7 Facts That Destroy Gun Control

This is an editorial by the owner of IPR.

While Democrats and Greens are wrong on gun control, Republicans and most gun rights supporters rarely use the right facts. They fail to engage the Left on its own turf. Here are seven key facts that this libertarian consistently uses to crush gun control arguments.

1. New Hampshire

Supporters of gun control love to compare US gun violence rates to other countries. They’re cherry picking statistics. Crime rates in the US vary greatly by state, and New Hampshire devastates the gun control position.

New Hampshire has a consistently low homicide rate. The data shows a homicide rate that averages 1.2 per 100,000 population and has not been over 1.8 in over 20 years. That makes New Hampshire less violent than Canada, Belgium and Greece. See this spreadsheet:

Download (XLSX, 486KB)

It gets better. New Hampshire has the least restrictive gun laws in the country. There are no restrictions on scary black rifles (“assault weapons”). You can carry guns openly or concealed without a license or permit. You can even carry guns into schools.

New Hampshire is not alone. Other states with low homicide rates and relatively libertarian gun laws include Vermont, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota and Utah. If the Left were correct about the need for strict gun laws, they need to explain why these states are so safe.

2. Puerto Rico

The opposite side of the same coin is Puerto Rico. It has by far the highest homicide rate in the US and the most restrictive gun laws.

Republicans keep pointing to Chicago and Washington, DC. Those are good examples of gun control failures, but Puerto Rico makes the strongest case. The murder rate is higher, gun laws are stricter, and there’s no neighboring state Democrats can blame for supplying the guns.

The contrast between Puerto Rico and DC on the one hand and states like New Hampshire and Vermont on the other shows that it’s nonsense to compare the US national homicide rate to other countries. We have a big country and there are dramatic differences within our country.

The question we should all be talking about is why the murder rate is so high in Puerto Rico and DC, and what New Hampshire and Vermont are doing right so we can learn and try to emulate them.


3. Japanese Suicides

Democrats are fond of using Japan as an example of a country with few guns that has low violence. I lived in Japan. It is a wonderful and safe country. But Democrats also like to blame guns for suicides in the US. Japan has double our suicide rate with no guns.

When you challenge a gun control nut about Japan’s suicide rate, they’ll tell you that it’s explained by their culture. Okay, but if you’re going to use culture as the explanation for Japan’s suicide rate, you don’t get to ignore culture and blame guns when looking at homicide rates.

4. The AR-15

Liberals love to bash the AR-15. They say things like “weapons of war” shouldn’t be on our streets. But the AR-15 is not a weapon of war. This semi-automatic rifle has never seen significant use in any military.

It’s also not particularly powerful among long guns. While more powerful than handguns, it only has half the power of most deer hunting rifles and shotguns.

To top it all off, ARs are rarely used in crimes. The FBI doesn’t differentiate between types of rifle, but all rifles together account for less than 3% of murders. That puts ARs in for around 1% of all murders. Handguns kill 30 times as many and even knives are used in 5 times as many murders as rifles.

Oh but they’ll cry that ARs are the “weapon of choice” for mass shooters. This is false.

Again we see handguns used much more often than rifles, and again that’s all rifles. Rifles are not the problem.

5. Jerry Miculek

One of the phony reasons they use for demonizing the AR-15 and other semi-automatic weapons is that they supposedly shoot faster than other guns. We can knock down this silliness in many ways, such as the age of semi-auto technology. One of the most common semi-auto handgun type is the Model 1911, named after the year it first came to market.

But even better than that argument is the fact that revolvers, which are much older, are also capable of very fast rates of fire. Jerry Miculek demonstrates that in this video:

Of course most shooters can’t match Miculek’s skill, but shooting at 1/3 his rate would still mean 80 rounds a minute with reloads.

6. Mass Shooters

Most of the Left and media hysteria is driven by mass shooting events. These account for less than 1% of all homicides but for some reason they motivate Democrats (because they only care about white victims perhaps).

What’s really devastating is the fact that no mass shooting would have been prevented by the most popular gun control “solutions.” They love to talk about universal background checks, but so far every firearm used in every prominent mass shooting was purchased with a background check. Not a single one was acquired through the fictional “gun show loophole.”

There’s no evidence that mandatory registration would have stopped any shooter. Licensing and training “solutions” collapse when you realize that the Pulse Nightclub shooter was licensed and trained as an armed security guard. The Thousand Oaks shooter was trained in the Marine Corps. Training makes shooters more effective.

7. Training and Ammunition

Last and maybe least, one of the weakest solutions we hear from the gun control lobby is that it’s too easy to get ammunition and people have too much of it. So they want to tax or restrict ammunition. They don’t think far enough ahead to realize this conflicts with their claim that gun owners should be trained.

Firearms training uses a lot of ammunition. I did an all day training with Florida Firearms Training and used about 800 rounds that day. Project Appleseed recommends bringing 500 or more rounds to their 2-day events.

And if you understand training, you’re supposed to supplement it with practice. Dry fire requires no ammunition. But it’s still important to practice with live rounds and in a typical range visit you go through at 100 rounds or more.

So while the media will report 1000 rounds as an arsenal, gun owners know that might not be enough for a day of training and a month of practicing once a week.

The next time you find yourself in an argument with the Left about guns, use these 7 facts and watch them panic.

If they want to talk about real solutions to reduce violent crime, start talking about real solutions like ending the drug war, stopping liberal soft-on-crime policies that enable criminals like the Parkland shooter. If you really want to make their heads spin, talk about how liberal policies like the welfare state create the despair and hopelessness that motivates so many criminals and mass shooters.

Bonus Fact

Despite the media hysteria, the US homicide rate is down over 50% from the 1990s. The decline continued after the Clinton Gun Ban (“Assault Weapons Ban”) expired. So when they talk about Australia’s reduced homicide rate after their gun ban, just point out that ours declined just as much in the same period. Y’all have fun now y’hear!

104 thoughts on “7 Facts That Destroy Gun Control

  1. Anthony Dlugos

    6. Mass Shooters

    “Most of the Left and media hysteria is driven by mass shooting events. These account for less than 1% of all homicides but for some reason they motivate Democrats (because they only care about white victims perhaps).”

    I would disagree that mass shootings motivate ONLY Democrats. Any parent has some level of concern at this point that their child may end up being the victim of a mass shooting.

    Additionally, while I would agree that “media hysteria” is driven by mass shooting events, the question ends up being: why?

    In other words, this is not a manufactured crisis. Despite the reduction in the U.S. homicide rate, and other statistics pointed out in this article, mass shootings carry the public imagination for what are legitimate reasons; people in this country have at least implicitly placed responsibility for stopping them in the hands of the state.

    This information might win a gun control debate in a room full of gun aficionados, but what should be the Libertarian Party solution for the mass shooting issue in this country, one that can win over folks not predisposed to a strong 2A position, as opposed to preaching to the choir?

  2. dL

    The next time you find yourself in an argument with the Left about guns, use these 7 facts and watch them panic.

    If they want to talk about real solutions to reduce violent crime, start talking about real solutions like ending the drug war, stopping liberal soft-on-crime policies that enable criminals like the Parkland shooter. If you really want to make their heads spin, talk about how liberal policies like the welfare state create the despair and hopelessness that motivates so many criminals and mass shooters.

    (1) Gun control is a right wing position.
    (2) What are these “liberal” soft on crime policies you are referring to? Wouldn’t ending the drug war be an example of “soft on crime.”? That’s exactly what people who typically blather “liberal soft on crime” would say.

  3. wredlich Post author

    First of all thank you for engaging in the conversation.

    “this is not a manufactured crisis”

    There are conspiracy theorists who would disagree with you about this on various levels. Some believe that at least some of the shooters are put up to it by the government. That seems unlikely but not impossible.

    More clear is the openly stated opportunism of government officials most famously Rahm Emanuel’s “never let a crisis go to waste.”

    “what should be the Libertarian Party solution for the mass shooting issue”

    I see a few things. One thing that makes sense and is popular with some is eliminating gun free zones. I addressed that as #2 in this article: http://westbocanews.com/2018/02/3-common-sense-reforms-for-school-security/

    But from a more libertarian perspective we need to recognize that government doesn’t solve problems like this. Governments dropped the ball on the Orlando shooter, the Parkland shooter and others (Boston bombers too).

    If anything government creates these problems.

    So we could ask what our governments do that contributes to mass shootings and other violent crime. The drug war is a prime example. But also all the wars. The Thousand Oaks shooter got PTSD in the Marine Corps. And our imperialism oversees creates hostility towards us among some, like the San Bernardino, Fort Hood and Orlando shooters.

    Many also struggle in a world where the government has too much control. It can be anything from the line at DMV to crushing taxation and government-protected monopolies. Smaller government means more freedom and happier people.

  4. paulie

    Great article, Warren! I’m sharing it on a number of FB pages and groups, including on the main LP facebook page this morning.

    One small quibble:

    If they want to talk about real solutions to reduce violent crime, start talking about real solutions like ending the drug war, stopping liberal soft-on-crime policies that enable criminals like the Parkland shooter. If you really want to make their heads spin, talk about how liberal policies like the welfare state create the despair and hopelessness that motivates so many criminals and mass shooters.

    Which liberal soft-on-crime policies?

    OK, one other small quibble: I don’t like to call victim disarmament “gun control.”

    Otherwise, a great and welcome addition to our stock of intellectual ammunition against the gun grabbing authoritarians!

  5. dL

    Any parent has some level of concern at this point that their child may end up being the victim of a mass shooting.

    Quite an endorsement of the public education system. Btw, I didn’t take you to be a parent.

  6. Tony From Long Island

    ” . . . . eliminating gun free zones. . . . . ”

    Good luck with that . . .

    Also, the words “gun control” are just right wing scare words. Thorough gun regulation is what sensible liberals seek.

  7. wredlich Post author

    Paulie:

    “Which liberal soft-on-crime policies? ”

    In South Florida the schools have a policy of not arresting students who commit crimes. Some reports indicate that’s why Trayvon Martin was so far from Miami on a school night – he was suspended rather than prosecuted, allegedly for assaulting a bus driver.

    Parkland school shooter was not arrested despite what were apparently numerous crimes. Broward schools head brags about the reduced arrests (not reduced crime) on his bio page:
    https://www.browardschools.com/Page/39239

    “Student-related arrests are down by 65% since Runcie’s arrival.”

    Had he been arrested and prosecuted, probation might have prevented him from having weapons.

    Palm Beach schools have a similar policy imposed upon them via an Obama-Holder Justice Department consent decree. Buddy of mine caught a kid who stole 6 cell phones and he wasn’t allowed to file charges.

    I see numerous crime stories here where the defendant has had dozens of arrests with little or no jail time. It’s basically catch and release in many cases.

    Unless, of course, you get a second DUI. Then there’s no mercy.

  8. wredlich Post author

    “Any parent has some level of concern at this point that their child may end up being the victim of a mass shooting.”

    Any parent who looks at statistics would recognize that their child is at much greater risk from cars and self-harm. Overwhelming our kids with school shooting fears and active shooter drills is much like the good old says when we hid under our desks for nuclear bomb drills.

    There are nearly 60 million school children (not counting college). Maybe 20 school shooting deaths in an average year. It’s not even one in a million.

  9. wredlich Post author

    “(1) Gun control is a right wing position.”

    Not in today’s picture of the political sphere. Democrats want to ban pretty much everything and Republicans at least half-heartedly protect some gun rights.

    –” . . . . eliminating gun free zones. . . . . ”

    Good luck with that . . .–

    NH allows adults to carry in schools. There’s some movement on this though I agree it doesn’t seem likely.

    “Also, the words “gun control” are just right wing scare words. Thorough gun regulation is what sensible liberals seek.”

    So The New Yorker is a right wing outlet?
    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/03/12/the-gun-control-debate-after-parkland

    Sorry I don’t think so.

    The “liberal” arguments for gun regulation are empty. Background checks and registration are obviously not solutions to any identifiable problem. I can’t find a single mass shooter who would have been stopped by a background check. Most passed one. Mag limits are stupid. Did nothing at Columbine. Most of the gun control advocates know so little about guns it’s comical.

    Oh you only want to ban guns that can shoot fast?

    Morons.

  10. Libertydave

    The responses from Anthony Dlugos and Tony From Long Island show why no amount of facts will make any difference in the debate about gun control. The Government and media are using peoples irrational fears to manipulate them into giving up there rights and make them easier to control.

    The problem is how to convince these cowards that their fears are irrational and the government is lying about how they can keep them safe. From what I’ve seen fear and panic beat logic and reason every time.

  11. dL

    Not in today’s picture of the political sphere. Democrats want to ban pretty much everything and Republicans at least half-heartedly protect some gun rights.

    Both parties are right wing, and if you collectively sum over the things each party wants to ban, then you arrive at “ban pretty much everything.”

    So The New Yorker is a right wing outlet?

    pretty much…

    Background checks and registration are obviously not solutions to any identifiable problem.

    Then why are you advocating these things in your 3-point solution plan?

    I see numerous crime stories here where the defendant has had dozens of arrests with little or no jail time. It’s basically catch and release in many cases.

    Anecdotal accounts are not evidence. The statistical evidence is that the United States far and away leads the rest the world in prison population per capita(665/100,000) and in absolute terms, 2,121,600. If the United States is not a police state, then there is no such as a police state.

  12. dL

    Thorough gun regulation is what sensible liberals seek.

    Sensible liberal gun regulation is disarm the pigs. I’m all for that.

  13. dL

    The problem is how to convince these cowards that their fears are irrational and the government is lying about how they can keep them safe. From what I’ve seen fear and panic beat logic and reason every time.

    Actually, the polling data indicates the majority do not cower in fear when it comes to their safety. The numbers will temporarily spike up after a highly publicized shooting and then retreat again after a period of time. Gun control, like border restrictionism, is not based on mass irrationality but rather on a very rational motive of some to control others.

  14. paulie

    ” . . . . eliminating gun free zones. . . . . ”

    Good luck with that . . .

    They don’t work, and eventually people will realize this.

    Also, the words “gun control” are just right wing scare words.

    They’re scare words alright. Victim disarmament, government gun monopoly, etc. are more accurate. I’m not sure about right wing, I think it’s something the pro-monopoly side came up with before they moved on to other even less accurate buzzwords of the day.

    Thorough gun regulation is what sensible liberals seek.

    Government gun monopolies are rooted in authoritarianism, not liberalism. Liberalism sought a more equal playing field. Progressives hijacked liberalism to convince people that authoritarian means, including victim disarmament, are the way to achieve liberal goals, then abandoned terms such as “liberal” and “gun control” when they elicited too many negative reactions, went back to calling themselves progressives and came up with new BS buzzwords for their regime monopoly/victim disarmament agenda.

  15. paulie

    In South Florida the schools have a policy of not arresting students who commit crimes.

    Saddling children with a criminal record is not a positive trend.

    Had he been arrested and prosecuted, probation might have prevented him from having weapons.

    Because criminals, insane murderers and terrorists will have moral qualms about breaking gun laws or won’t figure out how to acquire guns or other weapons illegally?

  16. paulie

    Any parent who looks at statistics would recognize that their child is at much greater risk from cars and self-harm. Overwhelming our kids with school shooting fears and active shooter drills is much like the good old says when we hid under our desks for nuclear bomb drills.

    There are nearly 60 million school children (not counting college). Maybe 20 school shooting deaths in an average year. It’s not even one in a million.

    Exactly!

  17. dL

    What specifically do you disagree with and why?

    Warren’s piece wouldn’t convince me, either. Turning the public school system into a FBI snitch list. Armed faculty and student population when attendance is compulsory. I would want to avoid that, too.

  18. paulie

    The “liberal” arguments for gun regulation are empty. Background checks and registration are obviously not solutions to any identifiable problem. I can’t find a single mass shooter who would have been stopped by a background check. Most passed one. Mag limits are stupid. Did nothing at Columbine. Most of the gun control advocates know so little about guns it’s comical.

    Correct. They wouldn’t be stopped by having criminal records either.

  19. paulie

    The problem is how to convince these cowards that their fears are irrational and the government is lying about how they can keep them safe. From what I’ve seen fear and panic beat logic and reason every time.

    Libertarians could tell voters that Republicans are trying to take their guns away. It’s true, just on a slightly slower pace than Democrats. And on a faster pace if their increased police state puts you into the growing class of people with a criminal record, someone that police visually identify as likely to belong to such a class thus tend to stop and harass more, etc.

  20. paulie

    Warren’s piece wouldn’t convince me, either. Turning the public school system into a FBI snitch list.[…] when attendance is compulsory. I would want to avoid that, too.

    So would I, but unless I missed something that was a separate article.

  21. dL

    So would I, but unless I missed something that was a separate article.

    Warren referenced that piece in his comments, and the reader made reference to “these arguments,” which I would assume includes the comments.

  22. paulie

    Ah, I thought she meant the ‘7 facts’ article. I don’t see how Warren’s personal opinion in a different article which he only references in the comments would convince me to be a non-libertarian, but I can and do disagree with the other article.

  23. dL

    Government gun monopolies are rooted in authoritarianism, not liberalism. Liberalism sought a more equal playing field.

    Liberalism entails rights but it also entails trumps. A “trump” is something that literally trumps any common or social good objection. So, the right to self-defense trumps the common good. That is to say, it trumps any “but what about the safety of the children” objection. Likewise, liberty of movement trumps any national security objection(we can’t let people move about freely because it would endanger national security). Likewise freedom of speech trumps any common mortality objection. Speech, labor, movement, and self defense are liberal trumps. That so-called “liberal states” routinely clobber and circumvent these trumps is why you have libertarianism.

  24. Anthony Dlugos

    “Any parent who looks at statistics would recognize that their child is at much greater risk from cars and self-harm. Overwhelming our kids with school shooting fears and active shooter drills is much like the good old says when we hid under our desks for nuclear bomb drills.

    There are nearly 60 million school children (not counting college). Maybe 20 school shooting deaths in an average year. It’s not even one in a million.”

    Are you making this argument as a :

    a) libertarian
    b) gun rights activist
    C)Libertarian Party member

    There is a difference.

    Hint: two of these have no direct concern with elections and how they are decided, one does.

  25. paulie

    Liberalism entails rights but it also entails trumps. A “trump” is something that literally trumps any common or social good objection. So, the right to self-defense trumps the common good. That is to say, it trumps any “but what about the safety of the children” objection. Likewise, liberty of movement trumps any national security objection(we can’t let people move about freely because it would endanger national security). Likewise freedom of speech trumps any common mortality objection. Speech, labor, movement, and self defense are liberal trumps. That so-called “liberal states” routinely clobber and circumvent these trumps is why you have libertarianism.

    Agreed.

  26. paulie

    Are you making this argument as a :

    a) libertarian
    b) gun rights activist
    C)Libertarian Party member

    I see no conflict in this case. I’d make the same argument in all three capacities.

  27. dL

    Yes, the democrats are a right wing party

  28. robert capozzi

    Facts (and trends) can be “useful in emergencies”* and can be helpful in assessing and discerning an opinion on an issue. Truth, however, is far more important, as I see it. And truth is, I’ve found, best arrived at (or at least approximated) by identifying untruths, and narrowing the choices to more manageable levels. The process I use is bracketing, where I identify the most extreme cases first, throw them out, and then narrow down the questions to the reasonable ones.

    Here’s a start to the process of bracketing:

    a) Are there weapons that are so inherently dangerous to the public that they should be banned from private ownership?

    I say Yes to this. WMD, bazookas, and machine guns would seem to qualify. Answer No to this answer and be as certain as possible that your position is likely to brand you a lunatic for at least decades.

    b) Does the 2A recognize the right to keep and bear non-inherently dangerous weapons on your property?

    I say Yes to this. Some gun control extremists will disagree with you on this one, but for the most part, this is a reasonable position.

    c) Does 2A allow for carrying any and all non-inherently dangerous on the public’s property in an unlimited manner, as if it’s your property?

    I say No here. It’s not your property, in truth. Carry rules are up to the public in that jurisdiction. This strikes me as the reasonable position, but if there’s an actual counter, I’d like to hear it.

    d) Who decides what constitutes an inherent danger?

    Probably the federal government, but I’m open to a better argument.

    * obscure reference to the tune “Crosseyed and Painless.”

  29. dL

    I say No here. It’s not your property

    unless, of course, the right in question is immigration, then public property apparently becomes your property

  30. paulie

    No, Capozzi favors collectivist democratic decisionmaking about both immigration and public carry. I tend to see them as individual rights which default to the individual if there’s no clear individual owner of a space. That is, if you are in the commons you shouldn’t need the collective’s permission to have the means to defend yourself or travel freely. Otherwise we devolve to where the collective can decide how you cut your hair, what clothes you wear, etc., etc., in the same sense as a property owner can exclude whatever he/she/they wish from their own private property.

  31. robert capozzi

    pf,

    Close to fair, but not quite. Those who opt out into their own private, fully sovereign Harlos Nonarchy Pods would be subject to no collective democratic decisionmaking.

    Your slippery slope argument doesn’t work for me, although I do respect it. I am for maximal individual freedom by default. But I do think that while people have an absolute right to prance around naked in their homes, they don’t have the right to public nudity in Times Square. You may well. My counsel is you not run for office on that position. You could set up a 501c3 to raise public consciousness on public nudity rights, but I suspect you’ll get few supporting members. Just a guess, though. 😉

  32. robert capozzi

    more…

    The line between homicide and a justified killing in self defense is determined by “collectively democratic decisionmaking.” What’s the alternative? What would Hogarth do?

  33. paulie

    Those who opt out into their own private, fully sovereign Harlos Nonarchy Pods would be subject to no collective democratic decisionmaking.

    I thought it was those who opt out into their own collective, group-sovereign Capozzi Archy pods would be subjective to collective democratic decisionmaking. Either way I’m sure we mean the same thing.

    You could set up a 501c3 to raise public consciousness on public nudity rights, but I suspect you’ll get few supporting members.

    Admittedly it’s fairly low on my list of priorities, but I’m guessing I may get more support than if you started one that required all women to wear burqas, much as a property owner would have the right to require in his own house. Maybe not, I don’t know. In the current political climate I see much more danger from overly restrictive control of the public square and would push for making it marginally less restrictive, which I think has a fair amount of support.

  34. paulie

    The line between homicide and a justified killing in self defense is determined by “collectively democratic decisionmaking.”

    No, by an analysis of the facts of a case. But if a majority decide lynching is legal that doesn’t make it justified.

  35. wredlich Post author

    Not sure it makes sense to respond to dL but …

    —Background checks and registration are obviously not solutions to any identifiable problem.—

    –Then why are you advocating these things in your 3-point solution plan?–

    That’s not in what I wrote. Nice try though.

    –The statistical evidence is that the United States far and away leads the rest the world in prison population–

    Yes, I agree we incarcerate too many. But we also incarcerate the wrong ones. Do you object to jailing violent and property criminals? That’s my point. They’ll throw the book at a 3-time drug offender but let a 4-time burglar walk.

  36. wredlich Post author

    Responding to Paulie:

    —In South Florida the schools have a policy of not arresting students who commit crimes.—

    –Saddling children with a criminal record is not a positive trend.–

    When the crimes involve stealing and violence, what’s your solution? Unless we’re going AnCap (and I’d be with you)

    —Had he been arrested and prosecuted, probation might have prevented him from having weapons.—

    –Because criminals, insane murderers and terrorists will have moral qualms about breaking gun laws or won’t figure out how to acquire guns or other weapons illegally?–

    Fair point, but in this particular case it might have stopped him, yes. Do you object to laws prohibiting violent felons from possessing firearms?

  37. wredlich Post author

    Responding to Anthony:

    —There are nearly 60 million school children (not counting college). Maybe 20 school shooting deaths in an average year. It’s not even one in a million.—

    –Are you making this argument as a :
    a) libertarian
    b) gun rights activist
    C)Libertarian Party member–

    None of the above, and/or all of the above. It’s just pragmatism.

    Whatever your outlook it makes more sense to focus on things that kill 10,000 a year than things that kill 10.

    There is a difference.

  38. William Saturn

    When your definition of terms are only your own, like dL, it’s difficult to have any kind of meaningful dialogue. That is what happens when you choose people like dL over people like Andy. Banning Andy has ruined this site and the discussion on it.

  39. wredlich Post author

    Robert Capozzi wrote:

    “a) Are there weapons that are so inherently dangerous to the public that they should be banned from private ownership?

    I say Yes to this. WMD, bazookas, and machine guns would seem to qualify. Answer No to this answer and be as certain as possible that your position is likely to brand you a lunatic for at least decades.”

    Machine guns are not banned. You can buy one if you get permission from ATF, which costs $200. Also bazookas.

    https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firearms-guide-identification-firearms-within-purview-national-firearms-act

    Also the old style Gatling Gun was mainly purchased by civilians in the mid 1800s. There was a famous incident where the owner of the NY Times manned one against rioters.

    http://movies2.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/harp/0801.html

    Those Gatling Guns are legal because they are not actually automatic nor even semi-auto. You have to crank it manually. You don’t even need the ATF permit.

    At the time the 2A was written civilians owned cannon and warships.

  40. paulie

    Yes, I agree we incarcerate too many. But we also incarcerate the wrong ones. Do you object to jailing violent and property criminals? That’s my point. They’ll throw the book at a 3-time drug offender but let a 4-time burglar walk.

    It’s certainly true that the US incarcerates a lot of people from victimless crimes, but it also incarcerates too many people for too long for low level property and violent crimes, particularly pre-trial due to inability to raise bail, but not only. Young people and first time offenders, especially, are only more set on a life of crime by being incarcerated. There are alternative punishments from restitution to counseling to community service to house arrest or just shorter sentences and more ROR bail that would make more sense for a lot of these offenders and suspects, even well short of any anarchist speculations.

    I’m not sure restitution-only would work in all cases. There are the long term violent recidivists who pose a significant risk to communities whenever they get released, and tend to see any release from prison as a vacation before they commit more crimes and go back home. But I think a lot of them only become that way because they get overpoliced, overprosecuted and overincarcerated early on in life and from the secondary effects of the same happening in their families and communities.

  41. paulie

    When the crimes involve stealing and violence, what’s your solution? Unless we’re going AnCap (and I’d be with you)

    More private gun ownership. Criminals don’t like a high likelihood of running into armed would-be victims.

    End the drug war. The secondary and tertiary effects of prohibition have a lot to do with turning kids into criminals, including criminals who commit property and violent crimes.

    End police militarization, overincarceration, and racial profiling. These things put too many people into the criminal injustice system and set them on a course towards a career in crime.

    The welfare state, occupational licensing, minimum wage laws, government red tape which presents barriers to startup entrepreneurship, and the perverse incentives of government schools and housing combine to steer people in a bad direction and cut off better alternatives. I’d roll these back as much as I could.

  42. robert capozzi

    pf: No, by an analysis of the facts of a case. But if a majority decide lynching is legal that doesn’t make it justified.

    Me: Incorrect. The murder laws are codified collectively. APPLICATION of murder laws are based on analysis of facts.

    But, yes, the collective is not always correct according to a Platonic ideal. Again, that’s why I advocate for Harlos Nonarchy Pods, the ultimate out for conscientious objectors.

  43. paulie

    Fair point, but in this particular case it might have stopped him, yes.

    Why? He clearly had no problem breaking laws, and there are black market guns available. If he somehow was too dumb to figure out how to get one there are lots of other ways to kill people, even in large numbers.

    Do you object to laws prohibiting violent felons from possessing firearms?

    Yes. It’s inhumane to prevent anyone from having means of self-defense once you release them from incarceration. If they are too dangerous to restore their gun rights they are too dangerous to let out of prison.

    I don’t think many people are that dangerous, but even if they are, they know how to get guns illegally and how to create other weapons.

    On the other hand, a truly reformed person released from prison with a violent felony record trying to do the right thing and do right is likely to be living in a dangerous neighborhood out of economic necessity, often the same neighborhood where they once victimized people and/or have gang enemies or others likely to victimize them if they are not allowed to protect themselves. That alone places a lot of people into a lose-lose situation where they end up back in prison for no other reason than the need to safeguard their own safety.

  44. paulie

    None of the above, and/or all of the above. It’s just pragmatism.

    Whatever your outlook it makes more sense to focus on things that kill 10,000 a year than things that kill 10.

    There is a difference.

    Agreed.

  45. paulie

    The murder laws are codified collectively.

    Those are naturally derived from universal self-ownership principles, and apply regardless of private property, so don’t really relate to the discussion that led to this example being brought up.

  46. William T. Forrest

    “When your definition of terms are only your own, like dL, it’s difficult to have any kind of meaningful dialogue. That is what happens when you choose people like dL over people like Andy. Banning Andy has ruined this site and the discussion on it.”

    That’s complete nonsense. dL’s comments are logical and well laid out. Andy’s were endlessly repetitive, longwinded and filled with a lot of bigoted nonsense, ad hom attacks, and personal gripes. The only thing done wrong in getting rid of Andy was that it wasn’t done several years earlier. The site is recovering slowly from the long term damage Andy was doing to conversations here. It needs new or renewed article authors to put up a lot more content and spread it more on social media and it needs to fix its facebook and twitter feeds.

    I’d much rather see the people he helped drive away come back (Ziggler, Andy Craig, etc) although it may be too late for that. Nice to see some other people like Tony from LI come back at least.

  47. dL

    Not sure it makes sense to respond to dL but …

    —Background checks and registration are obviously not solutions to any identifiable problem.—

    –Then why are you advocating these things in your 3-point solution plan?–

    That’s not in what I wrote. Nice try though.

    It’s what you wrote in a piece you referenced in your comment as a solution to a question raised in your article posted here.

    Quote:
    1. We need a better process for putting dangerous kids on the list for background checks.

    Do you object to jailing violent and property criminals? That’s my point. They’ll throw the book at a 3-time drug offender but let a 4-time burglar walk.

    I would dispute the claim that violent property criminals often walk. But to answer your question: Yes, I in principal do object to imprisonment for crime. I favor restitution over retribution. However, if I take the current system as a given, then at the very least the punishment should not extend beyond the time of imprisonment. So, no, you shouldn’t have to forfeit your right to self-defense for the rest of your life because of a property crime. I would also point out that simply possessing a gun in conjunction with drug possession(or other victimless crimes) automatically rolls that “crime” into a category of a violent felony. One of the primary reasons why I never much bothered with guns.

  48. dL

    When your definition of terms are only your own, like dL, it’s difficult to have any kind of meaningful dialogue. That is what happens when you choose people like dL over people like Andy. Banning Andy has ruined this site and the discussion on it.

    I do not invent my own terms. There is an entire spectrum of left-wing that considers the Democratic party a right-wing corporatist party. Shit, ask any of the GP people here what they think of the democratic party. And, yes, gun control is a right wing position. Historically, and today. Indeed, I agree 100% with this Counterpunch piece:

    [Want Gun Control? Arm the Left (It Worked Before)]
    https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/18/want-gun-control-arm-the-left-it-worked-before/

    The prospect of an armed left would send conservatives into a gun control frenzy. Just like it did with Ronnie “gun grabbing” Reagan.

    Lastly, regarding meaningful site dialogue. Saturn has a thorn up his ass about me because I moderated out the anonymous white supremacist spam. William, if you miss it that badly, I recommend the site below
    http://stormfront.org

    I imagine the moderators over there are a bit more tolerant of that kind of stuff.

  49. dL

    When the crimes involve stealing and violence, what’s your solution? Unless we’re going AnCap (and I’d be with you)

    Property crimes of any substantial amount are usually insured. The criminal justice system does little in terms of restitution. What problem is harsh retribution solving?

  50. Gina

    “Lastly, regarding meaningful site dialogue. Saturn has a thorn up his ass about me because I moderated out the anonymous white supremacist spam. William, if you miss it that badly, I recommend the site below
    http://stormfront.org

    I don’t think the anonymous part is what he’s mad about though. He’s also bemoaning the loss of Andy, the site’s most outspoken opponent of the right to comment anonymously. The one common element that seems to irk William is the loss of the racist, white nationalist, bigot, alt right, immigrant-bashing, neo-confederate, anti-semitic, Islamophobic and such elements whether it be Andy, Nathan N., Milnes (generally just crazy back then but already advocating sending blacks back to Africa, since then turning extremely anti-semitic), JT, Jim Bell, etc.

