tunisia. It's working in Jordan and Syria and Yemen. It works with every election in America. And it's working now with the Occupy movement. You don't need a gun to make a difference.
So, do "the guys with the guns make the rules?" No, not in a civilized nation, and we won't let them. We won't vote them into office. We won't listen to their lies. We'll call them out when they spout violence.
Most of us actually believe in non-aggression. This is subtly different than non-violence, but so long as everyone involved is following either non-aggression or non-violence, the end result is the same.
ReplyDeleteThe difference is when a predator who believes in 'might makes right', gets involved--the non-aggressive can still use violence to STOP the predator. The non-violent have to hire someone to do violence, and then hope their employee remains faithful--Hope they have hired a non-aggressor rather than a predator.
So "The guys with the guns make the rules" isn't a statement of how things should be, it is a realization of an imperfect world. Most of us on the pro gun side want to avoid a world where the strong rule the weak--but we realize that disarmament will inevitably eliminate self-defense arms far more effectively than weapons of offense.
Ideally, it should be safe to walk down the street in a miniskirt at 3am with a fistful of $20 bills. In order to get there, it MUST be dangerous to attack others.
Sevesteen: when you say "the non-violent have to hire someone to do violence", you mean law enforcement, right?
ReplyDeleteI agree that society has to take violent steps sometimes against criminals. But I put my faith in law enforcement to do that, since they have training requirements and oversight, whereas (in Oregon) a person with a conceal carry permit doesn't have to have a moment of hands-on training with firearms or dealing with violent encounters, and no oversight at all. And, unlike a citizen with a gun, the police must make every effort to have a peaceful resolution.
The other thing is the value you place on a criminal's life. A person who carries a gun and would willingly shoot a robber is basically putting the value of the money in their wallet (and the value of their personal pride) over the value of the criminal. I'm the opposite. No possession of mine is worth the value of a human life, including scum-sucking dope-head career criminals.
When I think of who I want to lead this nation, I will always choose those who share my value of human life and non-violence.
Sevesteen: when you say "the non-violent have to hire someone to do violence", you mean law enforcement, right?
ReplyDeleteOr some government official, usually. It also includes anti-gun celebrities' armed bodyguards or the Deacons for Defense and Justice who protected Martin Luther King.
When defensive violence is acceptable, there is less overall violence--when elders shot back at the KKK, the KKK quit shooting up churches.
Do you consider the church elders' actions moral in this case?
I want a nonviolent world, but a unilateral renunciation of violence is not going to achieve that goal. I do renounce offensive violence.
And, unlike a citizen with a gun, the police must make every effort to have a peaceful resolution.
Statistically, civilians are more likely to achieve a peaceful resolution than cops. A couple years ago, a competitive pistol shooter that I know was mugged--he's been on the TV show Top Shots, and while he's not quite a superstar in the shooting world, he's at least in the major leagues.
His response was to draw his pistol and...throw his coffee at the mugger. The mugger dropped his knife and left, no shots fired.
The other thing is the value you place on a criminal's life. A person who carries a gun and would willingly shoot a robber is basically putting the value of the money in their wallet (and the value of their personal pride) over the value of the criminal.
No possession of mine is worth the value of a human life, including scum-sucking dope-head career criminals. I deliberately took that out of quotes, because I agree. I would rather give up my wallet or my car than shoot someone, even a career criminal.
...but I won't take a beating and hope the predator stops before he cripples or kills me, I won't give up my wife or my grandchild. At any point before I pull the trigger, the criminal can avoid being shot--by leaving, by surrendering, by merely taking a step back and letting me leave.
It is HIS choice.
I want people willing to DO something about predatory violence, not just turn the responsibility over to someone else. Hiring someone to do violence for me is not morally superior to doing it myself.
Are you serious in suggesting that peace worked in Egypt and is working in Syria? In Egypt, the military switched sides when it became obvious that Mubarak was losing. That's hardly a peaceful change. In Syria, protestors are being killed by the thousands. That country is on the edge, and it's an illustration of what happens when a dictator has a monopoly on force.
