<p>Does anyone know where to find the statistics on how much crime is committed by legally-owned guns? I’m curious about that. By the way, I have no dog in this show – don’t hunt, have never owned a gun or even seen a real one in person, and can’t imagine needing one.</p>
<p>Kluge, when you’re on your game and arguing from your better side, your posts are a joy to behold.</p>
<p>How likely is it that the SC would void an amendment? It seems pretty far out there to me. I don’t know if the purpose of the amendment was to allow the people the means to overthrow the government. But then, I don’t analyze poetry, either. I just read the words and enjoy them. So, if the amendment says,
I don’t see how you get to tell the people that they can’t bear arms. I don’t know how the law works – are you really supposed to interpret it in a way that is contrary to the way it’s stated? That seems crazy.</p>
<p>Sjmom, what if, in 1789, the phrase “bear arms” didn’t mean “hold a gun” but rather “wage war”? What if the original language of the amendment was
and it was only changed after a debate over the conscientious objector clause? What if the term “the people” was consistently used in the Constitution to refer to the public as a whole, and the term “person” was used when an individual right was under discussion? (See the fourth and fifth amendments) What if the placement of the three commas grammatically signals that the phrase “shall not be infringed” is directed at the initial “well regulated militia”, not the immediately preceding phrase? (All things that have actually come up in second amendment research, by the way.) </p>
<p>Zoos - Thank you.</p>
<p>Not likely at all. </p>
<p>Especially where a majority of the population (73% according to an ABC poll - See: <a href=“http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/guns_poll020514.html[/url]”>http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/guns_poll020514.html</a>) already believes A2 is already perfectly clear.</p>
<p>Mr. Kluge is practicing an old attorney trick called “muddying the waters” to make it difficult for others to clearly discern the issue. The technique is to so confuse the subject people just give up and lose interest.</p>
<p>What is interesting is that the Supreme Court is not so easily swayed and they know most of those techniques. :)</p>
<p>Zoosermom, an ATF report I found in the records at my local library from 1999 ([ATF</a> Online - Crime Gun Trace Reports (1999) National Report](<a href=“http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/ycgii/1999/index.htm]ATF”>http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/ycgii/1999/index.htm)) says that about 89% of guns used in crimes (Sec 2-3) were not used in that crime by the “buyer,” indicating either unregulated resale, theft, or other acquisition without required background checks. The DOJ’s Report on Firearm Use by Offenders states that for state offenders, 78.8% of firearms were purchased either illegally or through friends/family. There is a 7.4% “Other” category that is not defined. The friends/family classification circumvents background checks. This was for the year 1997. I can’t account for the disparity between the two reports. According to the report, ex-cons or so called “Violent Recidivists” were as likely as first time offenders to be in possession of a firearm during the offense for which they were convicted, indicating that they were able to obtain a weapon despite their criminal records. </p>
<p>“Although existence of a prior record did not change inmates’ likelihood of having carried a gun while committing their current crime, it did influence where they acquired their gun. Recidivists were less likely than those who were first time offenders to have purchased their gun from a retail store, pawnshop, flea market, or gun show. About a tenth of recidivists and a fifth of first timers purchased their gun from a retail establishment (table 9).”</p>
<p>What I gather from this is that tighter regulation on retail sales would not be as effective as addressing the family/friend accessibility issue.</p>
<p>[Bureau</a> of Justice Statistics Firearm Use by Offenders](<a href=“http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/fuo.htm]Bureau”>Home | Bureau of Justice Statistics)</p>
<p>Just a compare and contrast.</p>
<p>Suppose the First Amendment said:</p>
<p>“Unfettered political debate being necessary to the security of a free state, Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”</p>
<p>Would it then protect totally non-political speech like plotless pornography, as the Supreme Court has said the real First Amendment does? Would this version of the First Amendment have exactly the same reach it does now? In other words, does adding or deleting the language about unfettered political debate have zero effect on the meaning of the amendment?</p>
<p>If a court held that the inclusion or deletion of that language had no impact on the meaning of the amendment, that would be a great departure from standard rules of statutory interpretation. Courts are supposed to assume that lawmakers drafting a law included all of its language for a reason. They are also supposed to reject interpretations which render portions of the law meaningless.</p>
<p>Now, for the most part, those rules of interpretation are ancient tradition, but not written in stone; there is no statute requiring federal judges to read the Constitution in any particular way. If this Supreme Court wants to chuck them, it is entirely within its powers in doing so. But a Supreme Court that chose to abandon two hundred years of federal common law and craft a brand-new principle to guide its interpretation could not be considered a conservative court. That’s an activist court by any honest definition of the term.</p>
<p>P2N, a significant minority of Americans believed that WMD’s had been found in Iraq in 2003. A majority of Americans believe that the country is beset with a flood of frivolous litigation. A significant minority of Americans believe in UFO’s. The first two are demonstrably false, and I’m personally kind of dubious about the third. The success of the right wing propaganda machine in convincing the American public of the truth of falsehoods is exactly what concerns me. I’m personally not sure what the actual meaning of the second amendment was in 1789, or is in 2007, but I do know this with absolute certainty: Anyone who thinks that the second amendment is “perfectly clear” is dead wrong.</p>
<p>And P2N, I’m very familiar with people who complain about lawyers “muddying the waters” when what has actually occurred is that an opposing counsel has exposed their case for a tissue of lies and half truths. It happens all the time. I’ll take your reference to my occupation as a confession of lack of anything at hand to actually support your position.</p>
<p>
Yeah, like he did by somehow trying to introduce income inequality into this discussion. I guess its proof of the old adage that when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. In kluge’s case his “hammer” is the issue of income inequality so therfore every discussion needs to be diverted in that direction. However, I took the bait and did some research. The first thing that I found was that to use IRS tax tables to prove a complex economic issue is fraught with peril. There are many factors that cause this analysis to be far too simplified. For example, tax return data is based on total household income. Take two reasonably high income earners and have them get married and voila, you have just created another data point in the top 1 percent while their respective income did not change a penny. This and more is covered in:
[The</a> Top 1%…of What?](<a href=“http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6863]The”>http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6863)</p>
<p>Also, the Congressional Budget Office has evaluated the same issues and found:
<a href=“http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/71xx/doc7164/2006-06.pdf[/url]”>http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/71xx/doc7164/2006-06.pdf</a></p>
<p>The bottom line is that to use a simple IRS table to prove changes in income inequality (and its causes) is about as scientific as using the thermometer outside your window to prove global warming (and its causes).</p>
<p>Kluge should stick with that which he knows best. He may be a good lawyer, but he’s not an economist.</p>
<p>As far as the interpretation of what Madison wrote and meant by the second amendment, it’s worth reading the Federalist Papers. The most pertinent essay I’ve found was #46, written by Madison, reproduced in part below.</p>
<p>"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. </p>
<p>To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes."</p>
<p>The way I read this, the original wording of A2 makes a lot of sense. He suggests that the government must ensure the citizen’s right to own a firearm in order to facilitate armed resistance against a government. Most interestingly, in my opinion, is his comment about Europe. “And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes.” To me, this says that the efficacy of armed resistance is immaterial to the need for the citizenry to be armed. Other interpretations are just as valid, its just how it rubs me.
[The</a> Federalist #46](<a href=“http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm]The”>http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm)</p>
<p>"Zoosermom, an ATF report I found in the records at my local library from 1999 (ATF Online - Crime Gun Trace Reports (1999) National Report) says that about 89% of guns used in crimes (Sec 2-3) were not used in that crime by the “buyer,” indicating either unregulated resale, theft, or "</p>
<p>Hey, thanks.</p>
<p>Actually, ninja.of.love, that essay supports the interpretation of the second amendment as supporting the states’ rights to form their own “well regulated” militias, answerable to the state government instead of the national government. You need to remember that states rights and authority vis a vis the federal power was a big deal in the 18th century. He’s talking about the states rebelling against the central government with their own, state sponsored and controlled militias against the national government’s army - not such a sexy concept since that unpleasantness 150 years ago - not individuals holding guns to shoot their neighbors with.</p>
<p>Fundingfather: I never said the IRS charts were the sole or best evidence of the growth in income disparity - although they are valid evidence of it. Your second cite is to a study limited to earned income taken from W-2 forms - not exactly relevant to the overall growth in income disparity, since the top 1% of taxpayers (that starts at $1M per year income these days) are unlikely to be composed primarily of wage slaves. You should read that stuff before posting your zingers. I responded to Thomas Sowell’s claim that “IRS data” showed the “top 1%”'s income declining by 24% from 1996 to 2005. That is simply a crock - although it’s probably been repeated on every blog you subscribe to.</p>
<p>Kluge, since I’m responsible for bringing Thomas Sowell into the conversation, I feel the need to point out that he is a REAL economist, and that realclearpolitics.com is not a blog. If you check that website periodically, you will find political articles from a variety of sources, not just those that lean toward the conservative. And while you may try to obfuscate Sowell’s point, I think he knows what he’s talking about.</p>
<p>[Thomas</a> Sowell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell]Thomas”>Thomas Sowell - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Given his academic background, I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss him. I do have a great deal of respect for anyone who earns a PhD from U of Chicago.</p>
<p>Since the original link seems to be broken, here is another to the article I quoted. [Thomas</a> Sowell](<a href=“http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell112007.php3]Thomas”>http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell112007.php3)</p>
<p>I understand the historical element of it, Kluge, but in my reading, Madison suggests individual ownership of firearms and the essay states that “the Americans” possess “the advantage” of being armed. It does not say that the militias or states possess that advantage. The militias are the organized implementation of the armed citizenry. The states’ keep the right to organize a militia to resist federal power, composed of armed citizens but the text does not give the single right of gun ownership to the militia. I draw this interpretation from the quote below.</p>
<p>“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.” </p>
<p>While the essay doesn’t magically clarify the issue, it seems to assume that the citizens are, and deserve to be, armed so that the militia can be an effective tool of resistance. I may have missed something, but I did not see a rider in the text that if the militia did not exist, the possession of arms would be denied to the citizenry. After all, he compares the US to Europe by saying, “the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” The word militia is not mentioned, nor state. </p>
<p>At the very least, the essays provide additional context and insight into Madison’s view on individual or militia rights.</p>
<p>There is little in the historic record, Hanna, that suggests A2 was interpreted as a “right” of states for 200 years. There is an abundance of historic information that points to A2 being a personal right.</p>
<h2>If anything, A2 was misinterpreted in 1939 with the Miller case and is now in process of being corrected. I see this as hopeful for our republic.</h2>
<p>Kluge, as I recall you have made the following remarks about A2:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Anyone who thinks they have a personal right via A2 is a “gun nut”.</p></li>
<li><p>Anyone who thinks they have a personal right via A2 is uneducated.</p></li>
<li><p>Supporting A2 means you want your neighbors to have suitcase nuclear weapons.</p></li>
<li><p>Anyone who thinks they have a personal right via A2 is dangerous.</p></li>
<li><p>Anyone who thinks they have a personal right via A2 is right-wing.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>This is a fair, but scant summary of your assertions concerning the character and behavior of anyone who supports A2. So far I’ve managed to post a diversity of actual sources, both left and right leaning, to support my positions without insulting anyone.</p>
<p>Let’s see:
When the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you, argue the law. When both are against you, attack the plaintiff. - R.Rinkle</p>
<p>It would appear you skipped steps one and two… ;)</p>
<p>Excerpted from:</p>
<p>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. TIMOTHY JOE EMERSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, SAN ANGELO DIVISION
46 F. Supp. 2d 598
April 7, 1999, Decided</p>
<p>The Ratification Debates</p>
<p>A foundation of American political thought during the Revolutionary period was the well justified concern about political corruption and governmental tyranny. Even the federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of creating an oppressive regime, were careful to acknowledge the risks of tyranny. Against that backdrop, the framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny. Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts expressed this sentiment by declaring that it is “a chimerical idea to suppose that a country like this could ever be enslaved . . . Is it possible . . . that an army could be raised for the purpose of enslaving themselves or their brethren? or, if raised whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty and who have arms in their hands?” Noah Webster similarly argued:</p>
<pre><code>Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.
</code></pre>
<p>George Mason argued the importance of the militia and right to bear arms by reminding his compatriots of England’s efforts “to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them . . . by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.” He also clarified that under prevailing practice the militia included all people, rich and poor. “Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” Because all were members of the militia, all enjoyed the right to individually bear arms to serve therein.</p>
<p>The framers thought the personal right to bear arms to be a paramount right by which other rights could be protected. Therefore, writing after the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, James Monroe included “the right to keep and bear arms” in a list of basic “human rights” which he proposed to be added to the Constitution.</p>
<p>Patrick Henry, also in the Virginia convention, eloquently argued for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression: “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.” Thus, the federalists agreed that an armed populace was the ultimate check on tyranny.</p>
<p>While both Monroe and Adams supported ratification of the Constitution, its most influential framer was James Madison. In The Federalist No. 46, he confidently contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European despotisms which he contemptuously described as “afraid to trust the people with arms.” He assured his fellow citizens that they need never fear their government because of “the advantage of being armed…”</p>
<p>By January of 1788, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia and Connecticut ratified the Constitution without insisting upon amendments. Several specific amendments were proposed, but were not adopted at the time the Constitution was ratified. The Pennsylvania convention, for example, debated fifteen amendments, one of which concerned the right of the people to be armed, another with the militia. The Massachusetts convention also ratified the Constitution with an attached list of proposed amendments. In the end, the ratification convention was so evenly divided between those for and against the Constitution that the federalists agreed to amendments to assure ratification. Samuel Adams proposed that the Constitution</p>
<pre><code>Be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defence of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of their grievances: or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures.
</code></pre>
<p>P2N, if I had said any of those things, you might have a point. As I didn’t (but you still think it’s “fair” to say I did) I guess you decided to prove your point by embodying it. :(</p>
<p>Here’s a summary of things I have said:<br>
<p>Oh, and P2N - if you were being “fair and balanced” you’d post excerpts from the opinions from the majority of Circuit courts, which have held the opposite of the only one you want to acknowledge.</p>
<p>Fair and balanced? I am an advocate for a correct interpretation of A2. The other circuits are in error and hopefully will soon be corrected by the Supreme Court.</p>
<p>In this case, my position is in the company of many famous scholars of the law, many or even all the Founders of the U.S., two of the federal circuits (specifically excluding the 9th Circuit and specifically including the DC Circuit) and somewhere around 73% of the current population of people in the United States. </p>
<p>Back to the matter at hand… 
</p>
<p>What happens after a personal A2 interpretation will be interesting. I can almost hear all the files being opened and the attorney vitas dusted off and plumped. The avalanche of litigation, especially in those areas with restrictive gun control laws, will be fascinating. I hope Morton Grove has deep pockets.</p>
<p>In the end, however, there will be restrictions on A2. When they evolve, they will be constitutional and “gun nuts” will have to live with them.</p>
<p>
So what is the “best” evidence of income disparity? All I have ever seen you do is trot out the IRS table.</p>
<p>
Actually, the top earners are Wall Street types (twice as many in the top .5% as corporate executives: [Income-Inequality</a> Gap Widens - WSJ.com](<a href=“http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB119215822413557069.html]Income-Inequality”>http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB119215822413557069.html) ). Since probably most of this comes from year-end bonuses, I would expect that it does get included in W-2 forms. Also, your floor for the top 1% is off by almost a factor of three - according to your IRS tables, the floor for the top 1% is $365K.</p>
<p>FF you’re right - It’s the average annual income of the top 1% which is over $1Million, not the floor. But you’re dead wrong about the source of income for the majority of the wealthy being W-2 type earned income. How many “Wall Street types” do you think there are? The top 1% comprises over a million taxpayers.</p>
<p>There are lots of sources of data for the growth of income disparity in America. The weakness of the IRS tables is that it understates the disparity, not that it overstates it. Much of the increase in wealth of the affluent (including the top 1%, and to a lesser extent the top 10% and, to an even lesser extent, top 25%) is not reportable AGI. Unrealized capital gains is the biggie, of course, but depreciation, tax deferred income growth in retirement funds, 529 plans (college relevance!) etc. are benefits rarely available to the taxpayer at or below the 50th income percentile of about $30K per year. But the IRS tables still capture more of the disparity than the W-2 based study you cited. The fact that the top 1% of wage earners earn 12% of the total (W-2) wages, but the top 1% of income recipients account for 21% of the total (AGI) income is telling.</p>
<p>By the way, I was pleased to see the WSJ tell the story straight. There’s hope for that old rag yet!</p>
<p>kluge, you are simultaneously using two different terms: “income” and “wealth”. Your original claim was that there was an income disparity. None of the things that you cite (unrealized capital gains, retirement funds, etc) constitute “income”. </p>
<p>But, with respect to total wealth, one must include all of the assets for an individual. In the case of the lower 50% a significant asset that they have (and which represents a far greater percentage of their total financial well-being) is Social Security. When you add in the billions/trillions of dollars in social security benefits that reside in the net assets of the lower 50% but are a barely perceptible part of the upper 1% net assests, the net wealth disparity gap narrows considerably.</p>
<p>But, of course all of this is predicated on the assumption that the size of the gap is a republican/democrat issue (i.e., the republicans increase it and the dems reduce it). As your IRS data clearly points out, the disparity grew by as much as 51% under a Democratic president. However, as of the 2005 tax year the disparity under a republican president grew by only 2% from the high-water mark under Clinton. So, for someone who seems to care so much about this disparity as yourself, why do you pretend that this is a product of the “evil” Republicans?</p>