The Federalist Papers (courtesy loc.gov)

The response to our content contest so far has been, to coin a phrase, fast and furious. It seems that the prospect of adding an FNS-9 to your safe has been almost as inspiring as patriotic swimwear. And given the quality of what we’ve received, it only seems right to share some of the best so far. We’ll present them here largely unedited other than some minor formatting and tweaks for readability. So to kick things off, here’s Tony G.’s entry which was apparently inspired by RF’s post yesterday.

Mr. Byron Williams,

I trust that you have read the District of Columbia v. Heller in full. If you haven’t it’s here. You’ll clearly see the Supreme Court didn’t arbitrarily rule the way it did without doing their homework . . .

If you look at the writings of that era from the Framers, especially in the Federalist Papers and in the writings of Tenche Cox as well as look at what the word ‘regulated’ meant and how it was used in the 1700’s and 1800’s, you’ll get a clearer idea of what the Framers wanted.

First off, the Second Amendment was put in place as an insurance policy against tyranny.  The Framers had just finished a war against the British. High taxes, firearms confiscation were some of the factors that lead to the Revolutionary War.

The more one reads into the writings of that era, and opinions of court judges since then the more one realizes the Second Amendment was designed to give us a level playing field against those that would oppress the citizenry by allowing the individual equal access to the same weapons that a tyrannical government or invading army may employ.

Let’s call gun control what it really is that pro-big government types don’t want it to be called: incremental civilian disarmament. No one is talking about gun control for the government or any of its agencies. No one is talking about restricting firearms to local law enforcement.

There’s another term that is apropos as the Second Amendment affirms our right to self defense and that term is: Self Defense Rights. At the core the Second Amendment is about our right to self defense. Restrictions are incremental infringements on our Self Defense Rights.

When all else goes to pot in the case of a tyrannical government, owning a firearm becomes a political tool as well, ergo it is also a political right.

By the way Mr. William, what part of “Shall not be infringed” do you or other politicians not understand? I think it’s very curious that these politicians swear to uphold the Constitution and yet many of them can’t wait to gradually erode our rights and under the smoke screen of “public safety.”

By the way Hitler said the same thing to the Austrians when he took all of their guns. He stated that too many were dying from gun-related deaths and that there were too many hunting accidents and so he confiscated all of the Austrians’ guns. We now know what his true motive was.

Also, researching the word ‘regulated’ and seeing it used in context, the meaning doesn’t necessarily mean restrictions as it does today. From what I’ve read “regulation,” especially in the context of Second Amendment, means more to the point “guided, and active.” The Framers wanted to encouraged the populace to engage in “martial exercises.”

Now about this idea of tyranny. A common argument is that we have no need to worry about “tyranny,” that perhaps people talking about “tyranny” are paranoid and so on and that it will never happen here. I agree that tyranny hasn’t happened here as we have had the Second Amendment as our insurance policy and the expression of that policy in the form of a high level of civilian ownership of firearms has disincentivized the possibility of tyranny.

What I assure you will incentivize tyranny, though, is a disarmed populace or a populace whose means of self-defense is limited or unequal to the choices available to those that would oppress said populace. In the 20th Century, per Congressional record, we saw nearly 135,000,000 people die under tyrannical regimes. Obviously one of the bloodiest centuries ever. The primary policy instrument has always been civilian disarmament, gun control by any other name, followed by extermination. While registration and confiscation do not always lead to tyrannical regimes, tyrannical regimes do use registration and confiscation before implementing genocide or mass murder.

While politicians are interested in the prevention of a few lives being lost each year due to gun violence, I, as I am sure others are as well, am much more interested in preventing the potential deaths of millions. The 20th Century was a confirmation of what happens to an underarmed populace under oppressive tyrants. Individuals kill only in small numbers. To quote Glenn Beck’s keynote Speech at the NRA convention a few weeks ago, “Governments kill millions.”

Some politicians will state there is an epidemic here in the United States and that we have a high per capita murder rate and that more guns lead to more deaths. What they won’t tell you is if you factor out Detroit, Chicago, New Orleans, Washington D.C., all cities with strict civilian gun control policies, the U.S.  is actually one of the safest countries on earth.

