Emotional screeds
There’s one here by Jeremy M. Burnside:
Guns kill people: Abolition is the only way to stop the madness
Well, if guns are abolished, there will be a lot more people getting killed. Trust me.
On New Year’s Eve, my friend and rowing teammate was killed by a gun in Dunbar. Regardless of who pulled the trigger, I blame the gun.
And I blame cars whenever someone is killed in an accident.
Guns were invented with the specific purpose to kill. People were not.
Actually, humans are designed to kill. Our primary sense is sight, our eyes face forward, and we have teeth designed to eat meat. We (like say lions) are designed to kill, no matter what you may think. But, that’s not relevant here. What is relevant is that what happened to your friend, while tragic and not something I wish on anyone, simply isn’t a good enough excuse to infringe on the rights of people.
Suffering a tragedy doesn’t make one an expert. Policy should not be made my people who have suffered emotionally.
Update: Weird. One of his examples is Peter O. and guns, apparently, made Peter O. evil. Peter O. is Peter Odighizuwa who was the mutant who went on a shooting rampage at the Appalachian Law School. Peter O. was likely stopped by an armed citizen.
The other example he mentioned died in a triple murder suicide.
Thanks to Cam for the tip.
February 5th, 2007 at 9:56 am
Why should those who suffered emotionally be shut out of the policy process? I agree, one shouldn’t be making decisions solely on their feelings, but I don’t think that it needs to go so far as to say they shouldn’t be involved in the process.
There’s a state senator in Massachusetts whose brother shot himself on the senator’s honeymoon. The emotional trauma eventually led to the couple’s divorce, from what I understand. I’ve been told it’s still very tough for him to deal with gun votes, yet he’s A rated because when it comes time to cast the vote, he’s about as pro-gun as they get up there. He funneled his energy into mental health awareness issues. By your standard, he shouldn’t be involved in making policy on either issue. So do we give up another pro-gun vote?
February 5th, 2007 at 10:00 am
The worse the situation, the worse the decision.
Bad case makes bad law, and all that.
February 5th, 2007 at 10:02 am
Bitter, not saying shut them out. But I am saying more factors that emotionally charged stories should impact the decision.
February 5th, 2007 at 11:59 am
How about common sense dictating policy?
Do you mean to tell me that the murder rate in the US would be the same w/o guns in society? Do you think that some people scream for gun abolition b/c of emotion only? Sure, emotion is involved… but it’s mostly common sense.
And rights? You have no individual right to arms… did you know that? Don’t get me wrong, I think it sucks that law abiding hunters and sportsmen get a bad rep from a select amount of crazies. It’s sad. But how do you stop the killers that would never be able to kill if not for the availability of guns? I know a guy who killed with a gun that would have never killed wihtout one. His name is Peter O. Look him up. He is a weakling. His equalizer, however, was the very object you love.
Say Uncle.
February 5th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
In the US, why are there more murders where guns are effectively banned (DC, Chicago)? My contention, shared by the CDC and the National Institute for Justice, is that gun controls tend to have no effect on crime.
You did.
Really? The constitution, most state constitutions, fifth circuit, executive branch, both major political parties’ offical platforms, and the supreme court disagree (note: although the supreme court has not ruled specifically on the issue, its mention of the right to arms has indicated support for the individual rights model).
Sorry about your friend. It sucks. But it’s no excuse to trample the rights of the law-abiding.
ETA: I notice you ascribe a lot of action guns. Guns do this or guns do that. People pull triggers.
February 5th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Burnside, if you want an example of a gun-free society, just look at the middle ages. No guns. Instead of non-violence, fighting was rampant, and battles were won by strength of arm and the quality of one’s weapons and armor. Society was ruled by armed gangs – they called the gang leaders Barons, Counts, Dukes, and Kings, and the henchmen Knights. Street crime was rampant in the few cities that existed; even armored knights didn’t go out alone in London after dark. Gangs of bandits roamed the countryside and the “legal authorities” didn’t behave much better. Women were held in a grossly subordinate position, in large part by their inability to effectively defend themselves in fights where physical strength won.
Guns largely equalized physical differences, and (unlike a war horse or a suit of armor) can be manufactured cheaply enough for the common man. The flintlock made men equal – and 20th century pistols made women equal, too.
February 5th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
I don’t agree with gun control, either. You’re right, it doesn’t work and never will. Guns banned in DC, Chicago?… come one… As for the Constitution — the Supreme Court of the United States of America rules over all those orginizations you mentioned. Find something written by those folks that says that Say Uncle has an individual right to arms…. find me something, and I will give up my position forever.
And yes, people pull triggers. But how many murders are committed by folks who could only kill via a gun and are either too weak or not smart enough to kill any other way? I can name one. He was a classmate of mine. His name is Peter O. Look him up.
Your enemies are not gun abolishionists. They are those who give you a bad name. I believe law-abiding gun owners are getting a bad rep because of a bunch of cooks. But, how do you stop the cook?
Is your answer, “Arm more people and fight fire with fire?” If you do that, chances are that you arm more cooks.
February 5th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
see here. they don’t mention me specifically, of course. As said earlier, the court has not ruled specifically on the issue. But other cases indicate support for the individual rights model. You misrepresented the Miller case in your article, so I assumed you knew that.
You mean they can’t use, say, a baseball bat, knife, bomb or any other deadly item picked up at the local wal-mart?
Yes, they are.
You can’t. That’s how it is.
Then you would think that the recent trend of 48 states allow concealed carry would have resulted in a significant increase in murder. However, it’s quite the opposite.
February 5th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Mr. Burnside you state that we as individual Americans don’t have an individual right to keep and bear arms. I would direct you over to E. David Quammen’s website Gunshowonthenet.com. He has done extensive research into the history and origins of the 2A and has the references to back up his positions, including excerpts from the Federalist papers and Supreme Court decisions from the founding of this fine country. So far, I see you putting the onus on Uncle to prove his (our) position to you. I say you should put your money where your mouth is.
While I feel for you and the loss of your friend, I for one will not be victimized. I will not place the responsibility for the safety of myself, loved ones, or perfect strangers that happen to be around in the hands of a system that has proven time and again that all they are for is cleaning up the mess after everything is over.
February 5th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
I don’t recognize interpretations of the Constitution from any one else but the Supreme Court. I was given a link to a book from Uncle. I appreciate the link. However, I can tell all of you right now that the person who wrote this book will not be able to give you what you want. You won’t find specific language from the US Supreme Court giving you the right you all claim you have. Why? Because it doesn’t exist. All we have now is what the Constitution says and sparing remarks from those on the Supreme Court. Again…. prove me wrong and find me language from a Supreme Court of US opinion that unambiguously gives you that right… I would suggest not wasting your time trying to – – because the Supreme Court never said such thing… and probably won’t any time soon.
February 5th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
And you’re a lawyer? Since they haven’t ruled on that issue, obviously you do. Even the Chief Justice says so:
You have failed to make any case to the contrary.
The Supreme Court does not give rights. Nor does the constitution. The constitution assumes that the rights it enumerates are pre-existing and limits the government’s ability to infringe upon them. It does not say, for example, you have free speech. It assumes you do and restricts the ability of congress to make a law infringing on said right.
Really? I suggest reading the book. You won’t, of course. So, try this summary of cases; or this one; or this one ;or this one. You’ll find quotes like:
February 5th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
It seems all of your arguments come from interpretations in pro-gun websites. (imagine that) And your “quote” is from an interview, not binding caselaw. FIND YOUR SUPPORTERS BINDING CASELAW FROM THE SUPREME COURT INTERPRETING YOUR ALLEGED RIGHT AS WHAT YOU CLAIM IT TO BE. Provide all your readers a similar quote, “Individual persons have the unabridged personal right to bear arms without being involved in a militia.”
You obviously have no clue what you are talking about. But, you’ll sit at in front of your computer all day continue to blog as if you do. That right, sir, I agree you do have. I now step off my pedestal to allow you to excercise this right without me.
People of power in the U.S. probably won’t ever side with me and endorse gun abolition. So, what are you so worried about? Bad lawyers like me who continually cry about guns because they “experience tragedy”? Does my weeping about tragedy scare you?
