Got another live one over at Quora. If you don’t want to read the entire thread (it’s epic), just skip down to the last two comments in the thread started by “Iwan Doherty.”
Wow. Just…wow.
Tag: Quora
Another Quora Exchange
A question was asked over at Quora:
Should the British have the right to carry firearms in self defence like the Americans who have that right? I think Britain would be better off.
I responded:
Should they have the right? I think, personally, that it should never have been taken from them in the first place – but it was. However, there’s more than just the right involved. With rights come responsibilities, and Jonathan Phillpotts’ answer illustrates this very well. Because the British lost this right so long ago, by and large they no longer have the mental attitude necessary to exercise it. The Britain of the Tottenham Outrage no longer exists.
Mr. Phillpotts took some exception. Here’s our comment exchange (so far):
JP: I disagree. It’s not that we don’t have the mindset to use firearms in our own defence. If our history had parralled yours I would be voicing my whole hearted support for concealed carry. However what my original post is trying to convey is that we have a very different outlook as countries because we have very different histories. We can walk around in our daily life without even considering people around us are carrying. You can’t. That very difference is why you need your guns, and we don’t, to feel safe.
Different mindsets and actions leading to the same feeling of security.
KB: Most defensive gun uses here are against people not armed with a firearm. In the UK this would be considered a “not proportional” response.
Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967, provides that “A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime…” and the question of reasonableness is subject to the amplifications contained in such cases as R v McInnes and R v Palmer. It has been held that “if a jury thought that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary, that would be most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken.” Normally only reasonable force is acceptable but if in the unexpected anguish of the moment excessive force is used it may still be acceptable, if the defendant honestly and instinctively believed it was necessary. It has been long established (prior to either the Criminal Law Act 1967 s 3 or AIDS) that a woman may take the life of a man attempting to rape her, though she may not generally carry a weapon to achieve this.
I ask you: How is a woman to resist to the point of lethality a sexual assault against a (most probably larger, stronger) man without a weapon?
No, you don’t have to worry about considering other people around you carrying. Guns. What about Knives? Chisels? Multiple assailants? What if you’re disabled or with your kids and you can’t run?
In the UK the law requires a “proportionate response.” This is insane. It asks the assault victim to read the mind of his (or her) attacker, to ask the question of whether that person or persons intends to inflict bodily injury or possibly death so that they can respond proportionally. And the victim’s actions will be judged by a dispassionate court after the fact. That mentality exists throughout your population – that’s how it ended up in law. I’d say the overwhelming majority of gun owners in the UK don’t believe in using a firearm defensively given my interaction with a number of Brits on the subject.
The American mindset (and law) is considerably different, and well described by this quotation from Col. Jeff Cooper:
“One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not agree that ‘violence begets violence.’ I told him that it is my earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure — and in some cases I have — that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy.”
JP: I can’t deny anything you have said. Especially proportionate response, or reasonable force as it’s called over here, that law, in it’s execution, is a joke. However that doesn’t justify this country arming itself. All that would do is increase the amounts of problems, not reduce them. See the likelihood of being stabbed or assaulted is very low and mostly they just want your wallet or phone. Hardly worth killing, or worse being killed, over. Raise the stakes and the robberies get more violent as the criminal is even more nervous than before. Not to mention that without the right level of training you’re more likely to have the gun taken off you by multiple assailants.
All of that being said; I would like the ability to defend myself (not necessarily with guns though) and have the law back me up if I needed to do so, but that isn’t how our country works. It puts the presumption of guilt on to a person carrying a weapon and wants the Police to enforce the law. And let’s not forget that the majority of our police aren’t even armed with firearms and they actively seek out criminals. If they don’t need guns then the vast majority of civilians don’t either.
KB: I rest my case….
Stereotypes
I know some of you enjoy these, so here’s the latest free content from my fishing over at Quora.com’s well-stocked pool.
Back in October of last year I answered this question: “What are the most practical and effective steps we can take to reduce gun violence in the US — mass shootings, domestic violence and gun crime generally?”
Here’s my answer:
You are aware that the United States has experienced about twenty years of DECLINING violent crime – including homicide?
Homicide has declined from 8.2/100,000 population to 4.5/100,000 since 1995. That’s a 45% drop. Whatever it is we’re doing, we should keep doing it. Oh, right – with respect to gun laws, we’re making it easier for people to get concealed-carry permits.
And the number of people with permits is increasing.Report: Number Of Concealed Carry Permits Surges As Violent Crime Rate Drops
And, of course, we’ve had record shattering gun sales numbers over the last decade.
What The Left Won’t Tell You About The Boom In U.S. Gun Sales
So apparently More Guns = Less Violence.
Now if we want to address the “non-mass shooting/gun violence” we really need to identify where it’s happening and who is doing the shooting and getting shot, and contrary to popular opinion it’s not Joe Average “just snapping” and killing his significant other. Yes, that does happen, but it’s the exception rather than the rule – unless Joe Average has a long rap sheet and is involved in the drug trade along with his significant other.
People who commit murder overwhelmingly fit into a small, easily identifiable demographic: They have a fairly long history of interactions with law enforcement, usually with an escalating level of violence, and the majority of them live in urban areas. And not only urban areas, but specific neighborhoods of urban areas. And they tend to be young and male. And, yes, I’ll say it because facts are not racist: young black men are disproportionately both the victims and the perpetrators of homicide.
