Just talking to a friend in Sacramento, catching up on the latest gossip, and he pointed me to my favorite hypocrite, Don Perata, CA State Senator from Alameda County.
Perata is a mainstream, pro-union, pro-environment, anti-gun Democrat. Who has a CCW (Concealed Weapons Permit – something random citizens like myself basically can’t get unless we live in a rural county). Now there’s nothing immoral about being anti-gun. I certainly don’t think there’s anything immoral about getting a CCW; I don’t doubt that I’d find one handy.
But being a leader in restricting gun rights in the Legislature while demanding those same rights for oneself – that’s pretty creepy no matter which side of the issue you’re on.
But that’s old news.
The new news is even better. It appears that not only has he steered significant business to a local political consulting firm, Staples Associates, owned by local political consultant Timothy Staples – but he’s been on Staples’ payroll at the same time, to the tune of a a hundred-million dollar slush fund, which is being investigated as we speak.
But when I first talked about SkyBox Liberals a long time ago, it was all about “…making sure you and your friends can be very comfortable while you think and write and feel very very seriously about it.
Wow!!! There aren’t words to describe him. I could try calling him a hypocritic, selfish, SOB, but that wouldn’t do him any justice.
I want to know if the courts would rule that a civil lawsuit was frivolous if he was sued for every unarmed person who was murdered in his district?
It only seems fair if he wants to protect the right of everyone killed by a handgun to sue the manufacturer.
‘Common sense’ has left the planet and chartered a course for deep space to get as far away from this loony planet as possible.
Mike,
I believe Pistol Packin Perata is not alone. If memory serves correctly, both the babes, Feinstein and Boxer, on the other side of the bay have concealed carry permits. Goes back to the 101 California shooting and their subsequent support for assault weapon bans.
Actually, Feinstein acknowledged carrying a pistol right after the Harvey Milk/George Moscone murders.
A.L.
So will someone tell me why they think everyone will be safer if no law-abiding citizen owns a gun? Are they really foolish enough to believe that criminals will obey these laws?
Don’t they know that the only way to ensure that the government does not completely resort to tyranny is to possess the means to defend one’s self?
Take Iraq for example.
If the Shiites possessed the ability to defend themselves, would we be debating Iraqi reconstruction right now, or deciding where to try Saddam?
No! His body would have withered away in some grave many years ago.
America will never become a dictatorship unless its citizens give up their individual right to defend themselves and take it back if necessary.
I really need to go take a break…I am getting too worked up.
AL,
Right! Thank’s for the memory assistance.
It’s quite simple, these are not examples of hypocricy on their parts, only of confusion. They believe that the power of the firearm should be kept out of reach of the populace, and firmly in the hands of the state alone. Furthermore, and this is the tricky bit no one seems to get, they believe that they represent the ruling elite which is an inherent part of the state. Call it aristocracy version 2.0 if you’d like. They have no problem with the governing elite having guns because they are not a part of the populace in their view. They are separate and above it. No other explanation fits the facts.
They’d all deny it, but Robin is pretty much on the mark. As they denied it, they would also launch into explainations of why they need it where others do not, because they’re in the public eye, face threats, &tc. Call it the “Rosie O’Donnell Excuse”.
The nub of it is that they see no problem deciding for themselves that they need to have this protection, and no problem deciding for others that we don’t. It’s really pervasive – this is only one area in which it is expressed, if one of the more obvious ones. But it holds across a wide range of policy positions and is one of the unstated, unargued axioms of their vision.
“(Concealed Weapons Permit – something random citizens like myself basically can’t get unless we live in a rural county).”
Actually, you can get them in Orange County very easily. I believe you only need apply at the Sheriff’s Department.
According to packing.org, “Very liberal counties include, Kern, San Bernardino, San Diego and Orange down here in the south.”
Of those, I believe only Kern could be considered rural. If you don’t like the CCW standards where you live, get a new sheriff – an elected office in California.
Ann – I don’t disagree, but doesn’t it pique your interest a bit that what’s good for Perata or Feinstein (or Jerry Brown’s assistant Jacques Barzaghi) isn’t good enough for you or me?
That’s a quite separate issue from what the overall process of CCW issuance might be…
A.L.
Folks, this isn’t about Perata’s CCW; I’m much more interested in his checking account right now…did anyone click through?
A.L.
Ann is correct for the southern part of the state, but looking at the same site it states: “but it seems that the Alameda [county, home of Pistol Packin Perata] Sheriff is more liberal than, say the SFPD [home of former mayor, now Senator Feinstein] in regards to what constitutes “justification.” I would suggest you make the best case you can in this part of the application. Being a shop owner in Oakland, for example, seems adequate justification for the Alameda Sheriff. The SFPD doesn’t seem to think so.”
CCW by county in 2000 per packing.org
Kern – 3,566
Shasta – 2,972
Fresno – 2,178
San Bernardino – 2,084
Los Angeles – 874
San Joaquin – 491
Contra Costa – 208
San Mateo – 204
Alameda – 150
Santa Clara – 132
Sonoma – 131
Solano – 77
Marin – 44
San Francisco – 8
Notice that 7 of the last 8 counties on that list are the Bay Area. I would bet that state wide ease of issuance correlates .95 with Republican voter registration.
His finances are interesting, but that’s OT, A.L.
As for THIS issue, you seem to be completely confused. Banning large magazines and making records more open to lawyers has very little to do with CCWs. Just because he is for some (very sensible) gun legislation doesn’t mean that he is against all gun-ownership or even CCWs. Nor is he responsible for the arbitrary method CCWs are handed out- which is hardly as simplistic a process (i.e. “aristocracy 2.0”)as you and Robin make it out to be.
Re: the second issue, perhaps it’s time for Arnold to burn his bridges and follow through on that promise to fix gerrymandering in CA.
Um, SAO, I’ve done business in Sacramento, and know a number of people in the Democratic Party there. Perata is certainly someone who believes that private ownership of guns is a Bad Thing and has been a leader in legislative efforts to restict their ownership in California.
So sorry, nope. Your parsing is both factually incorrect and illogical. If a politician is actively for promoting clean air, isn’t it legitimate to point out that he owns a diesel Hummer?
A.L.
Perata is certainly someone who believes that private ownership of guns is a Bad Thing
Please point me to one statement or legislative act that supports this claim- that he wants to abolish private gun ownership. I don’t believe guns can be aggregated in any similiar fashion to air quality, so try another metaphor, perhaps?
SAO,
You are not from the Bay Area, I take it?
I clicked through and was going to add to what I said but I got booted from my connection and lost my second comment.
I’ll say it’s of a piece – the gun matter is easier to focus on because it’s so obvious. But the same entitlement mentality that leads them to see no hypocracy in limiting the gun rights of others but chosing how to best protect themselves extends over a full range of issues.
I’d say the comparison to Canada is apt to the degree to which the politics of Canada’s Liberal Democratic Party is similar to the politics of Continental Europe, the same distinction in views between the common people who are to be given according to their needs (goods or rights), as determined by others, and the governing class which determines for itself what they need, and naturally works with other like-minded people, assigning contracts and perks to those in their sphere.
They see no hypocracy in being armed while deciding others do not need to be armed, and no corruption in making lucrative deals with deserving people who share their views. Graft can only be done by the wrong sort of people, and this does not qualify in their eyes, just as they cannot by definition be hypocrites.
Actually, I am. 205 CCWs in my county and probably zero of those in my home town.
The first story would be interesting if Perata had applied to carry a centerfire rifle with a vertical handgrip, 30 round magazine, and a telescoping stock- or a grenade launcher for that matter.
Only part of his legacy I don’t like is cracking down on pistols with clips outside the grip. They should have made an exception for low-calibre guns there.
Anyhow, the point is it’s all of a piece but it’s just easier to illustrate it on the gun matter than on the other examples. But it shouldn’t be surprising that people with a certain attitude and vision act in ways that express it acrose a wide range of subjects.
SAO wrote:
Which brings up a point.
It’s more than a misleading to use raw per County figures. A more illustratively accurate way to do so would be the rate per 1,000 residents in each County, since California Counties have such widely varied populations.
Also, it would be even more telling to map the distribution clusters to see where and who received them. Probably within some of those counties, quite a few go to either members of the groups A.L. is talking about with his illustrative example, or to those in their employ (security for the elect).
So I would bet without seeing that the Los Angeles figure (874) is clustered to the benefit of those with some pull in the good social circles, and indeed probably includes many who are in favor of restrictive gun laws for others, or those in their employ.
Just to be clear, there is no Liberal Democratic Party in Canada. There is a liberal democratic party though.
SAO-
Here are two Perata initiatives; I’d find more, but I’m outta time…
SCA12 (02) Nickel-A-Bullet Ammo Tax
SB601 (03) Bans 50-cal handguns
I’ll leave it as an exercise to the audience to find more…
A.L.
I’m taking off on a tangent here, but it seems somewhat relevant. What if an elected official personally believes that anyone who wants to can carry any kind of weapon, anytime, anywhere, and any way, but his constituents believe the exact opposite. Does the pol go ahead and represent his constituents, or does he work on his own beliefs and not represent his constituents?
But to address the question:
“Ann – I don’t disagree, but doesn’t it pique your interest a bit that what’s good for Perata or Feinstein (or Jerry Brown’s assistant Jacques Barzaghi) isn’t good enough for you or me?”
I can’t really say. I do not and have never had the desire to own a firearm, much less carry one in my coat pocket. I also admit to not understanding the desire for a concealed permit. If the goal is deterrence, why hide the gun? If your goal is deterrence, mount a gun rack on the minivan.
That said, if I was ever in a position where I was being stalked or raised the ire of people who are more likely to resolve their differences by violent means, I might be interested in a CCW. And I don’t know if I would be turned away.
Out of curiosity, when did you apply for a CCW and what were your reasons for asking for it?
As for County registration, here’s what the Secretary of State’s numbers indicate as of 2/17:
Kern – 3,566 — Heavy R
Shasta – 2,972 — Heavy R
Fresno – 2,178 — Heavy R
San Bernardino – 2,084 — Leans R (less than 5% difference)
Los Angeles – 874 — Heavy D
San Joaquin – 491 — Leans R
Contra Costa – 208 — Heavy D
San Mateo – 204 — Heavy D
Alameda – 150 — Heavy D
Santa Clara – 132 — Heavy D
Sonoma – 131 — Heavy D
Solano – 77 — Heavy D
Marin – 44 — Heavy D
San Francisco – 8 — Heavy D
Although the raw numbers are illuminating, I wonder how that works out as a percent of population?
KevinG: That’s right, I mixed things up.
The LDP is in Japan. In Canada it’s just the Liberal Party. My bad.
Since we’re being pedantic, tho, Liberal Democratic Party would be capitalized since it’s a proper name (for the Japanese LDP).
I suspect it would be revealing to map CCWs to skin color, income, as well as whether the CCW holder is a [former] government official, well-connected (e.g. friend/relative of a government official), or just famous.
There are four initiatives to my knowledge. Making bullets more expensive does not put an unreasonable limit on 2nd amendment rights, nor does it come anywhere near a ban on all private weapons. Perhaps if we were to put a massive tax on bullets, but $.05 each doesn’t come close. It is damn annoying though, I’ll give you that.
As for .50 caliber weapons- they are essentially usless for defending yourself against criminals (or vindictive gun-nuts), nor are they for hunting. They can shoot down planes, however. To the couple hundred people who own these weapons I apologize, like grenade launchers and f-16s, some things should be reserved for the military.
SAO writes – Only part of his legacy I don’t like is cracking down on pistols with clips outside the grip. They should have made an exception for low-calibre guns there.
So you go for the nickle a bullet tax?
Ann’s tangent is important but relates to another issue: whether someone’s rights can be overturned by majority vote. The majority of people in an area can decide what they think people should or shouldn’t have, and that gives them the right with respect to themselves: if the majority of said people decide they don’t want to own guns, or don’t want to write their views and publish them in a public forum, that’s a decision within their hands.
But can they make that decision and then tell those who don’t agree with them, however few that might be, that they can’t either? It’s a classic question, and it really does get at the crux of the matter – it’s not a tangent. It relates to whether one thinks democracy is absolute and without limit, or whether there are limits on what the majority can decide and impose on others. That is, are individuals at liberty to make choices for themselves? Or is the majority always in a position to overule them and outlaw something?
Now, as to my own opinion on that, I tend to not see my rights as a grant of those who govern me and which can be withdrawn at their whim. Be they a small claque, or the ruling majority of a region, however defined.
It’s a legitimate position for Ann to believe otherwise and view her rights as existing at the leave of the majority and that they can be withdrawn at any time. This position is usually held by those who place a high degree of trust in decisions democratically arrived at and who believe the majority in an electorate will not make grave mistakes or act to repress a minority. It’s a philosophical view, but historical examples contradict such trust.
Porphyrogenitus-
>Liberal Democratic Party would be capitalized since it’s a proper name
Yes, but then, in the context you used it, you would have been refering to a Japanese party in Canada and things are not that bad yet.
/pedant_off
I know this thread is mostly about guns and hypocracy but I am curious about this statement:
Could you elaborate?
SAO –
“There are four initiatives to my knowledge.” …is that your final answer?
So you claimed there were two, I found two more, now there are four…before I go look around http://www.leginfo.ca.gov a bit more do you want to qualify your assertion a bit more??
A.L.
Confused .50 handguns with rifles. I don’t see any reason to ban .50 handguns because they’re too big to conceal, nor do they pierce Kevlar. I guess you’re right here, A.L. So much for defending Perata— no I feel dirty. 🙂
OK, in addition to the four above, we have this, this, this, this, this, and this…can I stop now? So SAO, can I ask you to acknowledge that this legislator has kind of an agenda in this area?
A.L.
FWIW, I never liked Peralta or De La Fuente or Willie Brown or their ilk. I would support and reasonable Democrat against them in a primary, but I wouldn’t vote for a Republican against them in the general, without a good reason.
Why? Well, the corruption you describe is not defensible, but it’s not important. Compare it to something like the energy crisis, which cost more than 10 billion, where the malefactors were Republicans. Or Prop 187, a moral outrage on par with Japanese internment. Would I prefer Democratic leaders who had some brains and high moral standards? Of course. That’s why I’m high on leaders like Gavin Newsome, Phil Angelides, etc. But in a contest between someone who supported 187 and someone who didn’t, or someone who was interested in Californians not paying monopoly rents for their electricity, versus someone who don’t care their constituents are paying thousands more in electricity charges as long as their national party was getting tens of millions od dollars from the energy companies (which is an accurate and fair description of the California Republican leadership), I’ll take Peralta, or Davis, or Torricelli anyday.
BTW, you once called Phil Angelides a “great statewide elected” along with Bill Bradley and some others. Do you still believe that, escpecially since Bradley endorsed Dean?
KevinG: Since I was referring to a Party by name, the capitalization applies.
KevinG wrote:
That’s what the entire thread illustrates, IMO. If you’re interested in more elaboration, I recommend checking out the archives in my blog related to the EU. Unconscious hypocrisy
But a brief further elaboration is that, with respect to the people mentioned by A.L. and others, no hypocrisy is involved because there is an underlaying, unstated – perhaps unconscious – distinction that is made between common people who they decide don’t need to carry a concealed weapon (for example) and themselves – where they’re in a position to decide whether they need one or not. Among each other, this governing elect can see all sorts of reasons why they should be able to protect themselves as they see fit (holding to the gun example). They accept each other’s reasons. But that doesn’t extend to normal people, who whatever they say don’t “need” it, and third parties (the governing class) can decide that for them.
This cuts into debates on Social Security reform (people won’t invest the money wisely, so the government needs to do it for them), to take another example. It extends to the sense of entitlement that causes certain sorts of people to be outraged by excesses in business/corporations – while lining the pockets of their own friends, again as in the example highlighted by A.L. It extends to foreign policy (see here).
That isn’t hypocrisy, either, because there are two sorts of people, and the rules for one sort do not apply to those in the other category. So neither is it corruption.
Well the first two refer to the gun industry, not private ownership. The next has to do with banking. The fourth is the same as the second. The fifth is meaningless fluff, and the last is pretty self-evident (as most of the people wearing kevlar I know are cops).
So far out of 9 bills, I see one that I deemed unreasonable. The right to bear arms is not a linear concept (like the level of particulates in the air). Therefore, every attempt to restrict gun rights does not automatically present an attack upon all gun rights in general. There are reasonable levels of gun ownership that can and should be agreed on. I’m sure we’d both agree that banning the sale of grenade launchers is not an infringment of 2nd amendment rights, correct? I think we’d also agree that banning .50 caliber pistols is unreasonable.
Because Perata was unreasonable 1 out of 9 times, in my opinion (and perhaps becuase he’s an utter sleazebag), I’ll agree that he has an agenda regarding private ownership that is unreasonable and invasive.
roublen – funny you mention Angelides, since he’s at a friend’s fundraiser tonight, and we were discussing him at length.
I like a lot of what he’s done as Treasurer, and wish he’d run in the Recall; but – I’m seriously torqued off at his counter-Arnold budget plays. They were basically dumb, and politically dumb as well.
I’m looking forward to ’06, whether he runs for Senate or Governor. He’s someone I have a serious respect for…
A.L.
SAO – you’re moving the goalposts. The issue isn’t whether or not Perata supports gun regulations that you & I think are reasonable or support; the issue is whether he’s a leader of the ‘more gun regulation’ movement in the Legislature, and based on what my friends in Sacramento say, and what I see in leginfo (sorry, the banking bill had been gutted – go look at the as-introduced bill), he is a leader.
And as a leader of a movement that shows every sign of intending to limit gun ownership in California, it’s kinda hypocritical for him to carry one.
A.L.
SAO: The distinctions you draw are specious because the aim of all those measures are to make it more difficult for people to get access to guns. It’s back-door but the aims are the same.
Porphyrogenitus
> It extends to the sense of entitlement that causes certain sorts of people to be outraged by excesses in business/corporations – while lining the pockets of their own friends, again as in the example highlighted by A.L.
Thanks for the clarification. For your thesis to prove true in the context of the current scandal with the Liberal party the Liberal party would need to be outraged about corporate excess. Generally this is not the case ( unless some political hay can be made ).
The current grief is simply a case of corruption with a federalist pork-barreling thank-you-for-bringing-Quebec-back-into-the-fold overlay.
As an aside, are not all countries governed by elites of one flavour or another?
Porph sez, “It’s a legitimate position for Ann to believe otherwise and view her rights as existing at the leave of the majority and that they can be withdrawn at any time. This position is usually held by those who place a high degree of trust in decisions democratically arrived at and who believe the majority in an electorate will not make grave mistakes or act to repress a minority. It’s a philosophical view, but historical examples contradict such trust.”
{Scratches head}
{Reads prior comment}
{Scratches head}
While I appreciate your respect for my opinion, I think you have ascribed to me an opinion I did not state. But that’s ok, I think you missed my point, too. I wasn’t about the source human rights, rather the nature of representative government.
Oh, and let’s not forget all the sworn peace officers (paid, volunteer, and retired) who are allowed to carry, I believe, without a permit. If you count them in, that sends the numbers of people carrying concealed up exponentially.
And as a leader of a movement that shows every sign of intending to limit gun ownership in California, it’s kinda hypocritical for him to carry one.
Attempting to limit gun ownership is not attempting to end gun ownership. The fact that he carries a gun only makes him a hypocrite if he believes the gun he carries shouldn’t be carried by others. As far as I know, Perata has never challenged CCW law, nor has he fundamentally challenged handgun ownership aside from very, very large (and cartoonish) ones.
Of course, there is political momentum to any bill limiting gun ownership that extends beyond the immediate reach of its legislation. For example, I’ll gladly agree to ban partial-birth abortions, even though it’s obvious to me that the people behind such legislation are pushing to ban all abortions. I see it as my responsibility as a citizen to follow through on “common-sense” initiatives, even if their overall thrust is against my group’s interests.
Part of the problem plaguing the 2nd amendment debate, as well as the abortion debate is that neither side feels their basic right is stable. In both cases the right is relatively fluid and subject to change. This makes compromise all too difficult to reach on issues that should be “no-brainers” (like partial-birth or assault weapons, in my opinion).
I think there are a lot of issues that are ripe with this kind of gridlock- and it really benefits the extremes. We touched a bit on this same issue sparing over the issue of race a week back. Maybe the dialogue would be better if we stopped being so hysterical and put some concrete, positive constitutional assurance behind the right to bear arms?
Ann,
In answer to one of your questions:
“…I also admit to not understanding the desire for a concealed permit. If the goal is deterrence, why hide the gun? If your goal is deterrence, mount a gun rack on the minivan.”
There are two types of deterrence in play here. The first type involves a guy carrying openly–gun rack on the minivan, pistol in holster on belt, whatever. This sends the deterrent message, “Don’t mess with me, because I am packing point-and-click lethal force.”
The second type involves concealed-carry permits. If a guy is carrying a gun under his jacket, in a coat pocket, whatever, he has point-and-click lethal force available whenever he needs it, but the hypothetical mugger doesn’t know it ahead of time.
The crucial difference concerns guy or gal #2, the one without a gun. If you live in an area where open-carry is the only available option, then the guy with a gun is safer from muggers than the guy without. But if the local sheriff issues concealed-carry permits (and this knowledge will circulate in the mugger community), the mugger doesn’t know if a potential target is packing or not–the gun might be in a coat pocket, or it might not.
Summary: open-carry protects those who carry; concealed-carry protects everyone.
SAO –
I’m really not looking to open a gun control argument here. they spin out of control pretty fast and I haven’t heard anything new in them in a long long time.
My point is simple; Perata et al are working hard to make it as difficult as possible for people like me to share the rights that he believes he’s entitled to. Here’s another data point for you: A local SoCal blogger, *Michael Williams*, applied for a CCW in his home town, Hawthorne. He was turned down, made a stink, filed a FOIA request for the CCW applications issued in the city.
6 applications. 3 granted, 3 declined. The granted ones included the mayor and two city council members. The three declined included three citizens (one declined for cause).
So it’s not that CCW are a bad idea; they’re just a bad idea for everyone not elected to office.
Again, I’m not looking for a pro- or anti- CCW debate right now; but if you believe CCW’s are good, then shouldn;t they be a general right? And if you believe they are bad, why would you go get one?
A.L.
I didn’t know that you didn’t have a CCW permit. That’s something of an outrage, and I feel slightly guilty that those permits are so relatively easy to obtain where I live. In fact I seriously debated open carrying in the Trader Joe’s tonight, when I picked up some exotic groceries. I have no idea how it would’ve been received, but was intrigued to find out. Now, this is an area where one can only hope that FF&C eventually applies.
By the way, you missed a rather notable hypocrite: David Crosby.
A.L., it’s too early to tell if Angelides was wrong on the bond bailout. By 11/06, we’ll see if the Legislature and Governor use the breathing space to fix the structural deficit. I don’t think they’ll be able to agree, at least not the required 2/3. Since there’s no way a second bond issue will pass (IMHO), if drastic cuts come in 05, Angelides will be sitting pretty.
Perata et al are working hard to make it as difficult as possible for people like me to share the rights that he believes he’s entitled to
I don’t get it, A.L. I might as well be arguing in Mandarin here. Perata has never, to my knowledge, challenged your (basic citizens’) right to CCW, which is the right “he feels he’s entitled to.”
Repeat after me: The right to own a handgun is different than the right to conceal one.
Good.
SAO:
Somehow I just have a hunch that if Perata, and those with similar views, were interested in supporting “shall issue” it’d be a fact in relatively short order. Besides that, what’s the logic you’re using to bend the pretzel into the shape you apparently think “wise?” Does it have the slightest thing to do with the 2nd Amendment?
To illustrate, I’ll take another of your expressed opinions:
Again, by what logic do you make these distinctions? The only distinction the founders made was to differentiate between arms that could be carried (by which they meant long guns, sidearms, swords, sabres, etc.) and canon. It’s pretty clear that most of the stuff you object to belongs to that class of weapons that are not protected as a right under the 2nd. Not so with .50 caliber weapons, and it’s probably not even the case with fully automatic weapons. All of those can be carried (and yes, I know RPGs can be carried too), and don’t resemble canon in the sense of avoiding tertiary consequences. (Essentially the principle that guided the founders was not really whether the items could de “carried.” That was just a convenient point of reference. The principle is whether the weapon could be aimed or pointed at an individual with any sort of reliability. Clearly that excludes “exploding” shells, but it also excludes non-exploding shells and trebuchet, because of the effects of collapsing buildings, etc. Overpenetration is probably not enough reason to ban particular calibers or weapons, although armor piercing shells are a gray area.
There is a very clear principle the guides whether on not a particular class of weaponry is protected and grenade launchers, f-16s and such like are not covered. Nonetheless many of those devices have been owned and used legally by private persons from time to time. This includes the privateers who deployed canon during revolutionary and post-revolutionary times. Even though it isn’t a right, it may be allowed by statute.
But .50 cals and machine guns are, I think, covered under the principle that governs and guides the wording of the 2nd, even though the founders knew nothing of such weapons at the time. And as for whether such items are useless for self defense, you’re a little unschooled, apparently. Depends on the circumstances, as with any self-defensive situation.
We might find agreement in the general neighborhood of “reasonableness,” but it really offers no principle to dissuage over-reaching. And it appears that you don’t mind a little unreasonableness anyway, from time to time, in the service of reasonableness.
But there’s really a perfectly coherent principle that’s entirely in concert with the intent of the founders who would actually be quite unreasonable by your standards, because they had a different goal in mind. I can find no “principle,” reasonable or otherwise, that would suggest high caliber rifles and automatic weapons can be banned, that would be consistent with the 2nd Amendment. I don’t especially like that conclusion, because I wish there were a bright line that left most of those weapons outside the category. But there isn’t, so it’s not up to me. In fact, I’m not allowed.
Sam:
Precisely! Random reinforcement, if I remember my psych 101 correctly.
Shall issue.
The .50 cal is a militia weapon. It is quite suitable for home land defence. BTW all males from 18 to 45 are enrolled in the unorganized militia and it is suggested that they own a suitable military weapon.
The famous Supreme Court case “Miller” turned on whether the gun was suitable for militia use.
====================================
$.05 per bullet is a very high price if you are trying to maintain fore arms profficiency. Traing is good. A well trained shooter is safer. Which is why police officers are required to practice. Practice might require shooting several hundred rounds. Raise the costs and you get less.
Raising taxes on shooters lowers gun safety.
======================================
But hey, California is doing it’s best to destroy it’s economy and habitability. Keep up the good work.
Illinois has some really stupid politicians and we need all the help we can get.
SAO,
Of course we need to ban Partial Birth Abortions.
Now if only the ban would include using the procedure to protect the health of the mother when medically necessary I might agree that such a ban could be good if it did not require a doctor getting a court order for proper medical practice.
Course as a SAO you are well aware that the government’s only interest is in protecting it’s citizens and it’s functionaries act only from benevolent motives.
There is never any scalp hunting around budget time or politicians looking to make a name for themselves at some one else’s expense. So the more government can regulate the better off we will be.
A. L.:
That’s why the 2nd amendment exists. It’s the natural inclination of rulers to arm themselves and deny arms to the ruled. I’m reminded of a satirical old science fiction novel called A Planet for Texans in which political assassination was considered an act of civic virture. Following such an incident the now deceased pol was put on trial to prove he didn’t need killin’.
Senior Administration Official:
Making bullets more expensive does not put an unreasonable limit on 2nd amendment rights, nor does it come anywhere near a ban on all private weapons. Perhaps if we were to put a massive tax on bullets, but $.05 each doesn’t come close.
I doubt that a tax of, say, $10,000 per bullet would pass constitutional muster on 2nd amendment grounds. Paraphrasing Daniel Webster: the power to tax is the power to destroy. And we haven’t granted government the power to destroy the ownership of arms by the populace.
A. L.:
Your tale of pols on the take here and in Canada is no surprise to me. As a citizen of Chicago I’d pretty much expect it. There an old Chicago saying: don’t take a bribe, just hand him your business card. I’ve often wondered if we wouldn’t be better off auctioning political offices rather than electing people.
Ann:
Which of course means that what I said is on-point: are their limits to representative government or not? If the majority wants something that they should not have, should an elected representative trample the rights of a minority in order to give it to them?
Edmund Burke once said to his constituents, upon his election to Parliament, that he owed them not just to reflect their views on every subject, but also his judgement. Of course, an electorate has every right to turn out a politician who is unresponsive, and elected officials must be accountable to the governed, but likewise there are limits on what an electorate can demand as well. What those areas are often involve the rights of the minority and whether the majority can insist that the officials they elect do something against their interests.
That’s very much on point regarding the subject you raised.
A.L. – I think it’s pretty clear that SAO has no interest in keeping to your point and precisely does want to change the subject. Trying to get him to focus on your point is futile.
KevinG: The Canadian Liberals generally are, and your loophole about only being so when political advantage can be gained is a rather large one.
As for this:
It depends on how expansively you define “elite”, and whether you’re willing to see distinctions in behavior or not. If you aren’t, I can’t do much within the narrow confines of a comment thread where further lengthy posts along these lines would constitute a major digression in this thread.
I can recommend some reading, if you’re interested, but if you just wanted to make a rhetorical hit or obscure the distinction without the trouble engaging my arguments directly, consider it done. I would welcome a good counter-argument, though, but perhaps it would best be carried out in e-mail exchanges with me directly, which I promise I’ll post (quoting you entirely and fairly) on my own blog. We could then have a discussion/debate on the subject, post it for folks to read, but without taking up Wind’s Server space. If you’re interested, write me: jruhlconob@sprynet.com
Ok, Porph, it looks like you got part of my point, but took it someplace other than where I was going. But, no matter.
Let’s see if I can’t boil down some of this discussion and offer a solution.
Generally, folks don’t like pols or celebs that promote gun control but who carry guns themselves. I think the former concept is broader than the latter (i.e., no AK-47’s on the street vs. me carrying a handgun), and I think that is an important distinction. One can be in favor of possessing a gun, but in a limited sense rather than an unlimited one. I don’t find that problematic unless the guy arguing against .50 calibers carries one himself.
Second, people don’t seem to like the fact that pols and celebrities can get CCW permits and they can’t. What this misses is that the pols and celebs are not the ones making the call on whether to issue. It is the lead peace officer in the jurisdiction that makes the call. If the guy in Hawthorne didn’t like it that the police chief turned him down, maybe he should lobby the city council for help — those are the people that the police chief reports to. With regard to County sheriffs, they report to the electorate.
If you don’t like the fact that the lead peace officer in a jurisdiction has the discretion to deny you a CCW permit, then work to change the law and remove the discretion. This can be accomplished two ways: the standard bill process (intro in the Lege, signed by the Gov) or by initiative (popular vote).
So… Who is irked enough to volunteer to chair this project?
Ok, since you’ve conceeded A.L.s initial point that there’s something stinky going on here but shifted focus some, time for me to ask a question then: Are you trying to say that it’s a fair and objective process that just naturally results in the elect (pols, celebs, and other connected people) getting CCPs in areas where typical law-abiding citizens generally get turned down?
Second question, going back to your point about democracy and majority rule, if as you say people don’t like this kind of thing – connected folks, celebs & pols, getting CCPs while favoring restrictions on others, if you believe that officials in an area should reflect the views of the people, doesn’t that apply here? That is, if as you say people find these antics objectionable, and if as you seem to be saying officials should follow the will of the people, shouldn’t that be reflected in making these decisions as well? Or are you now coming around to my view, that discretionary judgement on the part of government officials sometimes over-rides popular will? (THe only difference then being that we might disagree on specific instances)