ALL THE WAY DOWN THE SLIPPERY SLOPE: GUN PROHIBITION IN ENGLAND AND SOME LESSONS FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES IN AMERICA  is an essay by Joseph Olsen and David Kopel, and studies how the "slippery slope" led to gun control in (no longer Great) Britain.

Is it possible for a nation to go from wide-open freedom for a civil liberty, to near-total destruction of that liberty, in just a few decades? "Yes," warn many American civil libertarians, arguing that allegedly "reasonable" restrictions on civil liberty today will start the nation down "the slippery slope" to severe repression in the future. In response, proponents of today's reasonable restrictions argue that the jeremiads about slippery slopes are unrealistic or even paranoid.

This Essay aims to refine the understanding of slippery slopes by examining a particular nation that did slide all the way down the slippery slope. When the twentieth century began, the right to arms in Great Britain was robust, and subject to virtually no restrictions. As the century closes, the right has been almost obliterated. In studying the destruction of the British right to arms, this Essay draws conclusions about how slippery slopes operate in real life, and about what kinds of conditions increase or decrease the risk that the first steps down a hill will turn into a slide down a slippery slope.

Thanks to Ronocracy.

Technorati Tags: gun control, Great Britain, slippery slope

Alphecca debunks the recent Harvard study that alleged to show that states with higher gun ownership have higher homicide rates.

As many others have pointed out, this study was funded by the Joyce Foundation.  They are often behind such anti-gun "studies" and organizations.

UPDATE: (and bumped to the top).  Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership have posted a 45-point dissection of this piece:  A Muslim Writer Tells America:  Drop Your Guns and Give Up (pdf).  Don't miss it.

Ninth Stage pointed this odious opinion piece by a self-described attorney and activist who believes that we will all be safer if we have no means to defend ourselves.

The idea of public gun ownership simply does not make sense anymore. The right to bear arms, as enumerated in the Second Amendment, was meant for the maintenance of a “well-regulated militia.” At the time the amendment was adopted, standing armies were viewed with a great deal of suspicion, and therefore, gun-owning individuals were seen as a protection mechanism for the public. These gun owners were also seen as guardians of the republic against the tyranny of the rulers. The framers of the Constitution saw the right to bear and use arms as a check against an unruly government. That state of affairs no longer exists. 

Today, only a handful of citizens outside of neo-nazi and white supremacist goups view gun ownership as a means of keeping the government in check. Even those citizens who continue to maintain such antiquated views must face the reality that the United States’ armed forces are too large and too powerful for the citizenry to make much difference. Quite frankly, the idea of the citizenry rising up against the U.S. government with their handguns and assault rifles, and facing the military with these personal arms is absurd. The Branch Davidian tragedy at Waco, Texas, was one such futile attempt. 

The more important consideration is public safety. It is no longer safe for the public to carry guns. Gun violence is increasingly widespread in the United States. According to the DOJ/FBI’s Crime In The United States: 2003 report, 45,197 people in the United States were murdered with guns between 1999 and 2003. That averages out to more than 9,000 people murdered per year. Nearly three times the number of lives lost in the tragic 9/11 attacks are murdered annually as a direct result of guns.

There are so many errors in these few paragraphs that I am sickened.  I am tired and I do not make money by advertising my career on my blog so I'm not going to spend two or three hours fisking this.  I hope someone who is really good at fisking gets hold of it.

However...

You must have overlooked that part about "the people."

The Branch Davidian tragedy at Waco is not an example of anyone rising up against the military.  It is an example of some people trying to mind their own business who were viciously attacked and attempted to defend themselves.

No one is ever murdered as a direct result of guns.  They are murdered as a direct result of other people who want to kill them.

And mostly, I have some information for you:  rights cannot be repealed.  Try saying that to yourself a couple of hundred times, because it needs to sink in.

Amendments can be repealed.  Other parts of the Constitution that protect essential rights can be repealed.  The rights themselves cannot.  They can be repressed.  The people who try to exercise those rights can be oppressed.  The rights still remain, and will always remain.

The writer of this piece has a blog, turned up by a simple search.  In the most recent post, which is several months old, he says this:

I see more and more fearful Americans willing to trade liberty for security. Americans seem to be willing to allow torture if it means making us safer. Americans are willing to deny others rights we have long held sacred.

That choking sound you hear is just me.  I have trouble breathing when the irony is this thick.

Let's follow his illogic to its logical conclusion:  The First Amendment must be repealed.

Islamists believe that everyone should be either Moslem, or dead.  Therefore freedom of (or from) religion is obsolete.

Freedom of speech can't be allowed because someone might say something to offend an Islamist and make them want to kill us even worse.

The press might print something that insults/inflames/annoys the Islamists (see above).  Therefore freedom of the press must end.

The right of people to peaceably assemble must be stopped.  People peaceably assembling makes it easier for Islamists to kill many people at once.  We become terrorist-enablers, therefore such assembly must not be allowed.

Mr. Afeef should carefully examine himself on this matter.  He may realize that someday, the only thing that stands between him and one of those infamous white supremacists (the example he is so fond of using) is just some nameless guy with a gun under his shirt and the will to protect the defenseless.

Even when such protection is not entirely deserved.

Gun Owners of America Alert-- November 29, 2006

Earlier this month, the Brady Campaign asked the Federal Election Commission to investigate GOA's practice of posting its candidate ratings on the Internet. Millions of gun owners rely on these ratings, and that is something the Brady Bunch would like to halt.

In 2002, the Bradys rejoiced when Congress passed the Incumbent Protect Act, stating that "now the gun lobby's stranglehold on Congress will be broken." Indeed, they want to make it illegal for GOA to tell gun owners what their legislators are actually doing.

But it should not surprise anyone that a group which doesn't understand the Second Amendment does not understand First Amendment freedoms as well.

Realize that we are going to need your help more than ever in 2007. Because of this recent Brady assault, we could be looking at a very costly court battle that could eventually go all the way to the Supreme Court.

Gun Owners is not going to back down, however, from the Brady Campaign's intimidation tactics. We realize that these candidate ratings are extremely important, for they force your legislators to stay in the light.

Are they doing this to the NRA as well?  Personally, I value GOA's ratings more than the NRA's.

A "card carrying member of the Democratic Party of Lane County" writes in The Register-Guard, Eugene, Oregon:

Other than alienating virtually every rural Democrat, there is no practical reason to ban handguns. We cannot take handguns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens when criminals would still buy them illegally or steal them.

Besides, handguns are a tool for a specific job. For instance, they are smaller than rifles and shotguns. I'd be happy to walk into Market of Choice with a shotgun over my shoulder, but that tends to freak people out. Discrete, concealed handguns are a little more inconspicuous and safer; there's no point of advertising that you carry.

Furthermore, handguns are often the best tool for home defense. A lot of people find handguns easier to handle; comfort with a firearm is 90 percent of the battle. At 6-1 and 205 pounds, I prefer my 12-gauge, but many women prefer smaller, longer-barreled handguns.

When I do my farm chores, I prefer my handgun on my hip as opposed to a bulky rifle or shotgun on my shoulder. I don't want to be running back to the house for the rifle while an animal suffers or a dog-at-large threatens livestock.

Most importantly, gun ownership, including handguns, is the biggest deterrent to a totalitarian government or military coup. If the neoconservatives use the next terrorist attack to set aside more of our rights, we'll eventually run out of them. I'll be thankful that our "well regulated [neighborhood citizen] militia" has a "right to bear arms" that is not "infringed." Those are quotes from the Constitution. I wish gun banners and neocons would read it and love it.

A good article, but I do have some disagreements with it.

Namely, on his references to Michael Moore. He doesn't make Democrats look silly, he makes you look like complete lunatics. In addition, I do not respect Moore's opinion on anything because he so often must resort to lies when he spews his twisted propaganda. Furthermore, I do consider him an enemy of freedom, and therefore an unpatriotic enemy of the United States of America.

I don't usually bother to point out changes to my blogroll, but I will this time.  I put it in the blogroll yesterday.

United States vs. Fincher is a new blog that will be documenting the case of Hollis "Wayne" Fincher of Arkansas, who was recently arrested "after an eight month investigation related to the unlawful manufacture, possession and transfer of fully automatic guns."

I'm sure a lot of people will say:  so what, without proper "permission" and duly-paid taxes, fully automatic guns are illegal--he should go to jail.

People who think this are wrong.

He was not arrested for committing murder or theft using such weapons.  He was not arrested for conspiring to commit any such crime using such weapons.  He was arrested for "unlawful manufacture, possession and transfer of fully automatic guns."

This arrest has nothing to do with crime control.  It has everything to do with behavior control.

Some laws are stupid, and deserve to be broken.  More importantly, some laws are unconstitutional, and deserve to be repealed, along with the traitorous scum who passed such laws being suitably punished.  (Insert your favorite punishment here).  And following that, it should be made clear to the ruling elite that no such laws will be tolerated, nor will any ever be allowed again.

Mr. Fincher has a long, hard, horrible road ahead of him.  His outlook is grim, to say the least.

Take note:  This is what happens to someone who follows the letter of the Constitution.  Not the law, but the Constitution.

Those who favor "common sense gun laws" should consider how they would consider "common sense speech laws," "common sense religion laws," or "common sense press laws."

There are no such things.  There is liberty, and there is not.  I'd say this country has been pretty firmly in the "not" category for quite a while now.

Follow the link above to get all the details on the case.

Hat tips to several other bloggers who I read regularly who have already posted about this.  I don't remember where I read it first.

Gun Owners of America has posted a summary of the recent election as it pertains to second amendment rights.

Disillusioned about the NRA, or not.  Read Stalwarts versus NRA at Whose Paranoid.

I am a Life Member of the NRA, but do not actively support them any longer (have not for five years) and I know you really do not know me from Adam, but what I am about to relate is the flat out truth as I was told.

And draw your own conclusion.

Thanks to The War On Guns.

Read all about it at JPFO:  Costco Gun Ban.

Costco, where bigotry is legal.

SayUncle requests a Google bomb.

Sure...

sensible gun laws
sensible gun laws

ban all guns
ban gun ownership