No discussion of Dick Metcalf's article on gun regulations?

[RX-79G]

Zuk,

You are confusing winning a philoshical debate with the real world problem of securing a right.

The success of MLK or Ghandi in greatly expanding and securing rights was not because they kept insisting an idea was true. They negotiated those rights, created popular appeal for their message and quieted the most militant voices.

Insisting that an idea on an important piece of paper allows you to ignore reality is why all Communist countries eventually fail. If the economic or legal ideal you adhere to is out of step with reality it won't last.

The true believer's version of 2A is not currently compatible with reality. So we can let that belief kill itself (like the Soviets and Third Reich did) or adapt like the Chinese.

There is no prize for the loser that was "right".

 

[Chaz88]

Chaz, do we really think it is plausible that many G&A readers had not heard Metcalf's analysis previously?

I think it is very plausible that a great many people do very little on their own to gather and critically examine information that is outside of their own narrowly defined interests. Hence part of the reason that this had such a strong reaction "how dare G&A print anything that is not aimed directly at what I want to hear and read".

If they aren't involved at this point, is an article in a gun magazine going to do it? I think not.

At some point something prompted everyone that is involved to become involved. I will admit it might not be likely but if it caused one more person to decide they needed to try and make a difference than it was not all bad.

 

[zukiphile]

Zuk,

You are confusing winning a philoshical debate with the real world problem of securing a right.

That is incorrect. Asking you a question about ability of anyone of us to negotiate away parts of a right held by the rest of the population doesn't conflate either, but it does raise a tactical question.

The success of MLK or Ghandi in greatly expanding and securing rights was not because they kept insisting an idea was true.

Did you mean to write that?

I imagine that exploring that would be an unwelcome tangent, but I think you meant to make a point about public persuasion.

If you purport to have the authority to barter away a right naturally possessed by free men, how do you persuade anyone that you actually believe it is a right? An eagerness to negotiate away matters of principle necessarily undermines a claim that the right is anything but a grant from the state.

Compromise has a time and place. When people are forming an opinion as to the correct reading of the 2d Am. is not the correct time for compromise.

The true believer's version of 2A is not currently compatible with reality.

I believe that at the time the BOR were written and adopted there was an idea of natural rights, i.e. rights possessed by free men as a consequence of their nature. Those rights include an ability to speak without prior restraint from the government, a right to choose one's own religious observance and doctrine, and a right to keep and bear arms. The idea is not that these are narrow, technical privileges.

I also accept that we have properly constituted courts with constitutional authority to resolve disputes about those rights. Am I a true believer?

If so, how is that incompatible with reality?

There is no prize for the loser that was "right".

And there is no victory where the description and idea of the right is reduced before it is explained. The legal and political reality includes the text of the 2d Am. Dismissing the importance of the constitutional description as incompatible with reality isn't political realism.

 

[RX-79G]

Zuk,

Your 2A rights are already greatly reduced! Your comments would make sense if we were living in a time when that wasn't true, but the reality is that 2A has not been a limitless right at any time in it's history. It's an idea that has never been put into full practice, so it is a little difficult to make the theoretical practice of that right the only jumping off point for the discussion.

It does make sense to say "Our rights are being violated by the current regulations. We propose these regulations instead."

There has never been in our history a right that has been exercised without limits. That's the reality. I recommend we choose to decide what those limits are rather than insisting they don't and can't exist. You can't barter away something you've never had. Words on paper are not having a right.

Given that it is impossible to have zero gun laws, why continue to insist that there should be zero gun laws? Foolish pride?

Let's stop acting like children, stomping our feet and yelling "NO!" It doesn't work for two year olds or legislatures. Decide what's important in that right and protect it however you can.

 

[gc70]

The success of MLK or Ghandi in greatly expanding and securing rights was not because they kept insisting an idea was true. They negotiated those rights, created popular appeal for their message and quieted the most militant voices.

I disagree. MLK and Ghandi were successful precisely because they unwaveringly pursued a consistent goal. They never moved their ultimate goalposts, but were willing to advance incrementally. Neither MLK or Ghandi ever bartered away one part of their aspirations to gain another part - they always moved forward, even if the movement was slower than some of their compatriots desired.

I see the 2A movement in much the same light. Restrictions that would never have been tolerated for a recognized constitutional right accumulated in the decades before the 2A was recognized as an individual, fundamental constitutional right. We will not unwind those restrictions overnight, but we should not unwisely bargain away parts of our right to secure other parts more quickly.

 

[RX-79G]

I disagree. MLK and Ghandi were successful precisely because they unwaveringly pursued a consistent goal. They never moved their ultimate goalposts, but were willing to advance incrementally. Neither MLK or Ghandi ever bartered away one part of their aspirations to gain another part - they always moved forward, even if the movement was slower than some of their compatriots desired.

Moved forward, how? The activists of MLK's generation were largely sidelined by the late '60s by young activists that demanded equality immediately and blamed the previous generation for "compromise", especially Whitney Young who had accomplished more for blacks economic equality than anyone in that era. The new generation felt that Young's deal making with white industry leaders was a betrayal. No compromises with whitey.

Of course, the new generation accomplished almost nothing for themselves. But they sure had their principles.

We could use a few Whitney Youngs - people willing to figure out what a stable and useful democratic solution looks like. But we're acting more like Stokely Carmichael. Gun Power!

 

[gc70]

Moved forward, how?

I think you have already made my case with your description of the civil rights movement.

We move forward one step at a time. Like the civil rights activists who demanded everything immediately, simply shouting "Shall Not Be Infringed" will not achieve anything because it is too big a leap at one time. But, with "Shall Not Be Infringed" as a goal, we can press to eliminate one law or restriction at a time.

The young civil rights activists you referred to confused persistence and patience with compromise. We should take care that the 2A movement does not make the same mistake. We should never compromise by forsaking our goal and bargaining to exchange one restriction of our 2A rights for another. The only acceptable compromise involves recognizing that removing the restrictions on our rights may proceed more slowly than we might wish.

 

[Tom Servo]

...and we have officially wandered off topic. Everyone's had a chance to put in their $.02, so let's call it a night here.