Yeah, About S32

(In the interest of balance, I think this diary deserves a front page presence. – promoted by Sue Prent)

I admit that I was quite surprised when our friend Senator Philip Baruth introduced his so-called assault weapons ban in the State Senate.  It wasn't something I'd expected from any Vermont pol, and I am very glad he did it.  Not that I necessarily support that idea here in our state with its history, gun culture, rural population, etc.  Nor did I give it much of a chance of passage, at least in its original form.

That said, I think he did exactly what he ought to have done: saw a societal problem and as a legislator tried to begin the process of addressing it in Vermont.  There are never guaranteed outcomes in the sausage factory.  Yet it's clear that Phil's risky move did two important things: it started a very passionate debate, and it proved that the legislative process works.

First, by introducing a controversial bill such as S32, people from all over the political spectrum began arguing about its constitutionality, its general merits, and Vermont's role in the national problem.  The larger debate in the US and the daily toll of firearm violence can seem fairly remote to us, and I don't think this discussion would've had a lot of immediacy without Phil's taking a big step ahead of our political community.

Second, he has in fact withdrawn his bill, as the Raptorman reported earlier.  Senator Baruth heard from his constituents, he heard from people from all over the state, he heard from his caucus, and after all that wisely decided that it was better to take the ban off the table rather than push something that was out of sync with current political reality.  The process worked exactly as it should, and one would hope that demonstrates to folks that we're a long way from any imagined tyranny.


Here's an excerpt from his statement to the other Senators for them to send to their constituents (posted with his permission):

It seemed to me that with the Federal government paralyzed, it had been left to the states to address both the mental health and gun-related components of these tragedies.

But it is painfully clear to me now that little support exists in the Vermont Statehouse for this sort of bill.  It’s equally clear that focusing the debate on the banning of a certain class of weapons may already be overshadowing measures with greater consensus, like tightening background checks, stopping the exchange of guns for drugs, and closing gun show loopholes.  Finally, as incoming Majority Leader, I owe it to my caucus to remove an issue that seems increasingly likely to complicate our shared agenda this biennium.

To the many responsible gun-owners with whom I’ve communicated over the last several weeks:  I’ve heard you.  Please hear me when I say that government is not your enemy – we are all alike threatened by the kind of violence we saw in Newtown, violence that is clearly spreading.  And all of us are responsible for stopping it.  It’s my hope that with this ban set aside, you’ll join more willingly in that effort.

I applaud Phil for his courage in proposing the bill, as well as for his courage in withdrawing it.  I'm glad we have such a thoughtful and responsive leader in Montpelier, and I hope we all can continue having a fruitful debate with him and the rest of our citizen legislators about how we can protect liberty for all.


PS–As I noted in comments on kestrel's post, I was looking forward to hearings on the issue.  I wasn't convinced the ban was a good approach for VT–despite its clear (to me) constitutionality per both SCOTUS and SCOV precedent–but I wanted to see what people said about its potential efficacy, if anybody had good data on our role as a net arms exporting state, etc.

104 thoughts on “Yeah, About S32

  1. You hate freedom love terrorists evilevilevilevil!!! Blaarsahjgn2389nnjiw938N*E#*@#* beatyoustopyou dontyouDARErunforofficeagain!!!!

    Sorry. Thought I’d start the conversation in a way consistent with what we’ve seen on the site of late.

  2. About the only thing Baruth has done is to demonstrate that many, maybe most, Vermont politicians do not want to have a real discussion about guns.  His withdrawal of the bill simply means that the discussion, the real discusion in the political world, will never happen.  Thus every politician can say and do whatever (s)he wants with no way to clearly document what (s)he really thinks.  There is nothing courageous about Baruth’s introduction of the  bill or his withdrawal of it.  

  3. He introduce a vague bill and wasn’t prepared to face the blowback, both the justifiable kind and the irrational kind from the Red Dawn crowd.  And now he looks silly for withdrawing it at the first hint of pressure.

    If there’s any way Sen. Baruth nudged this discussion forward was by showing everyone how not to do it.

  4. There won’t be any significant changes until SCOTUS flips from 5-4 to 4-5. However, smaller efforts that start the discussion will help set the stage.

  5. I, too, was looking forward to actual debate on just where is the line on gun control versus the 2nd Amendment.

    I really want to ask Kestrel about that line.  He seems adamant that the general populace must be allowed to have military-grade assault-style weapons and large-capacity magazines the sole purpose of which is to kill as many of his neighbors in the shortest amount of time possible.  

    Just how is it that the Constitution allows arming untrained civilians to the teeth with almost-military grade weapons? In absence of a ‘well-regulated militia’, which we now know was a sop to the slave holder’s human-hunting parties where they killed slaves for sport (in addition to the Founders knowing that a standing army leads to imperialism), just where is the line?

    The USA regulates speech far more than guns,  and the 4th Amendment has been almost completely eradicated.  Why can’t the 2nd Amendment be regulated as much as the 1st and 4th?

    I have yet to see one single gun-nut fight for the 1st or 4th amendment as much as they fight for the 3rd.

    So, Kestrel, where do you draw the line? You made a comment in a previous thread that you will fight to get Baruth out of office because he put forward a sensible plan on the most horrific weapons and accessories that simply should not be allowed in the hands of average citizens.

    Since you feel so strongly that human-only killing machines should be allowed to anyone that wants them with no reason or training, where do you draw the line?  By your logic America should be able to buy rocket-propelled grenades, mortars and land mines.

    I shall use Kestrel’s logic to say that I should be able to own a suitcase nuke, because my family just isn’t safe if I can’t turn my small Vermont town into an irradiated crater whenever I feel unsafe!

    To sum up: No one has any right to military-style assault rifles!  No one has any right to high capacity magazines!  No one has any right to hollow-point bullets, which are banned for use by the army specifically because of the horrific damage is does.  No one has any right to armor-piercing, or exploding bullets.

    The Second Amendment itself mentions regulations, so any argument that guns can not be regulated by law as a violation of that amendment is false on it’s face.  We already have a ban on private ownership of full-auto guns, semi-auto assault-style weapons OBVIOUSLY needs to be banned.

  6. Well, fuck it.  Goddamn, I’m sure glad the Fondling Fathers didn’t put any shit in the Constitution about the right to have an enormous carbon footprint for the pursuit of happiness.  Or an amendment about what ‘marriage’ should be.  Or one protecting the rights of the people to engage in vigilante justice.


    And if that means recalling certain types of ‘products’, then so be it.

    Once again, THE PEOPLE will pick up the bill for an enormous bureaucracy set up to invade their privacy, civil rights, and BACKGROUND.  And the Gun Industry will just keep on doing Business As Usual.

    And…more and more massacres will occur.


  7. GMD is circling the drain (as it pertains to the quality of its commentary and posted comments) since his departure. We miss you Mr. Town Clerk.

    What used to be insightful, funny and articulate progressive thinking has been reduced to petty name calling and 5th grade level rants.  

  8. Our position remains firm.  If there are background checks, we recommend LIBERALS be barred from purchasing certain weapons.

    And one more thing you LIBERALS on GMD have conveniently overlooked in your frenzy about assault weapons:

    Last week, in Everett, Washington, a woman smothered her boyfriend to death with her tits.  Should there be a ban on ASSAULT TITS?  TIT CONTROL?  If LOOKS COULD KILL, would you be in favor of DIRTY LOOK CONTROL?

    You see, guns can kill, but there are so many other ways to kill.  Should we ban cars?  Soccer games?  Neil Diamond?

    And what about this DEATH WITH DIGNITY that you all support?  Should DEATH WITH DIGNITY be done by drugs?  It’s all right to kill people with drugs?  What about the old geezer who uses a gun to blow his brains out?  Never thought of that did you?  If you had your way, no poor elderly gent who wanted to end it all by blowing his brains out would be able to do so.  He’d have to find a woman to Tit Smother him to death.

    You wait.  There will be more incidents with ASSAULT TITS.  If that poor fellow in Everett, Washington had a gun, he’d still be with us today.

    One thing you have to say for DEATH BY THE GUN–it’s as American as Apple Pie.  Yes, it’s as American as Big Tits.  Perverts are taking over this country.  Did you hear what Obama said yesterday?  But we here at the NRA will defend the right of Gay Couples to buy guns for protection.  We will soon be promoting a new product from Weatherby–the LONG RANGE .457 magnum, which will stop an entire carload of Gay Bashers at over 300 yards.

    And those poor six-year-old kiddies?  We have a product in mind for them too.  We here at the NRA hope to see the day when a gun can be inserted into the womb so that a newborn baby will be pop out fully armed and ready to protect itself.  Yeah, we know.  You all love abortion.  Well, we here at the NRA believe that life should begin once a fetus is armed.  And once the fetuses are armed, no more of this abortion crap.  The one and only way a fetus or a grown-up should die is by the gun.  That’s what they meant by that Second Amendment–Americans’ RIGHT to live by the gun, die by the gun.  

    REMEMBER–When you get rid of GUNS, you will be at the mercy of TITS.  We here at the NRA have already all gone through our MOTHER ISSUES.  Do you recall that Robert Bly guy and the IRON MEN MOVEMENT?  We here at the NRA regularly sponsor retreats in the deep woods for guys and their guns.  No tits allowed.  We here at the NRA will soon be working with the Gun Industry on a semi-automatic and fully automatic rifle a guy can have sex with.  It can be done.  And once it is, THEN we’re talking about EQUALITY for a man’s gun as the man’s PARTNER.  Yes, we here at the NRA believe in, and will promote, CIVIL UNION and MARRIAGE between a consenting American male and his consenting gun.  

    Obama mentioned Seneca Falls, Selma, and Stonewall?   Our battle cry will be NEWTOWN.  Let there NEVER come about in AMERICA the day that a child is deprived of his or her right to die by the gun!  

    Thank you.  Now I must go.  It’s almost noon and I haven’t yet exercised my daily Constitutional Right to shoot someone.  GOD BLESS AMERICA!  GOD BLESS GUNS!!!  

  9. Vermont rated slightly above average for gun-related deaths and has a rate twice that of New York and Massachusetts.  That should bunk the “responsible gun-owner” myth, no?  Why isn’t anyone researching this?  Oh, because a few gun owners scared away the debate.

  10. Indeed, New York and Massachusetts have half the gun ownership as Vermont.

    That could help explain why Vermont has twice the gun-related deaths than those neighboring states.

    So that still brings us to conclude that Vermont gun owners are only as responsible as gun owners in these other states.

  11. Books banned in U.S. in last 10 years:  1432

    Guns banned in U.S. in last 10 years:  7

    Children killed by books in U.S.:  0

    Children killed by guns in U.S.:  ???

    Comments on Gun Control on U.S. blogsites:  184,874,510

    Comments on War in Afghanistan on U.S. blogsites: 78,954,102

    Follow-ups in Establishment U.S Media on Houston woman shot and killed by Walmart Security Guard for shoplifting:  00000…

    Follow-ups in Establishment U.S. media on Everett, Washington man smothered to death by his girlfriends tits:  19,217

    Deaths attributed to stupidity in U.S. in last ten years: 357,895

    Deaths attributed to stupidity in Vermont in last 10 years:  14

    Number of ways Second Amendment is interpreted in U.S.: 4,404,006

    Number of ways Second Amendment SHOULD BE INTERPRETED in U.S.:  1

    Money spent on guns and ammunition in U.S. this year (includes Vermont): $14,392,107,745 (and 49 cents)

    Money spent on Child Care in U.S. (includes Vermont): $867,918,432 (and 29 cents)

    Time spent by American citizens on worrying about guns, gun control & gun massacres in U.S.: ALL THE TIME

    Time spent by American citizens on worrying about Global Warming:  WHAT GLOBAL WARMING?

    What Americans will do if a Republican campaigns for President in 2016 on a platform that makes gun ownership MANDATORY in U.S.:  Elect him (or her)

    What Americans will do if Aliens From Another Galaxy land in Texas and offer a solutions to WAR, GLOBAL WARMING, DISCRIMINATION, and ECONOMIC INJUSTICE:  SHOOT THEM

    Why U.S. is most loathsome country in the world:  See Above

    Why other people in the World hate the U.S.:  See Above

    What Americans need to do about all this:  Buy a gun and BLOW OUR BRAINS OUT

    Then What:  GUN INDUSTRY will make a fortune and create the Republic of Gunland out of parts of India, China, Texas, Washington & Vermont (and use Child Labor to make more guns)

    COME ON, PEOPLE.  I mean, Jesus, if War, Martin Luther King (what killed him?) and Gay Rights got this much attention, we wouldn’t be so exorcised about Baruth’s proposal because it would have happened decades ago.


  12. for absolutely moronic comparison between skyscrapers and guns.

    Besides, you don’t need a skyscraper to leap to your death.  Plenty of Vermonters have leapt to their deaths over the years right smack dab in the Green Mountain State.  


    (Guns are the preferred method of suicide throughout this land.  If you are concerned about suicides (maybe you aren’t), why would you focus on jumping when a much bigger problem is guns??)

  13. The “absolutely moronic comparison between skyscrapers and guns” that you describe was made in response to what I believe is the absolutely moronic comparison between gun deaths in Vermont and frankly’s persistent attempt to use that one statistic to “bunk the “responsible gun-owner” myth” they believe exists in Vermont.

    Here are the facts:

    Vermont has many, many, more guns, per capita, than New York and Massachusetts. It’s not even close.

    Yet, Vermont has a fraction of the gun murders that those two states have. Again, not close.

    In Vermont, somewhere in the vicinity of HALF of the gun deaths that occur on an annual basis are by means of suicide.

    My point is that it doesn’t logically follow that since “Vermont has twice the gun-related deaths than those neighboring states” that a “responsible gun-owner myth” exists, or that Vermont gun-owners are “only as responsible as gun owners in these other states”. As Todd stated earlier, there are other reasons that could explain these relative differences, including what he described as “the law of small numbers”.

    As I posted earlier, on average, Vermont experiences 1.3 murders by firearm, per year, per 100,000 people in the state. That’s exponentially lower than the national average, including the New York and Massachusetts rates. I’m not aware of a single murder that’s happened in this state by means of an “assault weapon”.

    Focusing on banning a certain type of gun because we need to “do something” for fear that mass murders “could happen” in Vermont is absolutely analogous to passing a ban on skyscrapers because our suicide rates “could” increase were we to allow more of them in our state. You don’t need an effing skyscraper to commit suicide.

  14. There’s an old dictum about the difference between fiction and science fiction: Science fiction has to make sense.

    Ridiculous assertion.  Laughable.

  15. I had already looked into Hartmann’s assertion right after he made it.  

    And I did click through your links, which lead me to a couple of paragraphs that started with an ad hominem attack against Mr.Hartmann from a lawyer who makes his living defending gun-nuttery.  My only loss was wasting my time.

    Note that Mr. Hartmann was not the source of the information he presented on his show, and your “expert” didn’t even look into Hartmann’s assertion enough to know that.  

    Hartmann’s show is not like Fox or hate radio where people talk out their asses and it is taken as gospel.  He does his research, and does a good job picking reputable sources. The source for his assertion that the second amendment exists to placate slave owners so they could maintain slave patrols without interference is a law school professor that has testified before Congress regarding gun control and the second amendment.

  16. The assumption was that the militia was made up of the People, who were expected to be armed.  You can’t completely divorce the prefatory clause from the other part.

    Even if you could, though, there are still limits.

  17. …the connection to the the militia most explicit in Miller wasn’t tossed out in Heller:

    “We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

    It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service-M-16 rifles and the like-may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ‘s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty.

    It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”

  18. More Heller:

    “This holding [Miller[ is not only consistent with, but positively suggests, that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms (though only arms that “have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”). “

  19. for keeping and bearing arms.

    Rather the other way ’round, actually.

    And using that line of thought, all military small-arms, and arguably crew-served weapons, become legal for the Citizens.


    “Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35-36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”

  21. But even in Heller, the prefatory clause is linked to the last part.  And we are, in fact, in the militia (at least able-bodied males from 18-45).

    Not sure where you get the logic, especially in light of Heller and the concept that all individual rights can have limits, that anybody could own crew-served weapons.

  22. But, as I pointed out before, both homicide and suicide rates appear like they will go down (not just firearm induced), judging by other countries’ experience.  Part of the problem is access combined with intent.  Intent alone doesn’t do much if you can’t follow through right away, whether it’s suicide or a domestic dispute escalating (which seems to be the biggest threat in VT murders).

  23. The “absolutely moronic comparison between skyscrapers and guns” that you describe was made in response to what I believe is the absolutely moronic comparison between gun deaths in Vermont and frankly’s persistent attempt to use that one statistic to “bunk the “responsible gun-owner” myth” they believe exists in Vermont.

    False equivalency – you still have a nonsensical comment.

  24. And the 100th comment will win, what’s that Johnny?

    “Ski, it’s a NEW GUN!”

    “Yes, it’s the NEW Single Shot Weatherby 687 Magnum ‘Mini-Nuke’–fires one 687 magnum sized Nuclear-Tipped round with the explosive force of .01 kilotons.  That’s TEN TONS OF TNT, folks!  Perfect for hunting trains and low flying commercial aircraft!  Comes with its own Special HUNTER’S SPACESUIT.  Just aim, fire, and duck and cover!  Yes, Ski, we’re talking the absolute LATEST here in GUN FASHION.  Folks, you’ll get the attention and respect you’ve always wanted with the Weatherby 687 Magnum Mini-Nuke.  (But remember this caution:  Eating game or fish killed with this weapon MAY represent a hazard to your health.)  Back to you, Ski!    

  25. “Yes, Stardust, you’re the official 100th Comment!  And for that you will receive the very first Weatherby 687 magnum Mini-Nuke!  Comes with carrying case and cleaning kit.  However–you have to MAKE your own shells.  Some stupid federal regulation about nuclear ammunition.  We here at the NRA are working on that.  Back to you, Ski.”

  26. Mwaaa-aaa! I’m sure it’s fun, fly & fine–but, since it’s only a single shotand I’d have to make my own shells (enriched uranium, even that newer ‘low-enriched’ terrorists have been working on is soo like messy), plus I don’t want to pissoff the neighbors. So, I’d like to sell it & purchase a firearm assortment. Have my heart set on a small Uzi, & a pink fo-fo for starters.

  27. And see our website: anygununderthesun.bang for available assortments.  You will note there, stardust, that, not only do we do firearm assortments, we also do firearm ‘arrangements’.  Think how decorous your next Holiday dining table will be with a big pot of guns as a centerpiece.  Your family and friends will be so enchanted, they’ll want to touch them, smell them, and ask you: “Why, stardust, did you grow all these guns in your own backyard.”  And you can just smile and say: “You’ve made my day.”

  28. ‘gifts for gunners’. An arrangement of flowers including a gun, unloaded of course. But, it could be one of the ‘add-ons’-a fresh box of ammo in matching multicolored shells. Hologram swirls and sparkles would be very pretty. Large matching bow on the box…multi-colored metalflake gun bouquets? Penitentiary steel & gunmetal gray is soo drab…instead of pink I want red w/glow-in-the-dark sparkles.

    Possibilities are endless!  

  29. I don’t see how he comes off as sensible on gun violence and can bring parties together on background checks, mental health, and other factors when he seemed naive in jumping in so quickly.

  30. Step back and look at this from the perspective of a non-American.

    From their standpoint, nothing we have done in this country about addressing the personal arms race appears to have been undertaken “quickly”

    Phillip jumped in with both boots on.  It was an attempt. Withdrawing the bill doesn’t change that.

    It’s a huge stinking cow-paddie.  Anyone who says we should just leave the whole mess alone and just hope for better outcomes in the future is on a fool’s mission.

  31. should have been much better prepared to deal with the onslaught.  I think he harmed the potential for addressing gun violence by how he sponsored and then withdrew this legislation.  And we’re the poorer for it.  What other rep is going to try this again now that they’ve seen what happens?

  32. I didn’t know we were supposed to govern this nation, or the state of Vermont, by the metric of “(the) standpoint” of “non-americans”.

    What a facsinating point of view.

  33. won’t mean one iota in his district or his next election.  And he’ll get a bump for introducing it.  There is a vocal minority of gun fetishists that threw tantrums over this, and there ain’t many in his district.

  34. “the sole purpose of which is to kill as many of his neighbors in the shortest amount of time possible”

    “Since you feel so strongly that human-only killing machines should be allowed ”

    Great examples! Thanks, Comrade!

  35. what single-issue gun-lovin’ Dems will do in 2016, if the candidate is for stronger laws to reduce gun murder (gun “violence” just softens it, IMO). Vote GOP? Stay home? Go the “protest vote” that so many of ’em decry? This will be verrrry eeeenteresting.

  36. my name is not Kestrel. However, when the 2nd amendment was written, there were certain types of guns available…does that mean guns must be only the ones around at that time? I think not.

    If defense is the reason many of us do or would own weapons, being able to defend ourselves, family, friends, neighbors, community in any situation which is to occur we need weapons on par with what is readily available to avoid being outgunned.

    If automatic weapons are outlawed, only outlaws will have them.

  37. military-grade”  No, they aren’t.

    “assault-style”  You just reinforced the point that they aren’t “military-grade” or “assault” weapons.  Style=Form, not Function.  Well done.

    “the sole purpose of which is to kill as many of his neighbors in the shortest amount of time possible”  Which is why only the police should have them, amIright?  Or, since this happens so rarely…. maybe not, eh?  Anyway, I use my AR-pattern rifle for several tasks, but not to kill my neighbors.  Or anyone else.  

    “The USA regulates speech far more than guns”  Oh really?  Paid a tax on speech lately?  Had to get a background check to buy books at a store?  Restricted from speaking near schools and in government buildings?  Got a church permit?

    “which we now know was a sop to the slave holder’s human-hunting parties”  Nope, that’s a lie, please stop spreading it.  I can’t find the direct link to the Kates refutation, but you can find it here:

    “I have yet to see one single gun-nut fight for the 1st or 4th amendment as much as they fight for the 3rd.”  Ummm, assuming you mean “as much as they fight for the 2nd.”  And apparently you don’t read on gun-owner forums much, or you’d know of their concerns in the 1rst and 4th areas too.  (Many 2nd Amend. struggles dovetail neatly with 1rst and 4th issues.)

    “… the most horrific weapons and accessories that simply should not be allowed in the hands of average citizens.”   Then you have no experience with real military weapons or WMDs.  Ignorance is telling.

    “…human-only killing machines …”  I use my AR-pattern rifle for hunting.  Never had to use it against humans (it’s secondary purpose is home-defense) and hopefully I never will.

    “I shall use Kestrel’s logic to say that I should be able to own a suitcase nuke, because my family just isn’t safe if I can’t turn my small Vermont town into an irradiated crater whenever I feel unsafe!”  Your irrational hyperbole has nothing to do with logic.

    “To sum up: No one has any right to military-style assault rifles!  No one has any right to high capacity magazines!  No one has any right to hollow-point bullets, which are banned for use by the army specifically because of the horrific damage is does.  No one has any right to armor-piercing, or exploding bullets.”  Sez you.  I’d have to do a seperate post to detail the inaccuracies you just spouted.

    “The Second Amendment itself mentions regulations…”  No, actually, it doesn’t.  Nor, if it did, are they applied to “the right of the people”.

  38. I doubt flipping a seat would empower the Court to reject precedent.  Heller didn’t overturn anything, actually reaffirmed Miller, and finally resolved the individual right issue.  McDonald further cemented it and incorporated the amendment against the states.  Nobody’s going to undo that.  Nor do they need to since Heller notes that the right is not unlimited…

  39. I tend to write the crass statement first and then rewrite it to tone it down a bit.  I always forget that GMD has no edit function.

    But really, for what purpose is an AR15 knock off for, but ‘defending’ oneself.  I asked from whom, really, from the highly implausible home invasion or the equally implausible rampaging neighbors when civilization collapses?  AR15s really do only have one purpose: murdering as many humans as possible.  That is all it does.  What purpose does a high-dcapacity magazine have but to make the number of humans one can kill as high as possible.  That’s what it does.

    So by defending the private possession of AR15s one is irrefutably staking claim to that position: the 2nd Amendment gives everyone the right to own a weapon to which it’s sole purpose is mass murder. So why not PRGs, full-auto and suitcase nukes?

    Hollow point bullets are banned in combat because of the inhumane damage they cause, yet I can go into a store and buy as many as I want.  Same thing with armor piercing bullets.  For some unfathomable idea exploding bullets are illegal. Will anyone argue that they should be legal?

    There is no logical reason for assault-style weapons in the hands of the general public, ‘just because I wanna’, isn’t a valid argument.  There are already reasonable limits on all amendments (most of which I want rolled back).  There are already limits on the 2nd, such as the full-auto/explosives ban.  I see it as an incremental step from where we are now, ban on full auto assault rifles (M16) to a ban on it’s semi-auto cousin, high-capacity magazines and inhumane bullets.

  40. I appreciate your candor and your attempted willingness to “tone it down a bit”, but the thrust of your arguement remains quite flawed, in my opinion.

    “So by defending the private possession of AR15s one is irrefutably staking claim to that position: the 2nd Amendment gives everyone the right to own a weapon to which it’s sole purpose is mass murder.”

    This is simply a fallacy that you’ve created in an effort to attribute motive to anyone who might fight for the right for people to legally and lawfully own this weapon.

    I don’t own a single weapon that fits the description of the one you fear and describe, but I do know a lot of people who do own them legally and use them at the range. Not a single one of them has ever used it for what you describe as “it’s (sic) sole purpose”.  

  41. “So by defending the private possession of AR15s one is irrefutably staking claim to that position: the 2nd Amendment gives everyone the right to own a weapon to which it’s sole purpose is mass murder. So why not PRGs, full-auto and suitcase nukes?”

    Did you build that Strawman by yourself, or pay retail for it?

  42. You are more than welcome to not join us here.  As unhappy as you are with us, there are many more people who express appreciation for GMD.

    There will no doubt continue to be a lot of heated disagreement on this issue. Why should GMD not reflect the temper of the national debate?  

    It’s a great counter to the occasional complaint that we are all just “speaking to the choir.”

    We on GMD will remain colleagues despite the occasional display of ill-temper, because we are not a “one-issue” blog.

  43. …I think the site has been terrific of late. I was just reacting to seeing my friend’s political head being called for, in direct contradiction to the very stated reason for starting the site to begin with (not to mention the fact that the rhetoric has been getting dangerously close to an attempt to stir up a mob aimed directly at him).

    As for me, while there are some diaries I’m pretty proud of, if you look at what I was churning out in my final few months, I was getting pretty lame. The site is in good hands (and that includes kestel – I think he’s just lost his way a bit… it happens).

  44. Really, really??? From attacking writers (CH, Jack McCullough), commenters (Apache Trout), the few public servants who likely all of GMD wholeheartedly support (Beth Pearce, Bernie), launching false accusations against Beth Pearce & blatant concern trollery, I find your attack on commentary as “5th grade level” quite rich. Eddie Haskell comes to mind.

    There were brawls when odum was still in charge, and this will likely continue-I see them more like ‘family fights’, however when there is respect for others no matter how much disagreement there is it’s all good in the hood.

  45. …there have been no crimes committed with machine guns, which are severely regulated (just a bit short of banning).  Perhaps outlaws don’t get them when managed properly…

  46. 1) dealers sell them guns

    2) private individuals sell them guns, no questions asked.  Many sales require no registration, or put the onus on the buyer to register.

    3) private individuals sell them guns after they’ve falsely reported the guns stolen

    4) they steal them themselves

    The gun industry and fetishist idiotology encourage outlaw and scofflaw behavior.  The more guns, the more outlaws.

  47. to draw the nutters out into the open, and then slide a bill in behind them.

    Watch your six!  They’re comin’ for yer guns!

  48. It’s one of those words I can never seem to spell properly.

    As I’m inclined to engage in ARGUMENT from time to time, I’ll endeavor to learn to spell it properly.

  49. “The law is perfectly well settled that the first ten amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the “Bill of Rights,” were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case.  In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed. Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (Art. I) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons”

    – Robertson v. Baldwin (1897)

    Indeed, we’d never want to consider anything non-American…

  50. simply by misrepresenting what I so clearly said.

    I see by your profile that you have only taken an interest in GMD since this conversation began, so I am not surprised that you attempt to bring dog whistles into the chorus.  

    Xenophobia plays to a tin ear around here.  No sale.

  51. VT also had the highest per cap casualty rate during the Iraq war.  But the law of small numbers might be a more significant factor–should look at the gun data from year to year to see if there’s a lot of variation, because it doesn’t take much in our tiny population to cause large swings in such stats.

  52. Vermont’s population is approximately 626,011

    New York’s – 19,570,261

    Massachusetts – 6,646,144

    Assuming the numbers on the chart linked titled “Firearms Death Rate per 100,000 (most recent) by state” are correct, that would translate to roughly:

    Vermont deaths by firearms annually – 60

    New York deaths by firearms annually – 998

    Massachusetts deaths by firearms annually – 206

    Even in the aggregate, it’s easy to see that there are consistently far fewer deaths by firearms annually in Vermont than there are in New York and Massachusetts. “Twice the rate” doesn’t really tell us what’s going on in any meaningful way because gun related deaths per 100,000 isn’t a very good measure of causation. It does nothing to “bunk the “responsible gun-owner” myth”. It does nothing to tell us about the nature of these deaths, just that people died by firearm.

    A more accurate measure would be to assess “States with the most and fewest firearms murders”. Here’s that chart:

    The national average for murder by firearm per 100,000 in population is 2.98 murders. By this measure you’ll note that New York and Massachusetts don’t fair nearly as well as Vermont. In fact, Vermont leads the nation by far with the fewest murders by firearms, while New York and Massachusetts exceed the average significantly.

    When making statements about the relative responsibility of gun owners by state, I think it’s imperative to consider gun ownership as a percentage of population.

    Here are those numbers:

    That data shows that the median rate of gun ownership nationwide is roughly 38%. Vermont is considered to be among the state’s with “High Populations of Gun Owners” (42%), while New York (18%) and Massachusetts (12.6%) are “Below Median Populations of Gun Owners”.  

    When you combine the “murder by firearm data” with the “gun ownership as a percentage of population” data, it’s easy to conclude that there is NO such thing as a responsible gun-owner “MYTH” in Vermont. Vermonters are responsible gun owners.

    Of the roughly 5-10 murders that have happened annually in Vermont during my lifetime, I don’t recall a single one that was the result of an “assault weapon”. That is primarily why I believe the actions of Burlington’s City Council and the legislation proposed by Senator Baruth were both ill advised. “Doing something” about a problem that doesn’t exist will inevitably lead to bad policy and it’s certainly bad politics. As a supporter of Democrats and Philip Baruth I expect more.

  53. Here’s the problem with the “it’s not a problem” stance: it can happen.

    While the shooting at Essex Elementary School didn’t involve a semi-automatic rifle, it demonstrates that we do have people who follow the same shooter pattern (kill a woman at a “secondary crime scene”, go on a rampage).  Burlington isn’t the biggest urban center, but it’s really not far from them.  And VT is a net exporter of weapons used in crimes.

    The folks in Newtown said “it can’t happen here” (which I read as a bit of subconscious racism because it’s a well-off white community).  We can say the same thing in VT, but for how long?  What’s more, do we have a role in the national problem if we have fairly lax gun laws whilst other states are stricter (which is why arms do flow out of the state, rather than in)?

    I don’t know the answers, but I think these are questions that need to be considered.

  54. I think you’d get consensus on much of what you’ve typed by most gun owners I know with the notable exception of the very loud (but minority) “shall not be infringed” absolutists. I don’t believe last weekend’s Vermont State House rally was a response to people raising “questions that need to be considered”, but rather it was a response to the actions taken by the Burlington City Council and Senator Baruth. While I appreciate your view that that’s precisely what legislators are supposed to do, it’s not the only way that these “questions that need to be considered” can be addressed by politicians. It’s well within the right of legislative committees to hold hearings on any topic within their jurisdiction. It’s not necessary for a bill to be filed as a starting point for the conversation. Using the process that Senator Baruth did made that conversation less likely and it hurt his statewide political prospects, at least in the short term, and unnecessarily so.

  55. Sometimes it’s harder to discuss things without specifics.  Introducing legislation sure did motivate people in a way that I think vague hearings would have.  And I think demonstrated the bounds that Vermonters are willing to accept right now!


    From “Vermont Law Enforcement Agency Uniform Crime Reports 1980 to 2011” it’s possible to see how many murders were committed in Vermont for a ten year period. Between the years 2002 and 2011 Vermont had 116 murders. However, it’s important to note that not all of the murders that happened occurred by way of a firearm.

    In fact, according to this data:

    of the 8 murders that happened in Vermont in the year 2011, 4 were committed using a firearm, or 50%. Even if we were to arbitrarily use a higher percentage of murders via firearm than the actual data from 2011 provides, let’s say for the sake of argument “75%” for that ten year period, it would mean that there were approximately 87 murders in the state of Vermont that were attributable to firearms for the ten year period.

    On average, that would equate to 1.3 murders by firearm, per year, per 100,000 people in the state of Vermont.

  57. It could be that there is a causal correlation between “these small numbers” in Vermont, Vermont’s high gun ownership rate and “low crime”. If that is so, it would make more sense to justify the continued right of Vermonters to possess them, or at least, it could explain why many law-abiding gun owners vociferously refute the need for “something” being done to address an issue that doesn’t exist.

  58. I think this is a bit of a reach.

    Probably the most significant reason that Vermont’s gun death rate is not higher is simply the rural nature of the state.  With fewer concentrations of urban pressures, less reactive situations occur.

  59. Which is probably why we need, you know, to study the problem and not try to stifle inquiry as the NRA has done rather well.  CDC, VT AHS, et al, should be able to see if it’s truly causal and not just a correlation.

    And we might see that, once you increase concentration of guns, that the law of small numbers protects us not…

  60. What are you, the Archbishop of Orthodoxy?  

    Believe it or not, it is valid to discuss need.  

    If you want to confine yourself only to the specific “need” expressed in the Second Amendment, it has nothing to do with personal self-defense.

    …a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state

    So, it’s all about defense of the state, by means of an organized militia.  

  61. …Miller, Heller, Duranleau, et al.  If the right can have reasonable limits, then it becomes a political question and one that can be answered, in part, through looking at compelling interests (needs).

  62. successful science fiction writer


    retired military veteran

    George W. Bush was a retired military veteran

    expert gun smith

    Military-grade?  (Still laughing.)

    You got nothing but a FB nutter page.  

  63. “…the right of the people…”

    It says nothing about a “right of the militia”.

    And, argueably, “the security of a free state” begins with the security of the individual, if you really want to go down that road.

  64. …as defined by US statute (and history): organized (the Guard), and unorganized (all able-bodied males from 18-45 not in the Guard).  So the general assumption is that almost everybody is technically militia to be called upon to fight invasion or suppress insurrection.  Some of us are just better trained.

    You’ll also note that the VT Constitution does, in fact, mention self-defense in Article 16…

  65. In which case, I would think “well regulated” suggests that someone must be in charge of establishing the “regulations.”  That would be “organization,” wouldn’t it?

    But if you were strictly discussing the  Vermont Constitution, the right to bear arms for personal defense is clearly stated.  

    “For the defense of themselves and the state” is a statement of need.  Therefore the parameters of that need should be very much open to discussion.

  66. In fact, the US Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to do the regulating and calling up of the militia in times of invasion or insurrection.  That’s why we started all the regulatin’ and mandatin’ with the Militia Acts of 1792, which required able-bodied males to own firearms, and gave the President authority to call up the militia in certain circumstances (initially the concern was fighting with NatAm tribes, but he exercised it first to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion).

    That’s at the heart of the point I made in that linked post: there is an individual component of the right (particularly if you accept precedent established in Griswold regarding penumbral emanations), and there is also a built-in limiting function, both in the amendment and elsewhere in the Constitution.  In both instances we must recognize that times and circumstances change, and we have to be empowered to address all that through the political process.

    BTW, I don’t think one can confine oneself to the US Constitution when having this discussion (or any constitutional debate).  VT’s just as much a constitution as the Federal, and more explicit (which is another argument in favor of the individual right from the Federal POV as observed in Heller).  One also can’t ignore natural rights.

  67. If we followed the logic of some who clamor for “assault weapons” bans, it could lead some to advocate for legislative actions against the building of skyscrapers, at least in NYC.

    After all, “Of the 473 people who committed suicide in the city (NYC) in 2008, the most recent year for which statistics are available, 93, just under 20%, did so by leaping to their deaths.”

    This is important to note because, once again, “twice the gun-related deaths” does not equal “twice the murder rate” by firearms, and the measure does little to explain the relative “responsibility” of gun owners in Vermont vs. other states. To my knowledge, there have been no deaths by skyscraper in Vermont; therefore New York’s death by skyscraper rate when compared to Vermont’s is considerably higher than “twice the rate”. Maybe the Vermont legislature should ban skyscrapers, too?

  68. There’s an old dictum about the difference between fiction and science fiction: Science fiction has to make sense.

    IIRC, he was unit armorer qualified while in the Army and Air Force.  He routinely makes AK-pattern rifles from bare sheet-metal stock and barrel-and-hardware kits.  He’s also a vendor of firearms, and very familiar with state and federal laws on such.  He’s also a blacksmith and makes and sells hand-made knives, swords and axes with considerable demand for his products.

    Regardless, the article referenced wasn’t his, it was from a known and acclaimed lawyer and legal scholar.  But I doubt you actually read it.  Your loss.  

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *