Comments on: Buiter on Gun Control

By: TeutonicTim

TeutonicTim — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:59:46 +0000

“As a European, knowing that the person in the other car could be carrying a gun makes me feel less secure.”

Than you better be scared ALL the time because the bad people that will carry guns don’t give a damn about your laws or you security, and they could be anyone.

At least in the U.S. when concealed carry laws are enacted, you might have a lawful good person with a gun to save you from the “bad guy”

Seriously, what is so “upsetting” about being prepared to keep yourself safe? It sure beats *hoping* that the murderer or rapist is “nice” to you.

By: movin game to game

movin game to game — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:38:26 +0000

At the common sense level, the US will not search and seize the millions of weapons of US criminals without a search warrant that requires probable cause. Ergo… street cops cannot search a corner full of what they know are drug dealers because they do not have probable cause and because the dealers are keeping their drugs and guns in a nearby garbage can in order to deny ownership. Ergo the cop must see a sale to arrest on drugs…but still can’t charge for the gun until such moment that it is removed from the garbage can by the dealer when retiring at 4 AM. Thus our criminals will always have guns….so in that context….good people need guns to oppose for example home invasions. Bishops will not admit this because they are vogueing Love and vogueing requires spin and requires an audience of lemmings.

Ergo…to remove guns from non criminal citizens who seek to protect their homes from the millions of criminal guns that the US is not going to seize….. in our US context is criminal itself. New York I think is about to have another buy back program during which they will give $200 to anyone who turns in their guns. Those criminals who spent over $200 for their Glocks or Taurus pistols from Brazil…. of course will not be moved.
Catholic Bishops never have to talk street reality and rather flee into theology where one can be ideal and non truthful about the street ….by omission.

By: kalle anka

kalle anka — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:16:18 +0000

Yes. MM has lost, possibly because he didn’t arm himself sufficiently with modern implements of destruction. But, sadly so, many more people have lost and are losing every day. Whatever happened to turning the other cheek? Don’t get me wrong, I understand the instinctive reaction to defend your own until you or whatever evil attacks you dies. It’s how species survive. Still, I remember being taught (admittedly in Europe) that responding to violence with violence only breeds more violence, and we get nowhere closer to a peaceful solution. A look at the Middle East (or many other regions in the world) more than illustrates this points. But what about killing a tyrant you may ask. Yes, there are difficult questions, though I’m not convinced that a reasonable answer to such questions requires every household to have the right to bear and stockpile arms. Guns don’t kill people you may argue. Very true, but people with guns do sometimes. For me, the underlying question is why do people want to arm themselves. Do they really feel that their democratic government is failing to provide security. This probably gets to one root of the matter: Europeans have more faith in their government than U.S. Americans. The right to bear arms is simply one facet of this. As a European, knowing that the person in the other car could be carrying a gun makes me feel less secure. The other driver, if she/he is from around here, probably feels safer. How he/she reconciles being armed with the sermon on the mount I don’t understand. Live by the sword, die by the sword. Peace be with you.

By: TeutonicTim

TeutonicTim — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 03:25:55 +0000

MM – Get over it already. You lost.

“We’ve lost the battle on what the Second Amendment means,” campaign president Paul Helmke told ABC News. “Seventy-five percent of the public thinks it’s an individual right. Why are we arguing a theory anymore?…”

Paul Helmke, Brady Bunch President.

By: Gerald A. Naus

Gerald A. Naus — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 23:58:20 +0000

Gun control is important. You want to hit your target, after all.

By: Toby Esterhase

Toby Esterhase — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 22:23:11 +0000

Wait, there was a reference to Calvinism in that quote? Or am I missing something?

By: feddie

feddie — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 22:07:19 +0000

Sigh.

So very pathetic.

By: Dale Price

Dale Price — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 21:06:30 +0000

I’d call Dr. Buiter’s screed “puerile,” but that’s not fair to kids with crayons.

By: BobG

BobG — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 19:46:23 +0000

Too bad Buiter didn’t actually read the US, the Bill of Rights, or what the SCOTUS wrote; he obviously is all mouth and no knowledge.

By: SB

SB — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:02:16 +0000

Yeah, if you post a silly and uninformed rant that makes Ann Coulter look modest and reserved, people who know something about the law will object. Surprised?

I don’t mind liberal commentary on the Second Amendment decision if it’s intelligent and informed. Here’s a good example of the sort of thing I mean, from Jack Balkin at Yale: http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/07/heller-and-constitutional-right-of-self.html Notice how he makes a rational argument; how he doesn’t wildly label people as lunatics for no reason; etc. Isn’t that marvelous?

By: Morning's Minion

Morning's Minion — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:56:52 +0000

Yeah, all reactions as expected. When SB talks about the founding of America and its relationship to Europe, he should refer to the kinds of anti-establishment Protestants who dominated, and their prevailing anti-Catholicism. Maybe he should trace the connection of the so called “right to bear arms” from this philosophy.

By: jh

jh — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:42:49 +0000

Wow what a great article. The Supreme Court was wrong he declares. I have to admit his look at the text ,past court precedent, views at the time of the amendment, and other legal analysis is just overwhelming on this article. Of course the Supreme Court was wrong he just proclaimed it.

Who needs all that messy infantile legal anaylsis

“supported not even by the selective reading of history cited in support of this view, or by the apparent mind-reading abilities of the Justices when it comes to the original intent of the framers of the Amendment. In truth, their opion is supported only by the simple arithmetic of a 5 against 4 headcount.”

Wow even critics of the opinion said it was weel argued case on both sides. I am glad though he has straighten me out