ReplyDelete"The guys with the guns make the rules."
ReplyDeleteBaldr, that's not a philosophical statement, it's a simple fact. It has always been true, and is true here as well. Government - all government - in the end rules by force; if you don't think so, try not paying your taxes for a while. Sooner or later they will come for you.
With guns.
As Greg has said, hiring someone to do violence on your behalf - even justified violence - is not morally superior to defending yourself, and is as a practical reality not possible. The addage is absolutely true: when seconds count, the police are minutes away.
But our government isn't a tyranny, it's a democracy, and if a majority of citizens aren't pleased with their representatives, they get voted out.
Not a tyranny for now, at least.
It's not a democracy, it's a constitutional republic, and if you don't know the relevent differences you need to go back to school. Moreover, it's only a republic, as Franklin told us in the beginning, "if we can keep it."
The Founders understood a truth too many of us have forgotten: Left to their own devices, governments ALWAYS trend toward tyranny. The entire premise of the Constitution was to attempt to create institutions at odds with each other in order to prevent that.
Moreover, in our constitutional republic, there are some policy choices that are (or at least should be) beyond the reach of any majority. The right of citizens to own and bear arms for lawful purposes, like your right to write this blog, is one of them. Like any right, it's not absolute. But like the 1st Amendment who's language it is so similar to, it's as close to absolute as a free society can make it.
In short, if you believe what you pejoratively term as the "insurrectionist view" of the 2nd Am. is not essentially correct, you need to read the Declaration of Independence again. And again.
The revisionism of the 2nd Am as a "collective" right to serve in state organized militias, you may remember, didn't get a single endorsement in a SCOTUS that split 5-4 on the narrower question of whether an outright ban on operable firearms amounted to an "infringement." There is no historical support for the view. There is no textual support for the view. Advancing that view is what is called "beating a dead horse," and all the beating you can do won't whip it to life.
The other thing is the value you place on a criminal's life. A person who carries a gun and would willingly shoot a robber is basically putting the value of the money in their wallet (and the value of their personal pride) over the value of the criminal.
The moment a criminal threatens violence to take my property, he has already made that choice. He has already told me that HE is willing to do violence over mere property. And I need not, and should not, rely on the good will of a person who has already threatened violence against me for mere property. The moment that criminal raises a weapon against my family, he has signaled in no uncertain terms that he's willing to use violence.
He made that choice. He's responsible for the consequences, not I.
I've never fired a round in anger, and I hope very much I never have to. But I will do so, if necessary. And my right to defend myself and my family is not dependent on any legislature, any government, any institution. It is not subject to the whims of any temporary majority. It will not be taken by a Brady Campaign and their allies that hides intent to disarm citizens behind meaningless platitudes like "common sense." It is inalienable and inviolate.
I will not disarm. Period.
@ Greg: Yes, I am serious. Tyrants do commit atrocities, Egypt and Syria included, just as in other countries, such as England's rule of India or the communist rule of Poland. But peaceful protest isn't without bloodshed. If they had raised up arms, Egypt included, likely they would have been mowed down by the standing armies and the international communities wouldn't have backed them, and the armies wouldn't have defected to their side. They didn't need weapons in every home to achieve democratic rule. Freedom did not ride with a firearm at it's side (contrary to LaPierre's statement). Even in Lybia, where rebels had to fight to achieve freedom, they didn't need every home to have a firearm. Their arms came from outside sources (including the U.S.). Having home firearms wouldn't have helped them much (similar to the Iraqi people under Hussein).
ReplyDelete@GMC70: Yes, I understand the difference between a democracy and constitutional republic. And I don't need a history lesson, or lecture on checks and balances, or a better understanding of the Declaration. YOU need to stop seeing our history through the blinders of the NRA. Constitutional scholars are at odds with your interpretation, and even with the SCOTUS interpretation of the 2A. Your suggestion that we are becoming a tyranny is paranoia at its worst.
ReplyDeleteConstitutional scholars are at odds with your interpretation, and even with the SCOTUS interpretation of the 2A. Your suggestion that we are becoming a tyranny is paranoia at its worst.
ReplyDeleteOn the contrary. You need to brush up on your scholarship. Constitutional scholars are not at all "at odds" with "my" interpretation; it is, in fact, the "interpretation" supported by the historical record and the text. YOUR interpretation is the one at odds with history, and text, and precedent, and the SCOTUS.
You, sir, are "out of the mainstream." The recent GAllup poll, spin it as you like, demonstrates that as well (though one's rights are never subject to polls or elections).
It's getting crowded in that dustbin of history, isn't it?
And I'm not suggesting or arguing that we're "becoming" tyranny; that's your self-serving spin. I'm pointing out that a trend toward tyranny is the natural tendancy of governments. An armed population is ultimately the final check toward such a trend, and the Founders understood same and protected that right. That is what the 2nd Am. is about. It's not about hunting, it's not even about personal defense, though those - especially the second - are absolutely valid things.
Your naysaying to the contrary, it's clear you need a serious history lesson.
BTW, Baldr: I know the NRA is the pet whipping boy here, but I'm not a member. I'm a lawyer, and a good one.
ReplyDeleteIf you think I'm misled, GMC, then I'm in excellent company. Namely, retired chief justice Warren Burger. During an interview on the MacNeil/Lehrer newshour, he called the idea of an individual right to gun ownership, as decided in the Heller ruling, “one of the greatest pieces of fraud…that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”
ReplyDeleteAnd your Gallup poll interpretation is wrong. What you refer to is the question about banning all handguns, which the modern gun control movement is not about. That's YOUR spin. The VAST majority of citizens, including gun owners and NRA members, support stricter gun regulation, including mandatory background checks for all purchases, and this is borne out in that same poll.
What you refer to is the question about banning all handguns, which the modern gun control movement is not about.
ReplyDeleteSo you say. I, sir, do not believe you.
Mr. Burger is entitled to be wrong.
ReplyDeleteWhat you refer to is the question about banning all handguns, which the modern gun control movement is not about
ReplyDeleteAs far as I can tell,the end result would be that people wealthy enough to afford a bunch of classes and licensing could have the guns of the Mayberry police department-Pre-ban revolvers and shotguns.
Meanwhile, every gun I own would be restricted-Semiautomatic, Saturday Night Special, Double-column magazine, cop-killer, military-issue.
Where are the limits then? Where will you stop, what guns would you let the law abiding keep?
Don't go paranoid on me, Sevesteen.
ReplyDeleteNo one is suggesting banning all handguns, including semi-automatics. Back in the late 70's there was a push to ban small, low-cost handguns ("Saturday night specials"), but no one is trying to do so now. Extended magazine clips, yes. Not sure how you define "military issue", but if you mean assault rifles, then yes.
So-called "cop killer bullets", due to their hardened brass composition and iron core, are able to retain their form upon impact better and thus are able to penetrate ballistic vests (such as those worn by cops). They were developed for use by police in firing through windshields and such. Yes, many people, including myself, would like to ban those as well, with exception to law enforcement, since they are not required by the average citizen for self-defense or hunting and only put law enforcement in greater danger.
And yes, I do want to impose training requirements on anyone thinking they can make life and death decisions with firearms. But the cost for training is not beyond the average person's means. If they can't afford it, then they wouldn't be able to afford the gun, either.
Do those limitations prevent the average owner from defending themselves? No. But they do make us safer, and they might inconvenience your fetish for the most dangerous items.
Baldr Odinson,
ReplyDelete"Cop-killer bullets" again? Are you aware that any centerfire rifle bullet will punch through the standard issue police vest? Those same vests will stop most handgun rounds (although not the 7.62 Tokarev bullet).
Assault rifles again? Without a Class III firearms license, we can't legally own an assault rifle. An assault rifle must have the capability for fully automatic fire. There is no such thing as a semi-automatic only assault rifle.
You "spin" the terms, Greg. You know full well that these "cop killer" bullets can be used in handguns as well, as they were designed for, making it unnecessary to carry a rifle around for taking out cops with vests. And as for "assault rifles", you know I'm talking about semi-auto military style rifles, not just machine guns.
ReplyDeleteYou know full well that these "cop killer" bullets can be used in handguns as well, as they were designed for, making it unnecessary to carry a rifle around for taking out cops with vests.
ReplyDeleteUse whatever definition of cop killer bullet you want--Can you find any crime where a cop killer bullet helped the criminal? How does your definition exclude ordinary hunting ammunition?
The point I am trying to make is that these definitions get spun and twisted until they cover far more than ordinary people realize. Under the current legal definitions of 'cop killer bullet', rifle ammo is excluded. However, if someone makes 3 or 4 impractical, huge and difficult to fire handguns that chamber that ammo, the ammo now becomes restricted.
And one proposed law defined 'cop killer ammo' as any ammo that could penetrate a police vest...that is only designed to withstand handgun ammo. In other words, almost all rifle ammunition.
And as for "assault rifles", you know I'm talking about semi-auto military style rifles, not just machine guns.
How do these significantly differ from semiautomatic hunting rifles?
Yes, Baldr, I realize that you misuse the term, "assault rifle," to mean semiautomatic and civilian legal rifles, but why do you boast about poor diction?
ReplyDeleteI have no idea what you mean by "cop-killer bullet," and I suspect that you don't either. I've never seen a bullet with an iron core for sale anywhere that I've shopped. As is said often on the Box O'Truth website, pistols are pistols, and rifles are rifles. Handguns don't have the power to penetrate the standard police vest, while all centerfire rifles do. "Cop killer" is a label designed to frighten the uninformed.
Okay, Greg, I'll humor this last attempt to derail the conversation.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry you seem confused by my definition of these bullets. There's a reason you don't find them on the market much. August 1986 saw passage of H.R- 3121, which greatly narrowed the definition of proscribed bullets (earlier bills threatened to outlaw up to 85% of big game ammunition), and contained no criminal penalties for dealer or private possession, transfer or use of such bullets. An exception was made for misuse in a violent federal crime.
The law defined offending bullets as "a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun" and constructed entirely (except for trace elements) of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper or depleted uranium or a combination of those metals. Further, the Secretary of the Treasury may exempt a projectile covered in the "armor-piercing" definition, but may not expand the law to include projectiles not expressly included in the established definition.
Oh, I should also add that those bullets were expressly designed, from the beginning, to be fired from police-issue handguns. We aren't talking about rifle ammo here.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, Greg, though you may deride the "cop killer" label, police forces continue to be thoroughly in support of such bills. See this article from this year:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.scpr.org/news/2011/01/27/23453/proposed-ban-cop-killer-bullets-backed-local-law-e/
earlier bills threatened to outlaw up to 85% of big game ammunition
ReplyDeleteEither the authors of the earlier bills were incompetent, or they were trying to ban most rifle ammo and backed off when they got caught.
The whole Cop Killer Bullet thing is manufactured hysteria. Bullet resistant vests are a compromise--they need to be comfortable enough to wear, while stopping the most common threats. They could be made to stop more types of ammo by making them heavier and less comfortable.
Since the vests are made to be just good enough, it is possible to make ammo that can just penetrate a vest with a few handgun calibers. This isn't nearly the problem it seems-most of the energy that would otherwise be used to wound the victim is used in getting through the vest, and in almost all other situations these rounds would be vastly less effective. If all criminals would switch to armor piercing ammo the overall death and injury rate would likely drop.