Today was fun. But, go easy on the next weakling lawyer who writes an article or comment disagreeing with you. You apparently beat me into submission. Maybe I was scared of your gun? Should I go and buy a bigger one to show you that I am tougher? Maybe we can dual(sp?)? You can have Charlton Heston as your second.
I’ll take the Supreme Court.
February 5th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
my last comment ever on this site was refused as SPAM. Was it too long? Or make too much sense?
February 5th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
My Grandfather weighed 400 pounds and died of a heart attack brought on because the spoon was designed solely for the purpose of shoveling food into the mouth. Some people say that he made himself fat by consistently over eating, but that is obviosly ridiculous. The spoon made him fat and the spoon gave him his heart attack. Without spoons (and by extension, forks) obesity would become a thing of the past. Ban all tools that make a required task easier and the task and its effects will cease to exist. Don’t teach the safe and proper use of tools. Don’t tell people to quit shoveling cheese into thier cake holes with the evil spoon, merely take the spoon from their hand by the force of legal action.
February 5th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
I submit he has more affection for his friend now than when he was alive. When he was alive he couldn’t be used as a shield and a testament to the validity of false arguments that seek to destroy the liberty of all.
That’s my take on it. I don’t believe his grief, except in how it is helpful to him to feel morally superior. That is a sad epitaph to a “friend”.
February 5th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Sorry, burnside, the spam filter is beyond my control unless I happen to catch it. I have assigned your IP a higher SK2 score. Posting shouldn’t be a problem for you. If it is, let me know.
You didn’t read the whole thing, did you? I gave you a link to the whole opinion, which is, err, case law. And, of course, many other cases. Surely, you’d have found something to support your contention other than misrepresenting Miller?
No one said there was an unabridged right, just like there’s no unabridged right to speech (libel, slander, fire in a theater, etc.). As to the rest, I already did. I can lead you to water and all.
Clearly, linking to and excerpting case law shows I have no idea what the Hell I’m talking about.
It beats lying. The truth usually does.
And, the last refuge of the anti-gunner confronted with truth. Tail between legs, take your toys, and go home and fire some rhetoric about size and fear.
I will point out that you have never once given me any thing to back up a single assertion. Yet, when you asked me, I provided it.
You lose. I win.
February 5th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
[…] Jeremy Burnside, whose article I criticized here, has been engaging me in comments. It was civil, until he took his ball and went home. Or, you know, said Uncle. If you leave a comment, be nice. […]
February 5th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
It should be pointed out that Peter O., who Mr. Burnside repeatedly mentions, was stopped by an armed citizen. This was the attack at the Appalachian School of Law back in 2002.
Furthermore, the fact that the Supreme Court even agreed to hear Miller indicates that the justices were looking at the 2nd Amendment in an individual rights context. After all, if they really felt the 2nd Amendment was a collective right reserved for the militia they could have simply said that and declined to hear the Miller case.
February 5th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Yeah, it’s Uncle’s fault that Sarah Brady isn’t too keen on linking to any of those cases on her website.
I wonder what this guy does at the conclusion of taking a dump. I mean, if we’re to follow his…um…”logic”, the Supreme Court has NEVER, NEVER, NEVER issued a single word supporting the claim that as Americans, we have the individual right to clean our own backsides.
February 5th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Cam, who is Peter O.? I am unfamiliar with the case. I found where Lori Francis (his other mention) was killed in a triple murder-suicide.
February 5th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Burnside the idiot lawyer (but I repeat myself) says:
I’m sure Uncle will gladly oblige, just as soon as you produce binding case law from the Supreme Court that provides you with a similar quote, “Individual persons do not have a personal right to bear arms without being involved in a militia, and since no one has an individual right to serve in a militia, they don’t really have any Second Amendment rights at all.” You won’t find that quote, either, because that doesn’t exist. On what planet does neither quote existing translate into your position being the correct one?!
That said, I can come closer to providing binding Supreme Court precedent for the standard model than you can ever hope to provide in support of the no-rights model. In U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990), a five-Justice majority led by Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote:
No, it’s not binding case law (Verdugo-Urquidez was a Fourth Amendment case), but it’s proof positive that at least 5 out of 9 Justices believed that the Second Amendment guaranteed a right to the same “people” as the First, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth, without seeing any need to mention militias. That’s five more Justices (and two more sitting ones) than you can provide in support of your position, by binding case law, dicta or otherwise. In fact, it’s probably more than that. Given that all 9 Justices were well aware of the manufactured controversy surrounding the question of whether or not the Second Amendment means what it says, they had to know that the tidbit about the Second Amendment would be used as political gold. Yet, for some odd reason, between two concurring opinions (one by Justice Stevens, who did not join the majority opinion) and two dissenting ones, not one of the four Justices to write separately saw fit to challenge the comment about the Second Amendment or even allude to the possibility that it was wrong.
Now perhaps you’d care to remind us, Idiot Lawyer, what evidence you have that anyone on today’s Supreme Court buys into your Orwellian reading of the Second Amendment. The only Justice I can think of who ever did was Warren Burger, the legal eagle who malpracticed his own will.
February 5th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
How about Cruikshank:
Or, Presser v. Illinois:
That seems pretty conclusive to me. It’s not my fault that judges on the lower circuit courts can’t seem to read.
February 5th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
I point people like Burnside to this post of mine. It has shut up the collective rights bigots every time I have tried it.
February 5th, 2007 at 11:40 pm
[…] ***** Our right of center, pro-2a bud, Say Uncle has been engaged by Mr. Burnside at his blog; engaged, and taken down again and again by providing nothing but emotional repeats of his earlier, misleading claims in his Op-Ed piece. Suggest you read the whole article and comments, but here’s a taste: “… the Supreme Court of the United States of America rules over all those orginizations you mentioned. Find something written by those folks that says that Say Uncle has an individual right to arms…. find me something, and I will give up my position forever. […]
February 6th, 2007 at 10:33 am
OK, I don’t like what this says about me. I had to re-read this three times, because the first two times, I saw:
February 6th, 2007 at 10:37 am
Do you mean to tell me that the murder rate in the US would be the same w/o guns in society?
Without guns in society?
What kind of qualifier is that?
You might as well ask:
Do you mean to tell me that the drowning rate in the US would be the same w/o bodies of water in society?
Do you mean to tell me that the drunk driving rate in the US would be the same w/o cars in society?
Do you mean to tell me that the overdose rate in the US would be the same w/o drugs in society?
Show me one gun law that has resulted in the removal of guns from the portion of our society most keen on misusing them in furtherance of their criminal goals.
This guy needs to put down the hashpipe, slowly back away from his computer, and take a few deep breaths.
February 6th, 2007 at 11:59 am
In late on this one. Words fail me. Young far left liberal idealistic lawyer sees a better world if only we can just rise above on base instincts.
Major Gen. Ambrose Burnside can be none to happy about this.
The problem is that the dream of young Burnside is not possible. You would think a former public defender would be able to understand the basic mentality of the criminal mind. This is a very confused young man.
Good luck buddy. Hope some where down the way you figure out this thing called life. You have the maturity of a small child.
February 6th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
The only way to get guns off the street would involve a fairy godmother and a magic wand.
Neither have been spotted outside of Disneyland.
February 6th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
“For men of understanding do not say that the sword is to blame for murder, nor wine for drunkenness, nor strength for outrage, nor courage for foolhardiness, but they lay the blame on those who make an improper use of the gifts which have been bestowed upon them by God, and punish them accordingly. ”
— St. John Chrysostom
and
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
— Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
(this should have the same weight as Mr. Jeffersons quote about a wall of separation between church & state since that too came from a letter to a friend)
The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals…[I]t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.
—Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789, MS. in N.Y. Hist. Soc.-A.G. Papers, 2.
Hubert H. Humphrey – Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms…. The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible.
One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.
— Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
Enough said.
February 6th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Rustmeister:
Neither have been spotted outside of Disneyland.
Nuh-uh, that’s not true! Just last year I was at Disney World, and I saw both!
February 6th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
There is no Disney but Land, and Mickey is its mascot….