Twenty-five years ago, Kennesaw, Georgia mandated that each of its households retain a firearm. This, rather than the freedom to bear arms (or not), is the flip-side of gun control. The conservative position here is the moderate position. It neither bans nor mandates.

Intrusiveness aside, Kennesaw's experiment to mandate guns has been more successful than experiments to ban guns. Its crime rate, never terribly high to begin with, declined after instituting the ordinance. How did this happen? When it is assumed that everyone has a gun, the criminal element hesitates to use their guns. When it is assumed that nobody has a gun, the criminal element does not hesitate to use their guns. But freedom is a better argument than utility (see, Mussolini made the trains run on time).

There is a bumpersticker slogan that captures the liberal busybody in a few words: Everything Not Forbidden Is Compulsory. I thought of this when reminded of this local ordinance mandating gun ownership. Liberals should be grateful that conservatives are not like them. Conservatives, generally, don't seek to mandate gun ownership; they seek merely to allow it. Conservative jurists don't seek to outlaw abortion; they seek merely to allow states to outlaw it, allow it, or whatever.

In Washington, DC they ban guns and the crime rate is high. In Kennesaw, Georgia they mandate guns and the crime rate is low. For utilitarians, the result is most significant. For people who value freedom, the means are.

Gun control is a victim disarmament program.

"Conservative jurists don't seek to outlaw abortion; they seek merely to allow states to outlaw it, allow it, or whatever."

It still seems to me that abortion is a violation of the 14th Amendment. Therefore, a federal ban on abortion would be a just end accomplished by appropriate means.

Ralph, I would also like to see a federal ban on abortion. However, in a purely legalist sense, it is not. This is why:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." -14th amendment, Section 1.

Fetuses have not been "born or naturalized" in the United States.

Ben-T,

That is a reasonable position, but it seems to me that a reasonable reply can be made. Having defined the term "citizen" and used it in the clause "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," isn't it interesting that the last two clauses don't read "nor shall any State deprive any citizen of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any citizen within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Instead, these clauses concern "persons." Why? I would argue that the last two clauses apply to persons simpliciter, not merely to persons "born or naturalized in the United States."

Slightly off topic, but you reminded me of something I wanted to bring up on your next open forum. Between legally recognizing only heterosexual marriages and legally recognizing only homosexual marriages, allowing both and treating them equally is the moderate position.

Back to the topic of guns. When the population of noncriminals gets more guns for self-defense, it discourages any criminals who are concerned about their own safety, and it reduces any criminal's chance of success or safe escape from a crime. On the other hand, when more criminals have guns, more crimes (such as robbery) will end in murder and more people will be killed by criminals. Objectivity requires acknowledging both these facts, not just one of them.

There is a moderate position supporting a limited level of gun control designed to reduce guns among criminals, while leaving guns available to noncriminals. This would be a program of background checks and waiting peroids, etc. How come nobody addresses this position?

"Ben-T,

That is a reasonable position, but it seems to me that a reasonable reply can be made. Having defined the term "citizen" and used it in the clause "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," isn't it interesting that the last two clauses don't read "nor shall any State deprive any citizen of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any citizen within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Instead, these clauses concern "persons." Why? I would argue that the last two clauses apply to persons simpliciter, not merely to persons "born or naturalized in the United States." -Ralph

The case could be made. I would want to agree with you. However, I was just clarifying that that is the general pro-choice argument on the 14th amendment.

Brian: No significant rational group in our society advocates legal marriages ONLY between people of the same sex. (In fact, that would amount to the invention of a new word, which simply wouldn't be our word "marriage.") So your claim is quite foolish.

Similar:

Between legally recognizing only marriages between two humans and legally recognizing only marriages between a human and an animal, allowing both and treating them equally is the moderate position.

Been hearing that in Kennesaw the next move will be a requirement for everyone to marry their gun.

"This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this one is mine. My rifle is my best friend. ..."

My favorite pro-gun bumper/window stickers:

"If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have them."

"This Property is insured by Smith & Wesson."

"Forget about the dog, beware of owner!"

"You loot; we shoot."

I'm sure I left out some good ones but anyway the point is: there are some really evil people out there and unless you can afford private security (Like the elites who would take away our guns),you're pretty much on your own. The police are not going to help you. By the time the police get there, it's a crime scene. Wake Up!

"There is a moderate position supporting a limited level of gun control designed to reduce guns among criminals, while leaving guns available to non-criminals. This would be a program of background checks and waiting periods, etc. How come nobody addresses this position?"

Brian,
Great question. I think many opponents of gun control have the following questions and concerns regarding the implementation of “limited” gun legislation:

1. Are the actions being taken to keep guns out of the hands of the criminals effective, or just feel-good measures? Inner city guns for toys schemes is one good example.

2. How do we know that any databases set up for the above purpose won't eventually be used as a means to come after the law abiding gun owners? Enter political expediency gain here.

There is the feeling that many of the “common sense” gun laws being proposed are simply ruses being used to chip away at the rights of gun owners with the ultimate goal of banning private ownership of firearms. I will try and supply some links and quotes from gun-grabbers as time allows (busy with new job and starting a new company).

I have friends who are hard-core supporters of gun control and I always ask them this: How would taking away my handguns and (so called) assault rifles serve to protect the public safety? What better way to keep Mr. Criminal in check than to give him a moment’s pause before he decides to victimize someone.

I always enjoy your posts and hope you will take time to respond.

AM

By definition, criminals commit crimes by breaking laws. It's what they do. So, no degree of gun control via laws will keep them from getting armed. Laws only work for those who are concerned enough to abide by them. The only solution is to insure that citizens are able to arm themselves and protect themselves from the criminal garbage out there.

The shame is that the hard core anti-gunners see very litle difference between the two. As a matter of fact it seems like the person who uses a firearm to defend himself is demonized by the gun control groups more than the person who was trying to victimize him in the first place.

Weird logic!

Ancient Mariner,

As far as I can tell the logic of anti-gun advocates reduces to one simple claim/belief. If there was no private ownership of guns, and all guns were taken out of circulation (except those owned by the state) then even though some criminals would find means of staying armed (gun smuggling being the most obvious manner) overall the bulk of gun crimes would be greatly reduced. They think they are accurately predicting how things would be as a result and they thus have the best side of the argument in terms of utility.

Now, I think they are wrong on several fronts.

1) The perception that we are an extremely violent society is very inaccurate and comes from (a) the dominance of our degenerate Hollywood and pop culture which glorifies violence and (b) the impression of us as violent (that our elites are far too sensitive to) which the more homogenous major countries of western Europe never tire of sharing w/ us. this impression i alargely the result of the common neglect of the rest of the world from the purview of the "cosmopolitan" elite intellectuals of the major western countries. To see what I mean check out these UN stats for some perspective:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

2) removing guns from private ownership is a near practical impossibility and will cause more harm in the process of trying to enforce it than good as we can *adequately predict* it. (This point is a judgement call and thus quite debatable since it takes advantage of the fact that all utilitarian arguments depend on idealist assumptions about the way things will work out way into the future).

3) Insert all the principled conservative arguments for freedom to bear arms here (e.g. the rational fear of the state, self-defense, principles of just and limited republican constitutionalist governance, etc).

The bottom line is that moral/political questions these days are debated wholly in an utilitarian "moral vernacular." Therefore, our political debates are essentially wars by other means b/c utilitarianism is at its core, complete irrationalism.

Very good point regarding the perception of violence in our society and how it is embellished and highlighted by Hollywood but also by our media in general. Even though we know it happens by what we read and see in the media, how many of us experiences violence on a regular basis? Not many I would suspect, depending on the social circles one runs in.

For a country of 300,000,000, do we have a disproportionately high percentage of crime or murders in particular? Probably not, and certainly not as high as some of our Third World neighbors. But the Leftist media would have the World believe that 2nd Amendment rights and our “Wild West” violent culture makes America more likely to be a dangerous place.