Every now and then I read material online, whether it be the NY Times or Counterpunch and I'm astounded that certain statements are allowed to pass the proofreaders (assuming they exist at these places) and placed into print. I'm not talking about censorship, i'm talking about basic fact checking. I think if a piece is posted that has clearly wrong information but will be run anyway, the publisher should post a footnote about the offending information. Today's example comes from
Counterpunch.
I'm at a stage in my life where whenever I see [word}+nut, I know I'm probably in for an emotional piece of work devoid of much in the way of verifiable facts. So seeing Left "gun nuts" set off my "oh boy here we go" alarm. Andrew and Darwin don't disappoint.
In the aftermath of the Isla Vista massacre, we can expect the far Right to vehemently oppose any renewed call for gun control. They will tout the supposedly Constitutional right of Americans to keep and bear arms.
Supposedly?
That's like saying citizens supposedly have the constitutional right to free speech, freedom of assembly, right to a trial by jury. It's like saying the right isn't written right there on paper. How does a
professor, meaning he supposedly got through at least 6 years of "higher" education, write "supposedly" before the right to bear arms?
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
See what Andrew and Darwin are playing is the "militia" card (and they play it forthright later in the piece). People like these two attach "militia" and bear arms in such a way that only the militia (police, armed forces) have the right to bear arms and the rest of the plebes ought do whatever the state tells us we are allowed to do and hope that the police make it in time.
Never mind that throughout the history of the US, there was never even a question of whether one had the right to bear (own) a firearm. If you took the argument that only professional soldiers and police ought to be able to possess firearms to the Founders, they would have had a hearty laugh.
But forget the Founders. None other than the Supreme Court established that citizens have a constitutional right to own firearms. The District of Columbia tried to ban the ownership of guns.
Supreme Court ended that quickly. You can disagree with the Supreme Court if you like (and I do often), but you cannot at this juncture in time write that the right to own a firearm is a "supposed" right.
Moving on.
The Right will summon up the specter of a tyrannical government waiting to oppress us but for our wood stocks and blued steel. We will be told yet again that gun control leaves citizens to the mercy of criminals who simply ignore the law.
Well, Lets see. What is it that happened in Waco? And what was that which happened with Cliven Bundy? Oh right Cliven is a white male. An old one at that. So the fact that the state came armed to take his property which he had been grazing on land the Fed had no jurisdiction over until it
gave itself jurisdiction is not an example of the state being held at bay by armed citizens? As Occupy found out, the state has asserted a monopoly on violence and even when it abuses that monopoly the citizens have little recourse as they will be tried for crimes they did not commit. Even if they succeed against the state via the courts they will do so at great personal costs.
Now imaging an alternate universe where Occupy was armed. Either there would be a bloodbath or the NYPD (and other PD's) would have treated Occupy a lot differently.
As for the mercy of criminals:
Ex-cop kills would-be carjacker
and
EDITORIAL: Detroit police chief wants citizens to arm themselves
Chief Craig sees the results firsthand of legal gun ownership. There have been 73 “justifiable homicides” in Detroit since 2011, and only 15 in 2013. Most of these, reports The Detroit News, involved residents such as 76-year-old Willie White, who fatally shot a man who broke into his home. His house had been broken into several times before he confronted and fatally shot an 18-year-old thug who had broken in in 2012. Mr. White told The News, “… these criminals would definitely think twice if they knew more citizens were armed.”
Yeah Andrew and Darwin, you were saying?
Look, if you don't like guns then by all means do not purchase or possess one. If gun crime bothers you that much, then by all means take your constitutional right to move freely around the country and live somewhere with low crime. There are plenty of places you can do that. But the only way to eliminate gun crime is to ban guns period. Across the board banning of firearms. That would take a constitutional amendment. Andrew and Darwin should spend their time doing that if they are REALLY serious about the issue.