Homicide Trends in the United States, 1980-2008
In fact, if homicide was actually treated as a disease, epidemiologists would call this “a clue,” and would work aggressively to reduce deaths among this relatively small demographic that skews the national statistics so very badly.
Instead, we talk about passing “gun control laws” that only affect the people who AREN’T out there murdering.
With respect to reducing mass shooting incidents, in a nation of 300,000,000 people these events are about as common as people getting killed by lightning strikes. Yet in almost every case they share these commonalities:
- They occur in “Gun Free Zones.”
- The perpetrator has a known history of mental issues and likely has been treated with psychotropic drugs, but has never been involuntarily committed.
- The perpetrator only stops when he decides he’s finished, or when confronted by someone else with a gun.
- They want attention, that’s why they do it.
So if we want to lower the number of these incidents, first I recommend that we stop putting the names and pictures of the perpetrators on TV, magazines and newspapers. Second, I recommend that we stop thinking that “Gun Free Zone” signs have any effect on criminal activity. If someone’s willing to rob you, rape you, and/or murder you, do you think a SIGN is going to stop them? And honestly, with ten people dead and seven injured, would a defender with a gun, right there right then, actually have made the situation WORSE? This guy was willing to risk his life to protect others, but was disarmed by those “Gun Free Zone” signs.
I got a few positive responses, but just this Tuesday it was discovered by someone new. Here’s that exchange:
Dimitrios Tolios:
Your whole post is listing facts but fails to avoid deductive fallacies.
There is no correlation of concealed weapon licences and reduction in homicides, as in “bad guys think twice before committing a crime”. None whatsoever.
You can quote mine statistical data for a lot of things that increased since 1995, and then attribute the reduction in violent crimes to…say, cellphones. Vast increase in cellphones, the probability of a “victim” or someone in the vicinity having a cellphone and calling for help – and as of lately recording you too – is insanely more probable to deter a “baddy” vs. the fear of a vigilante shooter. Its a loose probability, but still far more plausible than the fear of “the white hat gunner”.
For the biggest part of the late 90s and early 2010s there was a huge % increase of MP3 players…with your deductive logic I could correlate the decrease in violent crimes to listening to good 90s music…but that again would be a deductive fallacy.
Me:
“There is no correlation of concealed weapon licences and reduction in homicides, as in “bad guys think twice before committing a crime”. None whatsoever.”
No, the correlation exists. As you note, increases in “smart phones” and MP3 players also correlate. It is causation that cannot be proven statistically. (Incidentally, your use of the word “vigilante” says a lot about your personal bias on this topic.) Yet if the worst thing you can say about the massive increase in concealed-weapons permits nationwide is “It may not have contributed to the dramatic decrease in violent crime,” then I submit that “More guns = more crime” has been decisively dis-proven, no? And hasn’t that been the chant of gun-control forces forever?
Dimitrios Tolios:
The definition of vigilante is irrelevant to personal biases: “A member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.”
If you don’t like the use of this word that describes nearly perfectly the way legal possession of concealed weapons would deter crimes with the implied threat of capital punishment without due process, well, tough luck.
Now, for how many guns are “too many” according to people, or when a critical mass is reached after which adding more is irrelevant, or which chants touch which simpletons on one side and which on the other, makes no difference. Its another fallacy to think that a popular belief has any merit “ad populum”.
Me:
“If you don’t like the use of this word that describes nearly perfectly the way legal possession of concealed weapons would deter crimes with the implied threat of capital punishment without due process, well, tough luck.”
So do these meet your definition of “the way legal possession of concealed weapons” deters crime?
Felon with gun killed by man with concealed carry permit, Orlando police say
Police: Customer with concealed carry license kills robber; 6 more people shot
Fatal stabbing near Oceanside motel
Man with concealed weapons permit shoots, kills robber in double-shooting, Grand Rapids police say
Police: Concealed permit holder stopped armed robbery of Vernal restaurant | KSL.com
Man With Concealed-Carry License Shoots Would-Be Robber, Police Say
Man with concealed-carry gun permit foils Akron robbery attempt
Now in a few cases above we won’t be seeing any recidivism from the perpetrators of the crimes since they’ll be pushing up daisies and not contributing to future violent crime, but in each case crimes were deterred with either implied or actual deadly force, what you term “capital punishment.”
Here’s a clue as to the difference: “deadly force” is legally authorized – to anybody – in the immediate defense of life and health of oneself or others. The threat of deadly force is legally valid to stop the commission of a felony involving deadly force (see the fifth example – robber had a knife, defender had a gun, nobody got killed). Cops have that power as do private citizens. Capital punishment is punishment carried out by the State only after due process of law. The two are not equal.
Vigilantism as you express it involves the use of deadly force not to stop a felony in progress, but one or more persons being “judge, jury and executioner” after the fact. That’s why vigilantism is illegal. It’s literally outside the law. Self-defense and defense of others is well within the law.
Your personal bias seems to indicate that you believe self-defense is “vigilantism,” or you cannot tell the difference between them, because the word not only isn’t “nearly perfect,” it’s completely wrong.
“Now, for how many guns are “too many” according to people, or when a critical mass is reached after which adding more is irrelevant…”
And again, you misinterpret. If your theory was correct and we reached a “critical mass” at some point in the past “after which adding more is irrelevant” then violent crime would have reached some plateau that, at best, would have remained constant with respect to population. But that’s emphatically not the case. Violent crime has been on the decline for the better part of two decades while the “number of guns” in private hands has skyrocketed, especially over the last decade. Thus the argument you hand-wave away as irrelevant is, as I note, disproven. Yet it’s the fundamental one on which “gun control” arguments – and you admit this – are based: “There are too many guns.” You just suggest that adding more hasn’t had any further deleterious effect.
Dimitrios Tolios:
I did not put out the argument more guns = more crime. You did. And you swiftly rushed to say it is dis-proven, not based on scientific research, just by arbitrarily pairing statistical facts: Fact 1) A has gone up, Fact 2) B has gone down, thus A lowers B.
Also the # of legal guns out there is irrelevant out of context, as for example a single gun owner might own hundreds. % of people asking for stricter gun control is going up. That’s a statistical fact. The sales of guns are statistically rising far beyond population growth. Thus it is not a “A equals B” type of a stretch to think that gun ownership could be going up overall, but a large % of those guns go to the same people. Good, law-abiding people that want to have guns and don’t feel satisfied with one. Or ten. Much like I like to have many photographic lenses & cameras for example “just to be ready”.
All these are a matter that needs serious studies and research to produce any significant findings. All the links you’ve posted are no “Studies”…are – again – by definition anecdotal. Even when something is based on a true account, it is still of not scientific significance in itself.
As for the vigilantism and what is after the fact and what before the fact, well, I hope you realize that this is out of the control of any individual, police representative etc. It is not the time of Minority Report (yet), the “offence” has to come before the 3rd party responds, with deadly force or not. It has to be after the fact.
Also, if “trained” police officers clearly & often misjudge situations that “threaten” them, and automatically warrant the use of deadly force, giving to all individuals the right to “hold their ground” and do the same, is a recipe for more and not less grief for all parties involved.
Me:
“I did not put out the argument more guns = more crime. You did. And you swiftly rushed to say it is dis-proven, not based on scientific research, just by arbitrarily pairing statistical facts: Fact 1) A has gone up, Fact 2) B has gone down, thus A lowers B.”
No you didn’t. You didn’t have to. It’s been the mantra of the gun control side for decades – and one you appear to agree with when you stipulate to a “critical mass” argument. And you misunderstand the argument. It isn’t that “1) A has gone up, 2) B has gone down, thus A lowers B” it’s that the argument is that 1) if A goes up then 2) B must also – and it hasn’t. Dodge that all you want with your “critical mass” argument, but it’s 3) C a fact. It hasn’t gone up, it hasn’t remained level – it’s gone down.
“Also the # of legal guns out there is irrelevant out of context, as for example a single gun owner might own hundreds. % of people asking for stricter gun control is going up. That’s a statistical fact.”
Is it now?
Gallup: Only 2% Say ‘Guns/Gun Control’ Among Nation’s Most Important Problems
Poll: More Americans oppose stricter gun control
Despite lower crime rates, support for gun rights increases
Why Are Americans Buying So Many Guns?
That’s Gallup, CNN/ORC, Pew and Rassmussen. All of them disagree with your “statistical fact” concerning the percentage of people in favor of stricter gun control going up, and at least one details an increase in the number of new gun owners in the U.S.
“All the links you’ve posted are no “Studies”…are – again – by definition anecdotal. Even when something is based on a true account, it is still of not scientific significance in itself.”
Yet you’re in favor of disarming those people so that you feel safer.
Tell each of them that they’d have been better off unarmed.
“It is not the time of Minority Report (yet), the “offence” has to come before the 3rd party responds, with deadly force or not. It has to be after the fact.”
Care to parse that sentence so it makes some kind of sense? I don’t want to misinterpret it.
“Also, if “trained” police officers clearly & often misjudge situations that “threaten” them, and automatically warrant the use of deadly force, giving to all individuals the right to “hold their ground” and do the same, is a recipe for more and not less grief for all parties involved.”
And THAT is the “more guns = more violence” argument. “Oh noes! If mere citizens are allowed to carry guns, there’ll be shootouts over fender-benders and Wal*mart sales!” We heard that in each and every state contemplating “shall-issue” concealed carry legislation, and it never happened anywhere.
Cops walk into situations in progress. Citizens are the ones the situation is directly affecting. They’re pretty damned sure whether there’s a crime going on and who the assailant is. The cops have to figure it out when they get there.
Are you advocating the disarmament of police so that there will be “less grief for all parties involved”?
Dimitrios Tolios:
Your links are not relevant, much like your imposed correlation between more guns being bought vs. violent crime going down.
People have more disposable income in shear numbers, they buy lots of pointless consumer goods, some buy guns.
Very few people consider gun ownership being a OMFG most important problem…gun owners that identify themselves as little more than gun owners are those making a big deal out of it.
And that is the reason you are so obsessed with your totally inconclusive and uncorellated discovery, and you quote-mine headlines that inside the text or the actual polling number speak of fluctuations that happen between 1–2 years, and ofc is something totally natural given the small actual # of people being polled. You are so invested in this Truism tho, that you are committing all logical fallacies in the book, talking in circles and destroying one straw-man after the other.
You want trends: Gallup historical data on Guns. Like, google search #1…it is not in favor of your arguement.
And Gallup is not the only polling organization.
Give or take the % of people with guns in their homes are the same or slightly declining. If it is true that more and more guns are being sold, it has to be true that the same people are buying them
Meanwhile:
You devolved this ad nauseum to a personal arguement starting from the point that I am your stereotypical gun-control arch-enemy. Something that was never stated or implied.As for the “dissarm police” thing, again, another strawman that was never implied. What was said is that policemen prove themselves too often to be applying excessive force…are you arguing that the Police doesn’t need more training?
“Citizens are the ones the situation is directly affecting. They’re pretty damned sure whether there’s a crime going on and who the assailant is. The cops have to figure it out when they get there.”
Thats hillarious…exaclty the “vigilante” stereotype that I did not mean to imply but you accused me of: the “citizen that is pretty damn sure” that whomever wronged them (according to their own account) should pull a gun…
Sorry mister, you are hopeless…good luck.
With all the typos, I could almost see the foam at the corners of his mouth. So I had to get in one last shot:
“Your links are not relevant…”
Because you say so, right? You made an assertion – the percentage of people in favor of stricter gun control was growing. I gave FOUR DIFFERENT POLLS that refuted that assertion. But they’re “not relevant.” Check.
“…much like your imposed correlation between more guns being bought vs. violent crime going down.”
Once again, with feeling: You’re misunderstanding (deliberately?) my argument. MORE GUNS DOES NOT MEAN MORE VIOLENT CRIME. And your counter argument was that some “critical mass” of guns had been reached at some point in the past. If that were true, then VIOLENT CRIME SHOULD BE STABLE. But it’s NOT. It’s been trending down for the better part of two decades. I’ve repeated myself twice now. Perhaps this time you’ll get it?
“People have more disposable income in shear numbers, they buy lots of pointless consumer goods, some buy guns.”
Right. More people are in favor of stricter gun control, but they go out and drop several hundred dollars not on a new HDTV or computer, but a gun. Pointlessly. Just because. When was the last time you spent $300–$500 on something that didn’t really interest you? Grasping at straws much?
“And Gallup is not the only polling organization.”
No indeed. Which is why I included Pew, CNN and Rasmussen.
“Give or take the % of people with guns in their homes are the same or slightly declining. If it is true that more and more guns are being sold, it has to be true that the same people are buying them.”
Obviously math is not your strong suit (much like understanding the difference between correlation and causation). I’ve addressed this question of DECLINING GUN OWNERSHIP!! before. If you use the General Social Survey results the percentage of households containing a firearm has dropped from 50% in 1970 to 35% in 2012. If you use the Gallup numbers
Self-Reported Gun Ownership in U.S. Is Highest Since 1993
the percentage has declined from 50% in 1991 to 47% in 2011.
According to this site:
Total Number of U.S. Households
the total number of households has increased from 63.5 million in 1970 to 114.8 million in 2010. In either case, that’s a net increase of 8 million households in which there is a firearm over those two periods. Assuming one firearm owner per household, that’s minimum 8 million NEW firearm owners. And there’s reason to believe that this number strongly under-represents reality.
And now you shift the goalposts to “mass shootings”? I think we’ll skip this one and move on.
“You devolved this ad nauseum to a personal arguement starting from the point that I am your stereotypical gun-control arch-enemy.”
Oh no! You give yourself far too much credit. Stereotypical, yes. Arch-enemy, no. You’re the average, everyday gun control supporter. You’re absolutely sure of your “facts” and completely unaffected by anything that contradicts them. When confronted by someone who can refute you, you bob, weave, obfuscate and move the goalposts. Commonly the next step is reasoned discourse
“Thats hillarious…exaclty the “vigilante” stereotype that I did not mean to imply but you accused me of: the “citizen that is pretty damn sure” that whomever wronged them (according to their own account) should pull a gun…”
So if confronted by an armed robber, they should….?
“Sorry mister, you are hopeless…good luck.”
Pot? Meet kettle.
Understand, I don’t write these things to change your mind. I do it so that the truly undecided can read what people like you have to say and what I have to say and perhaps look into the facts for themselves and make up their own minds. Judging from the polls, this has been pretty effective! 😉
No further replies today, but the thread is still up. “Reasoned discourse” has not yet been implemented.
Quora and the Rights Debate (Updated & Bumped)
So, over at Quora someone asked, What would you do if guns became illegal in the US? I responded:
As the saying goes, “When guns are outlawed, only the government and outlaws will have guns.”
There’s another saying: “After the first felony, the rest are free.”
But there’s an even more appropriate saying: “…an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void.” (Marbury v. Madison, 1803) And yes, I believe I understand what is and isn’t “repugnant to the Constitution,” and more importantly, I have the right to make that judgement.
That drew this comment:
I agree with most of what you have written Kevin, right up to the end. You DON’T have a right to make that judgment. That decision is reserved for the courts and until such time as a lawfully passed law has been approved, it is the law of the land. Once the courts declare it unconstitutional, then it is no longer a law.
This is the whole scenario with the wackadoos out at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and with the Bundys in Nevada. You are not free to interpret the Constitution nor the laws in any way you choose…
To which I replied:
“You DON’T have a right to make that judgment. That decision is reserved for the courts and until such time as a lawfully passed law has been approved, it is the law of the land. Once the courts declare it unconstitutional, then it is no longer a law.“
Here I’ll quote Judge Alex Kozinski of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals:
“The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed – where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.”
If I wait for “the courts to declare it unconstitutional” I would already be disarmed.
Fuck. That.
The response?
Yeah sorry Kevin….didn’t realize you were part of the tin foil hat crowd. Please just nevermind.
You know me, I couldn’t stop there:
No, not the tinfoil hat crowd. They think Armageddon is imminent. I’m with the tinfoil yarmulke crowd. We don’t think it likely, (see “exceptionally rare circumstances” above) but we also don’t consider it impossible. We’ve read history.
Apparently he wasn’t finished either:
LOL…OK, poor analogy on my part !
But while I recognize that laws can be unconstitutional, PEOPLE don’t get to decide that. That is the purpose of the court system…
So I decided to take him to school:
Yes, PEOPLE do. As law professor Mike O’Shea put it, “So the Constitution says Roe, but it doesn’t say I have the right to keep a gun to defend my home, huh?”
The court system is made up of PEOPLE. People we should hold to a higher standard, but people nonetheless. Have you ever READ any court decisions? Here’s another of my favorite Kozinski quotes:
“Judges know very well how to read the Constitution broadly when they are sympathetic to the right being asserted. We have held, without much ado, that “speech, or…the press” also means the Internet…and that “persons, houses, papers, and effects” also means public telephone booths….When a particular right comports especially well with our notions of good social policy, we build magnificent legal edifices on elliptical constitutional phrases – or even the white spaces between lines of constitutional text. But, as the panel amply demonstrates, when we’re none too keen on a particular constitutional guarantee, we can be equally ingenious in burying language that is incontrovertibly there.
“It is wrong to use some constitutional provisions as springboards for major social change while treating others like senile relatives to be cooped up in a nursing home until they quit annoying us. As guardians of the Constitution, we must be consistent in interpreting its provisions. If we adopt a jurisprudence sympathetic to individual rights, we must give broad compass to all constitutional provisions that protect individuals from tyranny. If we take a more statist approach, we must give all such provisions narrow scope. Expanding some to gargantuan proportions while discarding others like a crumpled gum wrapper is not faithfully applying the Constitution; it’s using our power as federal judges to constitutionalize our personal preferences.“
What you’re advocating is surrender to authority. You’ve abandoned your responsibility as a citizen to understand and defend your rights “against all enemies, foreign and domestic” when you insist that we’re just supposed to accept what five black-robed officials on a panel decide. You can read, study, and understand what you’ve been promised by the system that was set up to protect those rights yourself.
Your argument boils down to “You’re not qualified!”
Like hell we’re not.
That got him warmed up:
Not a question of “qualified” Kevin. It is a question of what our Constitution says is how our government works. You don’t have to like the Roe vs. Wade decision anymore than I like the Heller decision. But those are the law of the land now since they are the decisions of the SUPREME Court. I capitalize that for a reason, because it is the ULTIMATE decider and serves as a check on the Legislative and Executive Branches.
Kozinski can write whatever he wants to, just like you or I can. The difference is that his writings nor yours or mine carry any legal weight. If you want to change the Constitution to make the way the US government operates different, that is fine and there is a procedure for amending it that is clearly laid out in the document itself. But as a citizen of this country, you are governed by the laws passed in your state and by the federal government. No place in any of those laws does it say you get to interpret the laws as you personally see fit.
“What you’re advocating is surrender to authority”. Yes, that is exactly what living in a country is all about. We have a common system of laws that supposedly apply equally to call citizens and visitors. You don’t get to make up your own laws, nor disregard those made up by the governments who govern where you are.
Your last paragraph is exactly what the Cliven Bundy’s and LaVoy Finicums of the world believe. “The law doesn’t apply to me if I don’t agree with it”. Well, YES IT DOES! If you don’t like it, then there is a procedure for changing the laws of this country and you need to get a majority of the people to support the changes you want to make. This is a democracy on some levels and a republic on others. Why are you willing to argue about your individual rights, while completely ignoring the process by which you were granted those rights. The true disconnect is when people (and that would include you in this discussion) think they get to define their own rights as being different from that which others believe them to be. That is the purpose of the court system…to make sure we are all on the same page as to what is and what isn’t acceptable. You don’t get to make that call unfortunately, no matter how much you may not like it.
Not deterred, I fired back:
“You don’t get to make up your own laws, nor disregard those made up by the governments who govern where you are.“
Do you routinely drive faster than the posted speed limit? Are you aware that, most likely, you commit Three Felonies a Day?
“Why are you willing to argue about your individual rights, while completely ignoring the process by which you were granted those rights.“
See, that’s what defines the difference between our worldviews. I wasn’t granted anything. I’m supposed to be living under a government established with the duty to protect the rights I have simply by existing.
How’s that working out? Rand’s Atlas Shrugged and Orwell’s 1984 were supposed to be warnings, not instruction manuals.
“The true disconnect is when people (and that would include you in this discussion) think they get to define their own rights as being different from that which others believe them to be.“
Now here we are somewhat in agreement. I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about and writing about rights, and at one point I wrote:
A “right” is what the majority of a society believes it is.
To that, however, I added this:
What good is a “right to keep and bear arms” if it gets you put in jail? What good is a “right to keep and bear arms” if using a firearm to defend yourself or someone else results in the loss of your freedom, or at least your property? What good is a “right to keep and bear arms” when you live in a city that denies you the ability to keep a gun in your home for self protection?
This is a battle for public opinion, make no mistake.
It is a battle the powerful and their useful idiots have been winning.
Your rights are meaningless when the system under which you live does not recognize them. Or worse, scorns them.
If you want to keep your rights, it is up to YOU to fight for them. Liberty is NEVER unalienable. You must always fight for it.
“If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.” – Winston Churchill
Welcome to the battle for public opinion. We appear to be on different sides.
That put him off:
Thanks for the dialog. Speeding is not a felony, and as soon as you started quoting Ayn Rand that ended my interest in continuing the discussion. Keep fighting the good fight.
But I wasn’t done yet:
Point of fact: I didn’t “quote” Rand. I gave the title of one of her books, along with the title of one of Orwell’s. With respect to Rand, I like this quote (about, not by her):
“Perhaps the biggest mistake an intellectual can make is to try to parlay his one brilliant insight into a unified theory of existence. Ayn Rand made this mistake with Objectivism. Objectivism was useful for thinking in certain limited realms, but Rand sought to apply Objectivist thinking to every aspect of the human experience, including love. The result is a sterile philosophical landscape, extending out of sight in all directions.Tellingly, Rand was unable to live according to her ideals. This is part of what makes Rand so disagreeable; the almost hysterical denial of subjectivity’s inevitable, essential role in our lives. And it makes her not only disagreeable, but wrong.“
The fact that you reacted so viscerally to the mere mention of her name says more about you than about me.
Now I will quote Rand so you can feel justified in abandoning the dialog:
“The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.“
To which he replied:
Kevin, we just see the world very differently and arguing about that on Quora does neither of us any good. The title of this whole thread was “What would you do if guns became illegal in the US”. In order for that to happen, there would need to be a constitutional amendment and that requires a 2/3 vote of the states, so I don’t see that happening.
We obviously disagree on the role of the courts in interpreting the constitution and the laws passed by the legislative branches of government. That’s fine. We are each entitled to our own beliefs.
My concern is with people who somehow view our government as evil and restricting their freedom. The USA is one of the freest places on the planet. I believe that in my heart. If you don’t, then so be it, again, your choice, but I don’t know what individual rights you believe you are not getting in this country.
Good luck and again, thanks for the dialog.
One more final parting shot by me:
“Kevin, we just see the world very differently and arguing about that on Quora does neither of us any good.“
Odd, I thought that was what the internet was for!
😉
“My concern is with people who somehow view our government as evil and restricting their freedom.“
You haven’t studied history much, have you? I don’t view our government as evil and restricting of freedom, I view all government as evil and restricting of freedom. I share that opinion with Thomas Paine:
“Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer…”
However, I am not an anarchist – note the qualifier that government is a necessary evil.
“The USA is one of the freest places on the planet. I believe that in my heart.“
So do I. But as a friend asked once, “When was the last time you built a bonfire on a beach, openly drank a beer and the presence of a policeman was absolutely no cause for concern? Hmmm?”
I am also constantly reminded of John Philpot Curran’s warning:
“The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.”
I’m an atheist, but the sentiment rings true.
“…I don’t know what individual rights you believe you are not getting in this country.“
It’s not the ones I’m not getting, it’s the ones I have I’m fighting to ensure I don’t lose. Ask the (former) residents of New London, CT about their property rights. Ask the Tea Party victims of the IRS about their free speech rights. Look into the abrogation of your 4th Amendment rights of protection against unreasonable search and seizure with respect to vehicle searches and “asset forfeiture.” Read Glenn Reynold’s Columbia Law review piece Ham Sandwich Nation: Due Process When Everything Is a Crime. Speeding isn’t a felony, no, but study the expansion of felony law. Were you aware that in some jurisdictions walking out of a restaurant on a $25 check is a felony? Or staying in a multiplex cinema and catching a second feature without paying for it?
You are aware of the loss of rights that goes along with a felony conviction, aren’t you?
Yes, the USA is one of the freest places on the planet, but government is power concentrated in the hands of a few, and power corrupts and attracts the already corrupt. Ignore that fact at your peril.
Supreme Court Justice Learned Hand once wrote, “Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it. While it lies there, it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it.”
Does arguing on Quora do any good? Maybe not for you, but I’m not writing to convert you. I’m writing so that others who read these threads might get exposed to ideas that they had not previously considered, and that might actually get them to think and study for themselves.
THAT is what I think the Internet is really for.
I don’t expect him to reply again, but you never know.
UPDATE, 3/27: There were some other commenters, which started this final thread:
You seem very happy to subject yourself to the authority of others.
Interesting, but not applicable to anyone else.
To which our respondent replied:
I subject myself to the legally passed laws of the Republic Robert. It is the nut jobs out there who seem to think they have the ability/right/duty or whatever else you want to call it to selectively decide which laws apply to them or must be followed.
Given that opening, I asked him:
So Rosa Parks should have stayed in the back of the bus, then. Check. And I assume you’ve never heard of Jury Nullification?
He seemed surprised by this:
What does this have to do with Rosa Parks or Jury Nullification? Nevermind…forget that I asked…
But I wasn’t letting him off that easily.
No, no! Let’s pursue this logic train all the way to the end of the tracks! You stated that you subject yourself to the legally passed laws of the Republic. The law that forced Rosa Parks to the back of the bus was one such law. You’re stating that she should have obeyed it – that she had no ability/right/duty to “selectively decide” that it didn’t apply to her, and that when brought to trial the jury didn’t have the ability/right/duty to decide – in the face of the law and the judge – to acquit her because she had clearly violated the legally passed law, right? That we mere individual citizens don’t have the RIGHT to judge those laws for ourselves.
I can draw no other conclusion from your statements. YOU can draw no other conclusion from your statements. Rosa Parks had no right to violate the legally passed law of the Republic. Period.
Or explain to me how I’m misinterpreting your position.
This was ignored or unseen until someone else asked him about it later, and I pointed him to the question.
You can almost hear the Cognitive Dissonance grinding between his ears:
Kevin, I have no interest in continuing this discussion with you so please stop posting responses to me. Civil disobedience is not a Constitutional issue and that is where this conversation began. Again, thank you for the dialog, but I do not wish to hear from you further.
Hell, I thought what were discussing WAS civil disobedience. Here’s another place to quote someone quotable – Winston Churchill: “Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.” Anyway, I’ve apparently hurt his brain enough, and he’s served his illustrative purpose, so I let him go:
I think you just answered my question, so thank you, and I’ll leave you to yourself.
Freedom of from Religion
Still playing over at Quora.com. Here’s a recent question:
Why, despite its clear violation of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause, is there still “In God we trust” on US currency and in courtrooms?
The Free exercise Clause:
‘GOVERNMENT shall make no law respecting any organization of religion or prohibit the free exercise there of.’AND The CONGRESS ACTION THAT WAS PASSED UNCONSTITUTIONALLY AND IN BLATANT VIOLATION OF OUR INALIENABLE RIGHTS:!!!
As a result, the 84th Congress passed a joint resolution “declaring IN GOD WE TRUST the national motto of the United States.” The law was signed by President Eisenhower on July 30, 1956, and the motto was progressively added to paper money over a period from 1957 to 1966.
Federal endorsement of a deity or religion violates THE US CONSTITUTION.
So, in light of this should be removed asap.
I replied:
You are aware that from the founding of the nation the Senate and the House of Representatives have each had, at government expense, a chaplain? And one of the duties of that chaplain is to open each session of each legislative body with a prayer?
Are you familiar with the “Original Public Understanding” theory of Constitutional law? I suggest you look it up. Your understanding of the First Amendment is flawed.
A reader took exception:
Lisbeth Salandar wrote:
No Kevin, ACTUALLY having a chaplain say a prayer in a secular government body is also severly unconstitutional you history oblivious fool.
My understanding of the first Amendment is based entirely on the words contained within it cûlt boy.
You are competely entitled to your opinions which are not supported by evidence.
But the moment you spread that opinion as fact you are a liar.
And if you spread it as fact knowing well it is an opinion you are both a liar and a fraud.Government shall make no law respecting any organization of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof.
Can you read?
It isn’t a bible you can just be an apologist for later and say is metaphor Ya non- reasoning dolt it’s an INALIENABLE RIGHT-not subject to your falsifiable and cûlt deluded opinion.
Well! As Randall Munroe observed: I can’t go to bed, someone is wrong on the internet! So of course I had to respond:
Well, so much for Be Nice, Be Respectful.
Apparently you’re under the impression that I belong to a “cûlt.” I assume from this (having had some experience in this arena) that you mean I’m religious, probably some form of Christian. However, I assure you I am an atheist, but apparently not of the same sect as you. My beliefs are obviously heretical to yours, thus your need to verbally burn me at the stake for denying your TRUTH.
So your understanding of the First Amendment is based entirely on the words contained in it? How nice. You’re not a lawyer, then? Well, neither am I, but I’ve studied American Constitutional law on my own for about the last twenty years. I’ve read enough court decisions to make one’s eyes bleed, and I’ve read the non-judicial statements of judges and Justices in great stacks.
And you propose to stand here and tell me that you would argue to James Madison, “Father of the Constitution,” that the First Amendment prohibits the offices of Chaplain of the House and the Senate, and he’d agree with you?
Sorry. Not buying. Not even close.
The law is NEVER based exclusively on the text. That invites “reinterpretation” over time – the so-called “living Constitution” theory. Let me throw some quotes out to you:
“Our Revolution commenced on more favorable ground. It presented us an album on which we were free to write what we pleased. We had no occasion to search into musty records, to hunt up royal parchments, or to investigate the laws and institutions of a semi-barbarous ancestry. We appealed to those of nature, and found them engraved on our hearts. Yet we did not avail ourselves of all the advantages of our position. We had never been permitted to exercise self-government. When forced to assume it, we were novices in its science. Its principles and forms had entered little into our former education. We established however some, although not all its important principles. The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press.” — Thomas Jefferson pp.46 – 47, The Living Thoughts of Thomas Jefferson, John Dewey, presenter.
—
“On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” –Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322 Paul K. Sadover
—
“It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those intrusted with its administration to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism…. If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.” – George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
—
“Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.” – James Madison
—
“The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.” — South Carolina v. US, 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905)
And finally, Antonin Scalia:
“It is literally true that the U.S. Supreme Court has entirely liberated itself from the text of the Constitution.
“What ‘we the people’ want most of all is someone who will agree with us as to what the evolving constitution says.
“We are free at last, free at last. There is no respect in which we are chained or bound by the text of the Constitution. All it takes is five hands.
“What in the world is a ‘moderate interpretation’ of the text? Halfway between what it really says and what you want it to say?” – Antonin Scalia, excerpts from a speech quoted in the New Orleans Times-Picayune, 3/10/04
I’ve engaged on several occasions with what I like to term the acolytes of Dawkins – the radical anti-theists who hate all religion, but most especially Christianity – and the place at which we clash most often is with respect to Constitutional law. They seem to feel that judges in black robes sitting at benches can unilaterally dispense TRUTH upon the masses – in short, that the Court system acts as the clergy of the Church of State, solely responsible for the well-being of our – for lack of a better word – souls.
Columnist George Will gave a speech a few years ago that hit upon this. Let me quote:
“Madison asserted that politics should take its bearings from nature, from human nature and the natural rights with which we are endowed that pre-exist government. Woodrow Wilson, like all people steeped in the nineteenth century discovery (or so they thought) that History is a proper noun with a capital ‘H,’ that history has a mind and life of its own, he argued that human nature is as malleable and changeable as history itself, and that it is the job of the state to regulate and guide the evolution of human nature, and the changeable nature of the rights we are owed by the government that in his view dispensed rights.
“Heraclitus famously said ‘You cannot step into the same river twice,’ meaning that the river would change. The modern progressive believes that you can’t step into the same river twice because you change constantly. Well those of us of the Madisonian persuasion believe that we take our bearings from a certain constancy. Not from, well to coin a phrase ‘the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.’
“That has become, that phrase from Justice Brennan, has become the standard by which the constitution is turned into a ‘living document.’ A constitution that no longer can constitute. A constitution has, as Justice Scalia said, an anti-evolution purpose. The very virtue of a constitution is that it is not changeable. It exists to prevent change, to embed certain rights so that they cannot easily be taken away.
“Madison said rights pre-exist government. Wilson said government exists to dispense whatever agenda of rights suits its fancy, and to annihilate, regulate or attenuate or dilute those others. Madison said the rights we are owed are those that are necessary for the individual pursuit of happiness. Wilson and the progressives said the rights you deserve are those that will deliver material happiness to you and spare you the strain and terror of striving.
“The result of this is now clear. We see in the rampant indebtedness of our country and the European countries what someone has called ‘a gluttonous feast on the flesh of the future.’ We see the infantilization of publics that become inert and passive, waiting for the state to take care of them.“
So no, cûlt-girl, the mere words of the text are not all that matters, no matter how strongly you believe.
Curios to see if he/she/it responds further.
UPDATE: Yup:
Lisbeth Salandar wrote:
Religions are all cults by design definition- Just large ones. INFACT that’s what a religion is technically- when a cult gets too big to contain by authorities it gets relabeled as a religion- Pickup a dictionary or look at how any religion forms. What is it that you think these organizations provide to make such huge dividends? Needless fear.
Not to burst your bubble- but this has nothing to do with me you and my perceived ego- it has to do with accuracy and honesty and a blatantly disregarded HUMAN RIGHT.
I could care less what you delude- about your percieved sect of atheism- right there you show yo don’t know what atheism is but at least you figured out part of the truth.
I didn’t have a bad experience with cults- I have to read, participate and basically evangelize about a deity being trusted everyday- understand how that is unconstitutional?
My response:
No, I don’t. We’re discussing Constitutional law as it applies to religion here in the U.S. Your argument is that the government cannot even mention anything religious, but from the founding of the nation we’ve opened sessions of Congress with state-paid clergymen offering prayer to a Big Invisible Friend.
Your argument is invalid. The “original public understanding” of the First Amendment’s defense of freedom of religion is not equal to your conception that it protects a freedom from religion.
You live in a society where a significant majority believe in a god or gods. The First Amendment protects their belief.
So suck it up, buttercup. Grow a thicker skin. If your atheism is so delicate that it cannot withstand evangelization and must be protected from same by government force, then I suggest it isn’t all that solid to begin with.
UPDATE II: The conversation is also going on in the comments to the original question.
UPDATE III: Original comment thread DELETED. Why am I not surprised? Here’s the rest of the exchange:
Lisbeth Salandar wrote:
Government shall make no law respecting any establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof.
That answers what I think.
Endorsement of monotheism on legal tender is without QUESTION UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Why do you think we have a free exercise clause? So cults and non-reasoning illiterates as an ignore it? Surely not.
To which I replied:
And, once again, where do you get your oddly worded version of the First Amendment? I assure you it does not use the word “organization.” The word used is “establishment,” oh great Constitutional Textualist. Do some research on the “Establishment Clause” in Constitutional law.
The premise of your argument is flawed. All other error flows from there.
Her return volley:
Lisbeth Salandar wrote:
There fixed it. Thanks- but you are dead wrong about the rest.
Monotheism establishes a singular God. Be honest would you- that is establishing MONOTHEISM excluding all else; hence a direct violation brainiac.
Monotheism is established as being only one God worshipping. That isn’t religious establishment to you? It is to everyone who doesn’t have schizophrenia and even a smidgen of science literacy.
And the reply that, I think, caused her to delete her initial comment:
So we’ve established that you, self-proclaimed Constitutional Textualist, cannot accurately quote the particular Constitutional clause you’re basing your position on, that you accuse ME of being a “history oblivious fool,” (though you’ve now deleted said comment), you accused me of belonging to a cult – sorry, “cûlt,” for not agreeing with you, and now you’re banging your MONOTHEISM! gong.
But we were discussing LAW. As I pointed out, what the law meant when it was adopted is what the law means NOW, unless and until that law is CHANGED through legislation – NOT by the proclamation of some robed priest sitting at the judicial bench handing down Truth.
Is “In God We Trust” unconstitutional? I very much doubt it, given the HISTORICAL FACT that both houses of Congress have government-paid clergy on staff, and have had since the inception of those legislatures. The law DID NOT MEAN WHAT YOU THINK IT MEANS when it was adopted. It doesn’t mean that now. I’m sorry that this historical FACT harshes your mellow, but there it remains.
You want to change that? Lobby and get new legislation passed. Don’t go looking for the solution in the courts.