
It’s hypocritical to oppose CISPA but support gun control legislation - rubbingalcohol
http://blog.rubbingalcoholic.com/post/48250783713/on-cispa-and-gun-control-what-about-our-constitution
======
sethbannon
The gun violence legislation that a minority of Senators blocked yesterday
would have required background checks on all gun sales, instead of only sales
from registered brokers as is currently the case. The reform is supported by
nearly 90% of the American public, and 85% of gun owners.* To compare this to
CISPA -- which overrides much of existing privacy law to essentially end the
notion of online privacy -- seems absurd.

*<http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/us/us03222013x.pdf/>

~~~
masonhensley
I would argue that a majority of Americans do not understand exactly how a
current firearm procurement actually works.

It's like asking if cars should have safety features. Of course you the vast
majority of people will respond yes.

The idea that in order for my father to give me a rifle, we would have to go
to a federally licensed dealer (pay $50-100 for them to process us) to avoid
becoming felons is absurd. A number of amendments to proposed legislation have
sought to deal with this issue, but the champions of gun control really don't
care.

~~~
vec
By the same logic, the idea that in order to give a car to one's teenage child
one must go to a government office and get said teenager licensed is also
absurd.

Lets not forget that guns are devices whose primary function is to kill things
very efficiently. I'd argue that if you're not willing to spend $50-$100 and
wait a few days, then you're not treating that kind of transfer of power with
the respect it deserves.

~~~
steverb
Sorry, but you can give a car to anyone. You're not responsible for making
sure they are a licensed driver, or that the car is registered. That's the
recipient's problem, and as long as they aren't driving the car it's perfectly
legal for them not to need either of those things.

~~~
glenra
Better still, they can even drive the car! Just can't drive it legally _on the
public roads_. But they can drive it all they want on private property. If we
treated guns like cars, a 14-year-old could buy as many guns as he wanted with
no waiting period and possess them and keep them at home and use them at home
and transport them elsewhere and use them freely at a private shooting range
or in an emergency.

------
jonnathanson
_"Do we really think that some civil liberties are better than others?"_

Yes, we do.

This argument raises some interesting points, but it rests on several false
equivalencies. The first is that all liberties are equal in weight, impact,
those protected and those affected, etc. This is noticeably untrue, even at a
passing glance. Consider the First and Third Amendments, for example. Would
anyone credibly argue that the right not to have to quarter soldiers in one's
home is equal to the rights to protected speech, a free press, and freedom of
religion? No. The latter set of rights is much more broad, encompassing,
foundational, and frequently relied upon. The former is incredibly specific,
and has become less germane over time. Both are protected liberties, but their
impact weights are different.

The second false equivalency is that all items written in the Constitution are
equivalent in validity, timelessness, applicability, and contextual
universality. A piece of paper written in the late 18th century isn't a
living, adaptive, self-improving organism. _Society_ is the living, adaptive,
self-improving organism. We follow the principles of the Constitution, but we
amend it (hence, the purpose of Amendments themselves) as situations arise and
circumstances require adaptation. The Constitution is the code; we are the
recursively self-improving expression of that code.

Please note: capital-L Liberty should not be conflated with specific
liberties. An intelligent and self-improving society makes its best attempt to
preserve all liberties under the rubric of Liberty, but recognizes that some
liberties conflict with others, and that some have net-beneficial or net-
detrimental social outcomes, and that the status thereof fluctuates over time
and within specific contexts.

~~~
crazy1van
I don't understand the whole "things were different in the 1800's when they
wrote the 2nd amendment" argument. Isn't that why they added the whole
Amendment process? The process has been used twenty-something times to great
success.

I'm frustrated with people advocating reinterpreting an aspect of the
Constitution when they don't have the popular support needed to amend it.

~~~
jonnathanson
_"I don't understand the whole "things were different in the 1800's when they
wrote the 2nd amendment" argument"_

That's not the argument I'm making. I think you're misreading me, or perhaps I
was not perfectly clear. Let's give the reader the benefit of the doubt and
assume it's on me.

 _"Isn't that why they added the whole Amendment process?"_

Yes, and that's part of my point.

I'm not arguing for a reinterpretation of the Constitution. I'm arguing
against the idea that everything in the Constitution is of equivalent weight
and is equally sacrosanct, unchanged by time and circumstances. Amendments are
our remedies to said change, if/when the need arises.

The author's insinuation -- that you have to take everything in the
Constitution at equal value, or else you're a hypocrite -- is a false
equivalency.

~~~
crazy1van
Sorry, I did misinterpret your point. Thanks for being so polite about it.
/hat-tip

I agree that the importance and relevance of the Constitution does change over
time and I agree that Amendments are the tool to deal with those changes.

------
mistercow
>How is it that we can be enraged over a privacy bill that erodes the Fourth
Amendment, but completely fine with a gun control bill that erodes the Second
Amendment?

Because while just about everybody publicly holds the Constitution up as holy
scripture, they really just care about using it to get what they want. I don't
care about the right to bear arms. I think it's a dumb, outdated provision
that never should have been added in the first place. Speech, privacy, not
being forced to incriminate yourself - these are all immensely important
rights that every human should have. Owning weapons, on the other hand - what
are we, cavemen? And don't tell me that it's so we can fight the government if
it ever gets too much out of hand. We're long past that point. Any serious
attempt at revolution today would be over in less than a week, the leaders
assassinated by unmanned drones.

So I will play lip service to the second amendment insofar as I don't want
precedent set that will weaken the parts of the Bill of Rights that are
actually important. But don't tell me I'm a hypocrite because I care about
privacy and also think that violent criminals shouldn't be able to easily buy
guns.

~~~
squozzer
> Any serious attempt at revolution today would be over in less than a week,
> the leaders assassinated by unmanned drones.

To which I answer, Iraq and Afghanistan. Certainly the insurgencies there
would not be considered "successful" revolutions, but they have made the
political price of occupation higher, AND forced concessions from the US and
local governments.

That said, I don't relish contesting the US Armed Forces violently.

OTOH, fending off a group of small-time thugs is a perfect application for a
firearm.

~~~
hga
Mistercow's focus on tactics is a mistake; as the saying goes, "...
professionals focus on logistics". And while not one of those (poor eyesight
kept me out), I can't help but notice that the logistics tail for those drones
is all in the US, and of course the pilots flying them. Who have to go home at
the end of the day.

As for the US Military, a lot if not most of the scenarios posited have much
or most of them on the side of the "revolution", but much more likely a
counter-revolution.

------
cpursley
This is why I left the right-left paradox a long time ago.

Look, either you believe your right to self-ownership, or you don't.

Self-ownership includes the right to protect one's self and property and the
right of free speech. These are not mutually exclusive.

Anyways, the way to decrease 80% of 'gun violence' - whatever that is - is to
end the war on drugs.

------
smosher
tl;dr: it's hypocritical to support one amendment without supporting all of
them completely.

~~~
hvs
If your argument is that you only support individual items that you "like" in
the bill of rights, what is your argument for supporting any of them? Either
they all deserve to be defended, or the argument just devolves into "I support
that because it might affect me!"

~~~
dllthomas
This is crazy talk. There's absolutely no reason the constitution couldn't be
right about some things and wrong about others.

~~~
phdp
But our elected officals are sworn to uphold the constitution, not what they
feel is right and wrong about it. If something is wrong, it has to be amended.
Until then, it isn't crazy.

~~~
dllthomas
Something isn't amended by divine providence; it's amended by enough people
opposing it relative to the number that support it. Saying you have to support
it until it's amended is crazy talk. Saying you have to _abide by_ it is
something else entirely.

------
venomsnake
And we have a linkbait title of year winner.

Now ... if the Congress has decided that some citizens should not have
firearms (felons,people with mental health issues) and that is in compliance
with the second amendment then a law that only enables better enforcement of
said decision is not eroding said amendment.

CISPA - the cloud should be codified as an extension of one's home. With all
the protections that come from it - if the landlord could not voluntarily open
the door of a tenant's apartment without court order for a policeman then
google should not be able to give my emails to US without one too.

~~~
hga
"then a law that only enables better enforcement of said decision is not
eroding said amendment"

That's a debatable point, as long as you're willing to consider the prior
restraint issue, but the amendments considered yesterday that had a chance of
passing* went a lot further than that modest goal, with provisions that were
unacceptable to gun owners (details on request).

* That weasel wording because I don't know why Democrats, and only Democrats plus the two independents who caucus with them, voted against Grassley-Cruz-Graham ([http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_c...](http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00098)). Well, they do have the excuse that it dropped _that day_ and no one had time to see what it really said, but that doesn't seem to be a modern hinderance to voting on laws.

------
hga
It's also unwise. Anti CISPA types have a _lot_ of natural allies in the Right
to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA) camp, but we've been forced to devote all our
political mindshare and effort into beating back the greatest threat we've
faced in perhaps a couple of decades. Heck, I only vaguely knew it had come
back and was being considered, not that all the House action was happening
yesterday with wrap up today, _just like the Senate gun-control action on the
same days_.

------
aroberge
Many (most?) countries have nothing like the U.S. second amendment and in most
countries (at the very least, members of the OECD), gun violence is NOTHING
compared with that of the U.S.

Many (most) citizens of these countries are opposed to any type of CISPA
legislation, for very good reasons.

Arguments based on comparisons of amendments of the U.S. constitution are
looked upon as very parochial and ignoring very important issues as seen from
other countries.

~~~
hga
I don't know about you, but I worry a lot more about overall rates of violence
vs. "gun violence". Not to mention what denying the right of self-defense does
to the balance of power between "citizens" (really subjects) and criminals.

Then we might parse the statistics. E.g. what happens if you grade the US
minus the South?

~~~
aroberge
I live in a city, in Canada. I would feel completely safe sleeping with the
doors unlocked. I've lived in small villages in Canada where everyone leave
their house door and car doors unlocked - and nothing happens. I've lived in
Montreal (second largest city in Canada) and felt completely safe walking
downtown at midnight - not because I was particularly brave, but because it is
safe. I remember visiting Yale and being told "not to go further than a block
in that direction as it is not safe".

------
twrkit
It's hypocritical to both support and oppose liberty

~~~
dllthomas
That's not what hypocritical means.

~~~
twrkit
To clarify, the hypocrisy lies in the fact that the Twitter 'internet
activists' are supporting freedom for their kind and to protect their common
ground (the Internet), while simultaneously lamenting that the freedoms of
another coalition ('mouth-breathing, NRA-card-holding gun nuts') are not
further imposed upon.

The Constitution in this case is irrelevant; rather, this boils down to the
preservation of individual liberty, regardless of what your beliefs are
regarding the 2nd or 4th Amendment rights.

~~~
dllthomas
If one purports to serve liberty in any form, and secretly opposes pieces of
it, this is hypocritical. If one purports to pursue the best society we can
manage, one is not necessarily constrained to making decisions based solely on
what they do to liberty - even if _you_ believe that the choice that maximally
preserves liberty is always what leads to the best society, in your view the
person in question would be _mistaken_ , but not _hypocritical_.

------
SeanKilleen
A comment response I posted on the blog. It could use some more fleshing out,
links to support, etc. but I think I captured what I feel. Apologies for the
verbosity.

\----

I appreciate your viewpoint, but I think you have a simplified idea of the
context and history surrounding efforts at gun control legislation.

The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the
security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall
not be infringed."

Therefore, I have no problem with people owning as many weapons as they
need...in the context of a well-regulated militia. Unfortunately, the Second
Amendment has, over a long period of time, been co-opted and transformed from
"a well-regulated militia" to "everyone should be able to own an assault
rifle". This is, by no coincidence, backed by the NRA, who long ago became
less about the rights of gun owners and more about the interests of gun
manufacturers. (can't blame them; it's where the money is.) I don't see the
type of gun control proposed here as eroding the Second Amendment in any way;
however, supporters see any legislation that doesn't make it easier to get any
gun as eroding the amendment. It has become a symbol, rather than people
considering it in its context. Even strict interpreters of the constitution
should find it hard to ignore the phrase "well-regulated militia". And it's
not an answer to say "oh, in today's context that would totally mean any
citizen who wants a gun."

Outside this context, I see guns for hunting as fine and guns for personal
protection as fine, because I think we can agree that removing those would
impede upon safety and liberty. However, outside of the context of a well-
regulated militia, I fail to see a scenario where a citizen would need an
assault-class weapon designed for a theater of war, even in a distressing
scenario of personal attack.

Also, background checks are not an invasion of privacy, though that's a
convenient claim to make. Whenever someone could impact the lives of others
(e.g. teachers, government workers with sensitive information), they are
required to undergo a background check. I see no reason to oppose background
checks anytime someone is going to own something that could end my life and
the main purpose of which is to inflict deadly harm. 89% of Americans agree
with me on that, including the majority of both the GOP and the NRA's member
base. And yet, the legislation was defeated -- not by a vote, but by the
inability to break a standard filibuster practice that now routinely requires
60 votes for a law to pass.

The issue of privacy as a civil liberty and bearing arms as a civil liberty
are completely separate amendments, and need to be considered in their
separate contexts. The issue of privacy _could_ have been applicable, if the
gun legislation contained a national gun registry. There's a legitimate
argument to be made there, and it would have made me slightly squeamish too.
However, the law specifically did not include such a registry and would not
lead to one; even John McCain and several other senators (with A ratings from
the NRA) said as much. A misinformation campaign was spread to poison the bill
based on fear, and it got the minority riled up, and was just enough to cower
the senate.

I do think that an actual hypocrisy exists in this debate, but from a slightly
different perspective -- time and time again, the same groups that claim they
need guns to protect against the government, also rally to stop the military's
budget from being cut in the slightest, claiming it endangers our security
(despite the fact that our military budget outpaces the closest 10+ nations
combined). The same folks who envision needing a small arsenal to protect
themselves against the government are the same people who are totally OK with
drones, seemingly without thought that those are the same weapons that would
be used by a hostile government against them. Thus, the fantasy lives on --
folks stockpile weapons in a fantasy to play the hero against the tyrant, and
at the same time support all the tools of supposed said tyrant. These are not
the majority of gun owners, but they number a large portion of those who rally
around the ownership of assault and military style weapons for use by
civilians.

I understand the inclination to make these sorts of arguments; it's easier to
say "it's everyone's fault, really" -- than to get down into it and be drawn
in the sometimes vile world of partisan politics. I've been to a shooting
range, and I don't demonize those who desire to own guns. But at some point, a
reality has to become clear -- people are dying because we're doing nothing.
We can argue about what should be done, but when near-universal agreement
exists on something as simple as a watered-down background check, and it still
can't pass congress, we've gone a little too far my taste.

~~~
gamblor956
The problem is that the first phrase has been held to be mere preamble, i.e.,
the _goal_ for the second half of the Amendment. Unfortunately, the way it is
written, the first phrase is clearly not a condition of the latter phrase and
indeed, many past and present SCOTUS justices interpret the second half as
barring _any_ restrictions on gun ownership, including restrictions on felon
ownership.

This is why courts have upheld the right to bear arms _despite_ the existence
of the National Guard and various other historical lawful militia.

~~~
hga
" _and indeed, many past and present SCOTUS justices interpret the second half
as barring any restrictions on gun ownership, including restrictions on felon
ownership._ "

Name one, let alone a few, who seriously put that forward. No right is
absolute, just like the sainted freedom of speech famously doesn't extend to
falsely shouting fire in a theater.

I also fail to see how the plain language restricts the first phrase to _the_
goal as opposed to _a_ goal. You think the Founders didn't believe in personal
self-defense???

~~~
gamblor956
Scalia, Thomas, and Alito have voiced such opinions at some point in their
careers. Scalia and Thomas made these comments at various Federalist Society
gatherings. It's genuinely scary how they interpret the second amendment.

I should have been clearer: the first phrase, as currently construed, is _just
a preamble_ , and as such has no legal weight. It lets us know what the
Founders _wanted_ the 2nd Amendment to accomplish, but it places no limitation
on the actual grant of rights in the Amendment. That could change in the
future with a different balance of justices, but that is unlikely to happen
anytime soon.

~~~
hga
Could you be a little more specific, and point me as specifics how they were
"serious". Serious is _District of Columbia v. Heller_ which Scalia wrote and
was joined by the other two. The opinion acknowledged the traditional
restrictions on gun possession. (My Google fu wasn't up to the task, e.g.
"federalist society" Scalia OR Thomas felons possession gun or firearm, and
limited in time to before _Heller_ came out.)

Also, were they talking about the serious traditional felonies, vs. the _Three
Felonies a Day_ ([http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-
Innocent/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-
Innocent/dp/1594032556/)) that as the book description puts it, " _The average
professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes
home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely
committed several federal crimes that day._ " ?

As for the preamble, it was a sop (in modern political terms, a blessed
compromise) thrown to those who preferred militias to regulars; they lost that
argument in the Constitution (Article I, Section 8: " _The Congress shall have
Power ... To raise and support Armies..._ ), in large part to the opinions of
those like George Washington, who's professional opinion on this had
particular weight.

He was again the indispensable man, without his influence the 1787
Constitution would have been a non-starter, but that said, the Bill of Rights
was a condition by the Anti-Federalists for accepting it.

And in turn the Federalists were right when they said the Bill of Rights would
just end up establishing high maximums to Federal power, as you acknowledge in
your last sentence.

------
yarrel
Err no.