I part with this quote:

A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks. – Thomas Jefferson

22 Responses to FNS-9 Contest Entry: Tony G.’s Anti-Williams Addendum

    • First thing I saw also, Dirk! I just didn’t want to say anything…so as not to get the resident FUDD’s panties in a wad that we are discussing hot chicks and not guns. Obviously, a few of us can multi-task.

      Camel-toe, bitchez.

  1. The only place I disagree with this, and imo it’s a pretty important point, is that we are already a long way down the path of tyranny. When the Constitutions protections are no longer upheld tyranny has arrived.

    • I agree.

      In fact tyranny has been around so long and is so pervasive that people really struggle to see it even when you go to great lengths to point it out to them. Consider how we need government permission slips to do just about anything — literally. The number of permits, licenses, registrations, etc. is staggering. And what do people do? They complain about the magnitude of the fees for the permits, licenses, registrations, etc. rather than complain about the fact that they exist at all.

      If you want to get a blank look on someone’s face, ask them why we have to register our cars or why a business has to have a license or why a demonstration in front of City Hall needs a permit.

    • “Now about this idea of tyranny. A common argument is that we have no need to worry about “tyranny,” that perhaps people talking about “tyranny” are paranoid and so on and that it will never happen here. I agree that tyranny hasn’t happened here as we have had the Second Amendment as our insurance policy and the expression of that policy in the form of a high level of civilian ownership of firearms has disincentivized [sic] the possibility of tyranny.”

      The only item I must disagree with, as will all those convicted and jailed for “sedition” around the time of WW I and all the Americans of Japanese descent forced into camps during WW II. (See “Liberal Fascism” by Jonah Goldberg.)

  2. Very stirring , covers the two main points, and a bonus detailing the difference between a runway and swimsuit model. I’d say the same for what Tony G said.
    Will Tony’s response be sent to Mr. Williams?

  3. What gets me to thinking, is it would only take one event , be it EMP from our sun, or some event that could turn America over night into a total dictatorship, ( like nuke war) most Americans feel it could never happen here, but the more i read and even study my Bible , one thing becomes clear : PRIDE goes before the FALL… This is the real world view… NOT what i would like to see…Rome , and all great empires fell very fast… (Before the people saw it coming) the status we have does not work , you (nations) fall when they stop going forward…We need the whole Bill of Rights. And God’s Blessing’s to stand!

    • This touches on two very important and necessary cornerstones of any civilization. First, government’s only job should be transparently and openly punishing wrongdoers — thieves and violent criminals.* Second, the people need timeless, rock solid values that include personal responsibility and respect for all human life, liberty, and other peoples’ property.

      When either of those two cornerstones erode, civilization goes down the drain.

      * Government’s role of punishing wrongdoers could be extended in extremely limited fashion to a minimal level of installing and protecting infrastructure. This would have to be totally open and as limited as possible to minimize corruption.

  4. The patriotic swimwear link led to a hot looking beach baby. The piece was interesting in describing the differences between fashion and bikini models.

  5. Very well said, however, “tyranny hasn’t happened here” isn’t accurate. Tyranny has happened here in the US and it has followed disarmament. In 1838 the Governor of Missouri ordered all members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints driven from the state, see here . “Once Latter-day Saints were disarmed, mounted squads visited Mormon settlements with threats and enough beatings and destruction of homes to force flight.” see ref . They then moved to Illinois where they re-armed themselves. In 1844 they were again disarmed at the request of the Illinois Governor, and again preparations were made to leave the state due to mob violence. You might wonder why they were never driven from the State of Utah. No disarmament, no departure.

    • Which is why the Mormons are one of the religious groups you will never see pimping for gun control. I haven’t talked to every Mormon I’ve ever met about the top, but the ones I have spoken to all get guns and why they’re necessary. Which frankly makes the general reaction in the Jewish community all the more mystifying. The Jewish experience is even more recent and extreme you’d think they’d be the most passionate opponents of gun control rather than some of its most most passionate supporters. And I know there are several notable exceptions such as our own Mr. Farago, Alan Gottlieb, and Alan Gura. The community generally is very anti-gun.

        • He’s probably one of the very, very few. I’m LDS and almost every member I’ve met is either VERY pro-gun, like myself, or has no strong feelings for or against.

  6. Correction: there is no gun control specific to Detroit. Michigan has a statewide pre-emption statute regarding the ownership and possession of firearms and ammunition like many other states. Further, Michigan has been a shall issue concealed carry state since around 2001. Finally, Michigan has always been an open carry state. The frequency of criminals using firearms to commit violent crimes in Detroit is a result of factors other than gun control or a lack thereof.

    As for criminals using firearms to commit violent crimes, you will find a weak (if any) correlation to gun control laws. What you will find is an incredibly strong correlation to poor socio-economic urban regions and population segments with fractured families.

  7. And let us not forget what the Union Army did during the Civil War, rape, burn down every thing , hung all males , loot every thing, Robert E. LEE being a Christian issued Very strong orders not to do such, and had men hung for rape etc… NEVER SO the north…

  8. “I agree that tyranny hasn’t happened here”

    Yeah I’m not sure how you can say that. There are good examples in the comments above (Japanese internment camps. Mormons being disarmed and driven out.), and here are just a couple more that come to mind just off the top of my head:

    * Slavery
    * Abuses during the Civil Rights Movement — gov’t hosing down protesters, enforcing racist policies and laws, cops taking part in the KKK, disarming African Americans, courts turning a blind eye to lynchings and other crimes against blacks
    * Shootings of Vietnam protesters.
    * Forced military service (depending on how you feel about the draft)
    * Confiscation (sometimes violent) of private firearms after Hurricane Katrina
    * Abuse of the Patriot Act
    *The recent scandals involving privacy infringement, illegal surveillance, IRS probes, etc
    * Endemic and blatant lying to the American people and refusal to cooperate with Congress. That “check” is being squashed
    * Targeted killings (drone strikes) of American Citizens. Stating that it’s possible it could happen on American soil.
    * Forcing Americans to purchase health insurance, and forced enrollment in other social programs

    I’m sure I’m missing important, obvious examples and I’m sure some of the ones I added will be seen as a stretch to some people. Like I said, that’s just what I could think of off the cuff. I’m sure somebody could do a little research and put together a really impressive list of horrific government misdeeds that nobody would argue were not clear examples of tyranny.

    I just don’t understand the people who say “it could never happen here” when their parents or grandparents could have been hit with fire hoses, interned in prison camps, or even killed by the U.S. Government, and when they themselves may have been subject to gross overreaches in the past couple of decades (Katrina being a solid example, IMHO).

  9. My other comment is caught in the spam filter somewhere for some inexplicable reason, so I’ll just add a partial TJ quote:

    “When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”
    -Thomas Jefferson

    The IRS purposefully uses fear to force compliance. ’nuff said.

  10. In response to Uncommon_Sense’s reply:

    A quote as a point of reference:
    “Correction: there is no gun control specific to Detroit. Michigan has a statewide pre-emption statute regarding the ownership and possession of firearms and ammunition like many other states. Further, Michigan has been a shall issue concealed carry state since around 2001. Finally, Michigan has always been an open carry state. The frequency of criminals using firearms to commit violent crimes in Detroit is a result of factors other than gun control or a lack thereof.
    As for criminals using firearms to commit violent crimes, you will find a weak (if any) correlation to gun control laws. What you will find is an incredibly strong correlation to poor socio-economic urban regions and population segments with fractured families.”

    I duly stand corrected on Detroit. I will be sure to add a greater level of scrutiny pertaining to my sources in the future. So Detroit does not have stringent gun control. My mistake.

    Respecting tyranny, perhaps I should amend the article to signify massive large scale tyranny as seen in Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, Communist Cuba, Communist China, etc, etc?

    Referencing Uncommon_Sense’s reply curiously enough I ran a correlation using UNODC per capita (100,000) murder statistics in 2007 and 2008 (for all applicable countries that there was data on in those years) and the number of privately owned civilian firearms per country (firearms per 100 residents) using the most recent data available from UN Small Arms Survey, which was 2007. 2008 data is not available. In the data set below the 2008 data refers to homicide statistics correlated against 2007 arms ownership data. 2007 homicide data is correlated with 2007 arms ownership data.