  51. robert capozzi

    pf: Those are naturally derived from universal self-ownership principles

    me: This feels like a deflection, unless the legislation lept onto the page and were codified by God. Otherwise, the laws on the books were written collectively by people.

  52. paulie

    It doesn’t require religious belief. You have no right to murder anyone even on your own property, so your example was actually a deflection from the discussion it supposedly addressed.

  53. paulie

    loss of the racist, white nationalist, bigot, alt right, immigrant-bashing, neo-confederate, anti-semitic, Islamophobic and such elements

    I wouldn’t call it a loss. No shortage of places to converse with such people, including, unfortunately, ones who call themselves libertarians. At least I can individually block them on FB…

  54. Robert Rich

    I think some of the commenters are missing the point.

    The editorialist is sharing arguments that work FOR HIM.

    They may need some personal adaptation, but that doesn’t make them wrong. They’re right in that they’re true enough and so work for him and we can learn something from that. I think he also has some good data and phrasing.

  55. robert capozzi

    pf:You have no right to murder anyone even on your own property

    me: Hah! No, you don’t. The point I’m making is that there are a variety of acts of KILLING. Some are considered by law to be murder, some are justified. There are degrees of murder as well.

    The codification of the various types of killing is not arrived at or commonly understood as NAPist stricture. Instead, they are arrived at and codified through collective means, by laws written by people. My sense is they are more inspired by the OT and not by the Roderick T. Longs in all our heads. We can speak of “self evident” “rights” arrived at through tortured logic, or we can see what is plain: That laws are collectively written and enforced.

    Not all laws are well written or well-intentioned, to be clear. But that’s a subjective and possibly an empirical critique, as WR’s is here.

  56. paulie

    I think some of the commenters are missing the point.

    The editorialist is sharing arguments that work FOR HIM.

    They may need some personal adaptation, but that doesn’t make them wrong. They’re right in that they’re true enough and so work for him and we can learn something from that. I think he also has some good data and phrasing.

    Agreed, which is why I shared this with a wider audience. We did not get hardly any new people in the comments, at least so far, but the website traffic was up tenfold yesterday from what it has usually been running lately and is already at more views before 7 am central time than the full 24 hour average for the last 30 days today. Almost all thanks to this article.

    I could do that more often, and put up a lot more articles, I’ve just been missing motivation lately. Too many of the same people beating the same dead horses over and over in the comments too many times, and not nearly enough other people putting up articles. I just have a hard time working up much motivation to keep it going, and every time I do someone in the comments kills it.

    Overall I think Warren did great here and I would love to see more people submit original content like this here. It would be really nice to see to see new people join the comment community here too, and not ones that beat the same shit to death twenty million times or accuse every new person who shows up of being an FBI troll or whatever. Hell it would be nice if I had some more consistent help cross posting articles from other sites for discussion again.

  57. paulie

    laws are collectively written and enforced.

    I think there’s a difference between real crimes and real victims on the one hand, and collective decisionmaking about people’s right to travel more freely in public spaces and carry their means of effective personal self-defense in public places on the other.

    Anarchotopia is not around the corner and I don’t see nearly as much point in spending so much time fashioning exactly what it would look like if and when we ever get there as you do. I prefer to look at it in directional terms: I’d like more freedom to travel unimpeded and with the means of individual self-defense in public than I have now, and I’ll argue for policies that expand those rights, in whatever timeframe and context I can.

    Just how far we would go in that direction if and when we ever start going in that direction will work itself out. As we get more freedom we can decide if more is a good idea or not. I tend to think that once the dam bursts the pace at which we become more free will accelerate over time, but I could be wrong. I don’t see much point in spending endless amounts of time going over distant and highly theoretical remote endpoint scenarios which we are nowhere near achieving, especially with the same exact tiny group of people I have been over that same stuff with way too many times to count.

    This is what I mean by beating dead horses and demotivating. Let the Mad Max dystopia vs kittens and rainbows stuff work itself out if and when we ever get reasonably close to it. Talk about getting things rolling at least somewhat in a more freedom-oriented direction now. Maybe someone else wants to take on the mantle of beating that stuff to death with you, but personally I’m long past tired of it.

  58. robert capozzi

    pf,

    Yes, we don’t have to — and I’m not even questioning — NAPist endstates. I’m simply stating a truth: that laws are IN FACT collectively arrived at. Am I incorrect about that?

    I’m pleased and supportive of your directional focus. But it does seem to me that determining direction requires first an understanding of where we are.

  59. robert capozzi

    PF,

    If someone is challenged by recognizing reality, s/he may or may not be worth communicating with. For me, it’s mostly about whether the person is willing to be civil. Preferably, I find it more useful to communicate with people willing to be fair, even better when my interlocutor is open minded.

    So, apparently, you acknowledge that laws are collectively arrived at. It strikes me that — no matter what direction we go — will continue to be the case for the foreseeable future. The implication, then, is that a deontological NAP process is unlikely to supplant the current process any time soon, if ever.

    Using the NAP as a kind of moral compass is the far more plausible model to offer the collective.

    The collective, then, is for now (at least) will determine what weapons are too inherently dangerous for either private possession or public carry. If there’s another, more serviceable, model, I’d like to hear it. So far, I haven’t.

  60. dL

    I’m simply stating a truth: that laws are IN FACT collectively arrived at. Am I incorrect about that?

    Irrelevant.

    “If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law.”

  61. Tony From Long Island

    ” . . . . .I see no argument. The law clearly states: shall not be infringed. . . . . ”

    Predictably, you forget those damn inconvenient words . . . “well-regulated . . . .” Go ahead, tell me how they only refer to a militia. You’d be wrong, particularly since one of the definitions of “militia” is “all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.”

  62. dL

    Again, the democrats are a right wing party

  63. dL

    “well-regulated . . . .” Go ahead, tell me how they only refer to a militia. You’d be wrong,

    Only if you reject the rules of english grammar

    particularly since one of the definitions of “militia” is “all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.”

    tortured logic. And another reason to oppose mandatory “service”, since it apparently gives justification for the State to regiment “the People” in general as if they are in the army. Reveille!

  64. Chuck Wright

    Re: “Crime rates in the US very greatly by state, and New Hampshire devastates the gun control position.”

    I think you mean “vary” instead of “very.” Please correct and let me know once corrected, and then I’ll share the article.

  65. paulie

    Using the NAP as a kind of moral compass is the far more plausible model to offer the collective.

    I think that’s my approach, yes.

    The collective, then, is for now (at least) will determine what weapons are too inherently dangerous for either private possession or public carry.

    We both agree on what the present reality is. We agree on the compass direction we should move in. Sounds like agreement to me.

  66. wredlich Post author

    Responding to Paulie:

    — When the crimes involve stealing and violence, what’s your solution? Unless we’re going AnCap (and I’d be with you) —-

    –More private gun ownership. Criminals don’t like a high likelihood of running into armed would-be victims.
    End the drug war. The secondary and tertiary effects of prohibition have a lot to do with turning kids into criminals, including criminals who commit property and violent crimes.
    End police militarization, overincarceration, and racial profiling. These things put too many people into the criminal injustice system and set them on a course towards a career in crime.
    The welfare state, occupational licensing, minimum wage laws, government red tape which presents barriers to startup entrepreneurship, and the perverse incentives of government schools and housing combine to steer people in a bad direction and cut off better alternatives. I’d roll these back as much as I could.–

    You had me at “More.” 🙂

  67. paulie

    Predictably, you forget those damn inconvenient words . . . “well-regulated . . . .”

    They’re not a limit on “shall not be infringed.”

    If it said “a well read populace being necessary to the electorate of a free state the right of the people to keep and bear books shall not be infringed” that would not mean that only people the government deems well read should be allowed to vote, nor that only people who are allowed to vote should be allowed to have books.

    The first part is A) by way of explanation b) to make it clear in case it isn’t already that the purpose is an armed citizenry as a bulwark against government turning tyrannical, not only hunting, self-defense from freelance criminals or sport shooting.

    The operative clause of the sentence is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” and that’s it.

    However, it’s also true that constitutional arguments are more effective with some people than with others, so it’s not true if anyone was trying to imply that Warren’s additional points of evidence are irrelevant.

  68. wredlich Post author

    –The editorialist is sharing arguments that work FOR HIM.–

    Thank you. Yes this was not a policy piece but rather a suggestion about arguments for people who support the rights of gun owners that are more effective than the ones they typically use. Notice for example that I did not mention the 2nd Amendment or natural rights.

    The point is to go after gun control advocates on their own turf. They’re wrong about the issue even from their own perspective.

    Puerto Rico is a much better argument than Chicago or DC, for the reasons stated. And if they go with the “culture” argument they are painting themselves as racists.

  69. wredlich Post author

    “Overall I think Warren did great here and I would love to see more people submit original content like this here.”

    Thanks Paulie. I’m thinking about writing about why Democrats and liberals should support open borders. I’ve found it a very effective argument.

  70. wredlich Post author

    BTW to Robert Capozzi,

    What do you mean when you say that machine guns and bazookas are inherently dangerous? How should “inherently dangerous” be defined?

    Do you feel that way about “shuriken” throwing stars, which are illegal in 3 states? Crossbows banned by Western Australia? AirSoft guns which are mostly illegal in Australia?

    Which weapons are inherently safe?

  71. Anthony Dlugos

    I want to second paulie’s comment in his post of 11/28 @ 7:55; this was a very good article, as good as anything similar I’ve read at say, Reason Online. I was actually thinking of printing it out for future use since it was bullet point style and not overlong.

    I think I’ve made it abundantly clear at this site that I believe the sine qua non of the Libertarian Party SPECIFICALLY is getting elected. I’ve also made it clear, hopefully humorously so on occasion, that I will gladly sell a utopian vision (what some call “principle”) down the river in order to become an electable party, because that’s the only way we are going to move the country in a libertarian direction. I think if you are not prepared to dispense with libertopia when politically advantageous, there is no way you are going to ever come close to being electable. You’ll get your ass kicked every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

    This is the coin of the realm in practical politics. Its not for everyone. But little changes CAN make a difference for people, even if they don’t have a libertopia end point. Even if they explicitly disavow a libertopia endpoint.

    One of the problems with a “a world set free in our lifetime” thinking is that it is so far out of whack with 99.5% of the public, who affirmatively believe some level of government frees them, it doesn’t enslave them.

    A natural result of our skewed thinking is that by and large the LP does not listen AT ALL to what the voters are telling us. I know some people in the party THINK they do, but they don’t. I don’t need any more proof than are woeful results lo’ these many years since the party founding in 1971.

    The one quibble I had with the article…from an LP perspective…is the idea that public and private consternation about mass shootings are largely driven by “media hysteria.” This is problematic thinking, problematic thinking that I believe was later reinforced in this thread when wredlich wrote,

    “Whatever your outlook it makes more sense to focus on things that kill 10,000 a year than things that kill 10.”

    I disagree. I disagree because some years ago, I dropped NAP-driven utopian visions and started actually listening to voters’ concerns.

    Here’s one thing I learned: it makes more sense to focus on what voters want us to focus on, not what WE want them to focus on.

    From that perspective, here’s something that the “media hysteria” around mass shooting tells me: voters are more concerned about the things that kill 10 than the things that kill 10,000. They will gladly accept the far greater risk that their child will be killed in the next car ride, relative to the nearly insignificant risk their child will be killed by a mass shooter. The later keeps them up at night.

    You want to get to the things that kill 10,000 a year? Then show concern and provide solutions for that which kills 10/year.

    But I can tell you this: if you insist on a worldview that begins by equating government force with individual force, you are not going to save the 10 or the 10,000. Not ever.

    If your response to the catastrophic wildfires in California is to point out how government action may have led to the situation or made it worse, you’re making your point crystal clear: you have an obsession with government mistakes, your mission is to proselytize for a libertarian utopia of fully privatized fire departments, and in your time of need you’ll get no help from a Libertarian government,

    Decry that reality if you wish, rail against it, refuse to participate in the system at all, but don’t enter the arena and then excoriate the game for even being played. You are dismissed out of hand from the get-go.

  72. Tony From Long Island

    dL : . . . .particularly since one of the definitions of “militia” is “all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.”
    tortured logic. ”

    I’ll let Merriam-Websters know you think they lack logic.

  73. William T. Forrest

    The reason people care more about catastrophic low probability risks is not mysterious or complicated, it’s because the news media they pay attention to hype the shit out of those when something happens. An active shooter situation makes good TV. Yet another highway fatality is too commonplace for news to get much notice. Fewer eyeballs and ears, fewer advertising dollars. If it bleeds (more at one time) it leads.

    That’s not a good way to base policy, and there’s nothing wrong with pointing that out.

  74. William T. Forrest

    since one of the definitions of “militia” is “all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.”

    Yes, that’s one of the definitions of militia. But notice it says civilians.

    It’s nonsensical to propose that the Second Amendment is covered by the national guard, even if it wasn’t federalized as it largely has been. All of the Bill of Rights are individual rights. It doesn’t make sense to even posit that anyone would write an amendment protecting the right of the government to have weapons.

    Nothing in there whatsoever says that the right to bear arms is **limited to** well-regulated militias, and well-regulated at the time meant well trained, not that there should be a bunch of gun regulations – those were called infringements back then.

  75. William T. Forrest

    Re: 12:40 I should add if it makes for gripping fiction it’s also something people will give oversize consideration to.

  76. Anthony Dlugos

    “The reason people care more about catastrophic low probability risks is not mysterious or complicated, it’s because the news media they pay attention to hype the shit out of those when something happens.”

    Incorrect.

    The science is quite clear that people cannot properly quantify risk.

    The news media isn’t driving the “hysteria,” surrounding mass shootings. Viewers are.

    The poor way to base policy is, in the wake of a mass shooting, point out to people that cars kill far more than mass shootings do, and then point out government regulations making cars lighter and consequently less safe due to fuel economy standards, thus killing more people than mass shooters.

  77. William T. Forrest

    It’s for the same reason a lot of people think flying is more dangerous than driving, even though it’s actually safer. An airplane crashing is more dramatic and gets disproportionate coverage even though it happens a lot less.

  78. Anthony Dlugos

    You’re only proving my point.

    If you are a political party whose goal is to make driving safer, pointing out after a plane crash that cars actually kill way more people is no way to reach your goal.

  79. robert capozzi

    wr: What do you mean when you say that machine guns and bazookas are inherently dangerous? How should “inherently dangerous” be defined?

    me: Good questions. It’s above my paygrade to answer. I simply agree with the collective will that there are weapons that are too risky to be in private hands. Personally, I’m not a fan that some of them are in the government’s hands, but taking away the WMD and bazookas seems all-but-impossible to me.

  80. robert capozzi

    pf: Sounds like agreement to me.

    me: Yep. Unfortunately, when I say that it strikes me as reasonable for the public to bar machine guns from the subway, our agreement ends, IIRC. Politics is played on the ground, not in elevated theory. If, say, Weld said in ’20, “Yes, the public has the power to regulate what is carried on its property,” the howls from NAPists would likely crescendo. Government property is stolen! It’s illegitimate! The “right” to self-defense is paramount, and it’s nobody’s business what I tote and where I tote it!

    Calls for renunciation by the JC would bellow. The Perrys and the Kokeshs would go absolutely apoplectic.

    I might offer then the passage in FaNL that differentiates between shouting fire in a theater from free speech, but I fear that their fury would be inconsolable, even with NAPist counters.

  81. paulie

    when I say that it strikes me as reasonable for the public to bar machine guns from the subway, our agreement ends, IIRC.

    Only one of us keeps wanting to talk about it though. It’s way low on my list of priorities because regardless of what I think about it that particular law/edict is not about to change anywhere anytime soon that I know of.

    If, say, Weld said in ’20, “Yes, the public has the power to regulate what is carried on its property,”

    I have a hard time imagining he would bring that up unless it was in the context of a real time discussion of making those laws worse than they already are. If he does that I’ll speak out against it.

  82. robert capozzi

    pf,

    Right. He will be asked about gun policy. He’s savvy enough to not volunteer such a statement.

  83. dL

    I’ll let Merriam-Websters know you think they lack logic.

    The tortured logic is that because one is “eligible” for military service one’s civilian rights are therefore subject to the regulation of the military.

  84. dL

    If you are a political party whose goal is to make driving safer, pointing out after a plane crash that cars actually kill way more people is no way to reach your goal.

    Well you might have a point if we were debating the Safetytarian party…

  85. DJ

    Tony: I see no argument. The law clearly states: shall not be infringed. . . . . ”

    Predictably, you forget those damn inconvenient words . . . “well-regulated . . . .” Go ahead, tell me how they only refer to a militia. You’d be wrong, particularly since one of the definitions of “militia” is “all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.”

    Me: Predictably you assert (project) what you want to see.

    shall not be infringed. There are no caveats. make a note here.

    The 4th amendment has a caveat: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, *shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue*,> but upon probable cause,shall not be infringed.”<

  86. DJ

    The above post did NOT post as written!

    4th amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, *but upon probable cause*, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    2nd 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.”

    *but upon probable cause* is a caveat.

    “shall not be infringed” is a declarative definitive to the previous part of the sentence and ends the sentence- ,the right of the people to keep and bear arms,- is necessary to the security of a free state,- as is a well regulated Militia,.

    Commas always follow these clauses at the start of a sentence. If a dependent clause ends the sentence, however, it no longer requires a comma. Only use a comma to separate a dependent clause at the end of a sentence for added emphasis, usually when negation occurs.

  87. robert capozzi

    I note that “arms” are not defined in 4A, and it doesn’t specify where “bearing” is allowed.

  88. William t. Forrest

    Not allowed in public places would be an infringement since otherwise you would essentially be limited to your own property otherwise how would you get them elsewhere. It’s keep and bear not just keep.

  89. William t. Forrest

    As for which arms they had to include those necessary for a militia to be effective which was muskets then and so called assault rifles now
    . As noted somewhere above there were cannon and other large weapons in private hands at the time.

  90. robert capozzi

    WTF,

    What was said during the adoption of the Constitution may or may not shed light on how the words should be interpreted, as I see it. Where one bears arms is up to the jurisdiction and the public. Whether the militia clause means that weapons used by a militia should be a protected right is interesting but not a certainty as I read the language.

  91. paulie

    Where one bears arms is up to the jurisdiction and the public.

    Not according to the 2nd. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. On someone else’s private property is one thing but if that means anything public property would certainly be covered.

    Whether the militia clause means that weapons used by a militia should be a protected right is interesting but not a certainty as I read the language.

    Plain language and historical analysis both indicate exactly that.

  92. dL

    Not according to the 2nd. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    I don’t recall a single issue discussed on this forum that Bob has taken the side of liberty.

  93. paulie

    Now one of the articles with the most page views out of the 18,000 plus on IPR (at least in the 6 years since we switched from the prior sitemeter to the wordpress traffic tracker):

    Top Posts for all days ending 2018-12-04 (Summarized)

    Home page / Archives 1,372,098
    Gary Johnson Now Supports TPP 48,426
    Gary Johnson: Jewish Bakers Should Be Forced to Bake Nazi Cakes 23,551
    Walter Block Announces Formation of “Libertarians for Trump” 11,477
    About IPR 10,898
    Sonny Landham calls for genocide of all Arabs and Muslims 10,210
    Libertarians: Left, Right or Neither? 10,067
    7 Facts That Destroy Gun Control 9,374

  94. paulie

    Republicans, bad on gun freedoms

    [Trump set to ban bump stock devices]

    When you’re Dear Leader they just let you do it…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *