9/11 Changed Everything

I'm sympathetic to the gun rights cause, but Rudy Giuliani's rationale for embracing it really doesn't make much sense:

I also think there have been subsequent intervening events, September 11th, which cast somewhat of a different light on the Second Amendment and Second Amendment rights. Doesn't change the fundamental rights, but maybe it highlights the necessity for them more.

The trouble here, of course, is that Giuliani personally and the GOP more generally is deeply invested in the idea that 9/11 means we need more restrictions on individual liberties, not more rights. More broadly, this is especially odd because I think Giuliani had already been using a different, more plausible rationale for flip-flopping about gaining a broader perspective when he started to take a wider view of the country beyond the crime-plagued early nineties New York that was the initial impetus for his views.

Comments

This is so offensive on so many levels--9/11: if only we could have shot down the planes with our 9mm's.

Or maybe Rudy means the guns should have been on the planes. In the hands of pale folk, of course.

Posted by Andruw | September 22, 2007 2:56 AM

Also the other trouble is, uh what the fuck? How could stronger Second Amendment rights have prevented 9/11? If everyone were allowed and perhaps encouraged to carry loaded handguns onto airplanes? I mean, well everyone except Muslims? Or is the argument that if more people owned guns, someone probably would have shot the specific Muslims who carried out the 9/11 attacks, just on general principle, long before they ever got on board a plane or really did anything suspicious at all?

How long does Giuliani get to say things that aren't just batshit insane, but utterly incoherent and still get treated like he's a serious candidate?

Posted by Christopher M | September 22, 2007 2:57 AM

To repost what I just said on Kevin's site:

For the record, my opinion of gun control did change as a direct consequence of 9/11. The reason for the second amendment is to provide a balance of power between the government (who control the militia) and the people being ruled. For most of my life I assumed the need for this kind of power balance was obsolete and supported strong gun control. But I must say I was always a little unsure my assumption was correct.

Then came 9/11. Then came Bush's response to 9/11. For quite a while I felt we were only one terrorist attack away from martial law, perhaps even the postponement of elections. Bush proved to me that my assumption was incorrect, we still need the kind of balance the found fathers put in.

Somehow, though, I don't think this is what Rudy had in mind.

Posted by Mark | September 22, 2007 3:07 AM

The title of this thread points to what I think is the most interesting - and troubling - issue: the appropriation of 9/11 as an event that changed everything. The same argument has been used over and over in attempts to justify what would otherwise be contrary to how we imagine ourselves and our society.

Rudy's reasoning reminds me of Newsweek's Jonathan Alter, just after 9/11: "We can’t legalize physical torture; it’s contrary to American values. But even as we continue to speak out against human-rights abuses around the world, we need to keep an open mind about certain measures to fight terrorism, like court-sanctioned psychological interrogation. And we’ll have to think about transferring some suspects to our less squeamish allies, even if that’s hypocritical. Nobody said this was going to be pretty."

The point is that a nebulous, ill-defined threat, along with an event assumed to have particular symbolic significance, has throughout history given grounds for the shrinking of personal liberties and democratic space. Terrorism exists and is dangerous, but we need to beware of tenuous links and political moves made in the name of our safety, leading to the erosion of the bedrock of liberal society. This mostly commonly begins with the idea that "the world has changed".

Posted by Jim | September 22, 2007 5:31 AM

Giuliani corollary to "9/11 changed everything": "Everything that changed, changed because of 9/11."

Posted by Invigilator | September 22, 2007 5:58 AM

No, no. Giuliani meant more people would need to embrace and promote the great American tradition of HUNTING in the wake of 9/11.

Posted by Bill | September 22, 2007 8:49 AM

It's this simple: Guliani has a long record of being anti-gun, and rather virulently so. Running for President means, as a practical matter, that he has to convince a lot of gun owners that he has genuinely changed his mind. This requires him to invent a plausible rationale for why he changed his mind, to displace the obvious assumption that he hasn't, and is just lying for political purposes.

Since he thinks gun owners are morons, btw, he's satisfied with a very low value of "plausible".

The only relevance between gun control and 9-11 that I can see is rather indirect. Gun control being based on the idea that legitimate use of violence is reserved for the state, and that idea being related to the conditioning to NOT violently oppose hijackings which the 9-11 attacks relied on. As demonstrated by the one plane that crashed, the plot was rather dependent on that mindset.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | September 22, 2007 8:58 AM

It's this simple: 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! America's Mayor! 9/11!

Posted by Matt Weiner | September 22, 2007 9:23 AM

His argument is clearly that if someone on the plane had been armed, they could have shot the terrorists before the terrorists crashed the plane into the WTC. One popular proposal is to allow pilots, many of whom have military backgrounds, to carry weapons on the job. Or you could have armed air marshals, or some sort of program where people could get a permit to carry after passing an extensive background check.

There are certainly good objections to be raised about this position, but it's neither "batshit insane" nor "utterly incoherent."

Posted by Tim Lee | September 22, 2007 9:40 AM

Tim: none of that has anything to do with the second amendment, unless he's proposing that (more or less) everyone should be allowed to carry a gun on a plane. Giving designated officials on planes firearms is not a second amendment issue.

Posted by Ginger Yellow | September 22, 2007 9:49 AM

Qeustion:

Statistically speaking, when a 'law abiding' citizen, the kind of person Mat is sympathetic to arming, first uses the weapon legally purchased to deadly effect, is it in self defense or is it criminal or is it accidental?

The answer I believe is that when a gun is first used with deadly force by a gun entitled citizen it is generally used criminally, then accidentally, and rarely defensively.

(Except in Hollywood movies of course where the scripts are different from real life and these numbers are reversed.)

Posted by ken | September 22, 2007 10:20 AM

I'll say it again. The major rationalewfor Giuliani is that "he'll kill the sand-n****rs and that's good enough for me!" whatever his views on other issues are.

Ron Paul did the best job of explaining the link between individual rights and 9/11, that airline companies should have had responsibility for protecting the passengers, not put everything not hte hands of the state.

Posted by Glaivester | September 22, 2007 10:20 AM

I heard Giuliani didn't love his wife until after 9/11.

Posted by neil | September 22, 2007 10:23 AM

What he was TRYING to say, of course, was that stronger 2nd amendment rights would've kept cops from pumping 41 rounds into Amadou Diallo.

Or maybe he was trying to say that stronger 2nd amendment rights would have kept Columbine from happening.

No, that can't be it. I've got it. 2nd amendment rights would have kept Lee Harvey Oswald from killing Kennedy. THERE you go. 9/11 changed everything so much it went backwards in time, and Jack and Jacqueline lived happily ever after.

The end.

Posted by jonathan | September 22, 2007 10:55 AM

Isn't the more likely explanation that he's simply willing to pander to the nth degree to get what he wants, even if he contradicts himself from day to day? In other words, what Brent Bellmore suggested...

Posted by Brian | September 22, 2007 11:05 AM

The answer I believe is that when a gun is first used with deadly force by a gun entitled citizen it is generally used criminally, then accidentally, and rarely defensively.

Ken: Sounds right to me, though I have no evidence either way. My guess is that that (first) "criminal use" is by a person who didn't purchase the gun in the first place. And that, it seems to me, is the problem with such a loosely regulated "system" of gun ownership and distribution in the US: the absurd, almost surreal quantity of guns in circulation renders laws aimed at preventing the criminal use of firearms utterly meaningless and unenforceable. It's just a numbers game: a country the size of the US with, say, 50 millions firearms in circulation might enjoy at least some success in confining their possession to law-abiding citizens. But when you get to 200 or 300 million guns, there's no hope of that. At least that's how I see it. And that's why I think Matt's off his rocker to express sympathy with the gun rights "cause". That "cause" in the real world of American politics isn't so much supporting the right of ordinary citizens to own guns, rather it's supporting the right of ordinary citizens to own guns without being "hassled" by government measures aimed at blocking their illegal use.

Posted by Jasper | September 22, 2007 11:06 AM

Before 9/11:

Giuliani is not a natinal candidate, and has a typical mayor's position on the Second Amendment.

After 9/11:

Giuliani is a viable national candidate, and has a position on the Second Amendment to match.

Thus, 9/11 Changed Everything

Posted by CharleyCarp | September 22, 2007 11:26 AM

Good one, Charley.

I'm awaiting his explanation of how 9/11 changed his perspective on multiple nasty divorces and homosexuality.

perhaps even the postponement of elections

Giuliani did try to do this after 9/11. He's ahead of the curve!

Posted by mq | September 22, 2007 11:36 AM

The second admendment clearly calls for people who own arms to be well regulated. It says so as plain as day.

Since the purpose of allowing people to own arms was so that they could serve in a militia and the purpose of a militia is to defend the social system it is clear that the right to own weapons is contingent upon how it serves the public interest.

Where we have failed is not in allowing for an armed citizenry but in treating that citizenry as a militia and regulating them.

Posted by ken | September 22, 2007 12:12 PM

Did you guys ever see the Family Guy where Lois is running for mayor, and discovers that the answer to everything is just to say "9/11?"

That's basically Guiuliani's approach. No, it makes no sense. But hey, if it can get an animated character elected mayor in a satirical tv show, I don't see why it can't work in the Republican primaries.

...

"Mr. Guiuliani, can you please explain your approach to taxes?"

"9/11."

"What are your thoughts on abortion and reproductive rights?"

"9/11."

"What about your stance on health care?"

"9/11."

Posted by Peter Bautista | September 22, 2007 3:14 PM

Looks like someone already beat me to the Guiliani-Family Guy connection:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSk4SUpWVuY

Posted by Peter Bautista | September 22, 2007 3:31 PM

I also think there have been subsequent intervening events, September 11th, which cast somewhat of a different light on the Second Amendment and Second Amendment rights.

i.e. 'my long-standing support of gun use when it involves shooting brown people just got a lot easier to sell.'

He's a fucking fascist. That's all posts on him need to say: 'Rudy: Still A Fascist'.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | September 22, 2007 4:20 PM

Gun control being based on the idea that legitimate use of violence is reserved for the state, and that idea being related to the conditioning to NOT violently oppose hijackings which the 9-11 attacks relied on.

Except that's a Procrustean non sequitur.

If there was any 'conditioning', it was the kind built upon the precedent of What Gets You Out Alive. And that precedent still holds today.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | September 22, 2007 4:49 PM

One is also reminded of the "Arrested Development" episode in which Dr. Tobias Funke is commenting on the demise of his marriage, and, as a throwaway, remarks:

"Well, there was 9/11, which certainly didn't help anything."

Posted by Ben Cronin | September 22, 2007 5:24 PM

I think the matter that changed a lot of people's minds was not 9/11 but seeing NOLA police desert their posts and the only protection in NOLA from black thugs and looters was the armed citizen defending home and family from the thugs. (And downtown corporations and Gov't with the money to hire Blackwater and private security agencies to safeguard their interests).

Nothing like people realizing that cops have no duty to defend anyone, cannot be sued ever -for failing to do so - And only have a duty to law enforcement and to not be violating "rights".

Which was followed of course by the idiot Nagin's attempt to deal with black thugs by unconstitutionally (so the courts held) invading the homes of the remaining black and white homeowners and confiscating their firearms.

A friend of mine was 16 when Charlestown was hit by Hugo and all the phones were knocked out. No way to call for help, and cops honestly admitted they had no resources to help most callers or a way to get to them. While the storm winds were still blowing, blacks began fanning out from their 'hoods on looting parties. He was handed a 30'06 by his Dad and helped guard their shoe and sports good store. Blacks bypassed it, but half-cleaned out a liquor store a block away before cops chased them.
He said that he realized then that the right to have firearms to defend yourself and your property was critical to his safety and life in certain circumstances that not only could arise, but DID arise..

And the right to keep and bear arms to prevent tyranny was given Americans BEFORE the American Revolution. It stems from the Glorious Revolution of 1688 - which empowered all law-abiding men to own a firearm to defend their nation and faith. There was no garbage about "only the militia and a well regulated one under the control of a tyrant had the right." And it defies logic that men who rebelled against a tyrant, King George, wanted guns to be a monopoly of the Ruler, wanted to take away the right of colonists to have firearms to defend against hostiles or to hunt for food.

As for the liberal shibbeloth that "guns are far more likely to hurt the owner or family" than be used in valid defense, the Sociologist Jonathan Kleck has set an academic case up for the last 15 years that demolishes that argument by noting stats of "non-shooting" defense where just display of a gun causes thugs to back off, and the stats of deterrance where the possibility that homes or businesses are defended scares off thugs.
And when he pares off the liberal dishonesties of gun-related homicides by removing suicides - and child related gun deaths by noting 3/4ths of them are inner city thugs aged 15-18 shooting at one another, bystanders, innocent victims and the guns are damned illegal in their hands to start with but liberals won't lock the young thugs up - Kleck's case for gun ownership being safe and a very valuable practice - makes a lot more sense.

Posted by Chris Ford | September 23, 2007 12:01 AM

Given the unfortunate fact that many African Americans are overwhelmingly represented among victims of gun violence, and the apparent ability of scholars to prove the defensive value of firearms, it seems only fitting that gun rights supporters finally step up in defense of these beleaguered citizens.

I challenge the NRA to begin a program of distributing subsidized or discount firearms to inner city African Americans, with use and safety training to boot.

I am sure that most of our resident posters would no doubt agree.

I am puzzled as to why a program of this type has not yet been advanced by those who are so convinced of properly used firearms' abilities to defend innocent citizens, but I'm sure it's just an oversight.

Posted by El Cid | September 23, 2007 12:09 AM

"I am puzzled as to why a program of this type has not yet been advanced by those who are so convinced of properly used firearms' abilities to defend innocent citizens, but I'm sure it's just an oversight."

It could have something to do with the strict gun control laws in many major cities, the difficulty of screening for law-abiding, mentally healthy aspiring gun owners in the inner city (would the NRA have any authority to conduct these background checks?), the hostility of big city mayors to this sort of proposal, and perhaps even the lack of demand for legal guns by inner-city residents who already have access to illegal guns. But feel free to propose it directly to the NRA and let us know their response.

Posted by Fred | September 23, 2007 12:21 AM

Chris Ford: "I think the matter that changed a lot of people's minds was not 9/11 but seeing NOLA police desert their posts and the only protection in NOLA from black thugs and looters was the armed citizen defending home and family from the thugs."

Now Chris, I am a liberal who thinks gun control is largely an ineffective policy, but c'mon, that has nothing to do with your position on the issue--be truthfull.

'Katrina' situations are kinda rare. You would have to be an idiot to base your overall policy on guns on that scenaio.

Posted by Andruw | September 23, 2007 1:26 AM

...But feel free to propose it directly to the NRA and let us know their response. Posted by Fred

I don't quite understand.

Why is it I would need to "propose" this to the NRA? They have constantly argued that a properly armed and trained citizenry is safer.

They also are fully aware of the statistics regarding who is most commonly preyed upon in gun violence by criminals.

Are you suggesting that the NRA never thought to bring the two facts together -- that (a) African Americans are overwhelmingly the victims of gun violence by criminals and (b) law-abiding citizens properly trained and bearing firearms are more protected from criminal gun violence?

The idea that the NRA would fail to propose or push a project so central to their core identity because of this or that local politician or law is silly.

The idea that the NRA has simply forgotten to connect its advocacy of firearm ownership as safety to its knowledge of the demography of victims of gun violence is also silly.

So, again, why isn't the NRA doing everything it can to arm our black citizens against the epidemic of criminal gun violence they face?

Posted by El Cid | September 23, 2007 9:00 AM

Ed, two reasons.

First, because as has already been pointed out, an awful lot of our black citizens chose to live in jurisdictions where it would be essentially illegal to do as you propose.

And, second, because the NRA is a remarkably risk averse organization faced with a hostile media.

Were they to do as you propose, and arm and train 10,000 law abiding black citizens, the one or two gang bangers who slipped through and then committed a crime with their NRA provided gun would get all the publicity.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | September 23, 2007 10:06 AM

Ed, two reasons.

First, because as has already been pointed out, an awful lot of our black citizens chose to live in jurisdictions where it would be essentially illegal to do as you propose.

And, second, because the NRA is a remarkably risk averse organization faced with a hostile media.

Were they to do as you propose, and arm and train 10,000 law abiding black citizens, the one or two gang bangers who slipped through and then committed a crime with their NRA provided gun would get all the publicity.

Posted by Brett Bellmore

I'm sorry, I've failed to find any NRA policy documents expressing that it is limited to either a rural or white constituency, nor that they are concerned about any negative media attention by numerous arrests of white criminals using firearms.

I also fail to see any sign that the NRA is reluctant to campaign to change or challenge laws or ordinances with which they disagree, or which they argue conflicts with 2nd Amendment necessities, nor that they are reluctant to challenge the 'hostile' (or 'liberal' as others would say) media on any point whatsoever.

These points too fail as an adequate explanation of why the NRA fails to successfully promote its self-defense and anti-crime through ownership of firearms position to the heavily gun-violence benighted African American population of our country.

Posted by El Cid | September 23, 2007 10:38 AM