We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
While Brian Linse is probably right about our fundamentally different views, one good riposte deserves another.
According to Brian’s view,
The right to keep and bear arms is set forth in the Bill of Rights, and the limits that government can put on individual liberties so innumerated are subject to review by the Supreme Court. Just as we limit speech in certain narrow situations, it is perfectly rational and logical to limit gun ownership.
While I will not concede the point, in the interest of being sporting I’ll take a shot at it from his court.
In that vein, it was interesting to learn about Brian’s buddy with the penchant for illegal weaponry. As Brian explains it, his friend makes it a point to break both the existing laws and the rules of gun safety by illegally buying guns and caching them in public areas. Brian feels that since his friend chooses to break the existing laws, we should pile on more in the vain hope he’ll find one to his liking. Take that to its logical conclusion and the only way to ensure compliance is a complete ban on everything remotely resembling a firearm. Does limiting a right described by the Constitution include eliminating it?
Brian also states
Chuck Shumer’s got no chance of taking my guns away, but it’s not because I’m better armed than he is, it’s because the Constitution and the representatives elected by the people won’t let him.
Brian is probably correct that Chuck Shumer’s appointed minions won’t burst into his house to physically take the family shotgun. Yet. In today’s society attempts to do so would at the very least end up with the Irish scene described by Perry in the following blog, and Brian’s buddy’s buried arsenal might well come into play. If the current trend of malediction towards gun owners continues, however, then the representatives elected by people twenty years from now may well let him and that musty scrap of parchment be damned.
In the meantime, however, if enough laws are passed limiting how a piece of property can be obtained, owned or used, then at some point the property becomes unusable. Therein lies the whole danger of the “Limited Rights” concept. If you have to ask for permission, then it is not a right; it’s a privilege subject to the whims of the current administration. In that regard, Chuck’s crew is well on the way to taking away your guns. Ask any resident of New Jersey or California who saw legally purchased, owned and registered firearms become illegal weapons overnight. Ask the residents of New York City who had the police call up and tell them to turn in the rifle that was just outlawed. Ask any of the thousands of innocent people nationwide who failed a NICS check because they have a common name.
Obeying laws is always a matter of private choice. So is engaging in commerce. That’s the point Brain seems to have missed in the first article. It’s not just about guns. Its about your right to dispose of your property as you wish. Should the state be involved when you sell the neighbor your old car? Should you have to call up the DMV and obtain his driving record, then verify he has valid auto insurance and get him to take a breathalyzer before you trade keys for cash? Should his mental health records be made public so you can check for evidence of depression before selling him that rope from your garage? Where do you draw the line? Private transactions between individuals involve a certain amount of trust. If, as in Brian’s nutty friend’s case, one of the parties chooses to break that trust than no number of laws is going to stop him.
If it is really a Bill of Limited Rights constantly re-defined by additional laws as Brian suggests, then the only way to protect your cherished liberties is by keeping those limits to the absolute minimum. In the case of the 2nd Amendment, with well over 20,000 gun laws on the books, I would suggest that we are already well past any sort of reasonable minimum.
Incidentally, I rather liked Ginger Stampley’s modest proposal. Something very similar to it has been on the books for about 30 years. It’s called the Gun Control Act of 1968. Trying to enforce it is the prickly part of the whole thorny issue. It all boils down to: “If I just met you, how do I know you are really you?” If I read Ginger correctly, she’s implying that if you manage to fool me, I become responsible for your actions. Rather alarming, that.
The problem I have with the views of excellent blogista Brian Linse are actually the same as the one’s he has with Walter Ulhman‘s post to the Samizdata…
The problem I have with these posts is that they never address the real issues, choosing instead to just characterize the opposition as liberty-hating confiscators who are aware of their authoritarian motives in a conspiracy with evil forces in government.
Yet can Brian seriously read Senator Chuck Schumer‘s endless remarks on the subject and still say there is no foundation to the widely held view of ‘gun nuts’ that powerful factions within the state are indeed ‘liberty-hating confiscators’? How is that not a ‘real issue’? I think it is Brian who is not addressing the issue here, not Walter or Glenn.
Walter would no doubt argue that the existing laws should prevent this kind of activity, but the reality is that they do not work.
I would not normally presume to speak for another like this but I have known Walter extremely well for over 20 years so I will do exactly that: I rather doubt in reality Walter cares a hoot if it works or not (he may say otherwise if he disagrees). Both he and I support the idea of a free armed civil population and reject anything that makes that more difficult. Bad guys are also armed and will always be regardless of any number of idiotic laws. Just look at the rate at which armed crime is increasing in Britain regardless of law after law. If that is not enough, then let me point you at that part of the UK called Northern Ireland and suggest to you that it is demonstrably impossible to disarm a section of society if they refuse to comply. Bad people are already armed in every nation on earth (well, maybe not the Vatican and Sealand)… some of them are muggers, some of them are murderers, some of them are terrorists and some of them wear blue jackets with ATF or FBI or ‘Metropolitan Police’ printed on the back.
A law that doesn’t work is useless, and only serves as fuel for the wackos on the other side (Brady Campaign) to further polarize the debate. Walter describes gun shows as “…simply private commerce between individuals.” Well if Walter offered to sell me his sister for 50 bucks, that too could be called “private commerce between individuals”, but it would still be illegal and immoral.
I do not see your point here. Not that Walter actually has a sister, but if he did, certainly if she was unwilling then it would be immoral to force her into what would amount to slavery as she too is a free individual. Otherwise, I fail to see the problem… prostitution is the combination of sex and free enterprise: which one are you against? More seriously, here comes my profound ambivalence to democracy: I would prefer a bad law that does not work to a bad law that does. A law that doesn’t work can only come about if enough people refuse to accept it, regardless of its sanctification by some elected buffoons with media access who claim to speak for the very people who choose to break that law. I actually make a point of going out of my way to break laws I judge unreasonable restrictions on my liberty. If you choose to speed on an empty road, so do you.
Somehow I don’t think that 30 round magazines and SP-89’s illegally converted to full-auto would be much use against laser guided bunker busters and smart bombs.
I suspect the US Rangers who died in Somalia might have disagreed. You seem to think that some future tyranny in the US would find dealing with armed resistance by sections of US society rather like fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan. I think Somalia and Vietnam and Northern Ireland and Algeria would be better analogies. It is hard to ‘smart bomb’ your own population into submission. Britain also has smart bombs and all the panoply of modern war, yet that meant nothing in Northern Ireland when a section of society refused to be governed.
Representative Democracy and the US Constitution are all the protection we need for our individual liberties.
Ah, that would explain US civil forfeiture laws then eh? Were they not passed by your beloved democratic representatives? So much for your mighty constitution. I find your faith inexplicable.
We currently live with a variety of laws that limit our rights to free speech. If we agree that there are legitimate restrictions on free speech, how can we ignore the same needs for limits on the right to keep and bear arms? How about addressing some of these question instead of endless polarizing rhetorical posts? Preaching to the choir is fun, but not very useful.
You seem to be demanding that Glenn and Walter argue the issue by first accepting your underpinning axioms (i.e. not ‘polarizing’ the debate): firstly it is legitimate to restrict the liberty to arm yourself and we should only be arguing about how much to restrict it. Secondly that the belief that the US system of government and its constitution are such sound and fundamental foils to tyranny that fears to the contrary are irrational.
I don’t know about Glenn but I am damn sure Walter and I will never accept either of those axioms as a basis for discussion. In fact I would say to do so would itself be irrational given the evidence that both views are false and it is you who are not really dealing with the issues by retreating into the comfortable fiction that the system in the USA is fundamentally okay. I beg to differ. American success and prosperity come not from its constitutional system and sure as hell not from it’s ghastly legal system: it comes from the fact a large and productive chunk of the population is imbued with a civil culture of liberty that transcends mere written laws… and my admiration for that aspect of America is boundless. The US Constitution is the actual source of precisely nothing and to argue on constitutional grounds, now that is avoiding the issue. The US Constitution merely enumerates some of the rights that people possess by right, whether those rights are written down or not. It is not a matter of laws, it is a matter of rights… but if you insist on arguing on the basis of a two hundred year old bit of paper, which part of ‘…shall not be infringed’ did you not understand?
Loopy Holes
Having failed in their efforts to depict the recent terrorist acts as indicative of the need for yet more gun control, the civilian disarmament crowd is still desperate to capitalize on the tragedies with a renewed push next month to close “the gun show loophole”. Except the loophole they’re raging about is nothing of the sort. The control lobbyists dreamed up that catchy moniker to give a vaguely nefarious air to what is simply private commerce between individuals. It’s the exact same commerce by which average people buy and sell houses, cars, dishwashers, ironing boards, chainsaws and kitchen knives.
Okay. Okay. It’s not EXACTLY the same. Gun show sales from dealers still involve more paperwork and record keeping than most mortgages. And yeah, they still have to clear you with the National Instant Check System, which only takes fifteen minutes except when it takes four or five days. And if you’re from out of state the weapon must be shipped to a dealer in your state where you have to comply with the local laws and permit processes before you can pick it up. In fact, purchases from a dealer at a show are the same as purchases from dealer at a store, and purchases from an individual at a show are the same as purchases from an individual anywhere. All local laws must still be followed.
The various gun control groups harp about the fictitious “loophole” in an attempt to muddy the waters on the whole debate. These are the same groups that recently claimed Al-Qaida training manuals describe how to use lax US gun laws to buy guns and that Barrett Firearms sold Osama Bin Laden .50 caliber sniping rifles. I can’t say where they got the supposed training manual from; maybe they are on Al-Qaida’s mailing list. As for the sniping rifles, it turns out they were actually sold to the U.S. government. A show of hands, please, from everyone who read the embarrassed retraction. Anyone? No? I’m not surprised. The Brady Campaign, Handgun Control Inc, the Center for Violent Criminal Empowerment or whatever the civilian disarmament gang is calling themselves this week is infamous for loudly braying twisted statistics, massive misinformation and bald faced lies. When the truth manages to sneak out, they respond with the defense so typical of a miscreant caught red handed: stubborn silence.
Closing the much-hyped “loophole” will not reduce crime. It’s not meant too. The real purpose is to make it so difficult to hold or attend a gun show that people simply give up. By driving gun shows out of business, they hope to transform innocent open social events into furtive backroom deals and pervert a proud tradition into an unacceptable affliction. The ultimate goal, of course, is to attain the United Nations ideal of the Norm of Non-ownership. That’s civilian non-ownership. Governments and police forces can have all they want.
In the final analysis, the forces in favor of gun control are fundamentally anti-liberty. Colonel Pagano, a former Superintendent of the New Jersey State Police summed up the issue quite succinctly; “Gun control is not crime control. Gun control is people control”. Just as owning a weapon is a de facto statement of profound personal independence, trying to remove that same weapon is a de facto expression of social engineering at its worst.
Never forget, even for an instant, that the one and only reason anybody has for taking your gun away is to make you weaker than he is, so he can do something to you that you wouldn’t let him do if you were equipped to prevent it. This goes for burglars, muggers, and rapists, and even more so for policemen, bureaucrats, and politicians.
– from Hope by Aaron Zelman and L. Neil Smith
And thus, when the pseudo-democratic authoritarian regime of Vladimir Putin, notable for crushing the free press in Russia, come out in favour of gun-control (victim disarmament) advocates in America, it becomes clear that supporters of well armed liberty are well and truly on the right track. According to World Net Daily, our liberty loving Russian ‘friends’ have done exactly that
Russia supports restrictions on U.S. gun ownership, according to official sources, pointing out that after the events of Sept. 11 gun sales in the United States increased. The blame for increased gun sales, according to Moscow and anti-gun activists, lies with gun manufacturers. “American firearms manufacturers saw their chance at profiting from the tragedy of people scared of threats from international terrorists,” Moscow declared. Asserting that “a nationwide campaign has been launched to advertise pistols and guns,” Moscow referred to a recent press conference held to “draw attention to gun makers’ marketing efforts.” The event included participation by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., and Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice. The statements were reported by the Voice of Russia World Service, the official broadcasting service of the Russian government.
I can only assume that this is actually a plot by unknown well meaning NRA sympathisers within the Russian establishment, because I can hardly imagine a better way of encouraging a surge in US civilian gun acquisition than ‘The Official Russian State Media does not want you to own weapons’. Superb. Well done, Vlad. I knew you were on our side really.
There is an interesting article in the Virginian-Pilot called Gun shop owner sues ATF over reports. The owner of a gun shop in Virginia is suing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms because it has demand records of the shop’s used gun sales. The owner says the government is compiling a database of gun owners, which is strictly illegal. I particularly liked:
“While no one has accused me of committing a crime, they’re going on a fishing expedition, and I’m not going fishing with them,” Marcus said in a recent interview from his shop.
Excellent. The state can only tie liberty in knots if enough people are willing cooperate with it. Don’t cooperate.
I agree with .40 S&W is an excellent round, with the caveat that it can be quite punishing to shoot over a long period, and I would contend that you need to shoot your self-defence weapon a lot before you can rely on it. 45 ACP has, like my favourite calibre (455 Webley, I own a Webley Mk VI and a Smith 2nd Model Hand Ejector) has the advantage that it can deliver an authoritative hit with a relatively low velocity load; even a light target load from a Colt can end an argument very effectively and more certainly than a lighter high velocity round. To quote (I think) Colonel Cooper:
There are many ways of making a bullet lose velocity; I know very few of making it lose weight.
I think magazine capacity is a chimaera in self-defense pistols; modern high capacity weapons have been driven either by a military/police agenda or competition requirements; there are going to be very few few self-defence situations in which you need more than five or six rounds. What is, I believe required is a pistol portable enough to be carried all the time, rather than an ersatz SMG.
Natalie and I own (In Belgium, these days I’m afraid,) a little Charter Arms Undercover, and a good friend owns its big brother the bulldog. On the day I bought it for Natalie I carried it for several hours in my trousers pocket before she even realised I had it. Only 5 rounds of 38 special, but practice and intelligent choice of ammo made it very credible self defence weapon, had we ever been in a place it were legal to carry one. Of course, If I were expecting trouble I’d make a different choice, but even with the little Charter I’d be prepared for it…
Mike Solent
I have to agree with the majority of Perry’s comments on both the 40 cal. and the SIG 229. Excellent choice of caliber and weapon. The 229, like most weapons chambered for the 40 S&W, also has the advantage of being readily converted via a simple barrel change to the .357 SIG, a caliber that has garnered rave reviews in both civilian and government circles. As for leaving home without it, however, depending on dress and circumstance the somewhat smaller SIG 239 might be more appropriate.
Unfortunately for Perry, he lives in the UK where the great experiment in civilian disarmament continues unabated despite all the evidence proving it is simply a bad idea. So until he makes the move back to the US, his desire will remain a futile, unfulfilled dream.
Pity, old chum.
Now Dawson is certainly entitled to his opinion that the Colt .45 “has never been surpassed as a combat weapon side arm”, but I think times have moved on. Sure, it is a fine choice, but I cannot see any real advantage over more modern .40 cal weapons like the excellent SIG 229 but I can see several disadvantages. The SIG has 12 rounds in the magazine (vs. 7 in the Colt), is a smooth double action out of the box and just as reliable as the venerable 1911-A1 (and it’s various grandchildren). To be honest, I think the Colt is only really competitive these days if heavily modified (polished feed ramp, extended slide release etc.). Most importantly, I just don’t like a Colt style lock safety in a combat piece… it is just too easy to forget that it is on at the moment of truth and too dangerous to leave it off in the mean time.
Don’t get me wrong, the Colt .45 is a great weapon and fun to shoot but when the chips are down and it is time for business…I want a 40 cal SIG 229…Don’t leave home without it.
I was reading Ian Murray’s blog The Edge of England’s Sword and followed a link to an interesting article he wrote for Britannica regarding the use of statistics in the victim disarmament debate. It is a excellent piece but the bit that stood out to me was:
The level of contention is so high that acceptance of a set of data by one side often means a knee-jerk rejection by the other. The research of U.S. government agencies should be objective enough to be acceptable to both sides, yet some data produced by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services have been criticized for being biased in favour of gun control.
Now whilst I realise I am a wild-eyed libertarian, it never ceases to amaze me how many people do indeed seem to think that government agencies are somehow less likely to have an axe to grind when they make some pronouncement. States are in no sense a disinterested third party standing apart from sectarian concerns of society. What they are is a group of people defending their own narrow institutional objectives and with a vested interest in finding ‘reasons’ to expand the remit of their authority. To think otherwise is almost hilarious.
Only it is not really funny at all.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
