The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …
Check out Bitter’s post on Mitt Romney’s leadership of the Bay State, which lost nearly a quarter million people in the five years between 2000 and 2005. But Mitt wants to paint himself as “the president who can see around the next corner, who will equip Americans to meet the competitive challenges of the 21st century, who will bring innovation and reform to government.”
See around the next corner? I hope he hasn’t gotten a hold of a pair of these.
Ahab has an interesting post about our responsibilities as armed citizens, in regards to our obligations to defend others:
There seem to be a couple of schools of thought on this issue, which I’ll divide into three major camps. Camp A would say “Absolutely, being armed gives you the obligation to assist if at all possible”, Camp B would say “Absolutely not, your only obligation is to defend your life and the lives of your family”, and finally Camp C seems to say that “You should do what’s appropriate to the situation at hand.” Of course, that seems kind of wishy-washy, but at the same time I’m more comfortable with that than I would be the absolutism in Camp A or Camp B.
I think I’m firmly in Camp C. It really does depend on the situation, and I think it has to. I do think we have an obligation to help others in trouble, even if it means risk to ourselves, both physically and legally, but it has to be circumstance sensitive. In using deadly force in protection of others, one has to be exceedingly careful, but if we find ourselves in a situation where something must be done, and we’re the only ones around who are capable of doing it, it’s our duty.
We should leave the situation to the police when that is the prudent path, but I don’t think it’s just the police and military that responsible for the safety and security of our communities, states and nation. We all have a role to play. As armed citizens, we should not run around acting like police officers, because we are not; armed citizens should become involved only in dire life and death circumstances. But I strongly believe that, as members of a society, and citizens of a nation, we have an obligation to be prepared and ready. You never know when circumstances might call on you to go from citizen to soldier. Look at the brave folks on Flight 94, who, on that day, answered the call, with no weapons and no training, and gave their lives to save others. I don’t think we should expect less of ourselves.
Snowflakes in Hell is now one month old. I can’t think of any better way to celebrate the conclusion of my first month by setting an all time traffic record.
According to tan SAF press release, the ATF has begun an investigation into New York Mayor Bloomberg’s “sting” operation against out of state gun shops:
Five months after the Second Amendment Foundation called on U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to investigate New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg for obstruction of justice relating to Bloomberg’s rogue “sting†operation against gun retailers in five states, the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has confirmed in a letter that an investigation is underway.
Great news! Not much more detail than that, since the ATF is claiming that it can’t comment on an active investigation, but for everyone who called the ATF, it would seem it has paid off. The letter can be seen here.
Rudy has a terrible problem with the Republican base on a number of issues. He could probably get away with being pro-choice and pro-gun, or pro-life and anti-gun, but he has a huge obstacle to overcome with two powerful Republican coalition partners in being pro-choice and anti-gun. Glenn Reynolds points us to a post over at the Jawa Report:
Gun control is a landmine for Rudy Giuliani. When it comes to guns, Rudy’s got a terrible track record to deal with. So far, his message sucks. Based on Rudy’s messaging on guns, I’ll guarantee you most gun owners are still actively shopping around. If Rudy doesn’t get some solid advice on guns and start listening to it, gun control could be the issue that sinks his candidacy.
This is spot on. Rudy is a candidate who, so far, offends me little other than on this issue. I think his leadership post 9/11 was exemplary. I agree with his views on Iraq and fighting militant Islam. I’m perfectly fine with him being pro-choice, because I don’t think abortion should be illegal. I’m comfortable with his position on gay rights, because I am in agreement with him here as well. I don’t like that he had an affair, but if that disqualified you from public office, we’d be without a government (maybe that would be a good thing). The gun issue, however, it’s enough to keep me from voting for him.
My advise to Rudy would be to first look at what he really thinks. Where’s his heart on the issue? That’s the first question that he needs to answer before he can take the next step. So if his heart is with restricting gun ownership, which I suspect it is, he needs to say it this way:
As someone who is a native of New York City, I have never been a fan of guns. I certainly governed that way as Mayor of New York. I know that my personal opinion on this issue is not popular among the party faithful, but you have my assurance that I will not pursue a gun control agenda as president, and I will veto any legislation from Congress that infringes on your second amendment rights. You also have my assurance that I will nominate judicial candidates that faithfully interpret our constitution and the Bill of Rights. I may not ever agree with all of you on guns, but I’m not a stupid politician, and you can rest assured that I will defend your interests as president.
There will always be the question of credibility with this kind of spin, and it might not be enough to overcome my distrust of Giuliani on this issue, but it’s still a better statement than he’s making right now. I’m looking for some honesty out of Giuliani; he’s not going to get anywhere with me by weaseling around his record. I can accept that politicians can feel one way personally, but understand their personal views don’t make for good politics. I’ll never be convinced that Bush is really, at heart, any more pro second amendment than Rudy is, but Bush knew being Republican and anti-gun was political trouble, so he tried to play the middle, while throwing us a few bones here and there. Rudy has a record though, and it deosn’t speak well to us. There’s no slithering around that.
What if Rudy is really of the opinion that gun control really doesn’t accomplish anything? Unlikely, but not impossible. If Rudy, in his heart, really isn’t in favor of gun control, here’s another way to distance himself from his record:
As Mayor of New York City, I would never have gotten elected if I ran on a pro-gun platform. In New York, you have to be anti-gun. Just like you’re not going to be pope if you’re a protestant, New York City is the Vatican of gun control, and I would have been failing my constituents by pushing a pro-gun agenda. I’m not personally a gun guy. I don’t shoot, and I don’t hunt, because – hey – I was born in Brooklyn. But I don’t plan on making gun control part of my agenda as president, and I will veto any new gun laws that come out of the Democratic congress. I will also nominate judicial candidates that faithfully interpret our constitution and the Bill of Rights, including the second amendment.
I could buy that line of reasoning, but I think Giuliani really does personally believe gun control is a useful and positive thing, and that’s really the heart of the problem. What you believe on this issue tells me a lot about how you view government, and it’s relationship with its citizens. Giuliani might be able to approach the gun issue in a way that will make me vote for him as a “lesser of two evils” choice on guns, but there’s little chance I’ll ever really trust him on it, which is a shame, because he’s someone I could enthusiastically get behind otherwise.
We had a hiccup from PECO that took the blog down. Looks like I might need to invest in a UPS. Probably a good idea anyway.
Much like Ed Rendell, Rudy Giuliani is another big city politician, who has ambitions for higher office, trying to convince us that he won’t infringe upon our second amendment rights, except for, you know, where it’s reasonable to infringe upon them. Let’s see what Rudy has had to say about guns in the past:
“My position for many years has been that just as a motorist must have a license, a gun owner should be required to have one as well. Anyone wanting to own a gun should have to pass a written exam that shows that they know how to use a gun, that they’re intelligent enough and responsible enough to handle a gun. Should both handgun and rifle owners be licensed? We’re talking about all dangerous weapons.” – Boston Globe, p. A4 Mar 21, 2000
“We need a federal law that bans all assault weapons, and if in fact you do need a handgun you should be subjected to at least the same restrictions — and really stronger ones — that exist for driving an automobile.”
“This is an industry that is profiting from the suffering of innocent people. What’s worse, its profits rest on a number of illegal and immoral practices. This lawsuit is meant to end the free pass that the gun industry has so long enjoyed.”
“The more guns you take out of society, the more you are going to reduce murder. The less you take out of society, the more it is going to go up.”
“Someone who now voted to roll back the assault-weapons ban would really be demonstrating that special interest politics mean more to them than life-or-death issues.â€
“I’m in favor of gun control.”
But now that he needs our votes?
“It’s part of the constitution. People have the right to bear arms. Then restrictions have to be reasonable and sensible. You can’t just remove that right. You got to regulate consistent with the second amendment.â€
And which part of “shall not be infringed” is unclear? I don’t need a license to start up a blog, because you don’t license or regulate a right. Giuliani is dancing around the issue, and it’s not impressing me. I think there are ways Giuliani could shed this liability, but I’m not buying the way he’s going about it.
Bitter has tagged me to blog about 5 things people don’t know about me. I’ll give it the old college try:
I think I’m supposed to tag people, but screw that.
The court martial for Ehren Watada, who refused orders to ship out to Iraq, begins today, and it seems the judge isn’t allowing testimony about the legality of the war:
1st Lt. Ehren Watada, 28, of Honolulu is charged with missing movement for refusing to ship out with his unit, the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division. He also faces charges of conduct unbecoming an officer for accusing the Army of war crimes and denouncing the administration for conducting an “illegal war” founded on “lies.”
As his court-martial got under way, military judge Lt. Col. John Head refused to allow almost all defense witnesses to take the stand. Head previously ruled that Watada’s attorney, Eric Seitz, could not debate the legality of the Iraq war in court.
It seems to me this is appropriate, since this war was approved by Congress, it is constitutional and the orders to ship out lawful. Watada’s attorney seems to be unhappy so far:
“If you are going to tie my hands and you are going to script these proceedings, then in my view we’re all wasting our time,” Seitz said.
This will definitely get me kicked out of the Libertarian Club to say this, but Watada is lucky he’s only facing prison time and a dishonorable discharge. In wars past, he would have been lined up in front of a firing squad and shot. When you join the military, you don’t get to pick and choose when you fight, or refuse orders to make political statements about the war. It would be one thing if he refused orders to machine gun down a crowd of women and children, but sorry Ehren, you’re not a hero for refusing deployment orders because you don’t like the war, you’re a worm.
“He betrayed his fellow soldiers who are now serving in Iraq,” Capt. Dan Kuecker said at one hearing.
Yup!