I can't help but pull this one into a post of its own.

A reader, Dan Hermann, apparently unfriendly to this blog, recently commented:

I think anyone who wants to own a gun should be required to join the militia, as the Constitution implies.

This remark appears to be a reference to our discussion of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which is commonly (and properly) interpreted to mean that private ownership of firearms is a right under that document. It states:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Well, this gem of a comment struck a chord with my inner snark and she got the best of me on this one. So, I replied:

If they get a gun for personal defense, then technically they are already part of a militia, Dan.

We might also ask them, "If you see foreign invaders coming, would you be willing to shoot them?" And if they say "yes" then they are technically joining a militia as well.

Given that defense of the citizens of this nation is synonymous with the defense of the nation, it begs the question as to why those opposing gun ownership are opposed to national defense when that is not merely implied but stated in the amendment and elsewhere in the document in question.

If we were given to radical statements of vicious and ridiculous hyperbole, we might say that we think those opposed to private gun ownership should be tried for treason.

But we aren't prone to that are we, Dan?

Readers, pray, what is your opinion on this? What should be done with those who want to own guns? What should be done to criminals? What should be done to foreign invaders? What should be done with those who are opposed to national defense and security? Be creative.

I've told you what I think, but let's do solicit some other opinions beyond my own on this blog.

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 01:34 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Category: Importance of Ideas
Post contains 349 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Well, since you asked...

Of course I agree with you. As for what should be done? Well, I think the solution is MORE guns--not less--and fewer regulations. We should be teaching kids how to shoot guns in public school starting in the 4th grade. Kids should get their gun license when they get their driver's license.

Maybe crazies will be less prone to shooting up schools if they know the other students are trained well in using pistols and carry them. How many fewer violent crimes will there be because Johnny Rapist knows that Mary-Sue Slutsky carries a .22 and knows how to use it.

Living in a free nation means accepting certain risks. Owning a gun can be part of managing that risk.

Posted by: Matt Chancellor at April 23, 2007 05:17 PM (SpPtZ)

2 I was listening to The Herman Cain Show here in Atlanta the other day, and a caller said that the Democrats who are proposing an official timetable be tried for treason, the host agreeing with that. I laughed out loud.

Posted by: Justin at April 24, 2007 03:55 AM (ToYLF)

3 How about we put a tax on Democrats and use it to give out guns, starting with rich people. Democrats are disqualified from being on the "gun dole."

Posted by: Inspector at April 24, 2007 04:36 AM (mDU6h)

4 I can't see that the issue of gun-ownership/gun-control as anything more than a metric for the state of the union, right now, just as are such issues as abortion-choice rights, national self-defense (read: war), and eminent domain, along with a host of others.

Of course we should be working for just laws, which include the right to reasonable means of individual self-defense (i.e. the right to bear small arms), but, frankly, I think none of the narrower-context issues will really mean much until we make more headway against the whole subjectivist-altruist-statist poison in our culture.

Like Ayn Rand said (paraphrased from memory): I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism. And I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason.

I guess it's hard for me to get all fired up about these things when every day I must deal with people's inabilities to grasp even simple concretizations.

Specifically, on the issue of gun-control, I don't know how to answer the objection that less gun control is going to increase the incidence of violence. The only argument that makes sense to me is the one I commented on the other day: Rational men would know how to defend themselves and would not fail to act against aggression. But putting weapons in the hands of subjectivists and mystics will result in exactly what the doom-sayers are predicting.

I'm not saying we should have gun-control. I'm saying that this looks like a "damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't" situation to me.

Methinks it must get worse before it gets better.

(What do you think, too soap-boxy? Too pessimistic?)

Posted by: Gwen at April 25, 2007 04:14 AM (N9kTt)

5 Gwen,

Oh, you went and ruined the party by getting serious.

j/k

Ok, seriously: You're basically right. Guns won't save the nation or the culture. On an individual level, however, my gun could save my life and property.

As to answering the charge that less gun control is going to increase the incidence of violence: it's been tried. The UK is a not-so-shining example. They outlawed guns there and the violence only got worse. Criminals were emboldened before a disarmed populace and almost none of them were disarmed - obtaining a gun illegally is about as hard as obtaining pot illegally. Not that criminals need guns; if they know you don't have one, they're perfectly happy to club you with blunt objects. At least with a gun, a woman with a 100 lb weight handicap might stand a chance against a criminal. And the criminal risks getting beat up at worst, instead of his life.

Now they're basically making any form of resistance to crime against the law - putting people in jail for fighting back against burglers. You'd better believe the number of burglers went up after that. Same basic principle.

Laws like that only make sure that the guns tend to end up more in the hands of the people who least should have them. Only law-abiding citizens abide by laws, after all.

Posted by: Inspector at April 25, 2007 05:08 AM (mDU6h)

6 Hi Inspector.

Thanks for being the Christopher Robin to my Eeyore.

If you'll permit a quibble, you've committed a non-sequitor. The fact that the UK banned guns (and had predictably violent results) does not speak to the argument that some make predicting a similar rise in violence with the lifting of restrictions.

Any rational person could have (and many did) told them that disarming innocents would embolden the criminals. But my point is that, given today's depraved culture, arming an irrational (subjective and mystic) populace will also lead to greater violence (albeit a different sort - not muggings and such crimes, but "crimes of passion", e.g. VA Tech, and domestic violence).

I see those who are arguing for gun control as failing to address the personal self-defense aspect. But I also see, generally, those arguing against gun control, failing to address the essential objection of the pro-control camp.

That's why I say it's a no-win. Because in order to minimize both kinds of crime, rationality needs to be fostered.

I'm so pessimistic about it because the issue, as it is being fought in the popular and political arenas, will never be stated in these terms, and thus we'll end up with one of the two unsavory "solutions".

(As is always the case when Mis-Integration "fights" Dis-Integration.)

Posted by: Gwen at April 25, 2007 06:51 AM (N9kTt)

7 I've been rather polemic in my comments. So in order to be clear, let me state my affirmative position:

I believe in relaxing gun-control (i.e. the government still has the right to regulate the use of force, so some laws regarding the use of small arms will always be necessary). Then at least those who are still rational will be able to defend themselves against both cold- and hot-blooded crimes.

But I think that either way you go, there will always be violence because even though man is the rational animal, we still live in philosophically primitive times.

Wolves and coyotes were a persistent problem for man until he brought technology to bear and tamed the wilderness. And so will the wilderness of men's souls be a threat until we tame (civilize) that primitive domain as well.

Posted by: Gwen at April 25, 2007 07:22 AM (N9kTt)

8 {Trey, if this is too off-topic, or I'm just saying too much, please let me know. Normally, I'm a good little lurker, but something just got into me!}

In fact, discussing gun-control in terms of the prevalence of gun-related violence is completely the wrong tack to set.

I just thought of an interesting parallel to illustrate my point on this. A friend of mine, last week, called me to tell me some happy news. She had just signed up to be a "tester" for the State Housing Authority (or whatever it's called). The Washington state Senate recently passed a law adding "gender identity" to the non-discrimination laws (for employment and housing and such). So if someone complains to the SHA that a potential landlord didn't let them in on the grounds that they are transgender, the SHA might call my friend and ask her to go "test" it out by posing as an applicant at that property.

To make a long story short, I couldn't share in her joy and when I tried to explain why we got into an hours-long discussion on the practical solution to such injustices.

The point I tried to make to her is that punishing the innocent (land-owners) by forcing them to associate (through a business transaction) with those they deem it unwise to associate with (however foolish they really are) is not a solution, that in fact it is an attempt to counter an injustice with more injustice. My argument focused on morality.

However, she couldn't get past the idea that without such laws, some individuals (namely the "disenfranchised", such as the ill and handicapped, mentally and physically) would suffer; would be out on the street, etc. Hers argument addressed practicality.

Now, we know that the moral *is* the practical, but it's a trap to argue about matters of political justice on strictly practical terms. The solution to the problem of discrimination is not affirmative action, it is freedom of association and contract.

In the same way, the fact of gun-related violence and its relative prevalence is a way of addressing an issue of justice on practical terms. And, of course, the moral is the practical, so, in the long run, less regulation of gun ownership will lead to a safer, more peaceful environment. However, the way to address it is not on those terms. Rather, it must be driven home that the issue of justice, of individual rights, specifically to self-defense, is the point. Whatever violence men commit against one another, it only exacerbates the problem to penalize the innocent. Kindergarteners know that punishing the entire class because of one misbehaving classmate just isn't fair, whether or not the mis-behaver repents.

But (and wow am I a pessimist), just as I failed to drive home the moral point with my friend (who still thinks she's right because her "solution" keeps us, the marginalized trans-folk, et al., housed, the concrete-bound populace only sees the issue of violence when it comes to gun-control.

What is a rational animal to do?

Posted by: Gwen at April 25, 2007 08:09 AM (N9kTt)

9 I think you bring up a relevant point, Gwen.

I commented some time back that although on this blog I often focus on debunking the "pragmatic" arguments used by people on various issues, there are more fundamental issues that trump any such concerns.

In the case of gun ownership, the fundamental issue isn't the number of innocents hurt, the number of criminals caught, the amount of property damage, the rate of crime or any of that. The fundamental issue is property rights. There is nothing inherently threatening about owning a gun (unlike, say, a nuclear weapon, which would represent the threat of force to everyone in the vicinity) and therefore it is a violation of no one's rights for me to have one.

In the case of things like housing, medical care, and the like, what most "liberal-minded" people ignore is the fact that the claim that widespread discrimination is possible.

It is certainly true that some people will be ignorant their whole lives. In a free market, their ignorance translates directly to financial losses.

It is also certainly true that there have been instances of market-wide discrimination. Consider treatment of black people in the south.

But such instances are inherently short-lived and in an environment where law enforcement is rigorous and rational, it is utterly ridiculous to even attempt it.

From even a practical perspective, your friends arguments are flawed.

It's not that the moral and the immoral are both practical. It is that the moral is the practical and it is only to the extent that a system is moral that it succeeds in any real sense of the word.

Communism, even on a small scale, fails because of its inherent immorality. The flaw is subverting individual rights for the benefit of collective. Since the "benefit of the collective" doesn't really exist, it is the subversion of the rights of individuals for the benefit of other individuals who subvert those rights -- welfare recipients, bureaucrats, etc.

Practically and morally, it is wrong and this is the case on every topic I can think of.

The rational person must be aware of the strength of his position primarily in the moral context, but the rhetorical strength of such arguments is often lost in today's philosophical environment. So, the rational person can present the practical argument as well, but it always comes back to the moral.

So, I say, "Your idea fails both on your battlefield and in mine."

(Strategically, this is an extremely risky approach, because there is an implied support for the enemy's invalid premises.)

Posted by: Trey Givens at April 25, 2007 11:46 AM (ErOeR)

10 Gwen,

Well it looks like you have sort of answered yourself. I don't know if there is anything I need to add; you've got it as far as I can tell.

Trey wrapped it up - Their ideas fail on all levels, even their base, pragmatic one. (Although any such argument is incomplete without the moral component)

Posted by: Inspector at April 25, 2007 04:21 PM (nDqTC)

11 Good thread. Thanks Trey, Inspector!

Posted by: Gwen at April 26, 2007 03:58 AM (N9kTt)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I am a big fan of the benefit of the doubt. I am probably a little too generous with it at times, actually.

"The benefit of the doubt" is an expression that refers to the more flattering of two propositions when the evidence allows for both.

The benefit of the doubt is something you grant strangers by assuming they aren't criminals or crazies. Perhaps you see them doing something that doesn't quite add up, so you say to yourself, "I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. There must be a good reason for them doing something so weird." Like when I walked into the locker room the other day and this man was wagging his wang violently side-to-side. I assume this is because it was really wet and his towel wasn't doing the job. See? Benefit of the doubt.

This morning, a friend and I were talking about how Larry Birkhead now has custody of Anna Nicole Smith's baby. I remarked that if I were him, I would not want the baby. Further, I believe that he fought so hard for custody of the child primarily because he wants the money that would come with her.

My friend protested saying that I was judging that man too harshly. I don't know him, so he might be a kind, smart, intelligent man with a strong desire to be a good father to the child he sired. She said that because I don't know the man, I should extend to him the benefit of the doubt.

The benefit of the doubt is an extremely tenuous, fickle thing. Any amount of evidence to the contrary may push things beyond the point where "generosity" to the item in question becomes brash stupidity.

In the case of Larry Birkhead, what do I know of him? He's a Paparazzi who was romantically linked to Anna Nicole Smith. He is friendly with the likes of Howard K. Stern, the lawyer.

Francisco D'Anconia in Atlas Shrugged remarks something to the effect that what a man loves tells a lot about his character. Indeed it does.

And Larry Birkhead claimed to love a strung out ding-bat. Bless her heart, but Anna Nicole Smith was not a person to respect or admire in any way. She was idiotic beyond belief. From the looks of her television show, she spent most of her time drunk, high, and/or whining.

The best thing I can say about her is that she was very pretty and malice certainly wasn't one of her defining characteristics at all.

Howard K. Stern also seems to be a drunkard and a drug-user. He strikes me as being a first-class shyster.

And these are the people Larry Birkhead chose to keep company with. He chose Anna Nicole Smith as the one person in his life most qualified to be the mother of his children.

He makes his living taking photographs of celebrities and the more scandalous the photo, the better. And he now has custody -- and exclusive rights to -- of one of the most publicized celebrity children in recent history.

And if I were a young man such as he at a point in my career as his and unattached, why would I want a child? Even if the child came with a huge bankroll, it would still not be possible for me to be a dedicated father without sacrificing my personal happiness.

I do certainly want to raise children someday, but not today. And I really wouldn't want to deal with one that comes with a gajillion dollars that I didn't earn.

Given all of these things, it simply isn't possible for me to extend to that man the benefit of the doubt when it comes to his qualifications as a father or his motives in going to such lengths to gain custody of this child.

I could be wrong. That is a possibility. I really don't know the man. I don't know much else about his life other than what little I've seen on television, seen in the papers and magazines, or what I've read on the internet.

But all the evidence I do have indicates that he's not a man of great moral fiber.

One may say that he is, in fact, a fine, upstanding human being, but barring the presentation of some supporting evidence, such a claim has the standing of an arbitrary assertion.

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 04:17 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Category: Importance of Ideas
Post contains 737 words, total size 4 kb.

In my last post on this topic, I discussed bad ideas and how they can compound themselves and lead a person to suicide.

As I thought more on the topic this morning, it occurred to me that not everyone starts from the "healthy brain" premise that I do.

I've mentioned in numerous posts that I find crazy people extremely tragic.

I rarely feel guilt or pity for people who get themselves into bad situations through making repeated idiotic decisions, but in contemplating the insane, I find that I'm scared and saddened by those people.

These are people with what I call "mechanical" problems in their brains. Literally, their brains do not function properly. Your brain in your basic tool for dealing with reality and if it doesn't do what it's supposed to do, like maybe it feeds you bad information about reality or something, I just don't know how to deal with that.

In the movie A Beautiful Mind, the main character figures out how to tell his hallucinations from reality, but is that really possible without medication? I dunno it's horrible to even contemplate.

So, if you find someone doing REALLY bad things like shooting up everyone at school, they may have some bad ideas, but they may also have a broken brain.

One of the amazing things about our human biology is that a healthy brain can make itself physically ill with bad ideas. Bad brains can spawn bad ideas. Bad ideas can spawn bad brains.

...

An unforeseen turn of events has distracted me from this post for the time being. Perhaps I will return to it another time.

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 04:33 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Category: Importance of Ideas
Post contains 277 words, total size 2 kb.

Today's shooting at VaTech has people talking.

A friend of mine in Atlanta sat on AIM and instant messaged me every time the body count changed.

Students at VaTech are talking about the outrage they feel because classes weren't canceled immediately after the first two shootings. (I'm not familiar with all the details, so I can't legitimately snark about armchair quarterbacking.)

Joe. My. God is using this as a reason to support gun control. I'm sure others are doing the same, but I am not clear on how anything shy of banning firearms altogether would do anything more than slow a determined would-be criminal. (I'm ignoring the reality of black markets for a second.)

Meanwhile, Michelle Malkin and others are using this incident as a reason to oppose gun control.

Chip Gibbons, from whom I got the Malkin link, reflects on his days at VaTech.

A dear friend of mine remarked on the subway this evening that she thinks society made the shooter that way. Her remark struck me as the plaintive cry of what many people whose minds have been disarmed by the moral relativism of modern society must be thinking. There is an honest, desperate need to explain things like this.

How could someone go so wrong?

She told me about how she and a coworker today were reflecting on the "good, ol' days" when people would just commit suicide.

She further remarked that these extremely violent but nevertheless suicidal criminals seem to be craving attention.

I agreed.

Given two options: suicide or a suicidal killing spree, the unifying aspect is an overwhelming lack of value for one's own self, literally, selflessness.

It seems like one such person feels such utter despair and selflessness but simultaneous alienation from the community or society they value so much more highly than they value themselves that they want to take their solitude to its most pitiful, rational end.

The other sort seems to be driven to a primal scream of violence. Their despair erupts in rage. They want to be felt and heard. Their violence and ultimate destruction contain a social statement: if they are as worthless as they feel, then what can be said of the society that 'produced' them? I don't suppose that they can see the murder of their peers as any better or worse than their own murder.

I expect these people see murder and suicide as mostly synonyms, particularly when those seem to originate ultimately from some perceived indifference or even malevolence from society at large. Worthless group means worthless self. Worthless self means worthless group.

Communal philosophies like Christianity, Communism, and Buddhism seem to recognize this and advocate greater integration of the self into society, that is, even less "self." The problem, they say, isn't that these people haven't enough value for their own lives, but too much and everyone else the same. The notion isn't merely counterintuitive, it's contradictory.

One simple question illustrates one of the many problems with such a premise: if each thing is worthless unto itself, how is a whole herd of worthless thingies any better at all? 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 * n = 0

But my friend is right. Such thinking is dominant in today's society. If a person goes along with mainstream philosophy in this way, it's possible that a bout of extreme despair will result in some suicidal action or another.

It's a pitiful situation.

Objectivism takes the obvious solution to the problem. If selflessness results in codependency, then selfishness results in independence. If selflessness results in a diminished respect for others and one's own happiness, then selfishness requires pride, honesty, and justice.

Of course, I am taking the argument in reverse here. Familiarize yourself with the work of Ayn Rand if you care to see the point more plainly made.

"Selfishness" as Ayn Rand meant it is misunderstood, maligned, and misused. It's dreadfully unpopular. It stands only just shy of being a taboo in popular thinking. Only just barely still worth considering according to the majority of thinking persons and those who don't bother as well.

I'm sure that many probably think my remarks here overly simplistic and I'm sure that over the coming days, weeks, months, and years other attempts will be made to explain "what went wrong" today at VaTech. There will be a lot more talking.

People will continue to talk about the need for gun control. Some people will talk about needing to regulate violent movies and video games. Others will talk about a need for greater community.

In watching a very few minutes of the news coverage of the event, I am filled with disgust. Trite expressions, empty platitudes, banal outpourings of emotion all over the "nations worst instance of gun violence in history." Silly, ridiculous outcries about how easy it is for a person to enter a college campus are nothing but emotional, impotent mewlings for minds mutilated by selflessness.

Without a doubt, there will be many who remain confused and skeptical of these proposed solutions. Many will continue to beg for a better answer.

At least they're asking for an answer. That much gives me hope. If no one were talking about it, if the questioned were considered settled, then there would be little point in writing all this here. People can change their minds about the importance of "community" and recognize how important they are to themselves.

I'm sure someone somewhere is saying something about a wish for all those people not having died in vain. I have the same wish although I probably wouldn't say it like that. I just want people to be right. I want people to have the truth. I do want people to be happy, but it requires facing some pretty fundamental facts. The only way this tragedy will not be an utter loss will be if people recognize the root of the problem as selflessness.

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 04:49 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Category: Importance of Ideas
Post contains 988 words, total size 6 kb.