Editorial
Gun control v. evil control
Once more, an evil man takes an appalling number of lives. Once more the usual suspects raise their hue and cry: “Gun control!” They do this in part to further their dream of a totalitarian society, with themselves in total control. But they also do it because they cannot or will not understand evil, or admit that evil people exist.
Evil strikes
Adam Lanza, age 20, now needs no introduction. On Friday, December 14, he shot and killed his mother, stole her weapons, traveled to the K-4 school where she taught, and murdered twenty children and six adults in cold blood. He would have killed many more, except that:
- The school headmistress and two associates faced him down, though they had no weapons, just to slow him down.
- Several other teachers had the presence of mind to hide their charges. Some died trying to shield them.
- Police came, sirens wailing, lights flashing, and bullhorns blaring.
Facing arrest and trial, Adam Lanza killed himself.
That headmistress had installed a buzzer system to make sure no person with murderous intent could just walk in. Adam Lanza did not walk in. He barged in, shooting out a window to make it easier. The headmistress also drilled her teachers and other staff against just this sort of thing. Those drills helped—somewhat. But this episode shows several things:
- You cannot stop an evil man with enough motive and means.
- If all you can do is dial 911, you’re dead. But you might stop him from killing someone else.
The gun control cry
A collection of guns, including the sort of assault firearm that Bonnie Erbe complains of. Photo: user kosheahan (Flickr), CC BY 2.0 License
The usual suspects called for gun control while the bodies were still warm. Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) openly called for Barack Obama to exploit those deaths. He actually spoke that word exploit, so no one could mistake him:
I think we will be there [to pass gun control] if the president exploits it, and otherwise we’ll go on to the next [time].
Sir(rah), have you no shame? Guess not. Read what he said four years ago:
The national climate has to change. [And it will] when the kid in your town gets killed.
The National Rifle Association did not help their case against gun control this weekend. They ducked the media and are still ducking it. And some in Congress, especially Democrats, are more afraid of the Big Wheels than anything else. The Big Wheels, like Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), have always wanted gun control. Schumer was on the stump, saying,
I think we could be at a tipping point … a tipping point where we might actually get something done.
Like knocks on the door? “Police! Hand over your guns!” That’s the kind of gun control he wants. He made that abundantly clear in the hearings into the Waco Incident of 1993.
The senator might want to think twice before he passes any such law. So should Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA), who vowed to introduce gun control directly the Senate reconvenes for the 113rd Congress.
Never one to let a good crisis go to waste, Putative President Barack Obama also vowed more gun control. He didn’t say the phrase gun control out loud. But he said all the right code words and buzz phrases. And he said it at a memorial for the children. He has even less shame than does Jerrold Nadler. (And this is the same man who ran guns into Mexico to drum up support for gun control.)
News anchors said the same. CNN’s Don Lemon and MSNBC’s Ed Schultz today called not for mere gun control, but for gun confiscation. This means knocking on every door and barking orders to hand the guns over.
Does anyone suggest anything else?
Actually, yes. Dick Morris called for every school to make anyone who wishes to enter, pass through a metal detector, and to have armed police officers guard the schools. But again, that assumes the evil man will try to smuggle his guns in. Adam Lanza didn’t smuggle them in; he barged in.
Robert Leider, writing in The Wall Street Journal, suggested forbidding anyone to sell, give, or lend a gun to any person with a mental health problem. The problem with that: mental health diagnosis is far from perfect. Sometimes it means suggesting that anyone outside the mainstream of opinion must be crazy. This problem is as old as government itself:
[Marcus Porcius] Festus, [procurator of Judea], shouted out, “Paul, you’re crazy! All your book learning has driven you straight over the edge!” But Paul [of Tarsus] said, “I am not crazy, Your Excellency. I speak words of sober truth.” [Acts 26:24-25]
Libertarians know this. That’s why they never propose confining someone against his will, when no court has ever found him guilty. (But sometimes they do recommend another ancient penalty: exile.)
Is evil more common today?
John Fund, among others, suggests that such evil as we saw in Newtown, CT is no more common than it ever was. We merely hear about it sooner, that’s all.
