Denialism

People are inconsistent and crazy

—

by

MarkH
in

So the alties hate real medicine. They come over here and bemoan modern medicine’s failure to address behavioral changes that affect health, such as diet and exercise.

Then I write a long post about internists’ duties viz public health and health behaviors, and the gun nuts think I want to disarm them and PRY TEH WEAPON OF GUNZ OUT OF OUR COLD DED HANDZ!!111!222!!!11!

I think of my writing as “reality-based”. I have opinions, and where my opinions intersect with real-world activities, I try to back up my opinions with facts. I don’t (usually) resort to wishful thinking, religion, conspiracy theories, or any deus ex machina to support my assertions.

Am I ever wrong? Frequently—but I think I’m more often right, and I’ve got the facts to prove it. I love the back-and-forth that blogs allow, and dissenting ideas help hone my arguments (and occasionally change my mind).

One pattern I’ve noticed seems to apply to everyone around here—scientists, alties, liberals, conservatives—if I touch on someone’s pet issue, all rationality goes out the window. If a commenter is too emotionally invested in an opinion, well, they’re right and I’m wrong, evidence be damned.

I presume that I’m just as susceptible as anyone to this, which is why I value dissenting comments so much—they keep me honest.

But please people, keep that mind open just enough to consider dissenting ideas (but not enough to let your brains fall out). If you just don’t buy it, fine, but c’mon, at least be introspective.

/rant

Comments

  1. LanceR

    Wow. Sure is quiet in here. <grin>

    Reply
  2. Brian X

    A lot of alties are libertarians. A lot of gun hardliners are libertarians. You probably got the middle of the Venn diagram.

    Reply
  3. wazza

    personally, I find that the facts tend to support my positions in any case…

    😛

    Reply
  4. lukkystarr

    Really, the only evidence that is damned is that which doesn’t fit the ‘truth’ as they see it. There were many people went to their graves believing the sun went round the earth for years after it was proved otherwise.

    Reply
  5. I am so wise

    “wishful thinking, religion, conspiracy theories, or any deus ex machina to support my assertions.”

    You know some conspiracies are true. Palmer and Thornhill’s Natural History of Rape discusses some of them.

    Reply
  6. Mike

    The information provided about the APC showed that the organization advocates for an assault rifle ban. This can only be done by fining or jailing people who exercise their Constitutionally guaranteed rights to keep and bear arms. It is disingenuous on your part to claim that the “gun nuts” are pretending that you want to take their guns. The APC is clear that they do in fact want to take guns away from people.

    You also make the claim that you are not emotionally vested in this and that you are reality based. That is clearly not true by the way you felt the need to mock people you disagree with by writing the following: “PRY TEH WEAPON OF GUNZ OUT OF OUR COLD DED HANDZ!!111!222!!!11!”

    If you really were taking a reality based approach and a non emotionally vested approach you would neither pretend that the APC does not want to take guns away from people nor would you pretend that anyone who disagrees with you about the rights to keep and bear arms is some kind of deranged nut?

    Reply
  7. lukkystarr

    Mike, he never said he takes a reality based approach, or was unemotional. If you read the post carefully, he admits several times he fails on both counts. The point of the whole post is the fact that he understands the possibility for error, and that others refuse to and get pissed when they are called on it.

    Reply
  8. Rogi

    Except that there already are limitations on the type of weapons that one can own or carry, so the fact that APC supports ban on assault rifles (that’s it? but I can still have my assault shotgun for hunting and/or warding off intruders with lesser weapons?)is not overly ambitious as far as anti-gun activism goes. And before someone flips out over their constitutionally protected right to own guns, I’m not a gun control advocate (well maybe the insane and felons), and generally don’t think most gun control measures are effective. I don’t care much for owning one, but won’t stand in anyone’s way either.

    Reply
  9. Rogi

    P.S. That’s right, reality based. Mad King George is not coming into anyone’s house to take away their musket.

    Reply
  10. LanceR

    As I was saying in the other thread, everyone agrees that we need some form of gun control. Reasonable people can come to reasonable compromises about where to draw that line.

    And I say that as one who supports gun rights. (Rural Nebraska born and bred, donchano!)

    Reply
  11. Rogi

    Support your local mad scientist’s constitutional right to build doomsday devices 🙂

    Reply
  12. Kagehi

    Last I checked, prying 50 rounds out of a deer is a tad more problematic than one round, its too easy to hit other things if you fire that many, target dummies are not like a *huge* threat which requires that much fire power, and cops might get a tad annoyed if you machine gunned down visitors, or used a sniper rifle to take out the mail man, because you thought he planned to rob you house. Someone explain to me what the fracking point is, other than telling everyone, “I gots me a big gun this time, ain’t it neat!”, of even owning an assault weapon? And for that matter, why owning a working one, that isn’t kept some place safe, like a shooting range or a locked cabinet, is so critical?

    Oh, right, the whole, “Violent overthrow of unjust governments.”, BS. Well, hate to break it too you, but the average theocratic loony, like the people in the group Joel’s Army, tend to own 5-10 times the number you do, and are *probably* with the current trend in both politics and military conversion/preaching to hard line religion, the ones who have the highest odds of getting tanks, bombers, grenades and even bigger assault weapons if things go that way. So, again, just in terms of basic common sense, what is the point of having the damn things in the first place, especially given that the *only* real use they end up getting is either a) target practice, or b) as a deadly threat to police during some recent bank robberies?

    Just saying…

    Reply
  13. HCN

    In our area we recently have had two very tragic incidents dealing with guns.

    One of which is a failure of training and state guidelines, that is causing a great deal of grief in two families (including a pair of teenagers who will probably never fully recover):
    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008157579_huntingdeath04m.html

    And then there is the failure of mental health services that left six people dead yesterday:
    http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/377671_mental04.html

    Reply
  14. Lance

    I think PalMD has shown that he is introspective about his own emotional biases. This is a laudable quality all too infrequently exhibited by bloggers, and humans in general.

    To my “R” variant,

    As I have said I have never owned a gun. I cringe at the idea of shooting an animal, although since I am a meat eater I don’t hypocritically condemn those that do hunt.

    I also live in a very safe area and feel no current need to own a gun for self protection.

    Still, both of these issues are completely irrelevant to the intentions of the framers in crafting the 2nd amendment. They wanted to ensure a well armed populace that held military style weapons.

    If you think that is a stupid or antiquated idea the constitution provides a clear remedy, the amendment process.

    Reply
  15. Lance

    Kagehi,

    “Oh, right, the whole, “Violent overthrow of unjust governments.”, BS.”

    Well you see the guys that wrote the 2nd amendment had just overthrown an unjust government which rather undercuts your argument.

    As I said to LanceR, if you think that is a stupid or antiquated idea then you should pursue the amendment process.

    Reply
  16. Ren

    It’s what happens when you go pushing all the buttons with all your fingers, toes, and even your nose. We react. We opine. We’re human.

    Reply
  17. Evinfuilt

    OMG!!! You didn’t talk about Nuclear power… my pet issue. Now I’m angry… grrrrr

    Support your local mad scientist’s constitutional right to build doomsday devices 🙂

    Always, where would our world be without a few mad scientists. It would be boring.
    —–
    I’m just very happy you’re writing on this blog and you give very valuable input.

    Reply
  18. Igor

    I was just joking (Futurama anyone?) instead of trying to make any salient point (why only nuclear power, haven’t you heard of the recent Hadron Collider idiocy)?. Too bad real life mad scientists are nowhere nearly as entertaining as cartoon or cinema ones.

    Reply
  19. arby

    2!? My goodness. rb

    Reply
  20. The Chemist

    Maybe it’s that when we disagree with your pet issue, your rationality goes out the window.

    Did I just blow your mind?[/tongue in cheek]

    Seriously though, you want rationality? On the Internet?

    Good luck.

    Reply
  21. Luna_the_cat

    “I am so wise”:
    You know some conspiracies are true. Palmer and Thornhill’s Natural History of Rape discusses some of them.

    Ah yes, one of the most jaw-droppingly amazing examples of dishonest pop science ever. I have used it as an example in a couple of tutorials.

    I do mean “deliberately dishonest”, by the way. For example, in the first chapter they bring up the extremely pertinent question “What relevance does scorpionfly behavior have to human behavior?” Then they spend the next two pages obfuscating the fact that they do not actually answer this question, by ranting about the naturalistic fallacy and the “feminist conspiracy” which apparently wants to silence them. Would have been better if they had just found some way to answer the question of relevance. This pretty much sets the tone of the book, though.

    For a worse example of deliberate (and yet wonderfully hard to track) dishonesty, Thornhill bases his assertion that it’s all a reproductive thing in part on the “evidence” that rape affects reproductive age women more severely than non-reproductive age women. The problem appears when you start tracking that back through his bibliography. He does not include any actual data in the book; just a reference to any earlier paper of his. Find that paper, and once again, there is no data, just a reference to any earlier paper of his. Find that paper, and once again, there is no data, just a reference to an earlier paper. Track that down, and repeat. This goes through about 6 papers, and finally you start getting, not the data, but at least a reference to the original paper; at which point you find that the original paper was a survey done by a grad student of 27 women, which in fact found the exact opposite, that non-reproductive aged victims of rape were equally as traumatised as reproductive aged victims. Turns out that about three removes from the original paper, Thornhill managed to reverse that conclusion by “cleaning up” the surveys and running them through “computational filters” — although the detail of what exactly he did and why is not elaborated anywhere.

    The book itself was a wonderful example of crank science, with facts turned, mangled, and squeezed in interesting rhetorical ways in order to support a dubious pre-determined conclusion.

    Maybe one of the Hoofnagles could do a blog post on it, sometime if they are bored….

    Reply
  22. Dunc

    Well you see the guys that wrote the 2nd amendment had just overthrown an unjust government which rather undercuts your argument.

    Yeah, but not an unjust government equipped with cruise missiles, a modern airforce, rapid communications, satellite imagery, and freakin’ tactical and strategic nuclear weapons.

    On the whole “overthrow of unjust governments” question, I always want to know three things:

    1. Just how many federal agents do you have to kill before they realise you’re only a True American Patriot Defending His Constitutional Liberties, rather than just some crazy terrorist?
    2. Is that before or after they escalate to the use of tactical nuclear weapons?
    3. Do you really imagine that they’re going to be more accommodating as a result?

    Also, it seems to me that if you really are concerned about the possibility of overthrowing an unjust government, you just might want to try and restrain that government from spending more on its military than the rest of the world put together. Yet the people most attached to this idea are often among the most vocal proponents of US military might…

    Could it be that the whole NRA anti-gun-control line is actually less to do with domestic US politics, and more to do with protecting US arms manufacturers from effective controls on international arms dealing? That whole UN-black-helicopters-coming-to-take-your-guns thing is a response to attempts to regulate the international trade in small arms – attempts which would have no impact whatsoever on sales or possession of such items within the US.

    Reply
  23. minimalist

    Yet the people most attached to this idea are often among the most vocal proponents of US military might…

    There’s the irony I’ve frequently noticed. The ones who bellow the most about defending against an unjust government are the ones least likely to recognize a truly unjust government — say, one that engages in a whole lot of unconstitutional, illegal, and just plain appalling activities, including but not limited to: unlimited surveillance; torture; indefinite detention of citizens and non-citizens alike; fudging of evidence to start cockamamie wars; funneling public money to private contractors, the exact amounts nobody can account for; and so on and so on.

    What they don’t understand is that an unjust government, particularly in this day and age, doesn’t need guns to keep its populace down: just a relentless propaganda campaign of fear and paranoia, and most people will fall back into line, and will accept anything as long as someone promises us that it will “keep us safe.”

    Reply
  24. Lance

    Dunc and minimalist,

    I see you boys are exercising your 1st amendment rights in an attempt to delegitimize the 2nd. I have no interest in changing your mind about the utility of the first amendment.

    I do have an interest in maintaining the rights set forth in the Bill of Rights. You boys can kvetch and moan all you like but that doesn’t change the fact that the framers wanted to ensure that citizens had access to military grade weaponry.

    You are free to petition your representatives in congress to introduce an amendment that supersedes the 2nd amendment. And then to have that legislation ratified by the legislature of 33 states.

    Until then the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    Reply
  25. LanceR

    Whether the framers wanted “to ensure that citizens had access to military grade weaponry” or not is debatable. In our system of government we do not take the Constitution as a concrete, monolithic document. We interpret it in light of new information and changing social climate. A modern society cannot tolerate military grade weapons in civilian hands.

    It is not necessary to amend the Constitution to modify the 2nd Amendment. Every right in the Bill of Rights has restrictions.

    1st: Freedom of speech: libel, “fire” in a theater, etc.
    Freedom of press: slander, national security, etc.
    Freedom of religion: human sacrifice, peyote, LSD
    Right to assemble peacefully: Free Speech Zones
    Right to petition for redress of grievances: *chuckle*

    2nd: Right to keep and bear arms: licensing, certain weapons not allowed.

    Do you see the way we (as a society) handle that? Yes, you have a right to free speech, but there are things you cannot say. Do we have to amend the constitution to change that?

    Anyone but a complete lunatic agrees that we need some form of gun control. Reasonable people can come to reasonable restrictions with minimal impacts.

    Reply
  26. minimalist

    an attempt to delegitimize the 2nd

    I’m doing no such thing, doofus. I am pointing out that our other rights (including the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments) are being eroded from beneath our feet, while the 2nd-amendment monomaniacs sit smugly in place, insisting that “everything’s okay, long as I got mah gun!”

    Let’s look at two real-world scenarios, shall we?

    1. Some doofy cult stockpiles weapons, starts acting wacky. Federal agents beat down the gate, seize weapons.

    2. People gather to plan peaceful protests against the RNC. Police beat down doors of the homes where they live, threatening and arresting everyone in “preemptive raids”.

    Which situation has actually drawn the wrath of the “liberty through gunnery” crowd?

    Reply
  27. Lance

    LanceR,

    “We interpret it in light of new information and changing social climate.”

    You cannot “interpret” away the fact that the framers intended the 2nd amendment to put military style weapons in the hands of “the people”.

    As I said feel free to change the constitution by legal means, but it is a very dangerous business to pretend that the constitution is a “living document” that can be tortured to mean whatever one chooses based on his or her political proclivities.

    “A modern society cannot tolerate military grade weapons in civilian hands.”

    Says who, you?

    I have never owned a gun but I have a neighbor that owns several fully automatic weapons including an Uzi and an M-16 A2. Our neighborhood seems to be “tolerating” his ownership of these “military grade weapons” just fine thank you.

    As I said just get your congressional representative to agree with you and then sponsor an amendment to the constitution, get it passed by a two thirds majority in both houses and then ratified by 33 states and then I’ll have to agree with you.

    Until then you are just blowing hot air. Which is of course your right, unless maybe you can get them to change the first amendment as well.

    Reply
  28. Michael Paul Goldenberg

    Well, this is a subject I generally ignore because, like abortion, it’s rather difficult for people to see any sorts of subtleties.

    It’s even harder to get gun advocates to discuss the full 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.”

    Someone please explain to me why, if the Founders simply wanted to say, “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” they added all that stuff about well-regulated Militias first. If you’re going to be a stickler for the original meaning, the original wording, the original intent, or whatever, you pretty much need to account for the whole sentence, not just the part you like.

    So what is that first part about and how does it impact how we think about the second? If it doesn’t have ANY impact, why is it there? Surely those Founders were smart enough to know that their every word was going to be examined carefully over the centuries. Why all that “Militia” stuff? And why a “well-regulated” one, to boot? That doesn’t quite sound like, “Anyone can keep any sort of weapon around the house for use as s/he sees fit” or even just HAVE to look at, does it?

    We could go further. It doesn’t say that the right to USE arms cannot be infringed (e.g., limited), now does it? So maybe you can keep ’em and “bear” them, but you don’t get to use them without a SHITLOAD of infringements. And if you DO use them, or even THREATEN to use them, you just might be in a world o’ trouble.

    Further, that word “arms” is troubling. What, exactly, did the founders mean by “arms”? I’m not going to get cute and suggest that they meant physical human arms, as clearly the connection to “a well-regulated Militia” suggests otherwise. But did they really mean assault rifles, bazookas, armor-piercing bullets, tanks, anti-personnel rockets, or atomic-bombs-in-a-box? I think not. I think they would in fact be appalled at the notion of the average joe sitting around the house guzzling a six-pack with a loaded Uzi in the house where he, his wife, his kids, his 87-y.o. semi-blind and mostly senile dad, and the neighborhood cat-burglar could readily get hold of it and do more than “bear” it.

    But that’s perhaps just me. Maybe those crazy old Constitution coots were envisioning even then the most amazing 21st century weaponry and saying, “Why the fudge NOT have one of THOSE babies in every man’s castle?”

    Sure they did. And maybe I’m a Chinese jet pilot.

    Reply
  29. Brian X

    It is worth pointing out (in regards to the second amendment) that freedom to travel does not equal freedom to drive without a license. You can also walk or take a bus.

    Reply
  30. Lance

    My apologies minimalist,

    I assumed that since you were agreeing with LanceR’s conspiratorial remarks about the NRA that you agreed with his “interpretation” of the 2nd amendment.

    Let’s look at two real-world scenarios, shall we?

    1. Some doofy cult stockpiles weapons, starts acting wacky. Federal agents beat down the gate, seize weapons.

    2. People gather to plan peaceful protests against the RNC. Police beat down doors of the homes where they live, threatening and arresting everyone in “preemptive raids”.

    Well, I assume the first is a reference to the Branch Davidians incident in Wako. I think the BATF grossly mishandled that mess.

    As to the second, I have heard nothing like what you are describing. Do you have a link to information supporting your allegations?

    I would be appalled and angered if they were true. My interest isn’t in guns but in preserving the rights protected by the US constitution.

    Because what LanceR doesn’t seem to understand is that if the rights “enumerated” to the “people” by the 2nd amendment can be “interpreted” away so can the rights protected by the rest of the constitution.

    By the way, the word “doofus” refers to a stupid or foolish person. I am neither. If you expect a reply to your remarks you won’t call me names again.

    Reply
  31. LanceR

    Lance, you really need to learn to read. I have no “conspiracy theories” about the NRA. The constitution *is* a living document. That is it’s strength. You’ll learn about that in high school when you take Civics.

    Reread what I’ve actually said, then take a deep breath and argue with me, not what you think I’ve said.

    Reply
  32. Lance

    Michael Paul Goldenberg,

    “Well, this is a subject I generally ignore because, like abortion, it’s rather difficult for people to see any sorts of subtleties.”

    Indeed, that is why I ignored most of the posts that were headed in this direction.

    If you are really interested in what the framers meant by the words “A well regulated militia…” it is quite easy to find out. However, I wonder if that really is your intention.

    The definition of the word “militia” can be found in the US code

    US Code title 10
    Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

    (b) The classes of the militia are?

    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

    So much for that part applying only to members of the military.

    The words “well regulated” in the vernacular of the period, in reference to militias, simply meant well equipped and organized. It did not refer to the more modern usage of the words “regulation” such as government regulations.

    But all of this is immaterial because this phrase is subordinate and introductory to the second clause “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

    You and I can banter this back and forth if you like but the recent supreme court decision agrees with my “interpretation”.

    Now as far as Bazookas are concerned the revolutionary war equivalent was a cannon and certainly private individuals hauled some of those home after the war.

    I occasionally drive across US 32 here in central Indiana and their is a home with several tracked military vehicles parked outside, including what looks to be an old M60 Patton tank.

    No doubt this will haunt the nightmares of LanceR. I however will loose little sleep over it.

    Reply
  33. Lance

    LanceR,

    You start your latest post with this remark,

    “Lance, you really need to learn to read.” and then simply reassert the points that I have already rebutted.

    Do you have any substantive replies to my remarks; you know ones actually backed up with facts?

    If not, keep your petty insults to yourself.

    Reply
  34. clamboy

    Lance, you asked about what happened in Minneapolis prior to the RNC. Check out http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/30/police_raids/. There’s a lot more information out there, too. Greenwald may have some bias, but there was a clear pattern of “preemptive” raids the weekend before the convention, against demonstrably non-violent groups, with what appears to have been the clear intent of stifling dissent and quashing 1st amendment rights.

    Reply
  35. Lance

    clamboy,

    Thanks for the link. If Greenwald’s story can be corroborated there should be a federal investigation of the police organizations involved.

    This is exactly the kind of behavior that the framers intended the 2nd amendment, as a last resort, to deter.

    I am confident that the other checks and balances put in place by the US constitution will be sufficient and it won’t take armed insurrection to remedy the situation.

    As I have said I don’t own a gun, but I would be prepared to oppose, by force if necessary, any attempt to usurp the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution, for if the government denies the people the right of peaceful assembly, protest and petition what remains as a valid recourse, happy thoughts?

    Reply
  36. Michael Paul Goldenberg

    Lance,

    I’m content for you to keep all the cannon you like in or around your house.

    I note with interest your comment about “only members of the military,” as I don’t recall raising that point. Just wanted to hear the spin. Appreciate the effort, though I wonder if more neutral parties with expertise in the language of the period would concur with the convenient interpretations that just happen to match the gun lobbyists’ wettest dreams.

    Then again, there’s that business about the militia being necessary to the security of a free state. Don’t see quite where it’s necessary to the security of each individual householder to have an arsenal. But I’m such a wuss.

    Reply
  37. LanceR

    Five seconds with The Google brings up a myriad of pages referencing the Constitution as a Living Document. It is interesting that the only time people want a “literalist” reading of the Constitution is when guns or abortion are involved. Any other time, they are willing to fudge and interpret to limit free speech (especially unpopular speech) and enhance government power in the name of “The War On Terror” (BUM BUM BUUUUUM)

    Even Justice Scalia, one of the premier legal minds promoting a strict constructionist view of the Constitution, finds wiggle room when it is his pet peeves under scrutiny.

    I would suggest a reading of the Anti-Federalist papers, and a review of Marbury v Madison. The founding fathers intended the Constitution to be a general framework, not a laundry list.

    Oh, and…

    “Lance, you really need to learn to read.” and then simply reassert the points that I have already baldly asserted to be false.

    Fixed that for ya.

    Reply
  38. Michael Paul Goldenberg

    Nice suggestion about reading the Anti-Federalist papers, LanceR. I’d also recommend THE PRESENCE OF THE PAST, POLITICS & VISION, and DEMOCRACY, INC., all by Sheldon S. Wolin. The first is an amazing book of essays on “the State and the Constitution” that should be required reading.

    Reply
  39. Lance

    LanceR,

    I have read the federalist papers. I have not memorized all 85 but I am sure that the words “living document” are not a major point in any of them. I am not a strict “literalist” but you cannot, in good faith, “interpret” the second amendment to mean the opposite of what it says. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    Well, not with out a completely dishonest appeal to sophistry to make the document comport with your personal politics.

    You are playing a very dangerous game. What is your objection to playing by the rules and amending the document if you think it is a bad idea for citizens to posess weapons?

    Could it be that you know that you cannot hope to convince the congress to pass your amendment by a two thirds majority and that you cannot hope to have the legislatures of 37 states ratify your amendment?

    If that is the case then perhaps your views are not the will of the people and you should just accept that the Bill of Rights means what it says and stop hoping that you can make an “end around” by means of a ruling by the Supreme Court based on an “interpretation” that is contrary to the actual words, and intention, of the document.

    Reply
  40. Lance

    Michael Paul Goldenberg,

    I don’t need a cannon thank you and as I have said I have never owned any fire arm, but I can read (despite what LanceR said in an earlier insulting post). And it is clear that the 2nd amendment grants an individual right to own and keep fire arms. The recent Supreme Court ruling on the subject agrees with what my reading comprehension skills tell me.

    I don’t want to assume your intentions but I will note that people that appeal to the “interpretation” angle seem to ignore the more direct amendment route.

    If you are so sure that individual fire arm ownership is a bad idea just get your congressional representative to introduce an amendment and get the second amendment changed.

    Wouldn’t that be a more honest and straightforward approach than trying to morph the Bill of Rights into submission?

    Can you not see the profound danger in breaching the integrity of the constitution? Because if you can claim that the second amendment doesn’t really mean what it says what is protecting the rest of the constitution from being “re-interpreted” for reasons of political whim?

    Reply
  41. LanceR

    Okay, short simple words:

    The Constitutional rights guaranteed to us in the Bill of Rights are *NOT* absolutes. Every single one has restrictions and limits. What part of that do you not understand? Why no quarrel with slander limitations on free speech? Why no quarrel with “sneak and peek” search and seizure? Why no problem with any of the other limitations? Because gun freaks like yourself get a woody whenever guns come out. Only when guns or abortion are the topic do you want a literal reading of the Constitution.

    Reading for comprehension: You’re doing it wrong. The Federalist Papers are one thing. I suggest that you read the Anti-Federalist Papers. Look it up. Google is your friend.

    On a more basic level, this is exactly what I mean about reasonable people. Lance appears to be arguing that there should be *no* restrictions on personal ownership of weapons. How about it, Lance? Where is the outer limit? Nukes? VX gas? No reasonable person would agree that there should be no limits whatsoever.

    Congratulations, you can read. Now learn to read for comprehension.

    Reply
  42. Lance

    LanceR,

    “Because gun freaks like yourself get a woody whenever guns come out. Only when guns or abortion are the topic do you want a literal reading of the Constitution.”

    Yeah, I’m such a “gun freak” that I have never owned one. I have said this repeatedly and ironically you criticize my reading comprehension. Also I find the words “literal reading of the constitution” to be curious. What other reading is there?

    The constitution isn’t The Book of Revelations. It was written in clear English for the expressed purpose of being read as the law of the United States. It requires no fanciful gyrations to “interpret” its imagery or subtext.

    As new situations arise that were not anticipated by the framers it can be a matter of opinion as to how it can or cannot be applied. This doesn’t mean that you can arbitrarily assign a completely different meaning to its words that are contrary to its original and clearly stated purpose.

    Also I have never made any comments on this or any other blog about abortion, so stop arguing with the straw men in your head and try to actually address my arguments.

    I find your reference to the Anti-Federalists papers curious. This anonymous collection of essays is partly what inspired the Bill of Rights including the second amendment. The basic sentiment of most of these writings is that the formation of a federal government will limit the individual rights that are assumed to be self evident and cannot be granted by governments.

    To invoke this collection as a defense of strong federal control of fire arms is curious indeed.

    As for restrictions on fire arms why is it that opponents of the first amendment drag nuclear weapons and VX gas into the discussion? Are you really worried that your neighbor will build or purchase a nuclear warhead or stockpile canisters of nerve gas?

    It is rather obvious that rights have limits. Those limits are reached when they impinge on the rights of others. You mention liable laws as a restriction on the first amendments guarantee of free speech. For a statement to be deemed libelous it must be demonstrated that the statement has caused harm to the party claiming injury.

    If I own a bazooka how exactly are you or anyone else injured by my mere ownership of this weapon? Nuclear weapons have an inherent risk of unintended consequences from there mere existence as does VX gas. Also neither is particularly useful to a “well regulated militia” so they are red herrings you dragged into the conversation as an absurd distraction.

    I notice you have assiduously avoided answering my question as to why, if you are so certain that ownership of “military grade weaponry” is a bad idea, you don’t just amend the constitution so that they are clearly illegal? Surely if it is so patently obvious you can get an amendment to the constitution that will remedy the issue.

    Wouldn’t this be preferable to trying to twist the words of the constitution to fit your politics? Or is it that you wish to impose your will on others by circumventing the document that lays out the rules that underpin our system of governance?

    Reply
  43. LanceR

    So, can we agree that there *is* an outer limit to what “military grade” weapons a private citizen may possess? No nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction? See, reasonable people *can* come to reasonable compromises.

    The assertion that “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.” means that private citizens should have access to all weapons is just that: an assertion. It is one interpretation of what is a fairly vague statement once it enters the real world. What, exactly, are “Arms”? What did the founding fathers think of as “Arms”? What do we, today, consider “Arms”? What, exactly, does it mean to “Keep and Bear” them?

    Unfortunately for Lance and most of the NRA, the overwhelming majority of the people feel that there should be some reasonable restrictions to our rights. Otherwise politicians who created such restrictions would quickly be replaced with ones who would remove them. Demanding that the right to “Keep and Bear Arms” should somehow be more important than “the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble” is ludicrous.

    This entire post began with a discussion of why doctors ask about gun ownership in screening. Studies have shown that there are “an inherent risk of unintended consequences” from having a gun in the house, and that a doctor talking to the patient about gun safety can decrease those risks. Reasonable people can come to reasonable compromises on these topics, unless they are drowned out by fanatics (on either end) screaming about “GUNZ R BAD” or “YU WANNA TAKEZ MY GUNZ!” There are reasonable reasons to have private gun ownership. As I have stated before, I support gun rights. There are also reasonable restrictions that should be placed on gun ownership, primarily of the “demonstrated responsibility” sort.

    See “Happy Medium” and “Middle Ground” and, oh heck, “Compromise”.

    Reply
  44. Lance

    Certainly some restrictions on weapons are reasonable and consistent with the second amendment, such as preventing felons and people with mental illness from acquiring guns.

    Many are not, such as “assault weapons” bans. Besides being totally useless since “assault rifles” are just scary looking rifles and are used in only a tiny fraction of crimes, these laws are in direct opposition to the intent of the 2nd amendment, which was to ensure a well armed “militia”.

    LanceR I agree that there are extremists on both sides, however acknowledging the true purpose of the second amendment does not make one an extremist, just honest.

    Reply
  45. LanceR

    Certainly some restrictions on weapons are reasonable and consistent with the second amendment, such as preventing felons and people with mental illness from acquiring guns.

    See, that wasn’t so hard, was it? That was all that I was saying.

    “Assault weapon” bans are one of those gray areas where reasonable people can disagree. I can see an argument for restricting the number of bullets one person can throw downrange before reloading. If I’ve only got 5 shots, I will make sure of my target. If I’ve got 30, I may dump 10 or 15 in the general direction of my target, just to see if they react. Of course, many of these laws talk about “scary looking rifles” which is, you’re correct, useless.

    Simply asserting that the 2nd amendment says what you think it does doesn’t prove anything either way. My whole point has been that ALL the amendments have restrictions built into them. Yes, we have a right to Keep and Bear Arms. What does that mean? *That* is the discussion we need to have.

    Reply
  46. Lance

    LanceR,

    “Yes, we have a right to Keep and Bear Arms. What does that mean? *That* is the discussion we need to have.”

    What you or I think it should mean is not germane. The constitution is not a word game where we try to make the words fit our preferences. The framers had just fought an armed insurrection against the greatest military superpower on earth, the British, and won using a citizen army. Perhaps you have noticed it is called the “Revolutionary” War. This fact is not in dispute.

    Now why do you think they put the second amendment right behind the first amendment which outlines what rights and protections “the people” will have in regard to speech, assembly, petition, and religion? Do you suppose that they just willy-nilly decided to put some vague statement about guns as the second statement in the Bill of Rights?

    Seriously it doesn’t take much research to find out that the 2nd amendment was meant as a safeguard against a tyrannical government. Do you suppose it was put there to facilitate duck hunting or home defense? If so I challenge you to find statements supporting that view point, especially since the introductory clause of the 2nd amendment specifically mentions the importance of a “militia” to a “free state”.

    As I have said I am not a gun owner so I’m not worried about the “guvmint takin’ my gunz”. I am however very interested in the integrity of the US constitution. If we start twisting the words to mean what we would like them to mean it protects none of the rights it was designed to protect.

    Besides, as I have repeatedly stated, and you have repeatedly ignored, the framers included clear instructions on how to change the constitution if what it actually says is no longer meaningful or appropriate.

    Don’t like what it says? Cool amend it. It was most recently done in 1992 with the 27th amendment.
    “No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.”
    The process isn’t easy, and that is by design.

    Reply
  47. LanceR

    Okay, Lance. Let me put this simply.

    I have no problem with the Second Amendment. It works just fine. You believe that it means, and I quote you:

    the framers wanted to ensure that citizens had access to military grade weaponry.

    I, and most of the country, disagree with that interpretation. My only point has been that reasonable people can come to reasonable solutions. Your earliest position was that *any* restrictions were illegal. You later modified that to “Certainly some restrictions on weapons are reasonable and consistent with the second amendment”, which is all I/we were saying.

    The problem arises when people start talking to/about the arguments they *think* other people are making, and not the arguments actually before them.

    On a side note, am I arguing with two different “Lance” posters? I’m “LanceR”, but the “Lance” arguments seem to waver between reasonable discussion and rabid demagoguery. I’m getting a little confused.

    Reply
  48. Lance

    I have never said that the 2nd amendment prohibits “any” restrictions on firearm ownership. You continue to distort my position and hurl invective rather than answer my points.

    You seem to think the constitution is just a random assemblage of words that can be interpreted to mean whatever you and “most of the country” (whatever that means) want it to mean.

    Do you think you can just ignore the meaning of the words of the second amendment? Do you think you can ignore the intent of the framers?

    Please answer my earlier question, why do you think the 2nd amendment was NOT intended to place military grade weapons in the hands of citizens since it explicitly states it in the introductory phrase, in reference to a militia, and then affirms the “right of the people” in the main phrase?

    You also keep ignoring that the Supreme Court, in Columbia v. Heller, recently agreed with this “interpretation” and went further in affirming that the “militia” clause did not restrict fire arms to only members of a militia, but that the “right of the people” meant what it says “the people” have a right to posses fire arms.

    That the 2nd amendment also explicitly mentions the militia certainly means that they wanted citizens to possess military weapons. Any other “interpretation” requires twisted leaps of logic, outright dishonesty or ignorance of the intent of the framers.

    Also you keep ignoring the fact that the framers gave people that didn’t like what the constitution says a way to amend it. If you don’t like what it says change it! But stop trying to pretend that it doesn’t say what it clearly does say.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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