Time: Wed Jul 30 12:40:40 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA08576;
Wed, 30 Jul 1997 12:39:49 -0700 (MST)
by usr03.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA26592;
Wed, 30 Jul 1997 12:37:01 -0700 (MST)
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 12:36:16 -0700
To: liberty-and-justice@pobox.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Preaching to the choir
As a rule, rather than an exception,
people I have known who call themselves
"Patriots" make a bad habit of confusing
law and politics. They treat political
problems with law, and they treat law with
political solutions. Neither approach
is very productive, judging from the
predictable results.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com
At 10:30 AM 7/30/97 -0600, you wrote:
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 02:09:58 -0600
>To: utah-firearms@mail.xmission.com
>From: "S. Thompson" <righter@therighter.com>
>Cc: middle@monarch.papillion.ne.us, noban@mainstream.net,
> recon@inet.skillnet.com, dsagers@ci.west-valley.ut.us
>
>>I think there are two separate arguments here:
>
>>(1). Constitutional. (2) Practical.
>
>Well, so far I agree. However, I disagree vehemently with the remainder
>of this discussion.
>
>>Kates and Kleck, particularly Kates, recognize the constitutional
>>argument for RKBA as an individual right to be so persuasive as to be
>>the "standard model." Both, however, recognize that to "Joe and Jane
>>Sixpack," not to mention "Joseph and Janet Champagne," the constitutional
>>argument simply doesn't matter. Kates and Kleck argue that the vast
>>majority of the citizenry are more results-oriented--i.e., they look
>>at the social utility of a position. We in the RKBA/Individual Rights
>>group have not addressed this very well. While IMHO the constitutional
>>argument should settle the issue, the truth is that social utility often
>>predisposes the public, or the justices, to look for a way to defend a
>>particular answer.
>
>It is true that "Joe and Jane Sixpack" don't care a bit about the
>constitution. It is sad, but true, that most of the justices don't either.
>But think about what you're proposing. Do you really want to concede,
>a priori, that the constitution is irrelevant? If you do so, I maintain
>that the battle, and the war, are irrevocably lost.
>
>>Accepting (or ignoring, if you wish) that government may constitutionally
>>restrict felons and insane from firearms, the social utility argument then
>>becomes one that both Kleck and Kates argue: society is better off with
>>the armed citizenry described by the Founders and supported by
>>volumes of recent social research (see, e.g., Kleck, Lott, the Vermont
>>and Florida "CCW" experience, etc.) If we had done a better job,
>>starting in at least 1968, of presenting the social utility of firearms as
>>well as the constitutional requirements, then the public would recognize
>>that not only is the individual rights interpretation of the Second
>>Amendment the correct one, it is the socially desirable one.
>
>Rights are unchanging and immutable. "Social utility" is NOT. If, someday,
>someone comes up with statistics that refute Kleck and Lott, will you then
>willingly turn in your firearms? And who gets to define "social utility"
>anyway? It was of tremendous social utility for the British to disarm the
>rebellious colonists. It was of equally great social utility for Hitler
>to disarm Jews and anyone else who didn't support him. Our current
>administration believes it is social utility to label any and all
>dissenters "terrorists" and then deprive them of all rights, harass,
>imprison, or even murder them. Is that really what you want here?
>
>Make no mistake: the argument is most assuredly NOT about the relative
>niceties of self-defense against muggers and rapists. I'm not discounting
>this aspect; as a woman, and former victim, I know how important this is.
>But ultimately the argument is about tyranny; not just the tyranny of one
>stronger person against one weaker person, but the tyranny of any
>government, state, church or group that wishes to forcefully inflict
>its will on any other individual or group.
>
>>To sum up, Larry, I'm not sure that you got the point of the Kates/Kleck
>>work: emphasize the social utility because it supports our position and
>>because it's the argument that will persuade them that need persuading.
>
>There's nothing wrong with Kates's, Kleck's or Lott's work. It's
>excellent, but it's TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to RIGHTS. Its utility is in
>demonstrating conclusively that those who favor gun control are de
>facto supporting murder, rape and assault against innocent citizens.
>
>However, if you use "social utility" as your primary argument, you are
>playing the enemy's game - and the enemy, and its ministry of propaganda
>(the media), are infinitely better at playing it, and have infinitely
>more resources, than the RKBA movement ever will. Never, ever agree
>to play by the enemy's rules!
>
>>"The law" seldom leads "the norm"... it's usually the other way around.
>>Changes typically start in popular culture, and the law only follows
>>sometime later after the change has become pervasive and commonplace.
>>"The law" may win battles, but "the norm" wins the war. RKBA needs to
>>stop chanting the Second Amendment mantra as our only tool and spend
>>more time on cultural norms.
>
>Maybe I'm confused. I thought the GOAL of all this was to create and
>preserve a culture where respect for the constitution, respect for
>individual rights and liberties IS the norm! If, instead, the goal
>is for us gunowners to be safe from "bad guys", while we ignore our
>neighbors being dragged off to prison in the middle of the night,
>maybe we're not on the same team.
>
>>On a bright note, I believe this is already happening and we are making
>>progress. However, as with most cultural shifts, those whose position is
>>threatened tend to react with the most vigor early on. We should expect
>>our struggles to be most intense _right now_. If we continue to gain
>>ground, our struggles will lessen due to a combination of our greater
>>strength and their weakened resistance.
>
>Our struggles have not yet peaked. Remember that Tony Blair admitted that
>the disarmament of British SUBJECTS had nothing to do with safety and
>everything to do with eliminating the "American gun culture". He was
>successful, and the vast majority of British sheeple agree with what he
>did. They're actually foolish enough to believe that handing over their
>firearms will make the world "safer". What will they do when China decides
>it wants more than just Hong Kong?
>
>Expect no less here. We are living in a fascist state that is just
>beginning to consolidate its powers. I predict that genocide will be
>attempted against gun owners here as well. We will be declared "enemies
>of the state" and "social utility" will be defined as disarming,
>or exterminating, us, and anyone else misguided enough to take the
>Constitution literally. The reason we are being "allowed" "permits"
>is to drug us into forgetting about rights, and to lure us into putting
>our names and firearms and fingerprints into databases.
>
>>We often complain that we're not seeing enough pro-RKBA legislation at
>>the federal level. Considering Mike's words, perhaps we should worry
>>less about that (hold our legislative ground for the moment), and refocus
>>our proactive energies on the cultural side. We can't legislate an
>>emotional acceptance of gun ownership, any more than we can legislate
>>morality. But if the people (the popular culture) lead, the leaders
>>(and the better RKBA laws) will follow.
>
>This is partially correct. Legislation is useless. The Constitution
>is all the "legislation" we need. What we must do is reclaim our rights
>regardless of what Congress does or does not do.
>
>We do need to educate the people - NOT to accept the social utility
>of firearms, but to understand the concepts of individual rights and
>liberties. Any other path leads to tyranny. Any other path is doomed.
>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>Unsub info - send e-mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com, with
>"unsubscribe liberty-and-justice" in the body (not the subject)
>Liberty-and-Justice list-owner is Mike Goldman <whig@pobox.com>
>
>
========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
========================================================================
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail