Gun Control Pt. 3: Supreme Court Cases

It should be well stated that the culture war, facilitated clearly by both sides, but seemingly dominated by one side that focuses on propaganda, is only just a culture war. There’s a festering fringe like fear on the part of many gun-rights enthusiasts that the government is going to take their guns away. You can check out an interview with Wayne LaPierre here that sums up the perspective, indeed, what seems to be a worldview. Still, there’s no chance that any sitting president would successfully be able to “take” a person’s gun away, not legally, and more than likely not even by force. There’s a difference between taking someone’s gun away, and preventing people from obtaining certain guns, and regulating how guns should be handled in a public setting, or whatever scope that might be. Relegating any kind of regulation as being akin to unconstitutionality is unrealistic, and, frankly, constitutionally false.

If you don’t think it’s constitutional for gun control to even exist, you should look to United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). This case had to do with whether or not it was constitutional for the National Firearms Act to ban the sale and transport of shotguns. The court held that, given the language of the Second Amendment, that it was permissible to regulate such a weapon because there was no evidence that it was in common military use. Therefore, civilians didn’t need access to it as it had no distinct purpose related to a well regulated militia. For more detail, you can read the opinion of the court here.

Quite some time later, in 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States would again tackle the Second Amendment as it pertained to a District of Colombia (D.C.) regulation on guns in District of Columbia et al v Heller, No. 07-290 (2008). This law, in effect, required weapons in the home to be effectively inoperable, even if it was necessary for self defense. Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito were the majority opinion, while Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer opposed it, with Stevens and Breyer filing dissenting opinions. The majority opinion ruled that, 1) the second amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm, even if that possession is unconnected to the militia, 2) the second amendment protects an individual’s right to use said weapon for purposes of self defense within the home. Scalia, writing for the court, pointed to state constitutions that had adopted similar clauses as the second amendment that pointed towards an individual ownership right. He also pointed to the drafting history of the second amendment. That being said, to quote Scalia:

“United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.”

And,

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”

That being said, the reason that the D.C. trigger-lock requirement was found to be in violation of the second amendment is because hand guns are the most common weapon owned for purposes of self-defense. The law prevented the use of a weapon to protect ones’ self, it amounted to a total hand gun ban on an entire class, or so Scalia wrote.

As I noted before, Stevens and Breyer filed dissenting opinions. Stevens outlines why the opinion in United States v. Miller was faithful to the Second Amendment by focusing on the drafting history of the amendment. He follows this analysis by what occurred after ratification and argues that the amendment should not be interpreted as limiting congress’ authority to regulate the use or possession of firearms for civilian use. More importantly, Stevens’ dissent is a good example of the difference between interrelations, but neither is less valid than the other. Still, interpretation can erode facts, and whereupon such erosion occurs, opinion seems to then fill in the new found space. Regardless, Stevens agrees with Miller’s original interpretation of the second amendment as being a collective right, rather than such an individualistic view. Indeed, Stevens points to the fact that a number of Scalia’s arguments, which were in favor of the court’s eventual majority opinion, were fashioned not from arguments proposed on either side, but Scalia himself. An example of this would be:

“As a threshold matter, it is worth pausing to note an oddity in the Court’s interpretation of “to keep and bear arms.” Unlike the Court of Appeals, the Court does not read that phrase to create a right to possess arms for “lawful, private purposes.” Parker v.District of Columbia, 478 F. 3d 370, 382 (CADC 2007). Instead, the Court limits the Amendment’s protection to the right “to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” Ante, at 19. No party or amicus urged this interpretation; the Court appears to have fashioned it out of whole cloth. But although this novel limitation lacks support in the text of the Amendment, the Amendment’s text does justify a different limitation: the “right to keep and bear arms” protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia.”

Stevens isn’t alone, though, in the opinion that not only was precedent ignored, but also, for all intents and purposes, rewritten. Breyer also filed a dissenting opinion and touched on this very similar view of the majority opinion. Breyer, however, goes a whole different route, by pointing out the D.C. hand gun ban wasn’t a response to gun ownership, per se, but that it was a response to urban crime – a state response that was well within constitutional authority. Breyer, in effect, is arguing that the ruling slapped state sovereignty, even congressional authority, right in the kisser when it comes to the ability to tackle crime. Breyer states:

“… the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests. These two interests are sometimes intertwined. To assure 18th-century citizens that they could keep arms for militia purposes would necessarily have allowed them to keep arms that they could have used for self-defense as well. But self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective, is not the Amendment’s concern…

…the protection the Amendment provides is not absolute. The Amendment permits government to regulate the interests that it serves. Thus, irrespective of what those interests are—whether they do or do not include an independent interest in self-defense—the majority’s view cannot be correct unless it can show that the District’s regulation is unreasonable or inappropriate in Second Amendmentterms. This the majority cannot do…

…the District’s law is consistent with the Second Amendment even if that Amendment is interpreted as protecting a wholly separate interest in individual self-defense. That is so because the District’s regulation, which focuses upon the presence of handguns in high-crime urban areas, represents a permissible legislative response to a serious, indeed life-threatening, problem.”

This may be true. Although Scalia noted, and as I quoted above, that the right to gun ownership isn’t unlimited, the point remains that there are square differences between the liberal and conservative perspectives of the second amendment, and how it should be interpreted. Breyer outlines gun laws in colonial history as it pertained to urban areas, and concludes that D.C.’s gun law was within that scope, and not in violation of the second amendment. To quote:

“To the contrary, colonial history itself offers important examples of the kinds of gun regulation that citizens would then have thought compatible with the “right to keep and bear arms,” whether embodied in Federal or State Constitutions, or the background common law. And those examples include substantial regulation of firearms in urban areas, including regulations that imposed obstacles to the use of firearms for the protection of the home…Boston, Philadelphia, and New York City, the three largest cities in America during that period, all restricted the firing of guns within city limits to at least some degree.”

This all having been said, the most recent Supreme Court case, McDonald v. City of Chicago, No. 08-1521 (2010), decided that the second amendment applied to the states through the process of incorporation via the fourteenth amendment, but as to which clause placed indoctrination was made unclear. You can read the opinion summary here. Alito wrote the opinion of the court, with Scalia and Thomas filing concurring opinions, while Stevens and Breyer each filed dissenting opinions. Stevens and Breyer believe this case to be a substantive due process issue. I will not delve deeper into this case, and instead rest with saying that this case only bolstered the second amendment. I highly encourage you to read the cases for yourselves, as well as the opinions.

I should sum up by simply saying that clearly this is a sticky topic when it comes to history, and case law. What’s most striking to me, however, is the abstinence on the part of the gun-rights enthusiasts to even acknowledge evidences that rejects their strict, albeit perfectionist views of the second amendment. The right to bear arms is not absolute. State governments have the authority to regulate weapons, as does the federal government. What McDonald, and Heller fail to do, much to the agreement of Stevens and Breyer, is outline the kind of scrutiny that any gun regulation should go through. What constitutes a law, exactly, that is so restrictive that it constitutes a violation of the second amendment? There are other questions that the court simply has yet to answer. It should also be noted that it is likely that the Supreme Court will continue down the current path of loosening the amendment to fit common perspectives now, in that it was clearly intended for individual right to ownership. I would suggest that such an interpretation is anything but clear – murky at best. Regardless, the court has grown increasingly more conservative, and Heller and McDonald only go further to show this. These are two examples, along with other cases for which I have mentioned, that show the conservative leaning justices as essentially re-writing the constitution by ignoring case precedence.

So, to end this part, no one is going to take your guns away. You have an individual right whether or not the second amendment gives you that right – Scalia and Alito have given it to you nonetheless. Further still, no one is going to take your guns away. It is that simple.

Gun Control Pt. 2: Violent Video Games

Some Rights Reserved. DeviantArt: L4D-4-Life

The open letter also tackled the issue of violent video games be saying:

“Recent social psychology research clearly indicates that there is a direct relationship between gratuitously violent movies/video games and desensitization to real violence and increased aggressive behavior particularly in children and young adults (See Nicholas L. Carnagey, et al. 2007. “The effect of video game violence on physiological desensitization to real-life violence” and the references therein. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43:489-496). Therefore, we strongly recommend that gratuitous violence in movies and video games be discouraged. War and war-like behavior should not be glorified. Hollywood and video game producers are exploiting something they know nothing about. General Sherman famously said “War is Hell!” Leave war to the Professionals. War is not a game and should not be “sold” as entertainment to our children.”

I’m sure it goes without saying that this is just one study, and certainly isn’t conclusive with respect to the grand debate surrounding video games. But it does little justice on my part not to delve into this a bit deeper. First, we’ll tackle their citation, which you can read here. Carnagey, Anderson, and Bushman indeed found that playing violent video games desensitized kids. 257 college students (48.2% male, 51.7% female) completed measures and surveys to determine video game preferences and trait aggression, followed by playing a violent or nonviolent video game for 20-minutes. After they played their games, they then watched a 10-minute long video depicting real life violence, during which their heart rate and galvanic skin response were measured. For those that played non-violent games, the heart rate increase quite dramatically from the baseline measure to after game play results for both nonviolent and violent games, however for those that played a nonviolent game their heart rate continued to go up while watching the 10-minute video, whereas those that played violent video games saw a decrease in heart rate. As for the galvanic skin response, the same trend happened during the 10 minute video, whereas there wasn’t much change between the baseline and after game play.

While the results certainly speak for themselves, the authors didn’t tackle the length for which the participants would remain desensitized. This is an important weakness. Mullin and Linz (1995) had participants watch sexually violent films and then measured emotional sensitivity and callousness towards domestic abuse victims [3]. What they found is that repeated exposure maintained desensitization, but after five days of no exposure the participants had rebounded to previous baseline levels. At this point in time, no other studies have tackled this issue directly with respect to violent video games, or even violent videos.

To continue on with what the research seems to indicate, Anderson and Bushman (2001) conducted a meta-analytic review of 35 articles [4]. With respect to 21 articles that followed an experimental procedure, there was a correlation (r = .18) between short term exposure to violent video games and a temporary increase in aggression. [Correlation, which is shown by r vary by size: +/- .10 = small, +/- .30 = medium, +/- .50 = large. + r, means that as one variable increases so does the other, whereas a –r indicates that as one variable increases, the other decreases]. As for the 13 articles that followed non-experimental procedures (field studies), also found a correlation (r = .19) between violence video games and aggression. Other correlations found with respect to non-experimental designs were: time spent playing violent video games (r = .26), preference for violent video games (r = .16), and playing violent videogames in general (r = .16). The authors found a negative correlation between violent video games and prosocial behavior in the real world (r = -.16). In other words, the more a person plays violent video games, the less likely they are to help. Among other correlations was found between aggressive thoughts (cognition) and video game violence (r = .27). In other words, violent video games were found to increase aggressive thoughts in people of all ages and both sexes, and while this is indeed causal, in stark contrast to the other correlations listed above, duration of aggressive thoughts was not stated or measured. There was a positive correlation (r = .18) between violent video games and aggressive affect. Another correlation (r = .22) was found between violent video games and physiological arousal, typically measured by heart rate, and systolic and diastolic blood pressure.

Meta-analysis is a good tool to find patterns in research findings, in effect, it is basically researching research, which is why I cited the source above. But before I move on from this, I think I should summarize a more recent analysis.

Ferguson (2007) found that much of the research was mixed, but more important that two meta-analyses found within the research small correlations between violent video games and aggression (such as the one listed above), but also found three other meta-analyses that found no support for a causal relationship between aggression and violent games. He further points to research that controls for family violence in which correlations, causal or otherwise evaporate between criminal behavior and violent video games. In other words, criminal behavior may actually be symptom of violence at home, and not time spent playing games. Still, Ferguson also tackles a major issue with respect to publication bias. In any case, Ferguson found a correlation between violent video games and aggressive behavior (r = .14), and visuospatial cognition (this is essentially your visual memory, visual attention, selection, and absorption to – it’s good) (r = .49). With respect to aggressive behavior, that only explains 2% of the variance, and 24% for visuospatial cognition. Ferguson then controlled for publication bias, which reduced those correlations and variance sizes to r = 0.04 (0.01%), and r = .36 (13%) respectively. In other words, Ferguson found that there were positive aspects to playing violent video games, and that aggressive behavior was ruled out due to publication bias, and family violence.

Indeed, there seems to be a growing body of evidence disproving a causal relationship between video game violence and aggression/aggressive behavior, with some searchers focusing on the cathartic effects, or calming/coping use of violent video games. In fact, an article published in January of this year (2014), Ferguson and Olson examined 377 children with attention deficit or depressive symptoms, and rather than find support for aggressive hypotheses, instead found that it has a slight calming effect [5][6][7]. Other studies conducted by Olsen found that among 1,254 7th and 8th graders, the reasons for playing violent video games were tied to coping with emotions, tackling challenging situations, relieve stress, and to help create their own world [8].

It’s a little fascinating, then, that Wayne LaPierre, in the press conference following Sandy Hook, would say:

“And here’s another dirty little truth that the media try their best to conceal: There exists in this country a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people. Through vicious, violent video games with names like Bulletstorm, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat and Splatterhouse.” [8]

Indeed, the studies that I have cited above used Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat, and Halo for their experimental (or not) designs. So, with respect to LaPierre’s claim, there’s mixed results to support his stance, if any at all. But this leads us down another road. While pro-gun enthusiasts are quick to cite Hitler, Stalin, Mao, China, Russia, and Germany for the reasons we should maintain a very strict conservative approach to the second amendment, they don’t seem too quick to look at other countries when it comes to violent video games. Indeed, many other nations, most notably Japan, has a comparable or larger population of video game consumption, even with respect to violent video games, and yet far less violent crime. To me it seems hypocritical, but I suppose that’s to be expected from propaganda. And still, the issue becomes far more complex when we begin to realize that the Gun Debate is really a culture war, and not a policy debate.

 

Gun Control Pt. 1: Hitler, Mao, and Stalin

As expected, the Second Amendment has become a talking point among conservatives again since the recent shooting that took place at Ft. Hood. Among my readings, however, is an open letter titled Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned, apparently penned at the hands of Green Berets, either retired or on active duty, amassing an estimated 1100 signatures so far. This letter originated in January of 2013, or so I can find, and therefore tackles a number of relevant topical issues that seem to be hashed about with regards to the gun debate.

While the author states that the letter is intended to reshape the debate on gun control, it does nothing of the sort, and instead follows along the same conservative, NRA (National Rifle Association) route of information, leading to the same conclusion. There is merit to various points, of course, but there are also critiques to be made. If anything, this open letter serves as a good example of the tenacious and insidious trends that seem to create the foundation of the gun debate as a whole. Rather than conservatives and liberals having an educated, pragmatic discussion on the issue of gun regulation, it’s a liberal defense against pro-fascist and pro-communist claims. This context doesn’t do anything but facilitate anger, frustration, and anti-insert regime name here sentiments. Frankly, it’ll be a long time before we see any legitimately useful federal legislation with respect to gun control, and while that might be the case, it’s also important to note the debate surrounding federal and state government sovereignty with this issue as well.

I’ll be using this letter as a focal point for my critique.

On Socialism, Fascism, Communism, Tyranny and rise to Power:

In my very firm opinion, there’s something particularly insidious about 1,100 Green Berets perpetuating this line of thinking. It isn’t about tyranny, indeed the Merriam-Webster definition of a tyrant is “a ruler who has complete power over a country and who is cruel and unfair.” What it’s about is this idea that only the three words stated above are possibly tyrants.

“Throughout history, disarming the populace has always preceded tyrants’ accession of power. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all disarmed their citizens prior to installing their murderous regimes. At the beginning of our own nation’s revolution, one of the first moves made by the British government was an attempt to disarm our citizens. When our Founding Fathers ensured that the 2nd Amendment was made a part of our Constitution, they were not just wasting ink. They were acting to ensure our present security was never forcibly endangered by tyrants, foreign or domestic.”

I’ll always find quarrel with any reference to Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, in any discussion in context of gun control. It isn’t because I lean left political, but because it’s historically skewed, and from a scientific point of view a causal relationship being made whereupon there’s no genuine basis to stake such a claim. Referencing them doesn’t do anything more than facilitate a continued anti-communist, anti-fascist, and anti-socialist personification.

I’ll outline below the historical facts.

To be clear, however, my perspective is that the quote above serves as a wonderful example of the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. Literally translated as “after this, therefore because of this,” the quote above over simplifies comparative political, economic, and historical components by suggesting that strict gun control laws were the causal factor determining each event. For one, history seems to suggest that in some cases, gun laws didn’t precede, or even proceed after the immediate ascension of these leaders. Indeed, gun control either wasn’t a factor with respect to the regime in control, and even if it was, it wasn’t a big enough factor that could have altered the eventual outcome.

Hitler, and Germany

Bernard E. Harcourt does a good job in explaining the history, for which you can read his paper On Gun Registration, the NRA, Adolf Hitler, and Nazi Gun Laws: Exploding the Gun Culture Wars (A Call to Historians), which you can read by clicking here.

But, for your sake, I’ll try to sum it all up. At the end of World War I, Germany fell into a civil conflict now referred to as the German Revolution. Between November 1918 and August 1919 in which the Free Socialist Republican of Germany, consisting of the Communist Party of Germany, Bavarian Soviet Republic, and Free Workers’ Union clashed with the Imperial German Army and the Weimar Republic. Without delving too deeply into this façade, the Weimar Constitution was adopted in on August 11th, 1919. After this, radical left and right wing revolutionaries continued to duke it out. But even during this revolution, laws had been passed in January of 1919 that banned the possession of guns. Later, the Weimar Republic signed the Treaty of Versailles, with much disagreement to various stipulations, particularly the War Guilt Clause. But more to the point here, Articles 159-213 specifically detailed the disarmament of the German Military, and the destruction of all arms. In order to follow the guiltiness set forth by the treaty, the parliament passed the Regulation on Weapon Ownership that essentially banned all gun ownership. The next year, the Law on the Disarmament of the People was passed. It wasn’t until 1928 that the Law on Firearms and Ammunition was passed in which people could obtain weapons, but only after going through a particularly strict licensing process, much to the efforts of the Socialists and Communists in parliament that were eager to win against a failing conservative faction. This law required a permit to obtain a firearm, and yet another permit to carry it.

What’s important here, though, is the context of these laws. First, these laws were in one sense an attempt to portray the demands of the Treaty of Versailles. The Weimar Republic didn’t actually meat all of the demands set forth, much to the advantage of Hitler later on. Second, there was a lot of concern during the Weimar Republic’s reign of a government takeover, as there were a lot of political fights taking place between socialist factions, Communists, and Fascists. Indeed, Hitler attempted a coup in Munich in 1923. What this means, in effect, is that Hitler didn’t take people’s guns away as many pro-gun enthusiasts proclaim, indeed his own government did so prior to his coming to power. It’s a likelihood that those strict gun laws were put in place to prevent people like Hitler from coming to power. But it wasn’t just Hitler that they were trying to protect against. The Nazi Party wasn’t even recognized until the German Referendum of 1929, and between the mid 1920’s, and Hitler’s ascension in 1933, there were a lot of street battles going on. [1][2]

While this might be a testament to the ineffectiveness of gun laws, it’s important to note that by the time Hitler came to power, gun laws had become slightly more relaxed. Even more important to this whole discussion is that the events that took place between 1919 and 1933 are particularly complex, and to place all blame on Hitler for gun control oversimplifies the whole matter. Furthermore, it reduces Hitler’s tactics to a bare minimum. Hitler’s rise to power was a tactical one, using both terrorism and propaganda. But in the end, Hitler won the vote, and effectively was handed the dictatorship after many years of clashing with Communists. But what made him attractive as a leader was that unlike the Weimar Republic, Hitler outright ignored the Treaty of Versailles, and actively fought against it. By 1932, just three years after becoming recognized as an official party, the Nazi’s became the largest  party in Germany.

Moving back to gun laws, though, many seem to suggest that Hitler’s first move was to ban guns. Not only is this line of thinking marred by 14 years of prior legislation, but Hitler didn’t tackle gun laws until 1938, some five years after having come to power, when he signed the German Weapons Act. This law reduced some restrictions, maintained other restrictions, and also made new ones. In effect, the pro-gun arguments that Hitler banned guns is outright false, indeed, it’s propaganda. That being said, this law completely deregulated how people could acquire ammunition, rifles, and shotguns, it lowered the purchasing age from 20 to 18, valid permits were extended to last from 1 year to 3 years. Furthermore, whereas the previous law had allowed only government officials and police to be exempt, now hunters, government workers, and party members were exempt. Where things did get tighter, however, were on Jews, who were not only barred from owning, or possessing firearm, but also manufacturing or selling them, along with any other “dangerous” weapon. Later that year, the Regulations Against Jews’ Possession of Weapons was put into effect that furthered the endeavor to deprive Jews of weapons and firearms.

More to the complexity of this matter, though, is that the 1938 law had been proposed in 1933, 1935, and 1937, and failed because of ideological concerns. In order for the law to be effective, they needed the general population to not only be treated as faithful, but to also outline who the enemy of the state would be – the Jews.

In any case, Harcourt sums it up pretty well by saying:

“In order to disarm Jewish persons, the Nazi government used both the “trustworthiness” requirements originally legislated in 1928, as well as more direct regulations denying Jews the right to manufacture or possess firearms. It is absurd to even try to characterize this as either pro- or anti-gun control. But if forced to, I would have to conclude, at least preliminarily from this straightforward exercise in statutory interpretation, that the Nazis favored less gun control for the “trustworthy” German citizen than the predecessor Weimar Republic, while disarming the Jewish population and engaging in genocide.” (Pg. 677).

Harcourt also equates much of Nazi references to the culture war, and to this point I also most certainly agree. When the NRA references Hitler, Mao, or other classified tyrants, it is nothing more than propaganda – indeed, it’s not too different than the same people cited in opposition and how they rose to power. But what really needs to be taken from this is that any conversation on gun control needs to be a pragmatic one, not just a philosophical one. Hitler’s approach was both liberalizing and restrictive, but in two different contexts, and very targeted.

Stalin, and the Soviet Union

When citing a historical figure, or a country, in context to any debate it’s important to look at the whole picture and not just a small part. For this reason, it should be stated that most Russians more than likely were too poor to buy weapons with the exception of a hunting rifle, and to that extent it was meant for the livelihood of the person prior to and during the revolutions that took place during that time. To suggest that guns were stripped from the people suggests that they already had a right to them. Regardless of this, one particular claim has been circulating for quite some time as part of a longer letter, but with respect to the Soviet Union, it goes like this:

“In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.”

This notion, that liberal gun laws would have prevented this from happening, is pretty degrading to what happened. For one thing, the Ukrainian Famine, or Holodomor (which is literally translated as “plague of hunger”), had little to do with guns. Instead, some 3-5 million starved to death. A similar event occurred in 1921 during the reign of the Bolshevik’s. It should be noted that there is a lot of political and historical debate as to whether or not Holodomor constitutes a genocide, as the term is poorly defined. Regardless of this, strict vs lax gun laws did little to prevent it from happening, and would have done little to stop it. Stalin killed a lot of people. That’s certainly true.

Still, I can’t seem to find any legitimate historical references to either the Bolshevik’s or Stalin passing laws and regulations that subsequently tightened gun laws, or took guns from the general populace. It’s for this reason that I feel compelled to disregard the reference.

That being said, I will quote Karl Marx in his 1850 Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League:

“To be able forcefully and threateningly to oppose this party, whose betrayal of the workers will begin with the very first hour of victory, the workers must be armed and organized. The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition, and the revival of the old-style citizens’ militia, directed against the workers, must be opposed. Where the formation of this militia cannot be prevented, the workers must try to organize themselves independently as a proletarian guard, with elected leaders and with their own elected general staff; they must try to place themselves not under the orders of the state authority but of the revolutionary local councils set up by the workers. Where the workers are employed by the state, they must arm and organize themselves into special corps with elected leaders, or as a part of the proletarian guard. Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. The destruction of the bourgeois democrats’ influence over the workers, and the enforcement of conditions which will compromise the rule of bourgeois democracy, which is for the moment inevitable, and make it as difficult as possible – these are the main points which the proletariat and therefore the League must keep in mind during and after the approaching uprising.”

I emphasize the important sentence, but quoted the whole paragraph for context. I show this for the very clear purposes of inciting a thought process. How is Marx’ quote above any different from the line of reasoning that pro-gun enthusiasts use against gun control? And why would they be against Communism when the founding father agrees with ownership of weapons? While contexts are quite different, the underlying basic principle is the same: defense of freedom. While this can lead to a major debate, I feel the point should be made.

Mao, and China

Based on one source by Huan Zhu, three laws have been passed in China since 1952 (again in 1988, and then in 1996), with the current legal standing based on a law passed in 1996. A little conflicting, however, comes from Asian Times, in which Mitch Moxley states:

“China introduced gun control in 1966, after children armed with rifles shot out a window at the Great Hall of the People at the Tiananmen Square in Beijing while trying to hit a sparrow, according to official MPS history. The government cracked down harder on gun ownership after the 1989 pro- democracy demonstrations.”

In any case, there were Communist conflicts between Korea and Japan, and for this reason there was a necessity to arm citizens. In fact, the Chinese suffered from mass casualties because their weapons were not as well off as their opponents’.

To be clear, it’s difficult to find any information on gun laws in China, or Russia, during the times of Mao and Stalin. To use either as an example of the necessity of guns does nothing more than prove a campaign of propaganda and fear mongering, than it does to serve a legitimate stance on individual liberty.

Britain

To quote Harcourt once more:

“Anglo-American tradition of gun registration dates back to seventeenth-century England. Both prior to and after the adoption of the English Bill of Rights, there were a number of gun regulations in place in England, including registration requirements.33 In 1660, for instance, all gunsmiths were ordered to produce a record of all firearms they had sold and of all their buyers from the past six months.’ Gunsmiths were then required to report this information weekly.35 These requirements-which constitute the first known gun registration scheme-remained in place after the adoption of the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which declared that “the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law. ‘3 6 Prior and subsequent English history reflects a long and steady tradition of substantial statutory limitations on gun ownership.” (Pg. 662).

English restrictions get pretty deep, and widespread, of course, and later on they attempt to restrict the U.S. from weapons, particularly gunpowder, and increasingly create registries, and lists, etc.

I have little quarrel with a pro-right enthusiast citing English attempts to prevent private ownership of a weapon, because that is inherently tied to our history. That being said, it’s still not a fool-proof argument to lean on, because in the end, there’s also hundreds of years of history.

There’s also the sad fact that gun control was also heavily tied to racial issues. For the same reason that England attempted to prevent us from being armed, we prevented slaves from being armed – rebellion. The prevention of rebellion is something that every regime, country, or organization attempts to not only crush, but prevent. Indeed it is in the best interest of the people in power to prevent rather than crush a rebellion in the grand scheme of things.

This point leads to a very lengthy conversation on the pervasive and pernicious engendered and racial attitudes when it comes to the entire gun debate as a whole, not just with the right to ownership, but when it bleeds over into crime. To conclude this section, I feel the need to say that it is important that tyranny comes in many shapes and tastes, and it seems to me a bit tyrannical, if only in a political sense, to restrict research into the effectiveness of gun laws on gun crimes, something that the NRA has done for many, many years. It also seems a bit ruthless to consistently equate tyranny to any philosophical conception that isn’t in line with capitalism.