Tag Archives: second amendment

After Orlando, should we repeal the second amendment?

Summary: Orlando, as usual for a crisis in America, brings forth calls to rip another strip from the Constitution. But the Second Amendment worked well for us for two centuries, until conservatives decided America needed more guns in more hands. Orlando is another example of the results. But there are solutions that do not require another amputation on the Constitution. Celebrate Flag Day by remembering the Constitution, and defending it.

Repeal the Second Amendment.”
— Reaction to the Orlando shootings by Erik Loomis (Asst Prof History, U RI).

Constitution & guns

The rule of crises in America is that our elites exploit them to strip away pieces from the Bill of Rights. Both Left and Right are complicit in this. They are a tag-team working against us. Each has their favorite amendments and those they seek to erase.

After generations of this, its amendments have been pruned like the withered branches of an ancient oak tree. Most of the Bill of Rights remain de jure in force but are de facto void.  They attack it to fight “crime” (the 6th largely void for those who fall into our misnamed criminal justice system) and “terrorism” (the 4th being their latest victim). Amendments 7, 8, and 9 are almost dead letters. The third is obsolete.

Now it’s the Left against the second amendment. Not only is this an attack on the Constitution, it’s bad political tactics, self-marginalizing by the Left. See “Why It’s Time to Repeal the Second Amendment” by David S. Cohen in Rolling Stone.

A few more generations it will become a totem, like Magna Carta, or poetry like the Declaration of Independence. (For more about this see Forecast: Death of the Constitution.)

What about Orlando?

Update: a commenter noted that even strict gun-control laws are unlikely to prevent a licensed security guard from getting some form of gun.

We learned to control guns in America, adequately if not as well as have other nations. It kept the rate of mass killings at a high but tolerable level. This system worked for two centuries. It allowed local diversity of laws to suit regional cultures. While we slept, right-wing ideologues — backed by the unassailable might of money — have taken this from us.

Relentless pressure by conservatives at State and local levels have eroded away their gun laws. In 2008 the national legal regime changed with the activist conservative judges on the Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller (conservatives overthrow State’s rights when convenient).

Now we’re going backwards, seeing behaviors unknown in developed nations for many generations — such as open carry of guns. And lots of mass shootings. How many? Life is cheap in America, so the government tracks thousands of kinds of financial activity. But it doesn’t track mass shootings — there are several definitions — just as it does not accurately track shootings by police.

Continue reading

Guns in the wild west: regulated, with no fears about ripping the Constitution

Summary:  An oddity of the New America is how we stumble when dealing with problems solved not just by our peers in other developed nations, but in our past.  Gun control is but one example. Other nations, our peers in the developed world, have accomplished what we’re told is impossible for Americans: reducing gun ownership.  In our past we were able to regulate guns without cries that we shredded the Constitution (the subject of today’s post).   In brief, we see ignorance and amnesia — what conservative leaders consider ideal qualities for citizens.

Sign on main street of Dodge City, 1878:
“The Carrying of Firearms Strictly Forbidden”

Dodge City, 1879As shown in Myth-busting about gun use in the Wild West, the untamed late 19th century West was relatively peaceful — except for institutional violence (eg, against Indians, small farmers and ranchers, unions). Laws regulating gun possession helped make it so. The people who opened the frontier were not dumb, and didn’t want their streets running with blood. Nor were the citizens of Americans during the following century, in which many areas had strict gun controls.

This history has been erased from the minds of millions through the power of propaganda on a willing audience.  It’s become lost history, joining so much of our 19th century in the amnesic clouds of the American mass mind.

But the truth is out there, as in these two excerpts, if only we have the will to grasp it.

(1) Did the Wild West Have More Gun Control Than We Do Today?“, Adam Winkler (Prof Law, UCLA; author of Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America), Huffington Post, 9 September 2011 — Excerpt:

While people were allowed to have guns at home for self-protection, frontier towns usually barred anyone but law enforcement from carrying guns in public.

Continue reading

Do guns make us more safe, or less? Let’s look at the research.

Summary:  The incidence of apparent murders justified under the “stand your ground” laws raises questions about the vast number of claimed “self-defense” gun use.  How many of these were justifications of improper use, not legitimate (and socially prestigious) self-defense? Fortunately there is research on the issue.  Here we look at samples of this research, most of which ruins the narrative created by the NRA.

