That is not what "balanced" means.

Billy Hallowell over at Glenn Beck's The Blaze posted an article today with the headline: Creationists Dealt Major Blow in Battle Over Evolutionary Content in Texas Biology Textbooks.  The article begins thusly:

The battle over evolution and creationism in public schools forges on. And in Texas, where some social conservatives have advocated for a more balanced approach to the study of life’s origins, it seems creationists may be in for major disappointment.

Notice that social conservatives are merely asking for 'balance'; how could that be unreasonable?  The answer is simple: the type of balance they'd like is not balance at all as it is appropriate to the discipline of biology.  Scientists and sciences are responsible for reviewing/regulating the methods appropriate to their respective fields.  In general, the scientific method includes the collection of empirical data, testing through observable experimentation and the formulation of hypotheses and predictions that can be so tested.  Creationism conforms to none of these methodological requirements.  Within evolutionary biology two scientists may disagree on the importance of alleles in replication or Dawkins' notion of the 'selfish gene'.  And these sorts of disputes can (and perhaps should--depending on the level of education) be included in biology textbooks.  That, however, is because both sides may be discussed within the confines of the methodology appropriate to the sciences.  Creationism should be taught in schools (even secular, public schools) in classes on religion, history, philosophy.  That represents balance.

Congressional and presidential exemptions from ACA (Obamacare)

The opponents of Obamacare continue to use the exemptions afforded to congress and the White House as evidence that even those who passed the law don't think it will work.  The problem (one of them, rather) is that this claim is simply false.  Nevertheless, opponents continue to use this canard as a talking point that their followers can use unquestioningly (such as Erick Erickson over at redstate.com).  The conversation is too important for us to allow it to be high-jacked by empty rhetoric (at best, lies as worst).

Good job, American political culture! You've broken the metaphor.

I thought this was just a fluke--one of the silly, hyperbolic things that Chris Matthews tends to say when he's worked up about something.  In discussing Ted Cruz, the current object of Matthews' well deserved disgust, Matthews compared Cruz to Joe MacCarthy and insisted that Cruz is a kind of political terrorist. What struck me was not the comparison to MacCarthy, nor the hyperbole (one should expect that from Matthews, and it is, to a certain degree, part of his shtick--like Colbert's pretended O'Reilly-ism). It was the reason for the comparison that was so bizarre--Matthews insisted that Cruz has the same sneering attitude and moral condescension, and that he even looks like MacCarthy. These may be true, but the comparison seems incredibly disingenuous. It would be like comparing someone to Hitler because he is short, or to Stalin because he has a big mustache. The comparison may not be false, but it is meaningless, since neither figure is considered the model of shortness or of mustachioedness.  This same phenomenon--the complete misuse of metaphor--occurred twice more this week.  First, during Cruz' own so-called filibuster, the Texan compared those who would support ACA to those who supported the Nazi's.  Yes, those who support ACA may be supporting a bad idea, and Nazism was a bad idea--but is that the full extent of our understanding and estimation of Nazism? Cruz' ideological compatriot, Mike Lee, made a similar claim, only Lee used the Revolutionary War rather than WWII.  So, instead of being Nazi sympathizers, those who would support ACA are British soldiers, and Lee and Cruz are American patriots.  I am not opposed to an informed and intelligent debate about Obamacare--it is too big, too important, and too costly not to debate the issue. But this is not a debate. At least they haven't broken logic (yet).

FOX's fallacious zealotry

By now you've all likely seen the FOX news interview of Reza Aslan by Lauren Green (if not, here's the link: http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/is-this-the-most-embarrassing-interview-fox-news-has-ever-do?bffb). The general reaction of most has been, "isn't FOX news stupid?". Yes, they are, but it's worth exploring precisely why. It is, of course, possible that Aslan's Zealot is a terrible book.  It is also possible that he is biased because he is a Muslim.  The key word here is 'because', which has several meanings. The two most important to distinguish are the causal and the epistemic senses. As I've used it above, because is causal (the fact that he is a Muslim caused him to write a badly researched work). The second sense is still causal, however, it causes one to know something (episteme is the Greek word for knowledge). How do I know it is 7am and not 7pm? Because I see the sun in the East rather than the West.  Now try that with the Aslan case. How do I know that Zealot is a biased work? Because Aslan is a Muslim. This results in a classic example of an ad hominem fallacy. If you want to discuss bias in Zealot you must first show that it is biased by discussing its content (noting that Aslan does not claim Jesus is god does not represent bias since Jesus' divinity is irrelevant in the field of religious history generally and more specifically in studies of the Historical Jesus). If the work shows bias, then you can ask whether or not the particular biases contained therein represent a specifically Muslim bias).

Ted Nugent celebrates Black History Month by being an ill-informed douche.

Usually I ignore Ted Nugent's rants precisely because they are rants.  After I turned 20, I realized there is no point in reasoning with someone whose primary argument is that if you disagree with him you can suck on the end of his gun.

Nevertheless, recently Nugent strung a few words together in World Nets Daily (notorious conspiracy theory kooks) that included no discernible threats.  Instead, Nugent argues that his way of celebrating Black History Month is more respectful and more to the advantage of the black community than any Democratic policy has ever been.  I'll dismiss outright the argument that Obama is the best policy-maker for the black community because he is black--that is just silly.  Armed with a fact or two regarding unemployment among the black community, Nugent claims the failure of the New Deal and every other democratic policies intended to close the equality gap between whites and blacks in America.  Indeed, in some instances he may be right, though he offers no analysis, no statistics to support his claims.  I'd like to point out that that the Republican party went out of its way to exclude black and other minority voters in many states this election cycle.  I'd like to point out that certain Republican states are trying to repeal the  voting rights act, and that Mississippi (a predominantly Red state) just ratified the 13th Amendment a few days ago (in case you are unaware, the 13th Amendment outlaws slavery).  I'd like to point out these sorts of things, but I won't because they are not entirely relevant.  The best part of Nugent's article is his preferred way of honoring the black community during Black History Month--it's not to push legislation that will solve the economic or social gaps between the black and white communities; it's not a proposed fix to public education.  Nugent is going to honor the black community by playing black music.

I hope he has a great tour, and I hope he pays royalties...

Never Miss a Good Conversation.

David Frum has been Tweeting ideas in rapid succession this morning regarding solutions to gun-death problems in the States.

Indeed, this series (the list above is partial) represents ideas from his CNN column, found here.  Some of his ideas are interesting, several are new to me, others seem like they'd not work or would be impracticable.  Nevertheless, his Tweets should have started an interesting conversation.  Instead, they've started this:

Score for the day: F@cking cat memes:1 Reason: 0.

Reforming the GOP.

Ever since President Obama trounced (I say trounced simply because it was clear months in advance--and contrary to what Dick Morris and Karl Rove had insisted--that there was no way that Romney could win--just ask Nate Silver) Mitt Romney in the presidential race pundits on the right and the left have been looking at how the GOP can reform itself to take back the White House.  Many like Bobby Jindal have suggested different messaging.  Jindal has specifically (and literally) said that the GOP needs to stop being stupid.  However, he seems to mean that they need to stop expressing themselves stupidly, not that they need to stop maintaining stupid positions.  Jindal has been largely praised for what has seemed like a bold move.  And the message has been received--at the House Republican retreat in January, GOP congressmen were instructed not to talk about rape.  On the other hand, Karl Rove's SuperPAC (the same SPAC that spent incredible amounts of money on 2012 elections and saw little return on its investment) has started a new project to keep Tea Partiers like Todd Akin (also trounced by Claire McCaskill), Richard Mourdock (whom the Tea Party used to oust Dick Lugar, and was then defeated by Joe Donnelly) and Paul Broun (who serves on the House Science Committee despite denying the big bang, evolution and apparently the whole discipline of embryology)  from running against more moderate and, more importantly, electable GOPers.  What is most interesting is that, while Rove seems to be offering practicable solutions to a GOP problem (as compared to the "stop talking about rape" approach), he has been bashed by many in his own party.  Conclusion:  Bobby Jindal was right.

Here's John Dickerson's competent analysis from this morning.

The Godly Grammar of Theology.

I am not particularly fond of Bill Maher--not so much because of his opinions, but because of his 'shock-jockeyness'.  He seems to belong to the same school of thought as Neal Boortz and Michael Savage, who believe that the greater the number of your detractors the more correct your opinion.  Nevertheless, Maher's comments regarding today's Super Bowl led to a sublime exchange on Twitter.

In general, I agree with Maher's sentiment, though I think 27% is not nearly as impressive as Maher seems to think.  However, what is more interesting is Maher's evident orthographic error, which was noticed by very few to begin with.  Obviously "thing" should read "think", and there is a certain irony in making such a blatant error when calling someone stupid.  Maher could have been taken to task by the Twitterverse.  Instead, Maher's detractors doubled down.

Not only have these tweeps failed to identify the most obvious error in Maher's tweet, the supposed error they've 'corrected' is not an error at all.  The word god is a common noun, not a proper noun (like God Jones, or God Jefferson).

The Internet is a Beautiful Place.

Do you want to translate a Greek phrase?  The internet has got that covered.  Do you want help tuning your guitar?  There are thousands of Youtube videos to guide you (not to mention dozens of iPhone apps).  Do you want a great recipe for spaghetti squash?  No problem.  The internet is a repository of an incredible amount of information--more than any one person can handle alone.  It's also a repository of f@cking cat memes.  The internet is neither good nor bad; it's a matter of how you use it.  I hate cat memes, but not for their content.  As cat memes, they are relatively benign.  Nevertheless, wasting your time on cat memes is a little like admiring how clean the windows are at the Louvre--you're not only missing the point, you're losing out.  Other memes are more nefarious, largely because they pose as information when they are no more accurate than the idea that a cat "can haz a hamburger".  Case in point:

If you type "11 states have more people on welfare than employed" in Google, the first response is Politifact.com with an explanation of this chain mail meme. 

They give it their worst rating: Pants-on-Fire.  How did I know to look it up?  Easy--it smells like bullshit on the surface (do you know the population of California?).  Even so, I'd have looked it up anyway.  Why?  Because that is what the internet is for.

How and When to Use "Quotation Marks".

Punctuation is tricky.  For the most part, commas and periods are simply used to provide or indicate structure in a syntactic unit (end of sentence, here be a dependent clause, now begins a list of items, etc.).  Quotation marks (or, as I've been taught to call them, inverted commas) have some interesting uses quite outside the context of syntax.  One may assume on a priori grounds that quotation marks are used to indicate quotations--and they are.  Nevertheless, they also have rhetorical use that sometimes goes unnoticed.  When one uses inverted commas in writing apart from referring to a text, we call these 'scare quotes'.  They generally make a point--sometimes it is irony, sometimes satire or sarcasm.  "Oh sure, you're an 'efficient' worker", likely means you are not efficient, or you are efficient in a way that is irrelevant.  It is important for journalists, editors and bloggers to understand this important usage.  Think Progress understands this:

As does Breitbarts's John Nolte:

ABC News, however, demonstrates a failure to understand when it is necessary to use quotation marks.  It seems likely they are actually quoting Twitter engineers.  Nevertheless, no one would doubt the veracity of the statement to such a degree that he might feel it necessary to call a Twitter spokesman to confirm they they are working to "resolve issue"--notice that the quote makes it seem that Twitter is employing a team of Cro-magnon men in their engineering department.  Because the inverted commas seem so out of place, one would easily read them as scare quotes--in which case the real meaning of the ABC tweet is "Engineers at Twitter smoking a blunt and macking on cool Ranch Doritos while you swear at your computer screen."  Though I have to admit, that does seem more likely than that they employ Neanderthals.

One swallow does not a Summer make.

Clichés of this sort stick around for a reason--usually because they are based on a fundamental truth.  In the conversation about gun-control there are many fundamental, logical truths that are side-stepped (so to speak) by the participants.  I'd just like to point out a few from today.

 

The first fallacy is the simplest, and it is the one to which the title of this post refers.  It is absolutely impossible to solve the issue of gun control (whether for more regulation, as intended by the first tweet, or against, as intended by the second) by referring to one case or a small sampling of cases.  The argument over gun control must be concerned first (though not solely) with statistics and studies.  If you're not slinging numbers, take your sloppy shit elsewhere because you are just muddying the waters.  In case you are interested, this is an instance of Hasty Generalization.

 

Next up is a classic Red Herring.  Notice that no rational participant in the conversation is suggesting that new regulations can eliminate or stop gun violence altogether.  The tweep above is absolutely correct, it would be delusional to think this possible--that's why we don't think that.  Perhaps I smell a bit of Straw Man here as well?

If we remove some of these simple errors in thinking from the conversation, perhaps we'll make some progress.

Gay Scouts of America.

The Boy Scouts of America announced on Monday that they will consider changing their policies regarding the inclusion of gays in the Scouts.  To be sure, the conversation regarding gays in the Scouts is not at all like the conversation about gays in the military.  That is, BSA is a private association and may exclude whatever group they like.  Nevertheless, they've decided to review their policy, which will likely result in allowing individual troops to establish their own policy at the local level.  Certain commentators are up in arms regarding the change.  However, their opposition is entirely uninformed--it would be incredibly offensive were it not for the fact that it reflects no familiarity with reality.  Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association argued that opening the doors to homosexuals would effectively make "Jerry Sandusky the new posterboy for Scouting".

There are two major flaws in Fischer's argument; one sociological, the other historical.  First, the suggestion that there is any relationship or causal connection between homosexuality and pedophilia has no basis in reality whatsoever.  His argument for the overlap between homosexuality and pedophilia, by the way, is a priori nonsense. 

Suggesting that an overwhelming percentage of pedophilia is committed by males against males does not mean the pedophiles in these instances are homosexual (not in any accepted sense of the term).  The second has to do with Fischer's fear that the BSA will suffer the same fate as the Catholic Chrurch--namely, a spree of molestations that will threaten to crumble the institution (notice the threat here is to the institution and not the actual victims).

The problem here is that Fischer has evidently not seen the news lately regarding what are being referred to as the "perversion files", a number of files containing information that points to "pattern of molestation" within the Scouts. 

Paul Ryan is a "chart guy"--but not necessarily a smart guy.

I keep hearing this vacuous sound-bite from the right (though it could just as easily come from the left): "We don't have a revenue problem; we have a spending problem."  The phrase is intended to dismiss calls for higher taxes, since we can get by with what we have--we just need to spend less.  This may very well be true, but it must be proven (or, at least, discussed rationally).  Simply asserting it, as Paul Ryan did again today, does not make it true.

It is always dangerous to compare household budgets to federal budgets, but the point I am making is so simple that there is little risk here.  If I do not have enough to pay my bills at the end of the month, I should not necessarily conclude that I need to work a second job.  If it turns out the expenses I cannot cover are gratuitous, I may decide to cut back on those presumed luxuries (here I have a spending problem).  If I cannot afford food, however, the problem requires a different solution (here I have a revenue problem).  You should see, at this point, the problem--without discussing the precise spending I am doing, no chart will allow me to draw any other conclusion than that there is a discrepancy between my income and my spending.

Science does not have all of the answers.

But it does have some, and progressively works to provide others while refining those that need updating.  There many scientific theories in the news these days with great political impact.  Perhaps the two most important are man-made global-warming (climate change) and the Big Bang.  The latter tends to be in the mainstream (as opposed to scientific) news because it conflicts with the theory of creationism (which, to be clear, is not the theory that god created the universe, but that god created the universe precisely and literally in the way described by the first book of the Pentateuch, Genesis).  Thus, certain educational systems are conflicted with regard to what cosmology should form the foundation of science classes.  The second, of course, affects politics more broadly and on a federal level.  If it turns out that humans cause or contribute to global warming (and on the assumption that climate change is bad--or at least bad for us), then something must be done legislatively about it.  The problem with the public debate (and the debate must be public precisely because it has consequences outside of the scientific community) is that the science involved is sometimes quite complex, and the average participant in such a debate may not have all the tools necessary for such participation.  However, there is a bare minimum for participation that I think the average non-expert can achieve quite easily.  That bare minimum is a basic understanding of what scientific knowledge is: that is, you should understand the scientific method, you should understand the importance of predictability and falsifiability, you should have some grasp on the meaning of 'fact', the importance of elegance and simplicity, and recognize the value of peer revue.  Most of these are basic notions one should learn in high school or college.  Nevertheless, many do not learn them, others forget.  The result is that public conversation regarding the social and political implications of science look like this:

Now, I am not interested in weighing in on the topic of climate change (though, you should keep in mind two things: 1. The debate is about human involvement, not whether or not it is occurring; 2. A particularly cold winter does not disprove global "warming"--a misnomer in any case--and can be the effect of such "warming").  What is important here is the misunderstanding of the nature of fact and the importance of consensus within the scientific community.  Many who are untrained or uneducated in science broadly speaking assume that science is concerned with the observable--if you can't see it, science has no business discussing it, and there can be no established fact regarding it.  Nothing could be further from the truth--indeed, theoretical physics is a wonderful example of establishing fact without direct observation.  One may ask what makes Copernicus' heliocentric system better than Ptolemy's geocentric?  Copernicus had no greater view (literally) of the solar system than did Ptolemy--the telescope had been invented by then, but that made no difference since such an amazing tool would have been useless (in this context) to someone standing on the surface of the earth.  What made Copernicus' system better was, first, its elegance/simplicity--that is to say, his theory of the solar system explained more phenomena within our solar system using less math (proportionally) than did Ptolemy's proposal.  Second, Copernicus' system was reliably predictive.  The point is that fact is a flexible notion and does not refer simply to that which can be sensed directly.  Consensus among scientists plays an important part in establishing scientific truth as well--this is one of the purposes of peer review journals.  Of course, your mom was right when she asked, "If all your friends jumped off the Brooklyn bridge would you too?"  You should not agree with an idea simply because most others do (what an incredibly dull and unscientific world we'd live in).  But without some reliance on consensus, we cannot make progress in science (by the way, the same could be said for disagreement).  All of this to make a simple point: to think that science equals consensus is a "science fail", but ignoring consensus altogether disqualifies you from any scientific conversation at all.  Of course, maybe Brian Kilmeade is correct and all the climatologists who suggest that humans contribute to climate change are corrupt.  But before I concede, I'd like to see his evidence--and before he provides that evidence I'd like him to look up the phrase 'circumstantial ad hominem'.

F for Footlong(ish)

In case you didn't hear about this controversy, an Australian teen and customer of Subway asked the chain why his foot-long was a bit shy of a foot.  Subway in Australia has responded and as you may have expected, their response is brilliantly stupid. 

Either they misunderstood the question, or they think this kid is using his foot-long Subway Sandwich to measure things. 

Obama’s 23 Planned Executive Actions On Guns

After VPOTUS reported to POTUS on suggested gun solutions, the White House issued a list of 23 executive actions POTUS plans to pursue in the immediate future.  None of these 23 items lists guns which are to be banned, nor are high capacity magazines mentioned (though both are certain to be addressed in any future attempts at federal legislation).  Indeed, most of the items have to do with information sharing and background checks.  However, there are two extremely interesting items on the list that are worth knowing about.  No. 11 is "Nominate an ATF director."  You might ask, "What the hell?  Why haven't you nominated a director already?"  In case you've not been watching the news about nominations for Secretaries of Defense, Treasury and State, this process has become a tug-of-war.  The same has been true of the ATF.  However, it seems that the Republicans are not alone in their dogmatic opposition to any Obama choice for ATF--the gun lobby has been pushing them on this issue for some time.  The gun lobby is likewise behind item no. 14. "Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence."  The CDC is very well placed and very well funded to conduct such invaluable research.  Nevertheless, the CDC's budget for such research was taken away some time ago after much pressure from the NRA lobbyists.

Saying something aloud doesn't make it true.

I keep seeing these same tropes in the gun-control debate, repeated as if they are true and relevant.  Todd Starnes repeats all three in rapid succession in his article entitled "Freedom, Tyranny and Granny's .38".  As the title suggests, Starnes believes that the only thing that stands between freedom and goverment tyranny is a gun.  I find this to be a sad commentary on what Starnes thinks of modern democracy--there are several institutions in place which are intended precisely to stand between freedom and tyranny: the voting booth, the Constitution, the system of checks and balances.  I don't feel the need to take guns of this list, but I find it strange that it would be not the first item on Starnes' list but the only item. 

As far as the first claim above--it is true that new gun legislation which criminalizes possession of an 'assault weapon' (however that is ultimately defined) or a large capacity magazine is not legislation that is specifically aimed at criminals, but neither is it specifically aimed at law-abiding gun owners.  Indeed, whether it is a good law or a bad one, it is aimed at all owners of such criminalized objects.  And as it turns out, most of the guns used in mass shooting in the last 30 years were obtained legally.

With regard to 'dismantling' the Constitution, the suggestion seems to be that any change to the Constitution equals 'dismantling'.  Nobody is suggesting that the 2nd Amendment be removed altogether.  Rather, gun-control advocates are seeking to limit the rights afforded by the amendment.  If you object to any change to the Constitution, you might want to look up the word amendment.  Incidentally (and as I've repeated several times), many of your constitutional rights are limited, even that most fundamental right: speech.

The solution to this problem won't be easy, but it will be easier without all this static noise competing for our serious attention.

US House of Representatives hard at work.

The House of Representatives has a Twitter account (as of right now I am assuming it is authentic), which they use to announce interesting news as to what they are deliberating, inter alia.  Moments ago I saw this post (ignore my reply for now)...

I assumed the link was to an article about American public schools or education reform or some such thing I followed it.  As it turns out, they want you to by 'get smart quick' software.  The link leads here:

The nomenclature of guns.

There have been a number of articles recently regarding the terminology we use to designate certain categories of weapons: what is an assault rifle/weapon? what is the difference between an automatic and a semi-automatic weapon?  I've addressed some of this myself in previous posts (I am not an expert, but I've been doing a modicum of homework on the subject).  Many have pointed out that 'assault rifle' is an extremely vague term--and it is.  Of course, there is only one conclusion to be drawn from this fact, viz., 'assault rifle' is an extremely vague term.  Without introducing further premises you cannot draw the conclusion that assault weapons should not be banned (this may be the case, but simply pointing out the vagaries of the nomenclature won't get you there).  However, I came across an even more interesting term this morning in an article on The Blaze: civilian rifle.  Without any context, I assumed this referred to hunting rifles.  Such rifles can be semi-automatic or entirely manual (they are generally not fully automatic).  However, the article, by Liz Klimas, suggests that the AR15 (the AR stands for Armalite, not Assault Rifle, according to Klimas) is a civilian rifle, a sort of cousin of the M16, the former designed for civilian use (whatever that may be) and the latter for military use.  Klimas is suggesting that there is a hard distinction between the AR15 and the M16, presumably with the intention of defending the former for civilian possession and use.  There are a number of problems here.  The first is historical: the AR15 was not designed by Armalite for civilian use but for military use in the early '50s--indeed, the AR15 seems to have been developed in response to the Operations Research Office, established by the Army in '48, looking for a better ground weapon.  The design was later sold to Colt and Colt marketed it as a civilian rifle.  The second problem has to do with functionality: the AR15 is not really functionally different from the M16--indeed, the M16 is simply the military name for an AR15 that has been slightly modified to be fully automatic.  The fact that the AR15 can be modified in many different ways is precisely what makes the gun so popular. So, sorting out the nomenclature is interesting, and helpful, but does not (on its own) lead to any relevant conclusions).

Here is a video of an AR15 modified to be fully automatic (this process, as far as I can tell, is entirely legal).

Three kinds of gun owner.

This is not a scientific distinction, merely a personal observation made by following the news regarding current efforts to introduce new gun restrictions by both congress and POTUS.  Nevertheless, the division seems fairly accurate if not comprehensive.  People own guns for one or more (they are not mutually exclusive) of three reasons.  The first is recreational: this includes both hunting and target shooting.  The second is for personal safety (and by personal I include protection of the family/household).  By protection, I have in mind here protection against home invaders of whatever sort.  This distinction is important because the last reason is for protection, but of a different sort.  The third reason has to do with protection of personal liberty against tyranny.  There is an entire group that is afraid (rightly or wrongly) that giving up guns (or at least certain kinds) will leave them vulnerable to the whims of a dictator.  All three reasons can be supported by reference to the 2nd Amendment, but the third is the most historically linked to this amendment.  That is, the 2nd Amendment is a reflection of concerns following the Revolutionary War (though not only).  Some of the rhetoric (I hesitate to refer to arguments here) has sparked a very specific question in my mind.

 

I understand and support the right to defend yourself and your rights (though I tend to think your vote will be more powerful than your gun).  But this sort of presentation leads me to ask, "who is holding the gun here?"  When you express your fear that 'they' may come for your guns, do you mean POTUS himself?  Do you mean the members of congress?  If that is the case, I think we could handle that force handily without guns.  However, if you mean the police, the Army, the Navy, Seal Team 6, then you've got some explaining to do.  What you are suggesting here, is that the Army (together with its commanders) is so docile that it would agree to invade its own country, repress its own citizens if so instructed by the government.  I would not rule this out on a priori grounds; but I do find this prospect preposterous at this time.  In order to advance this conversation, I think it important for those who support the 2nd Amendment for the third reason to identify the potential enemy as they see it.  For, if it turns out there isn't one, problem solved.

Gun-control continued.

There are a number of arguments which continue to appear in interviews and internet memes that seem, prima facie, relevant and conclusive, but that are easily seen to be void when one looks behind the curtain.  (N.B.: Once again, I am not arguing here in favor of gun-control, nor against gun-control--I am in favor of a reasonable conversation.)  The first comes from Ted Cruz, newly elected senator from Texas.  Cruz appeared on Fox News Sunday to declare that gun-control is unconstitutional.

To be fair, I have not been able to watch the entire interview, so I cannot say whether or not Cruz explained his meaning in more depth.  Nevertheless, Cruz's position cannot be supported either on philosophic grounds nor on historical grounds.  First, while the constitution guarantees certain rights, those rights belong to individuals, whose interest are sometimes in conflict.  Thus, freedom of speech is limited--the age-old example is that you cannot scream fire in a crowded movie theater knowing there is no fire.  Certain kinds of speech are restricted, indeed, to protect people from the abuse of the freedom of speech itself.  Further, the supreme court (whose job it is to interpret the constitution) have decided several cases which allow for the regulation and restriction of gun possession.

The second argument which is floating around on Facebook is a thoughtless meme:

This meme suggests that new gun regulations will not deter criminals from possessing and using guns.  The reason it seems convincing is because it is true--laws don't prevent crime.  Indeed, the simplest way to prevent crime (from this perspective) is to annul all laws (if nothing is deemed criminal, there are no crimes to be committed, no criminals to send to jail).  The meme, unfortunately, fails to recognize the distinction between legislation and enforcement.  It may prove to be impossible to enforce new gun-control legislation, but then that is the argument that should be made here (though it would not look as funny on an e-card). 

How An Analogy Works.

Much of the gun-control debate in recent weeks has not really been a debate at all.  Each side is speaking past the other, neither taking the time to understand the other.  Part of the problem is failure to understand certain features of logic, especially the analogy.  Analogies are not metaphors or similes, and they have rules that make them work (or not if they are not followed).  Here is a good example of failure to understand how an analogy works:

Mr. Howe's original analogy may be expressed this way: banning assault weapons is to mass gun violence as banning wrapping paper is to paper cuts.  His implication is, of course, that banning assault weapons is "legislative idiocy" (which it may very well be).  Nevertheless, and this is the important part, an analogy (in this case, a four term analogy--A:B::C:D) suggests that the first and third terms are similar, and the second and fourth are similar.  Take the mathematical analogy, 1:2::4:8.  The analogy establishes that the relationship expressed in the first analog (1:2) and that expressed in the second (4:8) are the same, viz. half.  But notice that you can examine the terms individually as well: 1 and 4 are similar in that they are half of 2 and 8 respectively.  Thus, in Mr. Howe's analogy, despite his objections to the contrary, the Newtown shooting is compared to a paper cut.  This comparison is precisely where Mr. Howe's analogy breaks down (as all analogies do at some point).  However, this is just one example of the faulty use of analogy in this debate.  One Twitter user compared banning guns to prevent gun-violence to banning utensils to prevent obesity.

And on Sean Hannity's show on Fox, Ann Coulter asked:

The simple answer is that in certain areas gun permits are a matter of public record (which is how The Journal News got their information), while medical records are not.  Coulter makes the point that such permits should not be public, and perhaps they shouldn't; but the analogy is not only useless to making the point, it's actually backwards.  I suggest we stop using analogies altogether in this debate.  They are unnecessary given the amount of information we have on gun violence in the US and elsewhere.