America's Great Gun Game--a new book on gun control

[Ieyasu]

jaholder1971 writes: "I'm late on this topic, but here it goes: 1. The author should read the U.S. Constitution and make an attempt to understand what was written, not what those with an agenda want you to believe, including established case law."

*SIGH*

Boy it sure is hard to stay on the HighRoad. Do you know how dumb it sounds to be saying to someone, "Ah forget established case law, it has an agenda"? Well maybe it does, but what you wrote is just an uncited opinion and without back-up, makes you sound stupid. You just conceded a whole line of argument when in fact, if you'd been paying attention, or knew what the professor was claiming, or understood the case law yourself, that the professor incorrectly cited Second Amendment jurisprudence. Thus, it isn't even necessary to be engaging in a debate, yet, as to whether the Second Amendment protects an indvidual right. The professor has mis-cited or misinterpreted 2A caselaw. Stick THAT to him first. (I doubt he'll respond with anything but the fallacy of appeal to authority, rather than reading the case law and providing his own analysis.)

 

[average_shooter]

Earl writes that after 33 years of research he supports firearm "Registration" and yet he does not support Registration of, FBI background check, classroom training, fingerprinting/mug shot, firearm proficiency testing for those who legally carry concealed weapons and comply with all of the above (not to mention paying a small fee for the above)

Ummm... Define small...

I payed $100.00 for the class (the cheapest I could find), $100.00 for the application and processing fee, $20.00 for the ammo I used for the range qualification, $10.00 range fee, gas money getting to and from the class and the range for the proficiency test.

All totaled I spent about $250.00 to get permission to exercise my right.

This does not include the price of the firearm, defense ammunition ($0.75 - $1.00 per round), and other equipment necessary for effective and safe concealed carry.

 

[WSM MAGNUM]

Here is a list of things that could be done to reduce illegal trafficking (each of these points is amplified by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.)

1. develop a gun tracing database.
2. combine data from different jurisdictions
3. supplement databases with information from police investigations
4. undercover stings of gun dealers
5. increase oversight and inspection of gun deals
7. reduce illegal gun carrying
8. personalize guns
9. encourage use of BATEF's and NIBIM system
10. require gun manufactuers to micro-stamp their guns

Mr. McDowell, I would like to point out one thing that I know will not work. In number 1 and number 9 above where you state developing a gun tracing system and NIBIM system. We have this in the state of Maryland. It has wasted millions of dollars of taxpayers money and there was only ten cases where they have traced a gun used in a crime. Here is a link to it.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/bg/bg160/

 

[Ieyasu]

From Earl's own post:

Several mentioned that gun control would lead to confication. This is ridiculous. Can you imagine the U.S. government coming to your homes and taking your guns at gun point?

Nice strawman. Not necessarily confiscation, but gun bans.

AND he also posts:

Dr. Catherine Christoffel, a Chicago pediatrician and spokeswomen for the fifty thousand members of the American Academy of Pediatrics, told the American Medical Association: "Guns are a virus that must be eradicated."

Earl also writes:

I am proud to be associated with Citizens for a Safer Minnesota.

The group supports legislation that "target gun manufacturers."

That group also supports "assault weapon" bans. See: http://www.endgunviolence.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={0D44C5F1-C425-4ACA-B209-0D51F4F97474}

So once we have registration, any state banning the ugly guns would know where to pick them up. And even if the state fails to do that, if one uses such a gun in self-defense they will face prosecution, plus one would no longer be allowed to use such guns at a target range. The same goes for handgun bans as well.

The professor's book clearly offers nothing new or original and he is clearly exposed as a partisan in this battle.

This post is edited to add:

To WSM MAGNUM (and all, actually) John Hopkins "research" is sponsored in large part by the Joyce Foundation

 

[Gator]

Ieyasu,

I went back a page and read your excellent post, with which I agree wholeheartedly. But I don't understand why you say that the anti-freedom crowd does not use the argument that the Second Amendment is not an individual right.

Gator, aka Hideyoshi

 

[Ieyasu]

Hi Gator (or is that Hideyoshi? ),

Thanks for going back and reading my post.

You're right, the anti's do indeed claim the 2A is not an individual right, but I don't believe I have come across any anti-scholarship claiming that the 2A "permitted the states to form militias."

As most of us hopefully know, the 2A did not grant any new powers or rights to the feds, the states, or the people.

An anti could claim that the 2A secured to the states the right to maintain their militias. You might think that's splitting hairs, but it's actually quite an egregious error for an "expert" in the field to claim the 2A permitted the states to form militias.

Anyways, Earl has shown that he is just another typical anti, without any new or original ideas. And is actually quite intellectually dishonest, whether intentional or otherwise. Even though I am quite a partisan in this debate, I am far more capable of representing both sides, and I don't have a PhD.

By the way, the professor's line of argument is so hackneyed that one can read a decent refutation of it here: http://guncite.com/gun_control_misrep.html

 

[Ieyasu]

Danus ex writes:

If you're interested in this debate, as I know THR readers are, and you wish to learn the "other side's" arguments in greater detail, I recommend you pick up this book, read it critically, and discuss it here or elsewhere

Danus ex. Can you think for yourself? I throw the gauntlet at your feet. Are you interested in this debate? Can you think critically?

You accused some of us of:

passionate whining and misinformed arguments.

Let's take one item at a time...

From my post #171 http://thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=3660562&postcount=171

Can you defend the professor's misrepresentation or mis-interpretation of Cruikshank?

Ready to engage?

 

[Im283]

Alright, after 8 pages of posts, and I do not know how much time spent reading these posts, I can only wonder one thing.

Earl? What is the benefit of gun registration?

Did I miss something here? I see no explanation for us to register guns. You want to do this and all but what is the bottom line benefit?

 

[Ieyasu]

Wow, I've been wasting my time.

Guys and gals, here's what the book has to say about the Second Amendment: http://www.iuniverse.com/lookinside/LookInside.jsp?isbn=0595430325&page=22

It is staggering.

I've condensed the following quote: "Deborah Homsher concludes that the Second Amendment was '...composed more than 200 years ago by men who lived in a different world... the right... had not been intended to include servants, slaves, vagabonds, or females.' "

When one views this quote in its full context on that page, you'll see how staggeringly shallow and misleading is the book's treatment of the Second Amendment. Again, this is regardless of whether one believes the 2A protects an individual right.

And please, I'm not criticizing the book's treatment of the 2A because it is brief. It is shallow and uses cheap rhetorical devices.

I assume I don't need to explain to most THR posters how dumb the above quote is. Either the professor is inexplicably dumb or merely being devious.

However, not leaving everything entirely to chance, for the poor professor, of course the 2A didn't apply to slaves. Neither did the First Amendment. The term "people" has been expanded just a tad since then. Good grief.

Danus ex wrote:

I present this here to expose THR readers to a well-researched and thought-out argument for gun control

Danus ex, did you really read his book? His arguments are very far from thought-out unless you meant thought-out as in terms of how to decieve naive readers.

The more I read of the dear professor's work, the more ticked I get.

Danus ex, I'm sure you're just thinking I don't like this stuff because he's an anti, but if you're thinking that, you're as shallow as the author's treatment of the 2A is. If you ever meaningfully respond to any of my posts, I'll be happy to provide links to what I think are intelligent, well thought-out articles written by antis.

 

[Ieyasu]

I've got it figured out.

The professor will take 3 or 4 of the worst posts from this thread, or quote decent posts out of context, and use them as examples of why one can't debate with the "gun lobby."

See page 7: http://www.iuniverse.com/lookinside/LookInside.jsp?isbn=0595430325&page=19

Cheap, cheap, cheap...

 

[Ieyasu]

Danus ex writes:

I also wish to distinguish people who are anti-gun from people who are pro-gun control. For example, McDowell supports licensing and registration of all firearms, but does not want to take them all away from us.

McDowell admittedly belongs to an anti-gun organization (and in his book supports "assault weapons" bans).

(Are you a member also?)

 

[JamesM]

Why isn’t there a CV or a list of publications posted on his faculty page? Anybody can write a book. I am interested in what Dr. McDowell has published in PEER REVIEWED journals. If he or someone else can post references, I will look them up and post for everyone to read. Also, I find it strange that your “specialties” do not mention the any study of the constitution. Also, as an academic, you have a responsibly to respond to ALL of the comments posted that refute the claims made in your book or posts. Part of being an academic is the quest for truth and understanding (even if it is not what you wanted to hear).

http://writingstudies.umn.edu/people/facExp.php?UID=mcdow001

 

[Ieyasu]

Hi JamesM,

If you read the preface of his book, available via the links I've posted previously, he does explain how he got involved in this debate and you'll see he hasn't published any previous works in this area. (I'm not claiming that makes him an "expert" on this subject.)

Although, I don't think it's fair to attack someone on that premise alone. It smacks of attacking the messenger instead of the message. (At least I attack the messenger after I've attacked the message )

"Part of being an academic is the quest for truth and understanding (even if it is not what you wanted to hear)."

I agree with you 1,000%. But, unfortunately truth-seekers are a rare breed in all walks of life.

 

[Stevie-Ray]

Thank you friends, for eloquently refuting the obvious, and expressing our ideals with class, patience, and dignity.

That's all I'll say.

 

[meef]

Hello all.

It is I again, meef.

You have all been sucked into a completely non-productive game of words.

There is nothing whatsoever new or productive in what the alleged Earl McDowell has posted.

It is the same old guns-are-bad-and-life-would-be-ideal-without-them that your common anti-gun proponent espouses on a daily basis.

Seriously, show me one single thing that has been posted here that is new, not rehashed to the point of mind-numbing boredom, and I will gladly give it due consideration. Dr. McDowell - if in fact the poster is who he says he is - does nothing but repeat the same old tired anti-gun rhetoric we've heard over and over for many years. Move along folks - nothing to see here.

I am, however, duly impressed by some of the THR members well considered points and arguments.

But by and large, this whole thread is overly ripe horse apples.

 

[Librarian]

I find myself fascinated by the "Pretest Gun Game Questionnaire”.

It has such … interesting phrasing.

A few examples:

4. Gun makers should be held legally responsible for selling guns to illegal gun dealers.

What’s an “illegal gun dealer”? Current Federal law requires dealers to have Federal Firearms Licenses. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is charged with determining that the holders of those licenses continue to be eligible to hold such a license. No manufacturer should be charged with a crime for selling to a dealer with a current, BATFE-approved license. A manufacturer who sells to a non-government buyer who does not have a FFL probably has committed a crime, and should be investigated. Once the manufacturer has sold to a licensed dealer or distributor or wholesaler, further transactions are attributable to those farther down in the supply chain, consistent with reason and Federal law (The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, Public Law 109-92, October 26, 2005).

Is the reader supposed to believe that manufacturers sell to criminals on a regular basis?

5. The Federal government should require serial numbers on all firearms.

It does, and has done so since 1968 (The Gun Control Act of 1968, Public Law 90-618). Generally a harmless requirement, which applies only to guns manufactured or imported since the law went into effect; manufacturers have been doing some version of serial numbering for many guns for at least a century.

Is the reader supposed to suspect that such numbers are not yet required?

6. When a person purchases a gun, he should be photographed.

What ever for? We already require proof of identity and engage in background checks. How would point/time of purchase photographs contribute anything useful?

7. There should be a national licensing of all handgun owners.

The question here has already been noted in many posts. In fact, under certain circumstances, that would be only slightly objectionable. Those circumstances include

• licenses are available at every driver license examination facility
• the license must cost no more than a driver license
• each such facility has a target range open to the public for practice, as well as license testing
• the license so issued would not be required to buy a firearm
• the license so issued would allow concealed carry of a firearm anywhere in that state of issue and anywhere in the United States.

Overall I would prefer ‘Vermont Carry’ and the punishment of criminals, but that is not a realistic national goal in the current political climate.

Which leads to

10. Citizens who carry concealed weapons do not commit crimes with those weapons.

All citizens? Or law-abiding citizens, carrying legally under the laws of their jurisdictions? It makes a difference, since it should be clear that many criminals carry illegally and use guns in their crimes.

Legally carrying citizens have been shown to have a lower rate of all crimes, including gun crimes, than other citizens not licensed to carry – the data is easily available from the states of Florida, Texas and Michigan.

The failure to make that distinction in this question seems biased to me.

Related to question 5 is this one:

19. The Federal Government should ban the mail-order sale of firearms.

With the same 1968 law which required serial numbers (and purchase through Federal Firearms Licensees) the Feds in fact banned mail order firearms sales.

Wouldn’t it be more straightforward to rephrase this as “The Federal Government banned mail-order sales of firearms in 1968; do you think this is a good idea?”

This entire section of incomplete information, and bumper-sticker phrasing (“17. I would like a ‘pocket rocket’.” Sheesh!) seems to me to set a tone which does not inspire confidence in this work.

Anyone who actually knows the current laws will likely have an anti-gun control 'result' from this 'Questionnaire' - does the book supply such commentary, as I have written, for all of the 'Questionnaire' items?

 

[Ieyasu]

Librarian writes:

I find myself fascinated by the "Pretest Gun Game Questionnaire”.

It has such … interesting phrasing.

No kidding!

I thought #14 was mildly "interesting" as well: "The government should allow ammunition shipments through the U.S. Postal Service."

UPS would be okay?

To be fair that part of the book doesn't say what his position is, but I'll bet a nickel that the prof ain't for allowing mail-order ammo.

The original poster was trying to make the case that the professor isn't your typical anti. But let's see... he doesn't believe the 2A supports an individual right, wants "assault weapons" banned, belongs to an anti-gun group, urges us to join an MMM march, supports registration and licensing...

And meef, you're right, we're essentially wasting our time with the professor. I don't expect him to engage us substantively. If he were to "respond" he'd probably dodge and weave with his array of cheap rhetorical devices.

However, this thread was started by Danus ex who basically challenged us THR posters. I haven't examined his other 200 posts, but given that many, he's probably not a troll.

I've challenged him to engage us. I don't think he'll rise. Hope I'm wrong...

 

[Baba Louie]

I've been a somewhat student of this debate since 1968 (I was 13 at the time) and listened to my father and Uncles discuss what we now know as the '68 GCA, and while we are even now rehashing identical words and thoughts, think of all the additional burdens placed on us by our goodly representatives since that date.

And yet, we still have crime. (Doh!) Homicide and suicide is still going on as it would be even if firearms had never been invented. No amount of legislation will ever stop human nature.

It is human nature for some to wish for love and peace and lions to lay down with lambs. Idealistic and somewhat farfetched, but, there is a percentage, maybe even a majority, who desire some type of Utopian society where all is good and evil is diminished into naught. I myself have dreamed of such... and then I woke up, and had to deal with the reality of the day.

*sigh*

Here's some sage advice on the subject. (circa 350 AD) Take it for what it's worth.

The original Latin of the expression "if you want peace prepare for war" comes from "Epitoma Rei Militaris," by Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus. The Latin is: "Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum."

All this assumes the desired and discussed "registration" of guns or gun owners and/or elimination of guns from society is for the sole purpose of "peace in our time". (Who said that, when and what happened next?)

So. We do not waste our words or time or effort by hashing/rehashing these ideas. We do this because somewhere out there, there is some 13 year old lurking, trying to gain some understanding and make some sense of right and wrong and responsible self control of a powerful yet useful tool. A tool that Madison, Jefferson, Coxe, et al knew every free person should be able to keep and bear if desired. Not mandatory to all, but essential to those who seek freedom and liberty from those who would take just that if given half a chance.

Right now (6:03 a.m. Sat morn, Aug 25) there are 186 members signed on to THR w/ 646 guests lurking. I'm hoping some of the guests are 13 year olds, reading the words shared in this (and other) threads in an attempt to learn something they may find useful. We know we're not going to change the mind of those who wish for Utopia; those crazy Starry Eyed, Ivory Towered dreamers. Gotta love 'em.

 

[buzz_knox]

The professor will take 3 or 4 of the worst posts from this thread, or quote decent posts out of context, and use them as examples of why one can't debate with the "gun lobby."

I wonder if Danus ex was set up or whether he was in on this plan all along.

 

[Ieyasu]

I wonder if Danus ex was set up or whether he was in on this plan all along.

He apparently enjoys shooting, but I don't think Danus ex has gone too deeply into the 2A/gun control thing. He's obviously attended a class or two of the prof's and likes the guy. I don't think Danus ex read his book either. If he has, he clearly hasn't studied this area much and/or hasn't fully developed critical analysis skills.

We'll see the stuff Danus ex is made of with his responses (if there is one).

I don't think Danus ex is doing this stuff deliberately. The professor is a different story of course.

After learning more about our professor, I love the title of his book: America's Great Gun Game.

You see it is a game, for the antis, to get this country to accept gun control piece by piece without acknowledging any right to own a firearm. That's how the game is played.

 

[sacp81170a]

Ieyasu:

Wow, I've been wasting my time.

No you haven't:

We do this because somewhere out there, there is some 13 year old lurking, trying to gain some understanding and make some sense of right and wrong and responsible self control of a powerful yet useful tool. A tool that Madison, Jefferson, Coxe, et al knew every free person should be able to keep and bear if desired. Not mandatory to all, but essential to those who seek freedom and liberty from those who would take just that if given half a chance.

That's exactly why this thread is worthwhile. It may be repetitive, like playing 'whack-a-mole', but it's worthwhile refuting these arguments every time they pop up. The meme is what we're trying to fight here, not the opinions of however many individuals. It takes time, patience and fortitude but it has to be done. We can see all too clearly where not fighting it has gotten us in the past 75 years. Patience.

 

[the pistolero]

What really gets me, is the fact that a professor of rhetoric was using so many rhetorical fallacies, as pointed out here. Call this a stereotype, but I can't help but think he thought we really were a gaggle of mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals. I'd say meef pretty much nailed it. We've been had.

 

[Ieyasu]

You're right sacp81170a.

Well I'm outta here for a bit. The real world beckons...

 

[IA_farmboy]

Here's one aspect of gun control and licensing that few bring up, identity theft.

Many bring up "straw purchases" as a way that guns bought legally end up in the hands of those that cannot legally own a firearm. Such an exchange requires the cooperation of a law abiding citizen, as far as police records are concerned, to break the law.

With gun registration and firearm ownership licenses we now have two classes of people, people that can buy firearms legally and those that cannot. When a person that cannot legally buy a firearm desires a firearm there are several ways that such a person can obtain one. They can steal the firearm, they can purchase one face to face (a straw purchase), OR they can pretend to be someone else.

Imagine a criminal goes out and steals YOUR identity. They go out and do all the required registrations and licensing as if that criminal were you. Since they have your identity they will probably do so with the money in your bank account. The act of stealing your identity does not require your knowledge or consent, unlike a straw purchase.

Now the BATFE and local police see "you" buying a large number of weapons in a short amount of time. The sheriff or chief of police reacts with a friendly phone call, perhaps a knock on your door, or maybe even show up with 30 of their best friends in body armor and EBRs looking for your newly acquired arsenal.

Gun licenses and registration (just like no-fly lists, but that is another discussion for another forum) make the identities of the innocent a valuable commodity and therefore increase the chances of all innocent citizens having their identities stolen.

It used to be that people would have their identities stolen so criminals could just steal money, the money in a bank account. The worst thing that could happen here is someone is out of cash. A bank will usually cover the loss to avoid panic and embarrassment. Now stolen identities can get a person jailed for trafficking weapons, flagged as a felon (removing ones rights to vote or own a firearm), and generally ruin someone's life.

What safeguards are in place to prevent stolen identity, or even mistaken identity, in the registration of firearms from becoming a nightmare for the innocent? What purpose does this serve than to punish those that try their best to follow the letter of the law?

What seems to be lost on many that advocate firearm registration is that by registering you have now become a target by both criminals and the government. Unregistered weapons seems to keep both of them in their proper place.

 

[Stickjockey]

Well, the Good Doctor has posted, and as usual, I'm a day late and a dollar short. I really have nothing to add, except maybe this (emphasis mine):

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Under the boldface provision of the Fifth Amendment, any registration information given by criminals is inadmissable in court. You cannot force a felon to register their handguns, as it is a felony for them to even touch a gun and they would be forcedly testifying against themselves.

Welcome to TheHighRoad, Doctor.