20130123-nra

Contents

  1. What stories about guns reveal about us
  2. Do guns in the home make you safer?
  3. How are guns used?
  4. How are guns used by California teenagers?
  5. About studies showing massive rates of self-defense gun use?
  6. Other posts about guns in America

.
(1)  The big picture:  What stories about guns reveal about us

This essence of The New America, what divides us from the America-That-Once-Was, is our willingness to believe what we’re told — no matter what the evidence — if it suits our prejudices. There’s no longer a reality-based community in this mad superpower.  We’ve examined this in a hundred posts on the FM website, looking at both Left and Right.  Recently we’ve examined inconvenient material about guns and climate, things partisans refuse to see least it ruin their beloved narratives.

When we open our eyes, returning to the skepticism and iconoclasm of our forefathers, then reform will again become possible in America.  How to make that happens might be the greatest challenge of our age for America.  Until then we remain pawns of our leaders, easily manipulated by our fears.

(2) Do guns in the home make you safer?

Risks and Benefits of a Gun in the Home“, David Hemenway, American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, November/December 2011 — Abstract:

This article summarizes the scientific literature on the health risks and benefits of having a gun in the home for the gun owner and his/her family. For most contemporary Americans, scientific studies indicate that the health risk of a gun in the home is greater than the benefit.

The evidence is overwhelming for the fact that a gun in the home is a risk factor for completed suicide and that gun accidents are most likely to occur in homes with guns. There is compelling evidence that a gun in the home is a risk factor for intimidation and for killing women in their homes.

Continue reading

Second amendment scholarship (using money to reshape America)

Summary:  People with superpowers are running a multi-generational project to reshape America. They have the greatest of superpowers: money, which they’ve used to enlist experts to produce a large volume of research supporting their interests — overwhelming experts with different (ie, mainstream) viewpoints.  Here we see two examples of their success.

.

.

(1) Investing in America’s youth

What Do Campus Conservatives Reveal About the Modern-Day GOP?“, Elbert Ventura, The New Republic, 16 January 2013

As Binder and Wood detail, a well-established professional network nurtures these upstart advocates. Funded by tens of millions of dollars from familiar names — Koch, Bradley, Olin — organizations such as the Young America’s Foundation (YAF), the Leadership Institute, and the Intercollegiate Studies Institute nurse the new guard with resources and an intensity that have no equal on the left.

One student at Western told the authors that the Leadership Institute called him to offer unsolicited financial support for his conservative newspaper. … The organizations also offer a wide array of activities, from training sessions and speaking programs to conferences and funding, to further bolster the young conservatives.

(2)  Then there are larger projects under way

In previous chapters in this series about guns, we saw the array of falsehoods defending the conservatives’ views.  False data, false quotations, false history. This article discusses another dimension: false scholarship:  “To Keep and Bear Arms“, Garry Wills (Professor of History Emeritus at Northwestern), New York Review of Books, 21 September 1995 — Excerpt:

Over the last decade, an industrious band of lawyers, historians, and criminologists has created a vast outpouring of articles justifying individual gun ownership on the basis of the Second Amendment: “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

This body of commentary, much of it published in refereed law journals, has changed attitudes toward the Second Amendment. The National Rifle Association’s lobbyists distribute it to legislators. Journalists like Michael Kinsley and George Will disseminate this school’s views. Members of it now claim, on the basis of their work’s quantity and what they believe is its quality, that scholarship on this subject is now all theirs—so that even to hold an opposing view is enough to “discredit its supporters,” according to the historian Joyce Lee Malcolm (source).

Continue reading

Let’s look at the Second Amendment, cutting through the myths and spin

Summary:  It’s the great oddity of the US that we order our society based on exegesis of an 18th century document, written in grammar no longer used with words whose meaning has often radically changed.  Instead of justice or logic, our judges have become like the mandarins of Imperial China — parsing the meaning of a document that no longer lives in any other meaningful sense.  In the 6th chapter of this series, we wade into the thickets to understand how this plays out over the corpse of the Constitution with respect to the second amendment.

Studying the Constiution

Studying the Constitution

Section I, article 8 (see analysis by the Congressional Research Service):

The Congress shall have power …

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Second Amendment (see analysis by the Congressional Research Service):

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A quick history of the Second Amendment

From “Guns and Grammar: the Linguistics of the Second Amendment“, Dennis Baron (Prof Linguistics, U IL at Urbana-Champaign):

English common law had long acknowledged the importance of effective arms control, and the meaning of the Second Amendment seemed clear to the framers and their contemporaries: that the people have a right to possess arms when serving in the militia. Over the years, this “collective rights” interpretation of the Second Amendment was upheld in 3 Supreme Court decisions, in 1876, 1886, and most recently, in 1939 (Bogus 2000).

Continue reading