The high point for mass killings in the U.S. was 1929, according to criminologist Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections.
Fund may speak the truth. In 1929 came the Saint Valentine’s Day Massacre in Chicago, IL, by order of the notorious “Scarface” Al Capone.
Fund also said gun-free zones do little to stop gun crime. In fact they make it worse. A gun-free zone attracts evil men like Adam Lanza like a magnet. Veteran law-enforcement officers know this. Some are starting to say it out loud. A retired sheriff said:
The suspect goes to the principal’s office while the announcements are playing, over the PA, to the whole school. Everyone in the school hears shots being fired. Had teachers or school employees been armed, instead of fleeing and allowing the killer to walk around the facility unimpeded, the school staff could have surrounded the madman and ended the attack.
[ezadsense midpost]
That sheriff knows the score. The only sure defense against a maniac with a gun, is you with a gun, and the training to use it.
One legislator in Oregon proposed arming the teachers in Oregon schools. Sadly, too many people who should know better, did not receive his suggestion graciously.
The cold, hard facts
The facts speak for themselves. Gun control does not work as liberal politicians and media darlings say it will. But gun control can “work” in another way: leaving people defenseless against their government. By contrast:
Switzerland issues every household a gun…Switzerland’s government trains every adult they issue a rifle to. Switzerland has the lowest gun related crime rate of any civilized country in the world.
And in the USA, Kennesaw, GA, has a town ordinance saying every householder must have a gun and know how to use it. They don’t have much gun crime, either. Now that’s gun control of the good kind: a gun in the firm control of your hands, as you use it to defend yourself and others.
The missing link in the discussion is evil control. Whether they do it just to get a headline, or for other twisted reason, evil men do walk among us. Liberals don’t want to admit that.
But any person of faith knows. Evil is part of human nature, and has been since the Fall of Man. Paul of Tarsus, whom a Roman governor called a crazy man, said it straight-out:
There is no such thing as a righteous man. Not even one.
(In fact, Paul was quoting Isaiah.)
Now John Fund could be wrong when he says such evil is no more prevalent today than yesterday. If so, one of two things is likely, and the Bible condemns both. First are the drugs that psychiatrists rely on when they don’t even know how they’re supposed to work. In this context we should mention entertainment products, like video games, that can act like drugs. John the Revelator twice mentioned drug abuse (verse 9:21) and drug dealers (verse 22:15).1 And a drug doesn’t have to be something you swallow, “snort,” or “shoot up.” It can be a sick, depraved game you play, for hours at a time. A game that gives you points merely for killing, and not for accomplishing anything useful.
Second is the Man of Lawlessness. Paul of Tarsus mentioned him, too. He also mentioned someone (or maybe several someones) who were holding that man back in his day.
Only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way.
Has that happened already? Are we witnessing totally unrestrained evil? Only time will tell. This much we do know: gun control cannot restrain evil. It might even be part of that evil. Don’t fall for it.
Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
[ezadsense leadout]
1 The Greek word pharmakeia means abuse of drugs meant to change your consciousness. It does not mean sorcery in the sense of witchcraft. Likewise, a pharmakeus is a dope pusher, not a “warlock” or “witch.”
Terry A. Hurlbut has been a student of politics, philosophy, and science for more than 35 years. He is a graduate of Yale College and has served as a physician-level laboratory administrator in a 250-bed community hospital. He also is a serious student of the Bible, is conversant in its two primary original languages, and has followed the creation-science movement closely since 1993.
-
Civilization4 days agoChina, Iran, and Russia – a hard look
-
Civilization3 days agoDrill, Baby, Drill: A Pragmatic Approach to Energy Independence
-
Civilization4 days agoAbortion is not a winning stance
-
Civilization2 days agoThe Trump Effect
-
Civilization3 days agoHere’s Why Asian Americans Shifted Right
-
Executive2 days agoFood Lobbyists Plot to Have It Their Way With RFK Jr.
-
Civilization4 days agoLet Me Count the Ways
-
Civilization3 days agoWho Can Save the Marine Corps?
Fred Christian liked this on Facebook.