    For a brief refresher on statistics a negative correlation (i.e. -0.3) means that an increase in one factor decreases the other factor (i.e. More guns, less crime). (Range is from -1.o to 1.0). A strong correlation is |0.8| or higher. -0.2 to 0.2 is considered weak or signifies no relationship.

    Statistical analysis was used by John Lott of “More Guns Less Crime” fame as well as this Harvard Study.

    Both John Lott and the Harvard folks concluded a strong negative correlation with respect to gun ownership and murder. (Ergo more guns less crime).

    I’m curious to see how they plugged the numbers in and their methodologies. Of course I would assume (and hope) they are much better experts at applying statistical analysis better.

    Nonetheless, I would argue my findings (spoiler alert: the correlations I came up with are spurious), to most libs’ chagrin, would instead suggests that other factors, which Uncommon_Sense stated above, perhaps play a more driving contributory role in crime and homicide than does simple civilian firearm (or lack thereof) ownership or gun control (or lack thereof). Many have argued recently that cultural factors play a contributory role but again how does one quantify said factors?

    What one could also surmise, to borrow a conclusion from the wonderful Harvard intelligentsia, that the “burden of proof” rests on civilian disarmentarianists to prove that increased civilian firearm ownership increases homicides and that gun control works because assuming the numbers from 2007 and 2008 hold true today we have proof that policy decisions, in the vernacular, “don’t mean squat.”

    Here’s the resulting numbers from my analysis:

    Overall (All countries for which data was available)
    Correlation 2007 = -0.183414567
    Correlation 2008 = -0.242163997

    Top 35 Highest Homicide Rate Per Capita (For all countries for which data was available that year)
    Correlation 2007 = 0.06224899
    Correlation 2008 = 0.02568789

    Bottom 35 Lowest Homicide Rate Per Capita (For all countries for which data was available that year)
    Correlation 2007 = 0.2314365
    Correlation 2008 = 0.2818107

    For the record I’m not a statistician so take my findings with a grain of salt.

    What I’m curious is how did John Lott and the Harvard folks get strong negative correlations? What did they do differently? I’m not doubting them at all.

    This perhaps warrants further investigation.

    What would be interesting to see is if one could quantify gun control policy and link it to homicide per capita numbers and find out what the resulting correlations are.

    Based on evidence to the contrary which has been around for quite some time now (and last time I checked there were a lot more studies and papers written concluding more guns equated to less crime as opposed to more guns causing an increase in crime)… what do these gun grabbers profess to be their true motivation for civilian disarmament if a multitude of scientifically based studies have produced outcomes contrary to their professed opinions?

    Aren’t many of these gun grabbers supposed to be smart, highly educated, and well-learned?

    They certainly can’t cite stupidity for having being lead astray. Maybe ignorance? Maybe they have failed to learn discernment and proper scrutiny when it comes to analyzing political ideologies (hint: study economics). Or perhaps their motives are truly and covertly nefarious.

    I certainly hope not.

    Thoughts? Hate mail? Fan mail?

    Any resident TTAG statisticians want to take me to task or question my methodologies? I have the Excel file available which was painstakingly compiled. All you have to do is sort in order and plug in the correlation function yourself.

    Tony Goicochea

    • It’s been my experience many people fear “discernment” and feel some kind of evil voodoo or something else evil is behind it… the others? Well, they have been riding the SEP & INR train too long. (SEP – Somebody Else’s Problem. INR – “I’m Not Responsible.”)

  11. In response to Uncommon_Sense’s reply:

    A quote as a point of reference:
    “Correction: there is no gun control specific to Detroit. Michigan has a statewide pre-emption statute regarding the ownership and possession of firearms and ammunition like many other states. Further, Michigan has been a shall issue concealed carry state since around 2001. Finally, Michigan has always been an open carry state. The frequency of criminals using firearms to commit violent crimes in Detroit is a result of factors other than gun control or a lack thereof.
    As for criminals using firearms to commit violent crimes, you will find a weak (if any) correlation to gun control laws. What you will find is an incredibly strong correlation to poor socio-economic urban regions and population segments with fractured families.”

    I duly stand corrected on Detroit. I will be sure to add a greater level of scrutiny pertaining to my sources in the future. So Detroit does not have stringent gun control. My mistake.

    Respecting tyranny, perhaps I should amend the article to signify massive large scale tyranny as seen in Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, Communist Cuba, Communist China, etc, etc?

    Referencing Uncommon_Sense’s reply curiously enough I ran a correlation using UNODC per capita (100,000) murder statistics in 2007 and 2008 (for all applicable countries that there was data on in those years) and the number of privately owned civilian firearms per country (firearms per 100 residents) using the most recent data available from UN Small Arms Survey, which was 2007. 2008 data is not available. In the data set below the 2008 data refers to homicide statistics correlated against 2007 arms ownership data. 2007 homicide data is correlated with 2007 arms ownership data.

    For a brief refresher on statistics a negative correlation (i.e. -0.3) means that an increase in one factor decreases the other factor (i.e. More guns, less crime). (Range is from -1.o to 1.0). A strong correlation is |0.8| or higher. -0.2 to 0.2 is considered weak or signifies no relationship.

    Statistical analysis was used by John Lott of “More Guns Less Crime” fame as well as this Harvard Study.

    Both John Lott and the Harvard folks concluded a strong negative correlation with respect to gun ownership and murder. (Ergo more guns less crime).

    I’m curious to see how they plugged the numbers in and their methodologies. Of course I would assume (and hope) they are much better experts at applying statistical analysis better.

    Nonetheless, I would argue my findings (spoiler alert: the correlations I came up with are spurious), to most libs’ chagrin, would instead suggests that other factors, which Uncommon_Sense stated above, perhaps play a more driving contributory role in crime and homicide than does simple civilian firearm (or lack thereof) ownership or gun control (or lack thereof). Many have argued recently that cultural factors play a contributory role but again how does one quantify said factors?

    What one could also surmise, to borrow a conclusion from the wonderful Harvard intelligentsia, that the “burden of proof” rests on civilian disarmentarianists to prove that increased civilian firearm ownership increases homicides and that gun control works because assuming the numbers from 2007 and 2008 hold true today we have proof that policy decisions, in the vernacular, “don’t mean squat.”

    Here’s the resulting numbers from my analysis:

    Overall (All countries for which data was available)
    Correlation 2007 = -0.183414567
    Correlation 2008 = -0.242163997

    Top 35 Highest Homicide Rate Per Capita (For all countries for which data was available that year)
    Correlation 2007 = 0.06224899
    Correlation 2008 = 0.02568789

    Bottom 35 Lowest Homicide Rate Per Capita (For all countries for which data was available that year)
    Correlation 2007 = 0.2314365
    Correlation 2008 = 0.2818107

    For the record I’m not a statistician so take my findings with a grain of salt.

    What I’m curious is how did John Lott and the Harvard folks get strong negative correlations? What did they do differently? I’m not doubting them at all.

    This perhaps warrants further investigation.

    What would be interesting to see is if one could quantify gun control policy and link it to homicide per capita numbers and find out what the resulting correlations are.

    Based on evidence to the contrary which has been around for quite some time now (and last time I checked there were a lot more studies and papers written concluding more guns equated to less crime as opposed to more guns causing an increase in crime)… what do these gun grabbers profess to be their true motivation for civilian disarmament if a multitude of scientifically based studies have produced outcomes contrary to their professed opinions?

    Aren’t many of these gun grabbers supposed to be smart, highly educated, and well-learned?

    They certainly can’t cite stupidity for having being lead astray. Maybe ignorance? Maybe they have failed to learn discernment and proper scrutiny when it comes to analyzing political ideologies (hint: study economics). Or perhaps their motives are truly and covertly nefarious.

    I certainly hope not.

    Thoughts? Hate mail? Fan mail?

    Any resident TTAG statisticians want to take me to task or question my methodologies? I have the Excel file available which was painstakingly compiled. All you have to do is sort in order and plug in the correlation function yourself.

    Tony

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *