Guns!
12 Comments Published April 4th, 2009 in National and International Issues, Southern Utah Talking Points and Questions.Recent events shoot down the gun nut argument.
Utah is a gun state, no question about it.
In this state, you don’t have to have a reason to carry a concealed gun … you just need to want to. In 1995, the Utah Legislature abolished a requirement that applicants must show good cause to receive a permit. And there are few places that can tell you that you can’t. In 1999, the Legislature passed a another law prohibiting any other state or local decision-making body from regulating firearms. The only institutions that can bar guns from their premises are mental-health agencies, law-enforcement and correctional facilities, the Olympic Public Safety Command (It was creating a problem hosting the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.), airports and bus terminals, houses of worship (Why are they exempt??), courts, and elementary and secondary schools. (This could be a serious problem for some gun nuts!) But you can carry a hogleg in your boot at any public University. The U of U fought – and lost – a protracted battle to keep guns off their campus. However, BYU – since it’s a private institution – does prohibit guns! Even non-Utahns don’t have a problem getting concealed-weapons permits. You can get one by mail without ever even coming here.
Why do gun nuts want their killing machines? The argument most of them give is “self defense.” A typical example …
“If I send my daughter to the [University of Utah] and you take away her right to defend herself, what guarantee of safety can you give me?” asked Representative Carl Wimmer, R-Herriman, a Salt Lake suburb.
Recently, the death and carnage of the US gun culture seems like it has reached a crescendo. In March alone, these multiple gun deaths have happened:
— March 29, 2009: Eight people at the Pinelake Health and Rehab in Carthage, North Carolina were shot before a police officer shot the killer.
— March 29, 2009: A man shot and killed his two children and three other relatives, then killed himself in Santa Clara, California. His wife was critically injured.
— March 21, 2009: In Oakland, California, a man shot and killed four police officers in a gun battle that raged from the street to into a nearby building before being shot down himself by other officers.
— March 10, 2009: A man killed 10 people — including his mother, four other relatives, and the wife and child of a local sheriff’s deputy — across two rural Alabama counties. He then killed himself.
Just yesterday, 14 more died in Binghamton, N.Y. when a man invaded a center where people were just trying to learn the skills necessary to become citizens. All of the killer’s guns were legally licensed by the way.
Today, just a few hours ago, a gun-loving lunatic who was afraid President Obama would ban firearms killed three Pittsburgh cops.
I’ve got news for Representative Carl Wimmer. There are no guarantees. You might get hit by a meteorite from outer space! But you can be stupid and vastly increase your chances of getting killed or smart and minimize them.
The US gun culture clearly makes us all a lot more likely to get killed! If Representative Wimmer’s idea made just a glimmer of sense, wouldn’t we see just a few more of these killings being prevented? After all, there are over 280 million guns in private hands in the US. The fact is, these guns get used to kill people, not to prevent people from being killed.
One statistic just to make the point clear: Japan has a population of 128 million people and fewer than 400,000 legally owned guns. They had a total of 22 gun murders in 2007. The US has a population of 306 million, 280 million guns and over 12,000 gun homicides each year. The US has 24,000 percent more gun deaths per capita than Japan.
Representative Wimmer’s philosophy of having everyone packing heat to defend themselves has a knee-jerk appeal, but it just doesn’t work that way. Back in human history when everyone was responsible for defending themselves, life was brutish, violent, and short. The thing that makes us safe is our institutions. (The “well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” of the Second Amendment.) Not an AK-47 in every house.
But as I’ve written before, if you look hard enough, you can find something positive in anything. The news today also has this wonderful little story about Sarah Palin’s sister-in-law, Diana Palin. According to the Anchorage Daily News, Ms Palin (Diana, not Sarah) tried to burglarize a house and steal cash. But the owner held her at gun point until police arrived.
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
And the rest of the Diana Palin story is:
“In a further twist in the case, Diana Palin’s 4-year-old daughter was apparently waiting in the car outside, but entered the house before police arrived, a prosecutor said during a Palmer District Court hearing Friday. The little girl reportedly told police she had been in the house before.”
And going on with that wonderful family that we all should want to emulate. Bristol Palin was interviewed on the TODAY show. She said “I don’t regret it.” (her pregnancy). She then goes on to say, “I just wish it had happened 10 years from now. I hope that people learn from my story and just, like, I don’t know, prevent teen pregnancy.” Now to me, her first sentence “I don’t regret it.” just doesn’t jibe with the rest of her statement! If she wishes it had happened 10 years from now, and she hopes that people learn from her story and prevent teen pregnancy, then she DOES regret it!
And then Sarah’s mother stepped in front of the cameras and said, in answer to a question by the interviewer, “It’s not the most ideal situation, but she will make the best of it.”
Those all are statements of regret!
So now Bristol is going to become an advocate for abstinence (according to the story I read). Duh! How come she can’t see that abstinence doesn’t work!
Yep! We sure as heck did need that family as the Second Family of the United States. All folks with their heads on absolutely straight (if you look at them from an angle).
Sorry, Dan, this has nothing to do with guns. But you got me started! I really, really can’t understand the admiration some people have for the Palins.
And you know, however, that I agree with you completely about the gun issue. In all of my 65 years I, myself, have never been in a situation where it would have been advantageous to me to have a gun or to have been in the company of someone who had a gun. And I know of no one of my acquaintance who has ever told me they have ever been in such a situation. So, in my life neither I nor anyone I have ever known has felt having a gun would have aided us. I really don’t know who these people are or where they live or what their live are like that they need to carry a gun so they can live out their lives peacefully.
Oh, C’mon. Don’t hold back! Tell us how you really feel.
When I was young and foolish, I got all the gun fun I needed out of my system during my Advanced Infantry Training in the Army. I suspect that those who protest that they ‘need’ a gun for defense really have an entirely different ‘need’.
Yep! And they are very scary. I don’t know any of them and I really don’t want to know any of them.
The New York Times wrote an Opinion piece about guns that was published on April 2 and titled “Astoundingly Flawed.”
“In December, ignoring proper procedure and the risk to public safety, the Bush administration rushed through regulations” (so, what’s new?) “allowing people to carry concealed, loaded guns in national parks” (that includes Zion National Park, where Color Comments originates) “and wildlife refuges. Fortunately, a federal judge has blocked this last-minute mischief, giving the Obama administration a fresh chance to do the right thing and withdraw the rule.
“Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the United States District Court in Washington, said the Interior Department failed to conduct the legally required environmental assessment, taking into account such factors as public safety and the likely impact on the ‘human environment.’ Overall, she said, the process by which the rule was adopted was ‘astoundingly flawed.’
Rather than appeal, President Obama’s interior secretary, Ken Salazar, should agree to retract the rule – even though that would anger the gun lobby.”
Read the rest of the Opinion here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/03/opinion/03fri2.html?th&emc=th
I love the Times! They get it right more often than any news source I know of.
I did read it. The segment that caught my attention was:
“The Bush Interior Department claimed it was changing the rules to ‘give greater effect to principles of Federalism’ because some states allow residents to walk around secretly armed. But respect for state authority does not require applying those laws to federal lands …”
Isn’t this basically the same thing that BYU is doing? Because it’s private, they can outlaw guns on their campus, and they do. Because the parks are not under the jurisdiction of the State of Utah, they can do the same thing.
And you also didn’t point out that, “[Obama's] Justice Department filed a brief in the parks case supporting the Bush line …”
Shame on Obama!
The power of the gun lobby is awesome!
I suspect that most of us who own guns do more because we want to rather because we feel the need to.
And in owning guns we are merely exercising a constitutionally guaranteed right as individuals according to the Supreme Court and President Obama.
To Peggy – I do not advocate abstinence as “the” method for preventing unwanted pregnancies, but it clearly does work and would have worked for Bristol Palin had she practiced it.
First, thank you for posting a reply. I was hoping that an advocate of guns would leave a comment.
Second, I don’t believe gun ownership is a “constitutionally guaranteed right”. Let’s get the entire Second Amendment on the table to be clear about what it actually says first. This is the text passed by Congress:
“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.”
To me, the intent of this is clear. And throughout nearly all of the history of the US, the courts have agreed. It’s based on a historical requirement for “well regulated” mutual defense. The National Guard, commanded by state governors, is how this right is exercised today. This particular amendment (like Dred Scott mentioned later) is rooted in a historical context that no longer exists, however.
But on a dark and bloodstained day in 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that such a right did exist in a closely contested 5-4 decision. Critics note that this decision, like Roe v. Wade, created a right based on a contested interpretation that previously did not exist. The majority in Heller usually oppose such “judicial activism” but I guess they were able to overcome this problem in their own minds this time. The fact that Dick Cheney joined an amicus curiae brief is enough reason for me to think the decision was wrong. (President Obama, however, opposed the decision at the time and has not made a definitive statement about it since. You can’t claim his support except that he does support legal due process.)
In evaluating this decision, I like to keep in mind that in Dred Scott v. Sandford, the Supreme Court also ruled that “people of African descent imported into the United States and held as slaves, or their descendants—whether or not they were slaves—were not legal persons and could never be citizens of the United States.” By 7 to 2!!
The Supremes can screw up too. The Supremes elected the idiot Bush in 2000!
The decision contains built-in loopholes, however. The language of the decision states, “one should not expect [the ruling] to clarify the entire field” suggesting that future cases could be entertained. The decision also states that, “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by …” [long list of exceptions]. If this ain’t “infringing” then I don’t know what is. So I take the court decision in Heller as being inconsistent on it’s face. (It’s interesting to note that Heller’s original demand to register a firearm was ultimately denied because the courts allow so many reasons to “infringe”.)
As an example of how the lack of a constitutional right is the most reasonable interpretation of the Second Amendment, consider that the group that probably studies these things as closely any, the NRA, did their best to keep Heller from ever being heard by the Supreme Court because they thought they would lose and they didn’t want to establish a precedent.
In Dred Scott, a clear case of judicial insanity was ultimately overruled by the people in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. It would be great if that could happen here. 12,000 unnecessary gun homicides each year is too high a price to pay because some people “want” to shoot a gun.
To RP – Sure, abstinence works, if practiced. That’s just a simple biological fact. If semen is not inserted, pregnancy will not occur. My problem is that it is not practiced – never has been and never will be – on a consistent basis. And everyone knows it isn’t practiced, and everyone knows the results when it isn’t practiced: girls like Bristol who say they love being a mother as the baby is three-six months of age and still cute and cuddley, girls like Bristol who, even when the baby is still cute and cuddley realize that their lives have changed in ways they wish had happened to them later in life.
We are short-changing our young people, we are short-changing our nation when we insist on abstinence only because it is not practiced – and it won’t be practiced – and we all know it won’t be practiced. And so by the insistence on abstinence only, our kids don’t have knowledge of other ways. They deserve the opportunity to have knowledge so they can intelligently decide what to do. We deny them knowledge and thus take away a future they would have wished for but now can’t have. And this is a cruel thing to do to them and to ourselves (they are our future).
Children are fine, they are great, we need a certain number of them for the world to continue. They just should be planned, and with abstinence as the only option, children rarely are planned.
Didn’t they outlaw abstinence because it rotted your brain and drove you crazy?
Oh … Now I remember … that’s absinthe, not abstinence. Sorry.
Yes, I agree, you are sorry — as in a sorry case.
Well Dan, it looks like you managed to smoke out a gun nut.
I too have read the Second Amendment and have come to the opposite conclusion that you reached. I have also read thousands of words – on both sides – interpreting the Amendment as I’m sure you also have. I have also read the words of the founding fathers regarding the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Again, I’m sure you have also read those words. Without belaboring the issue, after all of my reading I believe the Second Amendment does guarantee an individual right.
I do admit that it was easier for me to come to that conclusion since that is what I want it to mean. There are noted liberal Constitutional lawyers who have reluctantly come to the same conclusion and are very unhappy about it.
Cheney did sign an amicus curiae brief supporting Heller. Also signing the brief were 55 members of the Senate and 250 members of the House.
The NRA did believe that the Second Amendment was a right of individuals not just of states. However, going to the Supreme Court on any issue can be problematic. The supporters of the expansion of gun rights were doing quite nicely without a Supreme Court opinion. The rights of gun owners were being expanded in most states and the NRA believed there was no need to risk a negative decision by the Supreme Court. It does not take a major shift to turn a 5 to 4 into a 4 to 5.
The Supremes can and do screw up. (By the way, I don’t necessarily agree that the Supreme Court made Bush president, but that is a different topic.)
I disagree that the Court’s decision is inconsistent on its face because it recognizes that reasonable constrains can be imposed on Constitutional rights. The First Amendment is subject to the “crying fire in a crowded theater” constraint and a woman’s right under Roe v. Wade is constrained by the trimester of the pregnancy. The Chief Justice wants decisions to be as narrow as possible; in this case, whether there was an individual or collective right, not whether the right was unconstrained.
A Supreme Court decision, whether 5 to 4 or 9 to 0, does not necessarily make something right – it just makes it the law of the land and the standard by which Federal legislation, rules and regulations will be measured. It is yet to be seen whether State legislation will be subject to Heller.
Regarding Obama. He did believe the DC gun law struck down in Heller was constitutional. However, he also believes – “Millions of hunters and shooters own and use guns each year. Barrack Obama believes the Second Amendment creates an individual right, and he respects the Constitutional right of Americans to bear arms. He will protect the rights of hunters and other law abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns.” (From Obama’s official campaign website. Under Sportsmen at: barackobama.com/issues/additional).
Excellent statement of the ‘pro’ point of view. Very well written. Thanks for posting.
We can agree on one thing. From your post …
“A Supreme Court decision, whether 5 to 4 or 9 to 0, does not necessarily make something right – it just makes it the law of the land and the standard by which Federal legislation, rules and regulations will be measured.”
Regretably, yes. But we do not agree about Obama. A careful reading of the evidence you posted reveals that Obama agrees with me:
1 – The Supremes should have ruled the other way.
2 – They didn’t.
3 – A respect for the law obligates all of us to follow the ruling anyway, regardless of our previous feelings.
That doesn’t mean that I can’t fervently wish for something like the 13th and 14th amendment to reverse their egregious error.
A few miscellaneous points:
“Also signing the brief were 55 members of the Senate and 250 members of the House.”
This was the same Senate and House that has managed to achieve historically bad poll ratings from the American people. (Due largely to the way they consistently knuckled under to pressure from special interest groups of all stripes, IMHO.) I’m not impressed.
“I disagree that the Court’s decision is inconsistent on its face because it recognizes that reasonable constraints …”
None of the rulings you quote ignore the plain and obvious phrase “shall not be infringed”. What does the word, “infringe” mean to you?
The reason the Supremes ignored this phrase was that if they interpreted the Second Amendment the way it is actually written (as “strict constructionists” like to say they do as they lie through their teeth), then we would have a nation with Hellfire missiles in every house. And THAT would clearly and quickly lead to a new amendment overturning the clearly flawed Second Amendment just as it did when they were similarly way out there on Dred Scott. We can’t have that can we?
But again, this is just my own reasoning about why the Supremes are way out to lunch on this one. As I have already conceded, that’s not the way the ruling came down.
“… NRA believed there was no need to risk a negative decision by the Supreme Court. It does not take a major shift to turn a 5 to 4 into a 4 to 5.”
Absolutely right. In other words, they thought the risk was “unacceptably high” that five members of the Supremes would conclude that the Second Amendment says what I think it says – just as I wrote.
The “Utah connection” in this pains me a lot too. Absent our beloved Senator Hatch, one of those five … the Bush clone of the court Clarence Thomas … would not be there today without the “fight to the last ditch” battle waged by Hatch over the Anita Hill allegations. (It’s also interesting to note that neither Hill or Thomas has since budged a micrometer on their original positions and we will probably never know the actual truth of the matter.)
“For want of a nail …”