A very well thought out article after Sandy Hook

[bobingersoll]

Sam Harris is one of my favorite thinkers / writers. His latest website post is well worth reading.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the- ... of-the-gun

[gunderwood]

Interesting read to say the least. I've read some of his works and found them to be similar to this article. Famous for painting one picture and turning a corner and resolving to do the opposite. Also, for ignoring the reality that these mass shooters are merely acting out his philosophy (a topic he dances around in any criticism of his other works on faith).

In this specific example, he tries to appear "reasonable" by claiming to own guns (FYI, there are lots of people who own things, but have very little knowledge of them and may in fact actually dislike them, e.g. automobiles. So claiming to own a gun(s) is hardly a qualification...being proficient in firearms is another matter entirely, but when your audience is the ignorant...). From this he spends paragraphs discussing how an "assault rifle" ban will do nothing, but does seem to allude to a "high-capacity" magazine ban being useful...well sort of since he then slightly contradicts himself immediately thereafter.

Then things get really fun in the concluding paragraphs, which why I suspect the OP posted it (divide and conquer through "reasonable" gun controls). One at a time for discussion.

One of the greatest impediments to actually solving the riddle of guns in our society is the pious concern that many people have about the intent of the Second Amendment. It should hardly need to be said that despite its brilliance and utility, the Constitution of the United States was written by men who could not possibly have foreseen every change that would occur in American society in the ensuing centuries. Even if the Second Amendment guaranteed everyone the right to possess whatever weapon he or she desired (it doesn’t), we have since invented weapons that no civilian should be allowed to own. In fact, it can be easily argued that original intent of the Second Amendment had nothing to do with the right of self-defense—which remains the ethical case to be made for owning a firearm. The amendment seems to have been written to allow the states to check the power of the federal government by maintaining their militias. Given the changes that have occurred in our military, and even in our politics, the idea that a few pistols and an AR 15 in every home constitutes a necessary bulwark against totalitarianism is fairly ridiculous. If you believe that the armed forces of the United States might one day come for you—and you think your cache of small arms will suffice to defend you if they do—I’ve got a black helicopter to sell you.

Yes, the Constitution was written by men and yes, it is far from perfect. (why again does this guy put so much faith in the natural goodness of men again? Well at least when it suits him.) However, the principles of western civilization were based on timeless principles, typically Christian (ah, the real problem the author has because the concept of a moral code man is held accountable rather than creates based on the situation would contradict his entire philosophy). So while perfect knowledge of the future escapes all men, sound principles are universal regardless of what the make-it-up as we go along camp claims.

He then works in the absurd claim about weapons we've invented that no civilian should own (doesn't mention governments, so the reader is left to assume that somehow a group of men who claim legalized violence is superior to the rest of us...I would argue that the man who wants to use no force to make others comply with his will is morally superior, but hey what ever floats your boat) and thus the Second Amendment is in void. Of course this is a backhand way of introducing nuclear weapons, biological weapons, chemical weapons, and even Death Stars; aka weapons of mass destruction into the discussion without tipping off the lazy reader as to what just happened. This is classic gun control propaganda at its finest. While we're on this tangent, want to talk about weapons the Founders couldn't envision? How about vaporizing a whole city (larger than any they'd ever seen) in an instant anywhere on earth...or how about a whole planet? Compared to that, machine guns look tame.

This is what we get for not teaching history. All of the writers and legal scholars of the era didn't mince words on what "shall not infringe" means. Nor was there any question as to what weapons the Second Amendment covered or why they were covered. The intent was to recognize a pre-existing Right (conceptually granted by God per the DOI, but that hurts Mr. Harris' head) to possess military arms sufficient, such that if the very government the Founders had set up ever became tyrannical, the people could reclaim the God given right to self-rule. As for Mr. Harris' claim about the US military and that helicopter...what shade of black are you offering? Apparently, Mr. Harris failed more history than merely the Revolutionary War; including the last decade of war with exactly such armed terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan and that's without the tactical and strategic realities of fighting a civil war (which is always a messy ordeal and negates much of the advantage of high tech weapons). For example, we've had a hard enough time in those two wars and our industrial base and economy are unscathed compared to what a civil war would do. Seriously, with what worthless money would you buy weapons with? Even if you could afford them, do you honestly expect the "enemies of the state" to blow up one drone while ignoring the factories building them ten miles that way? When we attacked Iraq we destroyed or disabled their infrastructure (classic strategy) to avoid having to directly confront much of their military (despite the fact we technologically out matched them); why wouldn't an American civil war II not do the same on both sides? Defending an ammunition plant or a power plant or a F-22 plant or whatever from a terrorist attack is a cake walk compared to defending all of those at once while you're countries in a civil war. Please note I'm not advocating this and I pray that we never get to that point, but I'm a realist about what would likely happen and it isn't pretty regardless who wins. Again, a bit of history and understanding dispels this myth.

We could do many things to ensure that only fully vetted people could get a licensed firearm. The fact that 40 percent of all guns in the U.S. are legally purchased from private sellers without background checks on the buyers (the so-called “gun show loophole”) is terrifying. Getting a gun license could be made as difficult as getting a license to fly an airplane, requiring dozens of hours of training. I would certainly be happy to see policy changes like this. In that respect, I support much stricter gun laws. But I am under no illusions that such restrictions would make it difficult for bad people to acquire guns illegally. Given the level of violence in our society, the ubiquity of guns, and the fact that our penitentiaries function like graduate schools for violent criminals, I think sane, law-abiding people should have access to guns. In that respect, I support the rights of gun owners.

This whole paragraph misses the point of the Second Amendment. The only reason government take arms away from the people is because they fear the people eventually using those arms against them when they exercise unlawful powers. A government based on principled law and justice has nothing to fear from an armed people. If you have to get a license to own arms, then only people who are in lock-step with that government will possess arms. Again, classic gun control better to do something "reasonable," while admitting in the next sentence that it won't do any good for keep guns away from bad guys. NEWS FLASH! He still supports the Second Amendment! BS. He supports a made up fairy tail because it's not like this country didn't have an idea what it meant for it's first 150 years of existence (NFA 1934). While not only gutting the original intent of the Second Amendment, it's as logical as suggesting that we all just eat a cupcake to cure school shootings. I'm confident that, like Mr. Harris is with licensing, it will do nothing to keep guns away from bad guys, but a cupcake sure would make me feel better right now. Mmmm.

Of course, the elephant in the room that Mr. Harris avoids (as I noted before about his more philosophical works) is why our society is so violent and of course its not because of men...that would just blow apart his moral philosophy! No, we just have to tweak a few things and then men won't be so violent (and presumably guns won't be needed any more, since that's the reason Mr. Harris supports us owning them). Liberal naivety.

Finally, I have said nothing here about what might cause a person like Adam Lanza to enter a school for the purpose of slaughtering innocent children. Clearly, we need more resources in the areas of childhood and teenage mental health, and we need protocols for parents, teachers, and fellow students to follow when a young man in their midst begins to worry them. In the majority of cases, someone planning a public assassination or a mass murder will communicate his intentions to others in advance of the crime. People need to feel personally responsible for acting on this information—and the authorities must be able to do something once the information gets passed along. But again, any law that allows us to commit or imprison people on the basis of a mere perception of risk would guarantee that large numbers of innocent people will be held against their will.

The reason Adam Lanza did what he did is the beginning and end of this tragedy, but like a good liberal gun control advocate, we'll just brush over it. Not enough resources (aka money) being spend on liberal government programs, mental health, etc. It can't possibly because there are some people who are so evil that they actually rationally plot and intend to kill little children, no can't be that at all because that would imply something is horribly wrong with man and all good atheists can't possibly believe that despite a world full of evidence. FYI, there is this one little downside that a lot of innocent people would be held against their will (not to mention have a variety of other rights revoked) if we actually do what he's suggesting. Whatever, it's not like there's any absolute right or wrong any ways, so as long as whatever utility function Mr. Harris deems appropriate (and doesn't affect him), it's OK. Isn't moral relativism great?

Rather than new laws, I believe we need a general shift in our attitude toward public violence—wherein everyone begins to assume some responsibility for containing it. It is worth noting that this shift has already occurred in one area of our lives, without anyone’s having received special training or even agreeing that a change in attitude was necessary: Just imagine how a few men with box cutters would now be greeted by their fellow passengers at 30,000 feet.

At least we agree on something, but I've read enough Mr. Harris and his pop intellectualism to know that this is really just a debating trick. End on an easy and good note so the lazy reader won't realize they just agree with a totalitarian; we'll to be honest, not quite yet, but than statists rarely ever get there until all their opponents are disarmed.