Politicians think they know better than God. However, Christ was no fool. He knew that sin pathetically motivated a human soul. Christ taught that the sinful corruption of humans, emanated from the corruption of one’s sinful self. He did not call for the weapon control (of His day) of daggers and swords – Matthew 15:18-19 ; Mark 7:21:
Matthew 15:18-19 – “But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies.”
Mark 7:21 – “For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a man.”
Furthermore, I find it very schizophrenic of those politicians who make the public school industry bereft of God and morality, to begin their usual hand wringing. They smoke screen the motivating factors of evil and think that more gun laws will help to prevent these types of massacres; when in fact, it is they who exacerbate the whole problem with their “gun free zone” laws which leave school children and teachers easy prey for mass murderers. These politicians are part and parcel of the whole cycle of gun violence crimes. Yet, they are crybabies and want to blame firearms for their ineptness of dealing with the lawless who ignore their stupid gun laws which are imposed against law-abiding citizens!
Finally, there are no easy answers:
Evil – The age old question: “If there is a God and he is good – why does he allow evil?”
link to thechristianmessage.org
Nathan M. Bickel
http://www.thechristianmessage.org
http://www.moralmatters.org
“the K-4 school where she taught”
Incorrect.
“The school headmistress and two associates faced him down, though they had no weapons, just to slow him down.”
They may have slowed him down for all of four or five seconds. There’s no evidence that they intended to distract or delay Lanza in any way – something to consider when gun rights advocates so easily assume people can plan and coordinate a defense in unimaginably stressful situations.
“The problem with that: mental health diagnosis is far from perfect. Sometimes it means suggesting that anyone outside the mainstream of opinion must be crazy.”
Well, people with the most basic mental health care training or sense of empathy don’t use words like ‘crazy.’ Maybe the ignorance you demonstrate is a big part of the problem.
“A gun-free zone attracts evil men like Adam Lanza like a magnet.”
Why do you gun rights advocates so frequently ignore the truth that some people just *don’t like guns* and don’t feel the need to carry them on their person to offset any sense of paranoia or uneasiness about being in certain environments, like, say, an ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. Even if every state legalized concealed carrying of firearms there’s no reason to believe a flood of people would rush out and buy one – and the suggestion that the adults at Sandy Hook were either a) partly responsible or b) negligent in not providing their ELEMENTARY SCHOOL with armed defense is frankly disgusting.
“Switzerland issues every household a gun…Switzerland’s government trains every adult they issue a rifle to.”
Fine, except this tradition has little if anything to do with the concept of citizens protecting themselves from one another, which is the real issue here.
Just because “some people just don’t like guns,” does not give them the right to take the guns away from those who do “like guns,” as you put it. I offer, and reported the comments of professionals who offered, practical suggestions on how to stop another Adam Lanza, short of actually attempting to confiscate each and every firearm from every citizen or lawful resident who was not a law-enforcement officer or active-duty military.
Evidently you think such confiscation is feasible. Well, I could say that it is infeasible. Instead I’ll remind you of what Benjamin Franklin had to say about liberty v. safety.
“Just because “some people just don’t like guns,” does not give them the right to take the guns away from those who do “like guns,” as you put it.”
Liking guns isn’t a sufficient qualification to own one. Gun owners also have to be mentally stable and technically proficient in the use of firearms. I really don’t see the problem with asking people to prove their sanity and competence before letting them buy a piece of lethal hardware.
The problem is: when the government is the sole judge of the sanity and competence of anyone wishing to keep and bear arms, it would be a very simple thing to declare, arbitrarily, that someone is not sane, merely for expressing an out-of-the-mainstream opinion, either about the desirability of a given public policy or the interpretation of the facts surrounding an incident of sabotage or mass murder. You can try to mitigate that by reserving that determination to the judicial branch (as distinct from the executive.) But even that solution is far from perfect.
“when the government is the sole judge of the sanity and competence of anyone wishing to keep and bear arms”
Well, as the USA has a firearms homicide rate of 3 per 100,000 – FIFTEEN TIMES higher than in Germany, where prospective gun owners are subject to mental health checks and legal/competency tests – clearly SOMEONE has to be the judge. Do you have any suggestions, just to advance the discussion?
“it would be a very simple thing to declare, arbitrarily, that someone is not sane”
It would be an even simpler thing to write into new firearms legislation that to be declared mentally unfit to own a gun someone had to be diagnosed with a mental illness recognised by the DSM.
“But even that solution is far from perfect.”
No solution is perfect. However the present situation, where the USA has eight times as many firearms murders (and over three times the murder rate overall) as the entire EU despite having 60% of the population, clearly isn’t perfect either.
I could counter your arguments by asking what is the murder rate overall, and reminding you that even if you could practically eliminate one choice of weapon, one bent on murder would simply choose another.
Instead I will remind you of a thing of which I still think you lose sight: a disarmed populace is a populace of subjects, not of free men. The one thing that led to the first shots-fired incident in what became the American War for Independence was British attempts to deprive the colonists of guns, ammunition, and/or gunpowder.
And now, our putative President is pushing the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. A treaty that creates, or at least will inevitably lead, to forcing citizens, subject, and lawful sojourners to register their firearms with the United Nations. Right now I presume you register your weapons with the Bundeskriminalamt. Are you prepared to register them with a Weltamkriminalamt?
“I could counter your arguments by asking what is the murder rate overall”
I actually pre-empted that. The US murder rate is 4.2 per 100,000 annually. Figures for the entire EU are hard to find (which is strange given how much the EU spends on bureaucrats) but for western Europe as a whole it’s around 1.2.
“even if you could practically eliminate one choice of weapon, one bent on murder would simply choose another.”
Yes – one which would be far less efficient at killing people. Guns are one of the few devices that let anyone kill anyone they choose. They’re easy to use and inflict extremely dangerous wounds.
“a disarmed populace is a populace of subjects, not of free men.”
An academic difference only. If the US government decided to declare martial law and make Druidism the compulsory national religion it has the power to do so. Civilian gun owners cannot stand up to a modern army under any circumstances.”
A treaty that creates, or at least will inevitably lead, to forcing citizens, subject, and lawful sojourners to register their firearms with the United Nations.”
No it won’t. It’s intended to prevent arms shipments into conflict areas or the hands of repressive regimes. It says nothing at all about privately owned firearms.
“Right now I presume you register your weapons with the Bundeskriminalamt.”
Nope. The BKA are a police agency, so wouldn’t be involved in firearms licensing.
“Are you prepared to register them with a Weltamkriminalamt?”
If it’s German-run? Sure. Otherwise? Nope.
The ostensible and stated goals of a treaty do not limit the effects of such treaty in any way, shape or form. The mechanism by which that treaty pursues its stated goal must involve a United Nations registry of guns.
Note that it says nothing at all about recognizing private ownership of firearms as the right of a free citizen of a signatory State, or even as a good and proper thing that free citizens do. Therefore, no exceptions.
“The mechanism by which that treaty pursues its stated goal must involve a United Nations registry of guns.”
No it mustn’t. It must involve a commitment by governments not to export military small arms except as legitimate sales to law-abiding clients. The treaty says nothing at all about a UN registry of firearms, because it’s intended to stop regimes like China selling machineguns to the Crazystan Internal Security Police or Colonel Gadaffi shipping boatloads of Kalashnikovs to the IRA.
“Note that it says nothing at all about recognizing private ownership of firearms as the right of a free citizen of a signatory State, or even as a good and proper thing that free citizens do.”
Nor does it say anything about ownership of geese being a right of poultry farmers, which is about as relevant. What it DOES say is this:
“It is the exclusive right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through constitutional protections on private ownership.”
The UN Arms Trade Treaty has nothing to do with private gun ownership. It’s a red herring. The issue here is the fact that nutcases like Nancy Lanza can leave a stash of military weapons where her crazy son can pick them up. Adam Lanza was not mentally fit to have access to firearms, and his mother’s insistence on training him to use them is a clear sign that she wasn’t either. Nobody checked to see if these raving maniacs were sane enough to be trusted with a gun, and the result is 20 dead kids. How many dead kids is a freak like Nancy Lanza’s right to own an M4 carbine worth, Terry?
You wouldn’t happen to have title, section, and paragraph for that clause in that treaty, would you? Because a lot of people haven’t seen that clause that you’re talking about, and wouldn’t believe it, either. Why not? Because this is the United Nations we’re talking about.
Michael Alan Kline Sr liked this on Facebook.
[…] Gun control v. evil control […]
“Switzerland issues every household a gun”
No it doesn’t. Switzerland issues every member of the armed forces a gun. When they finish their military service they have the option of buying it, although it has to be modified to remove the selective fire capability. Swiss army reservists (with very few exceptions) are no longer allowed to keep military ammunition at home following its use in a series of murders. Service rifle ammunition purchased at shooting ranges must be used there and cannot be taken home. All sales of firearms must be recorded and the records kept for ten years. All ammunition sales are recorded. Firearms permits are not issued to anyone with a criminal record or mental health issues. Carry permits are tightly regulated.
“Switzerland has the lowest gun related crime rate of any civilized country in the world.”
Actually Switzerland has a higher – generally MUCH higher – rate of firearms homicide (0.8 per 100,000 per year) than every one of its neighbours with the exception of Italy, where people shoot each other at about the same rate as the Swiss do.
“You wouldn’t happen to have title, section, and paragraph for that clause in that treaty, would you?”
Nope, but give me a day or two and I can get it for you. Not that there’s actually a completed treaty yet.
“Because a lot of people haven’t seen that clause that you’re talking about, and wouldn’t believe it, either.”
Not my problem, I’m afraid. Some people wouldn’t believe it was Wednesday if they heard it from someone they disagree with.
“Why not? Because this is the United Nations we’re talking about.”
The UN is not evil; it’s just self-serving, greedy and incompetent. I know; I’ve worked with it often enough.
Believe me, Terry, if I thought the UN Arms Trade treaty threatened private gun ownership I’d be volubly opposing it. I’m not, because it doesn’t.
You admit, then, that the treaty is not even in final form. So you just quoted someone’s suggestion. Which I predict the UN will edit out.
We can agree that the UN serves its own agenda. You seem to think they’re just venal and “much disposed to have an itching palm.” I say they are out to tell the world what to do. You seem to think they couldn’t pull off a stunt like that anyway.
“You admit, then, that the treaty is not even in final form.”
Sure. Why not? I never denied it, after all.
“So you just quoted someone’s suggestion. Which I predict the UN will edit out.”
Not a chance. History shows that UN treaties don’t get strengthened during the negotiation process; they get watered down by exemptions, usually to the point of uselessness. Too many member states, including four of the five UNSC permanent members, make huge profits from selling small arms to private owners.
“We can agree that the UN serves its own agenda.”
Of course. We don’t disagree about EVERYTHING :-)
“You seem to think they’re just venal and “much disposed to have an itching palm.””
Ha ha, no. I KNOW that. I’ve seen it in action.
“I say they are out to tell the world what to do.”
Well, that is sort of what it was set up to do. Not in the way you’re worried about though; they don’t have any ambitions to be a word government that makes every decision for us. If they reduce the availability of weapons in conflict zones slightly I’ll be happy; I’ve seen the effects first hand. If they start meddling in internal affairs, though, the big boys will simply tell them to shove it.
“You seem to think they couldn’t pull off a stunt like that anyway.”
No way. That would take clear, decisive leadership which the UN’s structure actively conspires against.
Mindful as I am that your preparations for Christmas are occupying all of your available free time, leaving none for even cursory research, I found a few sections of the draft of the UN Arms Trade Treaty as submitted in July 2012, available at link to geneva-academy.ch
In the Preamble:
“Reaffirming the sovereign right and responsibility of any State to regulate and control transfers of conventional
arms that take place exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional systems”
“Taking note of the legitimate trade and use of certain conventional arms, inter alia, for recreational, cultural,
historical, and sporting activities and lawful ownership where such ownership and use are permitted and protected by law”
Article 10, section 1:
“Each State Party shall maintain national records, in accordance with its national laws and regulations, of the
export authorizations or actual exports of the conventional arms under the scope of this Treaty and, where
feasible, details of those conventional arms transferred to their territory as the final destination or that are
authorized to transit or transship territory under its jurisdiction.”
Article 18, section 2:
“2. Each State Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this Treaty. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to the depositary, which shall notify all other States Parties. The instrument of withdrawal shall include an explanation of the reasons motivating this withdrawal. The instrument of withdrawal shall take effect ninety days after the receipt of the instrument of withdrawal by the depositary, unless the instrument of withdrawal specifies a later date.”
As to your most recent statement, “(y)ou admit, then, that the treaty is not even in final form. So you just quoted someone’s suggestion. Which I predict the UN will edit out.”
It would have simplified matters if you had stated at the outset that your objection was not to the treaty as it is currently written, but to some other version of the treaty that doesn’t exist and has never been proposed, debated, or approved. I myself also vigorously object to the imaginary version of UN Arms Treaty that requires all signatory states to swear fealty to his Galactic Excellency Lord Blarfatix of Altair XIV.
And here is the problem:
Such records as Article 10, Section 1 calls for, are ipso facto unconstitutional per Amendment II.
“Such records as Article 10, Section 1 calls for, are ipso facto unconstitutional per Amendment II.”
How do you work that out? How can you have a well-regulated militia if you don’t even have a list of its members?
A militia self-regulates.
Under the Constitution, the Congress has the authority to call out State militia, and to provide uniform standards for training and discipline. But the States choose militia officers, if the militia don’t choose them themselves.
You also forget that the phrase “militia being necessary” is an absolute. It is not a condition on the right to keep and bear arms. It is an absolute.
Any government recordkeeping is, ipso facto, an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. If the government knows what you’ve got, it can confiscate it at will.
The responsibility for keeping up with those weapons is yours. Not that of the BKA (where you are) or the FBI (where I am).
Oops, no, looks like the records required aren’t even relevant to the issue!
Personally I have no problem with the government having a list of the weapons held by its well-regulated militia, but that isn’t what this treaty is talking about. Article 10, Section 1 would require governments to record shipments of small arms exported from and imported to their territory, not the details of private gun owners. What’s wrong with that?
The Article I, Section 10 records include records of sales of guns by individual citizens, subjects, or lawful residents, to foreign citizens or subjects, or especially out-of-country. An entity that manufactures guns comes under the same Constitutional protection as does the amateur gunsmith. From records of sales, one may infer records of possession.
Furthermore, instruments like the UN Arms Trade Treaty are a step. Take but one such step, and you find yourself sliding down a slippery slope.
You shock me, that you so little appreciate the twentieth-century history of your adopted country. Not to mention the country of your birth, against whom your adopted country went to war. (Along with my country, by the way.) It always begins with recordkeeping. Then the records become more intrusive. And finally, knowing all they need to know, the government sends the brownshirts to knock on doors, barge in, and seize the weapons.
“The Article I, Section 10 records include records of sales of guns by individual citizens, subjects, or lawful residents, to foreign citizens or subjects, or especially out-of-country.”
That seems like a somewhat way out extrapolation. How many private US citizens are selling their old Mini-14 to a guy in Tripoli? If any ARE don’t you think it’s something the appropriate agencies should know about?
The treaty is about arms exports, not private ownership.
If even one private citizen falls into the toils of this UN regulation, that is one too many, according to the Second Amendment.
“Under the Constitution, the Congress has the authority to call out State militia, and to provide uniform standards for training and discipline.”
For a militia to be useful it also needs uniform standards for weapons. At a bare minimum it needs to standardise on weapons that fire service calibres and accept STANAG rifle magazines.
“You also forget that the phrase “militia being necessary” is an absolute.”
That was written at a time when the USA had no standing army and a militia was indeed necessary. The USA now has the most powerful armed forces in the world by a very large margin. Any adversary capable of defeating those armed forces will have no problem in dealing with armed citizens. Times change.
“It is not a condition on the right to keep and bear arms.”
Actually it’s given as the REASON for the right to keep and beat arms, but never mind.
“Any government recordkeeping is, ipso facto, an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.”
No it isn’t. Is your car registered?
“If the government knows what you’ve got, it can confiscate it at will.”
Yes. If, for example, you’re convicted of a crime or diagnosed with a mental illness.
“Not that of the BKA (where you are)”
It is indeed not the responsibility of the BKA to keep track of privately owned firearms.
The Constitution is the Constitution. If those who want to “distinguish between the amateur and the professional,” as you seem to want to do, wish to change the Constitution, let them do so formally. I do not accept the notion that written text, which is to say positive law, can “change with the times.” Let them come out, up-front and honestly, with the exceptions they want to make. Let them go to the Congress and ask for a two-thirds vote of both Houses, and then go to the States to get three-fourths of State legislatures (or conventions, if Congress so desires) to agree to it.
As to automobiles: driving is a privilege, not a right. The government owns the roads. That is not how I would organize a society, but that’s the way things run. So, because the government owns the roads, the government has the inarguable authority to say who drives on them, and who doesn’t. If private operators ran the roads, they would have the right to insist that motorists list their cars on a common industry registry, or with Underwriters’ Laboratories (Motor Vehicle Division), or wherever.
But keeping and bearing arms is a right.
Finally: I am being very generous in saying that a court can order someone never to arm himself, as a condition of release from prison after serving a sentence of confinement, or for other reason good and sufficient for a court in the case of one duly convicted of a crime. (And I ask you to stipulate that “crime” in this context means murder, violation, other forms of violence, and grand theft.) But I find that I cannot so readily dismiss the arguments of libertarian theorist Thomas Szasz, MD. He holds that involuntary confinement, except as punishment for a crime whereof the party involved shall have been duly convicted, is unconstitutional and un-free. At the same time, he would disallow “insanity,” temporary or otherwise, as a defense for doing violence to another.
It’s all a matter of whom do you trust: yourself (and, by extension, your neighbors), or the government. You trust the government. Possibly you trust the government because you were once a professional in its employ. (I know already that you don’t so much trust the UN as think they are a totally feckless outfit that couldn’t organize a bathroom break, much less a subsumption of the sovereignties of every nation-state in the world.) But I have seen abuses of power such as I never expected to see. My fellow citizens, to their eternal shame, have elected a Communist dictator to be their President. Such weapons as I might possess (and you will see that I admit nothing in this regard) would be my only protection, poor as you might think such protection might be.
“If even one private citizen falls into the toils of this UN regulation, that is one too many, according to the Second Amendment.”
Terry, the only private citizens who will be affected by the treaty are arms dealers. That is what the treaty is aimed at; the international trade in small arms. Friends of mine died because unscrupulous US arms dealers thought that Belfast was an appropriate destination for a shipload of AR-15s. The right of those people to sell guns wherever they like stops when the weapons they deal in end up in the hands of terrorists on a British street. If their “second amendment rights” – which say NOTHING about the right to sell large consignments of guns abroad – are the price to be paid for preventing consignments of weapons from “disappearing,” then so be it.
You speak of “arms dealers” as if they are some kind of second-class citizen or subject class. Any person is an “arms dealer” if he sells his gun privately to another person. And as such, he is subject to the same regulations. Ask any American who owns a gun and has tried to sell it.
“You speak of “arms dealers” as if they are some kind of second-class citizen or subject class.”
Did I? Sorry. I meant to speak of them as if they are some kind of vampiric scum who make a living by enabling genocidal mayhem in trouble spots. Far too many of them fall into that category. The responsible ones who abide by end user certificate requirements are, of course, exempted from my criticism.
“Any person is an “arms dealer” if he sells his gun privately to another person.”
No they’re not, Terry, any more than they become a car dealer when they advertise their old banger in Auto Trader. By “arms dealer” I am referring to the idiots who ship weapons to places like Kosovo, Somalia and Northern Ireland. THEY are who the UN treaty is aimed at.
See? I said you regarded arms dealers as appropriate defendants in a bill-of-attainder proceeding. Quod erat demonstrandum. Needless to say, you are not correct. And neither you nor the UN will fool me into saying, “Oh, but our laws are not meant to catch you in their toils, but only these other evil men.”
“I said you regarded arms dealers as appropriate defendants in a bill-of-attainder proceeding.”
Not really. When thinking about arms dealers I never proceed much beyond the word “scum.”
“Needless to say, you are not correct.”
Actually I am. Who shipped several thousand assault rifles and machineguns to the IRA? American arms dealers and Colonel Gadaffi (an interesting combination…) Who ships guns to Somalia, a country without a noted arms industry? Arms dealers. Who equipped the cannibal militias in Sierra Leone? Arms dealers. Who is dumping Kalashnikovs into the hands of the repellant regimes in Burma, Rhodesia and the Congo? Arms dealers. AKMs don’t grow on trees, Terry, and even in places where they were handed out by the USSR to its Cold War proxies they still need to be fed ammunition, which is supplied by… arms dealers.
“And neither you nor the UN will fool me into saying, “Oh, but our laws are not meant to catch you in their toils, but only these other evil men.””
Terry, the law is explicitly directed at ARMS DEALERS! As I told you before, it was directed at private gun owners I would be opposing it volubly. I’m not, because it isn’t.
I reject your distinction-without-a-difference.
I am an arms dealer. Or a potential arms dealer. How? By virtue of my ownership of a gun. Now as it happens, I regard the gun I now own as more valuable than gold, so to anyone following this thread, sorry, it is not for sale. But if it were, I would be “dealing” in it. I would be an arms dealer. And I would have to send your photograph and finger prints to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. And under this treaty, our transaction would become the business of the United Nations.
Well, what business is it of the United Nations?
“And under this treaty, our transaction would become the business of the United Nations.”
No it wouldn’t.
Of course it would if you sold your gun and a few hundred others to a Somali warlord, but personally I’m all for stricter control of that sort of trade; if you’d seen what I have you would be too. Idiot hippies used to say “What if they held a war and nobody came?” Well, I’ve seen the results of them holding a war and only one side coming. It’s called a massacre, and it’s made possible by arms dealers who make a fortune selling weapons in trouble spots. This is what the UN treaty is aimed at controlling. Nobody is going to make you or I register our guns with the UN.
And where would you, and where does that treaty, draw the line between a strictly private sale and a regular volume of sales that, by your logic, would define “an arms dealer”? Why should the drafters of that treaty draw any lines? Why shouldn’t they seek to catch everyone in its toils? Are they not at moral hazard, having an incentive to “show the fig,” or in this case, “show the gun,” on anyone they don’t like?
“Showing the fig” (Greek “sycophanton,” whence “sycophant” today) is an old Greek term for using throw-down contraband to shake a traveler down for his lodging money at the customs station. Customs officers at Corinth, which had declared an embargo on figs, did this all the time. Roman publicani, or tax farmers, also did this in Jesus’ day. Zacchaeus famously admitted as much, and promised to repay every target of that practice on his part, to the tune of four times as much as he bilked them of.
“And where would you, and where does that treaty, draw the line between a strictly private sale and a regular volume of sales that, by your logic, would define “an arms dealer”?”
Trivially easy. It’s just like drawing the line in any other business. If I install a satellite dish for a friend who’s not good with tools and she pays me €50 for it I’m a private individual doing someone a favour and being rewarded for it; if I have a website advertising my services as a satellite dish installer I’m a satellite dish installer. Similarly, if I have own a gun that I no longer want and I sell it, either to a gun shop, a friend or through a listing in eGun, I’m a private individual selling my old gun; if I take an order for 5,000 ex-Ukranian Army Kalashnikovs from General Butt Naked, source the weapons and have them shipped to him on a dodgy End User Certificate I’m an arms dealer. Really not hard.
“Why should the drafters of that treaty draw any lines? Why shouldn’t they seek to catch everyone in its toils?”
Because the treaty is intended to control arms dealers and opening a UN file on your shotgun is a) pointless, b) unnecessary work and c) not going to happen because the treaty explicitly leaves private gun ownership to national laws.
“Are they not at moral hazard”
Probably; they work for the UN, after all, so they’re running all sorts of moral hazards. However these mostly involve fake expenses claims, kickbacks from ex-corporals who now run a country and cover themselves in gold braid, and media scandals involving a UN executive jet and five underage hookers from Minsk; they have nothing to do with whatever bang sticks you and I might have in the cupboard.