This page was last updated on February 21, 2013.
A shaky ladder; Patrick O’Shea – BCT editorial board; Beaver County Times; January 13, 2013. This editorial appeared only in the print edition of the BCT. I apologize for any transcription errors.
As J.D. Prose of the BCT, Mr. O’Shea is a part-time reporter in addition to being a pundit.
Below is a detailed critique of portions of this column.
“Trying to justify the arguments of extremists on both sides of the gun control debate is like trying to climb a ladder on unstable ground. Eventually the ladder gives way and everything collapses.”
[RWC] While Mr. O’Shea tried to make this editorial sound “reasoned,” keep in mind previous editorials on this topic via two op-ed pieces by Mr. Prose (here and here).
When you get to the end, see if you noticed what is missing from this editorial.
“As the government commission on gun violence gathers its information for recommendations later this month on possible changes to gun laws and enforcement, those arguing the pros and cons of gun control or loudly proclaiming they have the answers. But do they?”
[RWC] How did President Obama’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform work out?
“People saying all guns should be banned, and those weapons in circulation confiscated, are dreaming. We opened that Pandora’s Box a long time ago, and there’s no going back. It would be easier to collect every cell phone in the country.”
[RWC] Note Mr. O’Shea didn’t disagree with the idea; he just said “there’s no going back.” Mr. O’Shea didn’t say “back” to what.
For those of us not familiar with Greek mythology and “Pandora’s Box” (or jar), the Merriam-Webster Dictionary says a box was “sent by the gods to Pandora, which she was forbidden to open and which loosed a swarm of evils upon humankind when she opened it out of curiosity.” After the “swarm of evils,” something good came out; it was hope. Pandora was the first woman. It appears the BCT believes the “right to bear Arms” is like “Pandora’s Box.”
“And then you have others arguing everybody should be armed and then there will be no crime. Ridiculous. You simply have more people shooting themselves or others in the foot. Most people can’t be bothered to read the directions on the backs of their prescription bottles, and were going to trust them with deadly weapons?”
[RWC] I have to admit I haven’t heard the “there will be no crime” argument. This is an example of the “straw man” tactic. This is when one person claims another person did or said something they didn’t do or say and then attacks them for it.
Note Mr. O’Shea’s different treatment of “those arguing the pros and cons of gun control.” The “all guns should be banned” position isn’t practical, but the straw-man “everybody should be armed” position is “ridiculous.”
“The time has come for both sides to admit we have a problem and work together on reasonable efforts to reduce gun violence. Not a day goes by in which someone is not touched by misuse of guns in our region, many times resulting in deaths or horrible injuries. And how many more mass shootings are we going to stomach before we decide enough is enough?”
[RWC] Throughout, Mr. O’Shea uses the terms “reasonable” and “reasoned.” Watch out when people use terms like these. For example, during the “fiscal cliff” debates we heard President Obama and his followers talk about a “balanced” solution. In that case, “balanced” meant tax-rate hikes and no spending cuts. My guess is “commonsense” and other similar terms will join “reasonable” and “reasoned.”
According to Mothers Against Drunk Driving, drunk drivers killed 9,878 people in 2011, 31% of traffic deaths. How many more mass killings by drunk drivers “are we going to stomach before we decide enough is enough?” Is 9,878 killed by drunk drivers OK simply because the deaths are spread out over 12 months? Where’s the BCT outrage?
“We live in a land of freedom, but there are restrictions on things like cigarettes and alcohol that can harm ourselves and others. And, yes, there already are restrictions on guns. So why not take a reasoned look at shaping the laws already in place with some possible additions that reward responsible owners and punish those who abuse the privilege?”
[RWC] I don’t know about anyone else, but doesn’t the idea of our government rewarding government-approved behavior sound pretty creepy?
How would government “reward responsible owners” and who defines “responsible?” A responsible firearm owner doesn’t need rewarded, just left alone. How would government know to “reward” a “responsible owner” unless it requires registration of firearms and/or owners? Registration tells the government where to go to confiscate weapons.
How would government “punish those who abuse the privilege” and who defines “abuse?”
When did it become our government’s job to protect us from harming ourselves?
When it comes to support for banning behavior it doesn’t like, the BCT knows what it’s talking about. From March 2005 through April 2011, the BCT published at least 57 editorials in support of banning smoking on private property. In “Silence, please,” the BCT lobbied for banning cell phone use on airplanes not for any flight safety or technical concerns, but because the editorial author found the practice annoying. The editorial concluded with, “Let’s no [sic] take any chance. Turn the FCC ban into law as soon as possible.” Since 2005, the BCT treated us to at least 65 editorials about obesity. In “Feel free to sin,” the BCT appeared to support fines (euphemistically referred to as “taxes”) for buying “unhealthy foods.” Allegedly, the fines would subsidize government-approved foods deemed too expensive. I could go on, but you get the idea.
There’s that “reasoned” word again.
“Why should automatic and high-round weapons not be further limited? They are useless in hunting, and a bullet from an ordinary gun is just as useful in protecting life and property.”
[RWC] As you’ll read below, our “right to bear Arms” is not about “hunting.” Mr. O’Shea and the BCT know this.
What is “an ordinary gun?” As for “a bullet from an ordinary gun is just as useful in protecting life and property,” that may or may not be true for people who use their firearms on a routine basis “protecting life and property,” but what about the rest of us? If I and those around me were under attack, I’d hate to have to rely on holding off the attacker(s) with only a few bullets before being defenseless while I reload. Silly me, but I’d like to be able to fire as many shots as I could before reloading.
“And why should loopholes in gun permit verification laws not be closed? Shouldn’t we want to make sure the best attention is given to who has access to deadly weapons? If someone needs a gun quicker than the waiting period, the authorities should be involved in the decision.
“No one is saying those who show the proper respect and ability for guns shouldn’t have access to weapons that suit reasonable needs – hunting, protection, collection – but they all should be required to be trained on safe use and storage. And violations of rules, such as not keeping guns out of harmful hands, should be met harshly.”
[RWC] It’s difficult to believe Mr. O’Shea doesn’t know this paragraph is false. The District of Columbia’s Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 banned ownership of handguns except for police officers. The law also placed onerous restrictions on the firearms it did permit, such as mandating use of trigger locks and keeping weapons unloaded. It’s a tad difficult to defend your family when your firearm is unloaded and its trigger is locked. In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court (District of Columbia v. Heller) struck down the ban on handguns and some of the restrictions on other firearms. Chicago also had a handgun ban. In 2010, the Supreme Court (McDonald v. Chicago) ruled that ban unconstitutional. In 2005, San Francisco voters approved a handgun ban, struck down by the California Supreme Court in 2008. These were all big cases and they garnered a lot of national coverage. Knowing this, how can the BCT claim no one wants to deny “access to weapons?”
Who gets to define “proper respect and ability for guns” and “reasonable needs?”
“The sad truth is we will never totally eliminate people hurting other people with guns, no matter what we do. But shouldn’t we try?”
[RWC] Ah, the emotional plea.
At the beginning of the critique I mentioned something was missing from the editorial. You win if you noticed Mr. O’Shea didn’t mention the Pennsylvania Constitution (and its 1776 predecessor), the U.S. Constitution, and the Second/Tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
According to the BCT, reasonable need for firearms includes “hunting, protection, collection.” Not mentioned is the true reason behind “the right to keep and bear Arms.” Read the above documents and the discussions in the Federalist Papers and you’ll find no mention of “hunting, protection, collection.” In the Second Amendment, “the right to keep and bear Arms” is “necessary to the security of a free State,” with no mention of “hunting, protection, collection.” The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 was even more explicit about the “right to bear arms.” Chapter I, Article XIII stated, “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”
In Federalist 28, Alexander Hamilton wrote, “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government.” In Federalist 29 (Concerning the Militia), Alexander Hamilton wrote, “Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped.” I could be wrong, but I don’t think Mr. Hamilton was talking about “the people at large” being “properly armed and equipped” to hunt deer or collect firearms. In Federalist 46, James Madison wrote, “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.”
You may wonder why I mentioned the 10th Amendment since it doesn’t mention anything about a right to bear arms. As a group, the Founding Fathers believed all rights were granted to man by a higher authority (“endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” as in the Declaration of Independence) and intended the Constitution to detail only those powers granted to the federal government (“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” as in the DoI). In other words, if a power wasn’t mentioned in the Constitution, the government did not have that power. To be safe and make sure everyone knew this intent, the 10th Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights. The 10th Amendment says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.” Between the intent of the original Constitution and the 10th Amendment, technically we don’t need the Second Amendment because the Constitution doesn’t grant the federal government the power to deny our right to bear arms. As noted above, though, the Founders knew the importance of an armed citizenry and wanted to make sure everyone else knew as well.
May we now stop hearing our “right to bear Arms” is about “hunting, protection, collection?”
© 2004-2013 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.