Daily Kos

The Biggest Lie Perpatrated on the American Public...

by HC Penniwicket

Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 06:56:35 PM PDT

The biggest lie perpetrated on the American public.  No, its not Nixon lying to us about his involvement in Watergate.  No, its not Bush lying about weapons of mass destruction.  But, it does result in as many Americans dying every month as in the entire Iraq war to date.  In fact, it results in the deaths of nearly 30,000 Americans every year.

It is the NRA's claim that the Second Amendment guarantees an unrestricted right to own a gun.  This claim, is unfounded, and completely false.

The lies are overwhelming...

In 2004, despite a decade of declining murder rates, congress allowed a ban assault weapons to expire.  During the period in which this ban was in effect, 1994-2001, violent crime dropped nearly 54%.  Crimes committed with guns also declined, 63%.   There is no doubt that this ban, in addition to the Brady Act, contributed to this decline.

But the real issue here isn't whether these gun control laws work.  It's obvious they do.  The real issue is the second amendment and the NRA.  Here's what the second amendment says:

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.

The intention of the second amendment was to balance out the national army with a state militia, or in today's world, the governor controlled national guard.

But even if you don't agree with this definition of militia, there is no getting around the clause "A well regulated militia". This leaves it up to the legislature to decide what constitutes a "well regulated militia".  Most experts on the second amendment agree that in the history of the amendment the right to bear arms mentioned out of the context of a militia.  There is no separating the two clauses.  So then why then does the NRA claim that the Brady Act and Assault Weapons ban violate the Second Amendment?  And with all the evidence showing how effective these laws are in reducing crime, why do the Democrats do nothing to push this issue?

The reason is simple.  The NRA itself estimates it spent $20 million in the 2004 election rewarding its friends and punishing its enemies.  The NRA itself claims to have defeated 20 democrats in the house alone.  The Democrats are afraid, and rightfully so, of the Gun Lobby.

What can be done to reverse the lies spread by the NRA and pro-gun lobby?  And why, with so many statistics backing them up why can't the Democrats pass anti-gun laws that will save lives?

Tags: guns, violence, second amendment, NRA, industry (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 28 comments

  •  looser issue (none / 1)

    I personally think that guns are dumb and have absolutely no interest in owning one personally.  However, I do not take issue with other people wanting to have them for hunting or in some instances for self-defense purposes.  Although, I do find some aspects of gun owner culture to be strange and for lack of a better word really "dumb" (think bunch of dudes in a hunting lodge drinkin' beer).

    However, gun control is a big time looser issue for Dems and, therefore, needs to go away as an issue.  We lost on this one (bad) and we should just give it up.  I agree with you that the NRA is nuts and has duped the american people and I also agree that the 2nd Amendment is, at least by most people, read and interpreted completely wrong.  However, it's still a lost cause issue.  I'm glad the dems in high places have given up on this issue.

    by Nathan in MN on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 07:03:00 PM PDT

    •  Gun controll and PC (none / 1)

      the biggest reasons why decent people vote Republican against their own interest. Both are a liability to forming a progressive majority.

      "Just when they think they know the answer, I change the question!" -Roddy Piper

      by McGirk SF on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 07:21:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  sort of (none / 0)

        I grew up in the redest of red state america (rural indiana) and I don't think that's all there is to it.  It's a lot more complicated than that, but these things don't help any to be sure.

        What it really is about is resentment.  Rural, poor folk resent educated urbanites who attend fancy colleges and go to art museums and don't have "real jobs."  Trying to take guns and being PC are part of that resentment, but they aren't really the "reason" these folks vote the way they do in and off themselves.

        by Nathan in MN on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 07:47:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Because liberals like me want to be (4.00 / 3)

    Armed to the fucking teeth when the Gestapo come knocking my door down.

    by THX1138 on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 07:03:56 PM PDT

  •  Dead in the water (4.00 / 2)

    People who live in rural communities will never accept this, period. Farmers have to worry about coyotes or wolves eating their chickens. Rabies are an issue when yoy have livestock. The police station may be 30+ miles from their home, so how else can you defend yourself. Rural people go hunting for food, not sport.
    Oh and what do you do when Bush declares Marshal Law. Gun ownership is what stops that from occuring.
    If you want to save lives, change the culture, even Michael Moore pointed out that Canada has guns too, yet they don't have the issues we do.

    "Just when they think they know the answer, I change the question!" -Roddy Piper

    by McGirk SF on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 07:18:38 PM PDT

  •  2nd amendment was a mistake... (none / 0)

    ...or is just very poorly written.  One or the other.  IMHO, it's past time to repeal the damn thing.  I mean, honestly.  What rational person can claim an apples-to-apples comparison between the guns of the Revolutionary War period with the guns of the 21st century?

    Personally, my favorite options are:

    • Repeal the damn thing.  I make no secret that I'm an out-and-out gun hater.
    • pass legislation that says "fine.  You want guns?  You can have as many single-shot, breech-loaded, flintlock fired pistols and rifles as you want.  But that's it.  That's what guns were to the Framers, so that's what you have a right to bear."

    Although I have to say that with the way things are going these days, I may change my mind about outright repealing the 2nd.  If the Republicans steal the '06 and/or '08 elections (which we'll know if the official election results are, across the nation, wildly at odds with exit polls as happened in Ohio '04), we as a populace may need the force of arms in order to re-establish our government of, by, and for the people.

    by jasonbl on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 07:32:55 PM PDT

    •  You can buy (3.00 / 2)

      blackpowder rifles and pistols through the mail all day long and a piece of lead traveling at 900 feet per second will kill
      you just as dead as one travelling twice as fast.
      .  You want guns?  You can have as many single-shot, breech-loaded, flintlock fired pistols and rifles as you want.

      Sp what exactly are you ranting about? Are you afriad of just smokeless powder, or is it the style that offends you?

      Wherefore do ye toil; is it not that ye may live and be happy? And if ye toil only that ye may toil more, when shall happiness find you?

      by keefer55 on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 07:49:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I hear this argument made (none / 1)

      and it is to assume that the Framers had no clue about modernity or that the world was progressing. Advances in technology were ongoing and its just stupid to think that the late 18th century was just this static period in time. That nobody could have guessed the advances that would be made in firearm production. My ass. Of course they did.

      by THX1138 on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:14:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I hear your point. (none / 0)

        And I've been replying to it for about an hour now, and realizing that my reply would be better off as a separate diary entry.  But, having already posted something today, I'll have to wait till tomorrow.  I'll link my diary entry back to this thread.

        Short version of the reply: I still think we need far more serious restrictions on guns than we have, but you all have convinced me (or helped me convince myself, whichever), that the 2nd Amendment does have a meaningful place in our Constitution.  You'll have to go find tomorrow's diary entry to read why, exactly, I think these things.

        by jasonbl on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 09:14:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Awsome idea!!! (4.00 / 2)

      >>>"pass legislation that says "fine.  You want guns?  You can have as many single-shot, breech-loaded, flintlock fired pistols and rifles as you want.  But that's it.  That's what guns were to the Framers, so that's what you have a right to bear."

      While we're at it let's restrict publishing to hand powered, single page printing presses. (That's what the Framers had).

      Makes sense right? The first amendment was probably either a mistake or was poorly written don't you think?

      Strange that they put the second amendment right after the first. Like did they just throw them in there in random order then number them or did they put them in order based on how important they thought they were?

      You're probably right though, those idiots just f*cked up and put a poorly written amendment in there or just accidentally put an unnecessary one in there. You know how that just happens sometimes when everything is written by hand with a quill pen!......Then has to be ratified......

      ....Listen to Ded Prez....

      by Manix on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:21:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Fuck the second amendment. (none / 0)

    Bush has told us that the president can do what he damned well wants to, with The Bill of Rights, in a time of war.

    So, if Georgie boy can blow off the Fourth Amendment 'cause of terrists, any president can do the same with the Second Amendment, too.

    This is what our gun totin' friends in the red states need to realize. My God, man, brown terrists could be goin' on gun swipin' sprees plus the preznit's gonna be in town next week, gotta have a secure perimeter. We'll start with the credit card records from the ammo counter at Wal-Mart, and make the necessary visits.

    C'mon, Bub, turn in Granpa's 12 gauge...

    I'm the plowman in the valley - with my face full of mud

    by labradog on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 07:39:30 PM PDT

  •  Well....... (4.00 / 2)

    "The intention of the second amendment was to balance out the national army with a state militia, or in today's world, the governor controlled national guard."

    Really?!

    The following individuals seem to feel differently:

    Thomas Jefferson: "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes....Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in Chapter 40 of "On Crimes and Punishment", 1764.

    Thomas Jefferson: "A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks."  Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

    John Adams: "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense." (A defense of the Constitution of the US)

    George Washington: "A free people ought to be armed." (Jan 14 1790, Boston Independent Chronicle.)

    James Madison: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms." (Federalist Paper #46)

    Thomas Paine: "...arms...discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. ...Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them."

    Patrick Henry: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms." (Elliott, Debates at 185)

    Alexander Hamilton: "...that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms." (Federalist Paper #29)

    Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)

    George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)

    But then hey, what the hell do they know about the issue?!

    ....Listen to Ded Prez....

    by Manix on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 07:40:48 PM PDT

  •  Good post (none / 0)

    But I take issue with the "biggest lie" - gosh, there are so many big lies. That is a topic worth of many, many diaries! But kudos for taking on this issue.

    Real History Lisa http://realhistoryarchives.blogspot.com

    by Lisa in Los Angeles on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 07:55:46 PM PDT

  •  not now (none / 0)

    Yell Louder!!! @ Docudharma

    by buhdydharma on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:03:26 PM PDT

  •  San Francisco (none / 1)

    foolishly passed aban on handguns. You know how many gang members said "Uh oh, looks like I can't use this anymore" ? ZERO!

    "Just when they think they know the answer, I change the question!" -Roddy Piper

    by McGirk SF on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:48:06 PM PDT

    •  Reminds me of one of the NRAs top 10 (none / 0)

      If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

      A gun turn a 5 foot, 110 lb. teenager into the biggest, baddest guy on the block.  Better than drugs.  

      How do you fight that, aside from quick draconian punishments?  

      Everything is funny as long as it is happening to somebody else. --Will Rogers

      by groggy on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:59:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Wait....let me get this straight..... (none / 1)

      I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying.

      You're saying that criminals who have guns didn't obey the new law that says that they can't have guns?

      I'm trying to wrap my mind around this. Gangs bangers who possess guns illegally to begin with, and who use those guns to commit crimes, didn't turn in those guns when the new anti-gun law in SF passed?

      But I thought just passing a law against gun ownership would magically make guns disappear and make a city safer.

      You're telling me it doesn't work that way? You're telling me that criminals......I think I'm getting it now......your saying that criminals don't obey the law?!

      Well that makes sense I guess.

      ....Listen to Ded Prez....

      by Manix on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 09:03:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Ok, here's the deal (4.00 / 2)

    I disagree with you, but let's not even go there.

    Try what I agree with you on--single payor (nationalized health care), stronger unions, alternate energy, getting the F out of Iraq, Kyoto Protocols as a first step, a strong and truthful EPA, voter verified paper trails, a free and independent press, pro-choice, and stronger endangered species act, affirmative action, free college for every citizen, and I bet I could go on. Oh, yea, I thought "Bowling for Columbine" was a fantastic movie and should be require viewing for every policy maker and concerned citizen.

    But you lose me on this.

    Now, if you can't get ME to vote with you on this, what the hell chance do you think you have with a conservative. And I'm not talking about "not fighting for this cuz it's a loser." A lot of good issues need to be fought even if they lose. No, I'm talking about you lose me as a voter for anyone who proposes this.

    The crime rate went down because the economy went up. The ban on assault weapons didn't do squat on this. Take for instance a gun with two almost identical copies. Yet, one has a bayonet mount and was barred, and one did not. They both kill equally effectively, but one was banned because it had a mount for a knife on it's muzzle. Yea, like that makes a gun more dangerous. And how many school shootings involved bayonets?

    Remember, if you lose me, you've lost your base. Don't go there on this one. Like one poster said, change the damned culture. Canadians don't kill each other, yet they have guns.

    Just think how proud you'll be to tell your kids how you voted this year.

    by DyspepTex on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 09:12:24 PM PDT

  •  why can't the Democrats . . . (none / 1)

    And why, with so many statistics backing them up why can't the Democrats pass anti-gun laws that will save lives?

    Because if they did, they'd be replaced by Republicans in all but a few tiny urban enclaves, such as NYC, Berkeley and my own Seattle.

    No Democrat in his/her right mind is going to take up this cause, except those from the enclaves of sophistication. All the other Democrats usually dislike being associated with a bunch of city folks trying to control how somebody out in the woods can deal with a bear or a cougar.

    I'm not opposed to guns, and I'm not opposed to people's opposing guns. But I wish the people who oppose guns would do it on their own, and not hang themselves around the neck of the Democrats like an albatross.

    If we ever found one real person who stopped voting for Democrats and started voting for Republicans, in protest of Democrats' failure to support gun control, then maybe Democrats would start to pay attention.

    by PhilK on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 09:35:05 PM PDT

  •  After many thread in similar diaries. (none / 0)

    Its becoming pretty clear that Kossacks are about 90% pro second amendment. I respect others right to oppose it, but I belive the Democrats could officialy start voicing their support and we can take this one off the table. One single issue voter win for the right.

    "Just when they think they know the answer, I change the question!" -Roddy Piper

    by McGirk SF on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 12:11:17 AM PDT

Permalink | 28 comments