Obama on Second--An Open Letter

[TPaine7]

I've written an open letter to Senator Obama on the Second Amendment.

I believe that if Obama honestly addressed the Second Amendment it could go a long way towards fixing his "working class, blue collar whites" problem. It would also help him with other people who don't fit that demographic but revere the Constitution--the Constitution he claims to be a scholar of, that he says he will obey, and the one he will take an oath of office to protect from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Here is an executive summary (the full text, with sources, can be found at obamaonsecond.com):

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Obama claims he will obey the Constitution. But his call for urban gun bans opposes gun rights, presenting legal, practical, moral and political¬ problems.


Legal Issues

The plain wording of the Declaration of Independence and the Second Amendment condemn gun control. It is always wrong to infringe rights, the Second Amendment is no exception.

Judicial History

The judicial history of the right to arms conclusively rejects gun control. If you strip the racism from Dred Scott and Cruikshank you are left with citizens having the right to keep and carry arms wherever they go. For any lawful purpose.

The Fourteenth Amendment was intended to overthrow gun control and force states to respect the Second Amendment rights of freed blacks. The people who wrote the law said so.

If you accept the gun control position, the FourteenthAmendment would have the effect of forcing the States to respect their own rights to arm militias! If you accept the actual history, the Amendment forces states to respect their citizens’ rights to keep and bear arms.

Miller’s unfortunate (and, I think, flawed) reasoning does not actually support modern infringements, such as the D.C. scheme.

Modern Legal Scholarship

While Brady employees and a tiny minority of scholars fight on, the battle over the Second Amendment is essentially over. According to one eminent expert “almost all the qualified historians and constitutional-law scholars who have studied the subject ”… “the Second Amendment establishes an individual right to bear arms which is not dependent upon joining something like the National Guard.”



Practical Issues

Legalities aside, does gun control save lives? Can citizens be trusted with guns? Are guns effective against crime?

Effective Self-Defense

Contrary to conventional wisdom, guns are very effective against crime. Statistically, if you use a gun to resist criminal attack, you are about half as likely to be injured. The advice to the contrary—“give them what they want or run”—is ideologically driven, not based in reality.

Guns are used very often in self defense, and in the vast majority of cases no one is hurt.


Deterrence

Modern research supports the deterrent effect armed citizens. Surprising as it may be to some, criminals don’t like the idea of going up against armed targets.


Ordinary People


As studies dating to the 1890’s show, ordinary people rarely murder. Very rarely. And general gun restrictions are a very inefficient way to stop them.


The Children

Children are pawns used to restrict guns. If they were the actual concern, guns would be very low on the priority list. Oh, and the children protected by guns would be considered as well.


Gun Take-Aways

“If you pull a gun, the felon could just take it from you.” This anti-gun fantasy flies in the face of common sense and reality. It’s wrong.


Civilian Shooters

Armed citizens do better against criminals than police. They are 1.22 times more likely to shoot, wound, or drive off criminals; they are 15% less likely to be killed; they are 5.5 times less likely to shoot the wrong person due to misidentification.

Much of this is because police face more difficult situations, but it refutes anti-gun fantasies of ordinary folks carelessly shooting innocents.


Gun Control Benefits

The Center for Disease Control—a very biased anti-gun organization—requested an investigation. What are the positive effects of gun control: waiting periods, one gun per month, licensing and registration of owners, background checks, 10 round magazine limits, “assault weapons” bans, and zero tolerance in schools? There is no detectable benefit!


“Sensible Gun Control”

Self-defense with a gun in one’s own home is illegal in the District. You can keep shotguns and rifles at home as long as they are perfectly useless. (This is actually more permissive than Obama would like.) Oh, and for good measure, the authorities can stand by as you are raped, sodomized, tortured and killed, secure in the knowledge that there is nothing whatsoever you can do about it. You –or your next of kin—can’t even sue. (But don’t forget to pay your taxes for their “protection.”)


Morality—“Animal Rights”


If you prevented an animal from protecting itself or its young, (by, say, defanging and declawing it and releasing it into the wild) do you think you could be prosecuted for animal cruelty?


America’s Core Value

Gun control opposes equality under the law—America’s core value.

Armed Revolution

Gun control opposes the right to armed revolution, as it opposes every other principle of the Declaration of Independence.

A sophistry refuted. Hubert Humphrey and John F. Kennedy on the Second Amendment and armed revolution.


The Founders’ Wisdom

Contrary to modern vanity, Clinton, Bloomberg, Fenty and Nagin are not wiser than T. Paine, Jefferson, Madison and Washington.


Politics

If Obama cannot articulate arguments against modern legal scholarship and modern criminology, he should yield to the people, who believe the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms.


The Path Forward

What could a change president do to improve American lives while respecting the Constitution? A success story points the way forward.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Since I wrote this, Obama has made more discouraging comments. I still hold out the faint hope that he will transcend partisanship and obey the Constitution.

[YDogg]

1. heh?

[TPaine7]

3. The letter is too long to duplicate here

so I left a link.

The letter is for discussion and (rational) criticism. The summary is to whet people's appetites.

[Mojorabbit]

2. What discouraging comments?

This is one of my hubby's big issues. I hope our candidates aren't advocating extreme gun control which I think is a sure way of losing the election.

[YDogg]

4. I second that.

the "extreme" part.

[still_one]

6. A president has no power to implement gun control. That takes Congress

This is a non-issue that isn't going to happen

[SteveM]

16. Some of my friends are fairly DESPERATE in claiming "this is a non-issue..."

...just before agreeing that they would support another AWB, esp. if the Democrats win strong majorities in Congress as well as win the presidency. What they (and perhaps you) are REALLY saying is they will keep quiet. Then, when in power, repeat history.

BTW, some of my friends know 2A will be an issue in a close general election. But they still want an AWB. Jesus, it's like talking to a heroin addict about the dangers of the habit.

Why do you think some folks desperately want an AWB yet again? Especially after the arguments put forth in this forum? My speculation is culture war; so much of the conversation with these people is over "intelligence," "ignorant rural people," "urban areas have a more progressive outlook," etc.

The lady protest to much, methinks.

[TPaine7]

7. Here are some examples

S-T: The Washington, D.C. case before the U.S. Supreme Court you were asked about at the debate -- have you have a chance to look into that more?

B.O.: My view continues to be that the constitution, I believe, does provide a right to bear arms; but that local communities, and state governments, as well as the federal government, have a right to common-sense regulations and firearm ownership The truth is, obviously, the ban here in Chicago, the ban in D.C. is not keeping the guns out of our cities, and so I'm interested in just figuring out what works and I'm confident we can come up with laws that work and that pass constitutional muster and don't infringe on the rights of lawful gun owners whether it's in Downstate Illinois or rural Montana.

S-T: As a state legislator, you voted against a bill which would let people with orders of protection carry guns and another that would have barred municipalities from punishing people who kept guns in their homes. Why?

B.O.: I felt that was a precedent for conceal-and-carry laws. There has not been any evidence that allowing people to carry a concealed weapon is going to make anybody safer. is relevant to the D.C. handgun issue. I wanted to preserve the right of local communities to enforce local ordinances and this would have overturned municipalities being able to enforce their own ordinances. We can argue about whether the ordinances work or not. But I wanted to make sure that local communities were recognized as having a right to regulate firearms.

Source: http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/914970,CST-NWS-obama25.article

"People--that is all citizens--have the right to bear arms, but I voted against a bill allowing people in special danger to carry arms."

"People--that is all citizens--have the right to bear arms, but I wanted to preserve the right of local communities to enforce local ordinances forbidding them to exercise that right."

"There has not been any evidence that allowing people to carry a concealed weapon is going to make anybody safer."--direct quote.

Rights do not need to be justified, only restrictions. Is Obama in favor of open carry? If not, this is a flat refusal to respect a right he theoretically acknowledges.

Is any of this coherent?

[still_one]

8. He gave his opinion. Its not his decision. You don't like his opinion, don't vote for him /nt

[TPaine7]

10. He may still be the best of bad choices.

But is it really too much to ask that a candidate respect the entire Bill of Rights and the Constitution? Is that unreasonable?

[still_one]

12. Of course not, but I doubt very much that the power grab that the bush administration

successfully made by the executive branch, would be something that any of the presidential nominees would want to give back

It is up to a strong Congress to assume their Constitutional obligations.

[Firethorn]

17. I have to disagree with him...

the ban here in Chicago, the ban in D.C. is not keeping the guns out of our cities, and so I'm interested in just figuring out what works

At least to me, implies that keeping guns out of Chicago and DC is a noble pursuit, it's just that the current laws aren't working. I would have been far happier with a 'is not preventing crime in our cities', that's at least gun neutral. 'violates the 2nd amendment' would have been even better.

But I wanted to make sure that local communities were recognized as having a right to regulate firearms.

At least by my reading, those local communities are regulating firearms in a fashion that violates the 2nd. Therefore they DESERVE to get stomped.

What do I consider commonsense firearm regulations in a community? Making unsafe discharge illegal in normal circumstances. If you're going to go shooting, do it at a range, especially in city limits. Don't go disturbing the neighbors, no shooting up houses. Only time you discharge a firearm outside of a range while within city limits it should be for the same reasons a police officer would do it - self defense or defense of others. Because the consequences of NOT pulling that trigger will likely be worse than the consequences of pulling it.

Another exemption would be for limited hunting in special circumstances. Some cities have extensive tracts of wildlands, and can get excessive wildlife populations. Deer become destructive if there are too many of them. The most economical method to control deer populations is hunting. Still, most of the time those that win that exemption are the bow hunters. I think it's silly, for the most part, to try to fart around with birth control($$$) or 'professional' hunters($$$). You can get hunters to pay for the privilage to hunt, why pay professionals to do it for you? On the topic of the professionals doing it better - just restrict it to multiple season hunters who prove superior skills.

[still_one]

5. Maybe you should understand the Constitution, no president can ban guns

He can have an opinion on the subject, he can encourage Congress to pass laws, but unless an ammendment is passed, there is not even a chance that gun ownership is threatened

This is a non-issue, and is a distraction from the real issues. It is not within the executive branch to ba guns

As far as gun control, well, that would take Congress

Look at the flag-burning ammendment, it didn't even get to first base

[TPaine7]

9. Trust me, I understand your point.

You are correct, mostly.

And while, as a practical (current) political matter, he cannot ban guns nationwide, he can do a lot to prevent the Constitution being restored. He can veto laws that respect gun owners' rights and make the Supreme Court do all the work.

How would you feel about a presidential candidate who supported a ban on another right protected by the Bill of Rights? His stands matter.

I understand the Constitution, and I'll ignore your implied insult. But what do you think, could a president infringe on other rights, by, for example, spying on innocent citizens? How about waiving habeas corpus and jury trials? Right to legal representation? Freedom from cruel and barbaric treatment? Self-incrimination?

Ridiculous paranoid fantasies, right?

The words of the Constitution have less to do with this than you may think. What matters is respect for the Constitution, the president's and the people's. And his respect for the Constitution is the subject of the letter.

[still_one]

11. First of all it wasn't meant to be an insult, really. If it came out that way I appologize

I was making the point that it would literally take an act of Congress or an ammedment to the Constitution, both which are very long processes. The founding fathers set up this checks and balances for the very concerns you express

In fact, what bush has done, and Congress effectively allowed him, is assume unitary power, with very little check and balance from Congress. That is the danger in my view, not only for your issue, but all kinds of issues, which can be encapsulated in one common thread, and that is our civil rights

We probably agree more with each other than disagree. The problem is, after what Congress has done by allowing the executive branch this unchecked power, what presidential nominee would try to put the pieces back. I would venture, NONE OF THE CANDIDATES

It would be up to Congress to take back that power.

[TPaine7]

14. Obama presents himself as a radically different type of candidate--

principled. That is a shocking idea, but I dared to hope it was true.

Maybe I suffer from excessive optimism.

[Testament]

21. A president can't pass gun control LAWS...but...

back in the term of Bush the First, HW made an executive order restricting importation of certain firearms.

The president appoints the head of the BATFE, who enforces federal gun laws, some have been more crazy than others. Also, the BATFE decides what is considered "sporting" for 922(r) and the "sporting" exception to the >.50 cal DD code.

The president appoints the AG who makes the case against those the BATFE brings in for gun law violations.

As mentioned before, the president can have an effect on the congress by asking them to pass legislation, as was the case of the 94 ban with Clinton. The president can veto a good or bad gun law. The vice president can split the vote, good or bad in the case of a 50/50 senate vote.

All of those things have a huge effect on gun rights in general.

[gorfle]

13. Just got my latest NRA magazine.

I just got my latest NRA magazine, America's 1st Freedom, and they basically rip Obama up one side and down the other. Funny they don't mention Hillary hardly at all - I guess her handwriting is on the wall even for the NRA.

Anyway they portray Obama as very anti-firearm. I will transcribe some of the articles for you all later.

I'm going to write them a long letter telling them that I understand their mission is pro-firearms and keeping us aware of the political landscape, but too many pro-firearm folks have "had it up to here" with the last 8 years of Republican crap and they better start learning how to work with the Democrats because the Republicans are going to be out on their ear come November.

[TPaine7]

15. I would also encourage everyone to write Obama

and ask him to live up to his billing as a constitutional scholar who intends to obey the supreme law of the land.

I've already done my part. (There are directions to contact Obama on the last page of my letter.)

[jody]

19. If BO is a constitutional scholar, please list the articles he has published in refereed journals on

that subject.

I believe as adjunct instructor he has taught a course or two in constitutional law but that does not make one a constitutional scholar.

[iverglas]

20. I love it when they fight among themselves

The first one refers to Obama's "billing as a constitutional scholar" and suggests he live up to it.

The next one demands that the first one provide proof of Obama's constitutional scholarship.

Barrel o' monkeys.

[TPaine7]

23. Calling people monkeys shows the strength of your argument . . .

its very telling.

I make all those claims with footnotes and links, and you answer with too typical anti-gun intellectual rigor.

Impressive.

[iverglas]

25. what the hell argument would that be?

My comment above had nothing to do with your pretty prose.

It had to do with the fact that you're lined up firmly on a particular side of an issue, which happens to be the exact same side that jody is lined up on ... and there's jody, bizarrely demanding that you produce proof of something YOU DID NOT CLAIM, as if you were just some other firearms control advocate to be treated to wave of the back of his hand and a "have a nice day :) :) :) "...

Like I said: I love it when they fight among themselves.

Granted, you weren't fighting; jody was shadow-boxing, I guess. Still quite entertaining.

[TPaine7]

27. I should have said

I should have said "arguments" or for more clarity, "position," meaning your general position on gun rights.

[iverglas]

29. no, you should have said something on point

if you felt the need to say something. What I said happened to be on a point, and had nothing to do with my "general position on gun rights <sic>". (Guns got rights?)

But heck, if you're looking to get your teeth into something I did say, I'm still waiting:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=168997&mesg_id=168999

[iverglas]

18. all it takes

The Center for Disease Control—a very biased anti-gun organization—requested an investigation. What are the positive effects of gun control: waiting periods, one gun per month, licensing and registration of owners, background checks, 10 round magazine limits, “assault weapons” bans, and zero tolerance in schools? There is no detectable benefit!

"There is no detectable benefit!"

If anyone who reads it pays the least attention, s/he will know that this statement is false, take it to be a good indicator of the merits of the rest of it, and chuck the whole thing where it obviously belongs.


http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

Evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these laws for the following reasons.

Bans on specified firearms or ammunition. Results of studies of firearms and ammunition bans were inconsistent: ...

Restrictions on firearm acquisition. ... Overall, evaluations of the effects of acquisition restrictions on violent outcomes have produced inconsistent findings: some studies indicated decreases in violence associated with restrictions, and others indicated increases. ...

Waiting periods for firearm acquisition. ... Studies of the effects of waiting periods on violent outcomes yielded inconsistent results: ...

Firearm registration and licensing of owners. ... Only four studies examined the effects of registration and licensing on violent outcomes; the findings were inconsistent.

"Shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws. ... Results across studies were inconsistent or conceptually implausible. Therefore, evidence was insufficient to determine the effect of shall issue laws on violent outcomes. ...

Child access prevention laws. ... Overall, too few studies of CAP law effects have been done, and the findings of existing studies were inconsistent. ...

Zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools. ... The effectiveness of zero tolerance laws in preventing violence cannot be assessed because appropriate evidence was not available. ...

Combinations of firearms laws. ... available evidence was insufficient to determine whether the degree of firearms regulation was associated with decreased (or increased) violence. The findings were inconsistent and most studies were methodologically inadequate to allow conclusions about causal effects. ...

Several recurring problems were associated with the studies that evaluated the effects of firearms laws on violent outcomes: ...

In conclusion, the application of imperfect methods to imperfect data has commonly resulted in inconsistent and otherwise insufficient evidence with which to determine the effectiveness of firearms laws in modifying violent outcomes.

... Although the Task Force's systematic review of the existing literature on firearms laws found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of these laws in preventing violence, research should continue on the effectiveness of firearms laws as one approach to the prevention or reduction of firearms violence and firearms injury. Evaluation should include not only the laws reviewed here, but the broad array of other federal, state, and local laws.

So ... were you just parroting crap you read somewhere, or intentionally misrepresenting the CDC's conclusions?

[TPaine7]

22. Pitiful. . .

Here is how I address the issue in the letter itself (footnotes omitted):

Gun Control Benefits
What are the benefits of gun control? The Center for Disease Control—a very biased anti-gun
organization—requested an investigation.

“The Task Force, an independent, nonfederal panel of experts supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, conducts a systematic review of published studies for the purpose of identifying and reporting on evidence of effectiveness.”

The question at issue: “Is there evidence that legal strategies are effective in preventing death and injury from firearms?” The legal strategies studied were:

• Bans on specified firearms or ammunition
• Restrictions on firearm acquisition
• Waiting periods for firearm acquisition
• Firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners
• “Shall issue” concealed weapons carry laws
• Child access prevention laws
• Zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools
• Combinations of firearms laws

And what were the results?

“Evidence for the effectiveness of the firearms laws reviewed was found insufficient for
several reasons, including: too few studies; unreliable data on exposures, outcomes, and
confounders; inappropriate analyses; and inconsistent results.”

In other words, after decades of gun control—waiting periods, one gun per month, licensing and
registration of owners, background checks, 10 round magazine limits, “assault weapons” bans, and zero
tolerance in schools there is no evidence of any societal benefit. If gun control does any good, it has
escaped detection for decades. Practically speaking, we get nothing.

The question, then, is what do we give up for nothing?

Any moderately intelligent person can see that the conclusion—“if gun control does any good, it has escaped detection for decades”—is mine. The CDC looked for evidence of the effects of gun control and after decades of gun control, many studies, and lots of effort they could find none.

In that sense it is undetectable—no benefit can be detected after decades of history and “a systematic review of published studies for the purpose of identifying and reporting on evidence of effectiveness.”

Now the pitiful CDC rationalization that I quote and link to in the letter (nice way to hide it, huh) is simply their excuse for why this is so. It does not change the fact that they cannot detect any benefit. Since the Center for Disease Control likes to stick its nose into gun control, I will use a disease analogy. Imagine that a medical treatment had been used for decades, that dozens of studies had been done on it, millions of dollars spent, and the CDC—doing its actual job—could detect no benefit. “The beatings will continue until morale improves”

I can see how a casual reader could misunderstand my “executive summary” and conclude that my conclusion was the CDCs. I never meant to imply that the CDC was honest enough to abandon their faith-based ideology. If any honest person got that impression, I apologize to them.


There was no intent to mislead, however. I did not write a summary saying that the CDC was honest--a summary intended to whet people’s appetite to read an open letter--and then link to a letter that clearly shows that the correct conclusion was mine alone.

What is hard to understand is someone who would make a broad accusation of lying based on a summary. Had Iverglas bothered to look at the relevant sections of the letter—by searching for “CDC”, all would have been clear. That might not suit your purposes, however.

What is telling to me is that out of all the claims I made this is what you found to criticize. It’s pitiful.

If I had less class, if I were less intelligent, if I’d had a deficient upbringing, If I felt less confidence in the strength of my arguments, I might resort to juvenile tactics. I might call you a monkey, or find some pitiful and baseless excuse to call you a liar.

Your tactics are beneath contempt and your argument holds no water, but a wise man can learn from children and fools. So instead of lowering myself to the level you have assumed, I choose to learn, even from you.

What I got from your post is that my summary can be intentionally or negligently misunderstood. I imagine it might even be misunderstood by an honest person who read it casually (not a hack searching for any trifling excuse to condemn the entire letter.)

So if I use an executive summary elsewhere, I will rewrite that section for perfect clarity.

[iverglas]

24. nice try

Lots of sound and fury, but it STILL says:

The CDC looked for evidence of the effects of gun control and after decades of gun control, many studies, and lots of effort they could find none.

and that is STILL a misrepresentation.

What the CDC can't find is FACTS. The studies are all ionconsistent and inconclusive because the DATA have not been collected.

If I want to figure out the mean temperature for the month of May, I'm pretty much going to have to measure and record temperatures during that period. Or hope someone does it for me and gives me their data.

IF NOBODY HAS THE DATA, then nobody can figure out the mean temperature.

And if nobody can figure out the mean temperature, then NOBODY WILL HAVE EVIDENCE to demonstrate either that global warming is occurring or that global warming is not occurring.

The data -- the temperatures -- will have existed, but nobody will know what they are. So nobody will be able to produce any meaningful study that calls for knowing what the temperature is.

If nobody had been recording temperatures for the last 100 years, we would be unable to say that mean temperatures were rising.

Would that mean that mean temperatures were not rising?

Think hard, now.

[TPaine7]

26. “Lots of sound and fury”...

I agree, but at least you’ve toned it down.

This is starting to get boring, but you are being civil, so I’ll try to clear things up.

First a little history. You accused me of putting words in the CDC’s mouth or repeating misinformation:

“If anyone who reads it pays the least attention, s/he will know that this statement is false,....

So... were you just parroting crap you read somewhere, or intentionally misrepresenting the CDC's conclusions?”

I definitively refuted that, showing that the conclusion was mine, that I represented it as mine, and that anyone who took a little care before flinging accusations would have known that it was mine. I trust any moderately intelligent, open-minded reader to judge the record.

The bottom line? My “sound and fury” ended with my point proved; your original sound and fury was refuted.
On to your latest “sound and fury.”

it STILL says:

“The CDC looked for evidence of the effects of gun control and after decades of gun control, many studies, and lots of effort they could find none.”

These words (incidentally first written in post #22, not back when I wrote Obama) are absolutely true. Let’s dissect them.

The CDC looked for evidence of the effects of gun control…

Not in dispute, I think.

The CDC looked for evidence of the effects of gun control… after decades of gun control…

Still no dispute, as far as I can tell.

The CDC looked for evidence of the effects of gun control… after… many studies…

Still no dispute, as far as I can tell.

“The CDC looked for evidence of the effects of gun control and after… lots of effort they could find none.”

This must be where the dispute lies, but it’s an absolute fact (if you take the CDC at their word). They tried to find evidence; if they had found evidence—at least evidence for gun control—can there be any doubt they would have reported it?

I tried to express this earlier, but you seem to be arguing a different point; you seem to be arguing that there is a perfectly good reason for the CDC being unable to find evidence (or data, or facts as you prefer).

Your arguments preach to the choir, as far as I am concerned. With two exceptions, I understand and accept your points.

What the CDC can't find is FACTS.

True, (at least per the CDC and accepted for argument's sake).

The studies are all ionconsistent…

I disagree, but I left it alone for argument's sake.

because the DATA have not been collected.

?!!! I disagree. The studies, on both sides are based on intuition? Actual surveys were not taken, actual statistics were not compiled, actual crime records were not reviewed? Wow.

The rest of your analogy is apt, assuming the assumptions are analogous. They aren’t.

Would that mean that mean temperatures were not rising?

No, it wouldn’t. But—get this—I said nothing analogous to that. I didn’t say that there was no benefit to gun control (even though I believe that to be true, overall, that was not my point). I said that

If gun control does any good, it has escaped detection for decades.

My point is that after all the drama, all the laws, all the BS, we have nothing to show for it. Nothing that we have managed to quantify, nothing that is detectable by reviewing the considerable body of extant research. Now you can accept the CDC’s excuse, but I think it is—to put it mildly—laughable.

For one thing, after decades of infringing on American’s rights, the benefits should leap out at you. To pretend to justify disarming innocent, sane adults, it should be an open and shut case—like studies on whether oxygen deprivation is good for your brain. The studies might vary on how strong the effect is and on how much deprivation is required, but they shouldn’t conflict. No study would show significant benefits from significant oxygen deprivation, nor would the results of significant deprivation be so slight as to avoid semi-competently designed and executed studies.

Secondly, the CDC itself has put its finger on the scales with its own “science”:

Two high CDC officials are quoted, one by the Journal of the American Medical Association the other by the Washington Post, saying that their goal was to build a case against firearms (one specified handguns).

(JAMA is an ally in the anti-rights movement.)

Even cheating, however, the CDC can’t back up their position. It’s faith-based.

My point, to make it perfectly clear, is that if gun control was remotely justified, nothing would be inconclusive after decades. The benefits would be obvious.

Think hard, now.

LOL. Back at you.

[TPaine7]

28. I forgot to say

that my next to last quotation:

Two high CDC officials are quoted, one by the Journal of the American Medical Association the other by the Washington Post, saying that their goal was to build a case against firearms (one specified handguns).

is from footnote 45 in my letter to Obama at www.obamaonsecond.com . The reference is there, along with more details.

[iverglas]

30. the "reference"

is a secondary source, and not one whose word I'd take on anything without seeing a primary source, or at least a very specific and detailed reference to it:

45 In a section charitably titled “A Critique of Overt Mendacity” (pages 69-71 and endnotes), Kates outlines a very strong case for bald-faced lying by the organization. Two high CDC officials are quoted, one by the Journal of the American Medical Association the other by the Washington Post, saying that their goal was to build a case against firearms (one specified handguns).

Got one? Got the actual quotations, e.g.? And contexts?

For the rest, you're still trying to pretend that the statement by the CDC means something it doesn't mean. Sorry.

[TPaine7]

31. This should help:

From the Washington post archives page ( http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/search.html?hpid=bottomnav --obviously you have to enter the search terms yourself):

Sick People With Guns
The Washington Post (pre-1997 Fulltext) - Washington, D.C. Author: William Raspberry Date: Oct 19, 1994 Start Page: a.23 Section: OP/ED Text Word Count: 703

(Mark Rosenberg)'s weird-sounding (at first) idea is that the way to combat criminal violence is to treat it the way we treat infectious diseases: as a public health problem amenable to causal research, therapy and prevention.

"We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol - cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly - and banned." Rosenberg's thought is that if we could transform public attitudes toward guns the way we have transformed public attitudes toward cigarettes, we'd go a long way toward curbing our national epidemic of violence.

This is a portion of the page preview. I replaced the brackets around Mark's name with parentheses for proper display.

For the rest, you're still trying to pretend that the statement by the CDC means something it doesn't mean. Sorry.

LOL. Every accusation you've made so far has been systematically demolished. The horse is quite dead. I confess to using the CDC's study results along with other information to arrive at a conclusion that does not meet their approval. Somehow I don't feel guilty.

[iverglas]

33. well this is all fascinating

What you said, for ref:

"Two high CDC officials are quoted, one by the Journal of the American Medical Association the other by the Washington Post, saying that their goal was to build a case against firearms (one specified handguns)."

is from footnote 45 in my letter to Obama at www.obamaonsecond.com . The reference is there, along with more details.

In support of your assertion that certain people said that their goal was to build a case against firearms, you quote:

"We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol - cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly - and banned." Rosenberg's thought is that if we could transform public attitudes toward guns the way we have transformed public attitudes toward cigarettes, we'd go a long way toward curbing our national epidemic of violence.

Hmm. Not quite. Bzt, sorry.

Then you offer:

"A 1989 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association approvingly quoted a CDC official's assertion that his work for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention involved "systematically builda case that owning firearms causes death." The CDC official later claimed that JAMA had misquoted him and offered the only repudiation of the anti-gun political agenda we have found in a health advocacy publication, characterizing it as "anathema to any unbiased scientific inquiry because it assumes the conclusion at the outset and then attempts to find evidence to support it.

Unfortunately, that is precisely what CDC is doing. Indeed, this has subsequently been avowed by the prior official's successor. Even more unfortunately, CDC and other health advocate sages build their case not only by suppressing facts, but by overt fraud, fabricating statistics, and falsifying references to support them. ...

Sadly, I don't have access to the material cited in footnotes 258 to 261 to that material. I assume you have not accessed it yourself.

So you're offering a critique by some people known to have a very big axe to grind of things said by other people, as characterized by the first people, who they allege have axes to grind.

Sorry. Just not what I regard as evidence of anything.


For the rest, you're still trying to pretend that the statement by the CDC means something it doesn't mean. Sorry.
LOL. Every accusation you've made so far has been systematically demolished.


Lolololol. If you want to keep pretending that red means blue, there's nobody here going to stop you!

The only "accusation" I made was that you very seriously misrepresented the conclusion stated by the CDC. And that "accusation" has been fully documented and proved to be correct.

The CDC said:

Evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these laws

You said:

The Center for Disease Control—a very biased anti-gun organization—requested an investigation. What are the positive effects of gun control: waiting periods, one gun per month, licensing and registration of owners, background checks, 10 round magazine limits, “assault weapons” bans, and zero tolerance in schools? There is no detectable benefit!

Your statement is a gross misrepresentation of the conclusion stated by the CDC, apparently intended to persuade someone that the CDC examined the data and concluded that firearms laws produced no benefit, when you knew or should have known that this was not what the CDC did.

EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT to determine the effectiveness of the laws, ergo the CDC COULD/WOULD NOT HAVE STATED, AND DID NOT STATE, THAT THERE WAS NO DETECTIBLE BENEFIT.

[TPaine7]

34. The last word is yours, if you want it.

In support of your assertion that certain people said that their goal was to build a case against firearms, you quote:

"We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol - cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly - and banned." Rosenberg's thought is that if we could transform public attitudes toward guns the way we have transformed public attitudes toward cigarettes, we'd go a long way toward curbing our national epidemic of violence.

Hmm. Not quite. Bzt, sorry.



Well perhaps you actually believe this erudite argument. So here is some more from the same article--the first three paragraphs. (Obviously I can't reproduce the whole thing, and it's not very long.)

My first thought was to recall Abraham Maslow's aphorism: "If the only tool you have is a hammer, all problems look like nails." Now I'm beginning to wonder if Mark Rosenberg's notion isn't worth a second thought.

Rosenberg's weird-sounding (at first) idea is that the way to combat criminal violence is to treat it the way we treat infectious diseases: as a public health problem amenable to causal research, therapy and prevention.

Well, of course. Rosenberg is director of the National Center for Injury Prevention, a division of the National Centers for Disease Control, and the infectious-disease approach may be the only tool he has.

William Raspberry, a respected journalist, then goes on to make the case that maybe the high CDC official has a point. He is writing about and quoting Rosenberg--Rosenberg considered in his official capacity. The tone of the article was hopeful and pro gun control; Raspberry definitely has no apparent ax to grind against gun control. All of this is relevant to someone actually interested in the truth (and aware of their own fallibility).

Of course I don't expect you to accept any of this; it doesn't blend into the anti-gun theme.



Sadly, I don't have access to the material cited in footnotes 258 to 261 to that material. I assume you have not accessed it yourself.

So you're offering a critique by some people known to have a very big axe to grind of things said by other people, as characterized by the first people, who they allege have axes to grind.

Sorry. Just not what I regard as evidence of anything.



Assume and condemn. This seems to be a pattern with you. You've done it it in virtually every exchange we've had; in fact, when you didn't I was supporting the "gun control position" that you shouldn't shoot fleeing burglars in the back. That's noble--not making assumptions and condemning people who are agreeing with you based on those assumptions.

As for it being evidence, I cited the same information from a law journal. It is no small feat to accuse published professionals of lying in a law journal. I've read, in a source that I trusted, that all of the accused were given the opportunity to refute the charges, and none took the opportunity. But why would you trust my source if I produced it? Or, if it was too prestigious to spin, why wouldn't you find a specious alternate explanation? So why should I waste my time?



Your statement is a gross misrepresentation of the conclusion stated by the CDC, apparently intended to persuade someone that the CDC examined the data and concluded that firearms laws produced no benefit, when you knew or should have known that this was not what the CDC did.

EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT to determine the effectiveness of the laws, ergo the CDC COULD/WOULD NOT HAVE STATED, AND DID NOT STATE, THAT THERE WAS NO DETECTIBLE BENEFIT.



Why lie?! It has to be obvious to you and anyone who's read my prior posts that my statement was not a representation of the CDC's conclusion at all--it could not possibly be a misrepresentation. We all have egos, but sometimes admitting you're wrong is better than imitating Hillary. (Actually it's better any time you're wrong.) Everyone should learn this by 3 years of age.

What bothers me is that you know you're wrong. The tone of your earlier posts showed that you knew it. Your misdirection to another, new statement showed it. The fact that you couldn't even disagree with a single word of the second statement (that I helpfully dissected) showed it.

This is disappointing, though not surprising. I dared to hope that I had encountered a decently informed intellectually honest anti-gunner. Someone more impressed with truth than ideology. I've found one before, but they seem rare. Having been an intellectually honest anti-gun person myself, I respect these almost mythical people. The more I learn about the subject, the more obvious the reason for their rarity becomes.

I won't be saying anything more on this unless you really surprise me; I wrote this mostly for others who might read it.

[TPaine7]

32. This should help too...

There is a section in this article also entitled "A Critique of Overt Mendacity" which is substantially the same as the passage in the book (my scan detected some slight editing).

http://www.guncite.com/journals/tennmed.html

All of the footnotes are there.