‘Common Sense Gun Laws’ Make a Comeback After Tucson Shooting
Following the January 8th shooting in Tucson, an understandable discomfort swept through the American populace. Jared Loughner had killed six people in cold blood, which means six families were irreversibly changed in an instant. Yet while the discomfort is understandable, many of the suggestions for how to prevent the re-occurrence of such a crime have not been.
This is mainly because the majority of suggestions have included some mention of new gun control measures, whether they are tied to guns themselves or to the magazines used to hold bullets in semi-automatic pistols. Worst of all, these suggestions are being pawned off on the American people as a way for the government to keep us safe.
Have we not yet existed long enough as a nation to know that the government cannot keep us safe under any and every circumstance? Are we not lucid enough as citizens to know that any new government involvement in our lives will diminish our liberties, even if safety is the proposed aim?
Therefore, we should always be wary when politicians are quick to pounce on disaster for political gain as was seen in the aftermath of Tucson.
Since January 8th, members of Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” (MAIG) have been among the most vocal pushing for new gun control legislation. One of the members of that group, Carolyn Comitta, mayor of West Chester, PA, said as much when she posited partial blame for the shooting on a “lack of common sense gun laws.”
In March 2009, my PJ Media article, “Common Sense Gun Laws: Obama’s Attack on the Second Amendment,” highlighted the manner in which such laws serve as a subterfuge by which the Second Amendment can be skirted, thus opening the door for the government to pass new laws infringing on the very rights our Founders declared should not be infringed upon.
In 2011, as in 2009, the key to understanding the revived push for “common sense gun laws” can be found in the way Mayor Bloomberg implies over and again that there aren’t enough regulations on gun purchases, while MAIG explicitly states that the Tucson shooting was the outgrowth of “insufficient regulations,” among other things. Because more regulations are the real substance of “common sense gun laws,” the push for more such laws should send shudders down the spine of every freedom-loving American. For they entail nothing less than further encroachment into our lives by a government that has taken to itself the extra-constitutional job of babysitting us and looking out for our good — Founders’ intents be damned.
‘Common sense’ gun laws translate into arbitrary and incremental disarmament of American citizens.
I’ve several state’s carry permits, which allow me to carry in most states in the United States. However, I must be very careful while traveling because the laws vary so much from state to state.
I can’t imagine a single additional law that would make a difference in the gun-related crime in America. Do you?
Having a dialogue with the grabbers like the MAIG is not only waste of time, but dangerous.
Should the media commence writing factual stories on guns and gun crime would make a huge difference and improve our situation.
Should the politicians, of which 40 per cent can’t name the three branches of government, start thinking and quit spinning we’d have a chance to create a better America.
No retreat, reload!
“I can’t imagine a single additional law that would make a difference in the gun-related crime in America. Do you?”
Yes. If only someone else had had a gun at Tucson, the toll would have been much lower. Two, if the second gun was a good shot.
A law to encourage more people to have guns would have been helpful. I would suggest requiring all citizens to obtain minimal firearm training (whether or not you intend to ever own or use a gun), but that would be unconstitutional at the Federal level – and probably have unintended consequences at the state level. (Although a few towns in Texas do have something similar.)
I know this will be an unpopular stand with most of you guys out there, but I never could understand why we, as a nation, never take a common-sense approach to guns? Why do we always go to extremes? I am, and always have been, a strong supporter of the right to bear arms. But why can’t people be allowed to own revolvers (with six shots in them), shotguns, and hunting rifles, and NOT M-16 or AK-47 assault rifles and semi-automatic handguns? Why can’t there be certain weapons that can ONLY be used by law enforcement and the military, such as assault rifles and semi-automatic handguns, but NOT by the general public?
If you’re going to go hunting, you’re going to use a hunting rifle or shotgun. You do NOT need a 30-clip semi-automatic assault rifle. If you want an handgun for self-defence, a six-bullet revolver should be enough to take care of any trouble you’re in. After all, if you need more than that, you’re either a gang member or involved in the gunfight at the OK Corral (hey, wait a minute, they used six-shooters there, didn’t they?). There really is no need for the average citizen to have all of this firepower, and if most NRA supporters out there were really honest about the subject, they would agree.
But somehow we’ve gotten to the point where our law enforcement officials now have to catch up to the firepower that the criminals have, not the other way around. If these semi-automatic rifles and handguns were never sold to the general public in the first place, odds are criminals would not have them today.
AND I WANT TO MAKE THIS VERY, VERY, CLEAR. I have NO illusions that by getting rid of these semi-automatic weapons all crime will go away. Not at all. However, if the criminals don’t have access to them, then they will have to use the less powerful but still deadly revolvers. Only law enforcement and the military would have the more advanced weapons, as it should be.
What difference would that make? Well if the shooter in Arizona only had six shots instead of 30-clip magazines, which can be easily re-loaded by an experienced gunman, he still would have killed one, two, maybe even three people, but he would NOT have been able to kill 6 and seriously wound 12 others. And that’s a fact. The shooter would have had six shots before needing to re-load, and by that time he could have been subdued. True, he could have been carrying two guns, but still the rate of fire would have been a lot, lot lower.
OK, now I’m prepared for the deluge of people out there to tell me that I’m wrong. Just remember, I’m saying this NOT to get rid of guns AT ALL. We should be allowed to have as many rifles or revolvers as we want. But there still does not seem to be, at least to me, any reason why average citizens need to be as well armed as our military or police forces. That only gives the edge to the criminals who eventually have access to these weapons. The right to bear arms means just that, you have the right to bear arms. It doesn’t mean that you should be as well armed as the local SWAT team, and I think police officers everywhere would agree with me on that.
The Second Amendment is not about hunting.
Give the devil the little finger and s/he will take the whole arm. Our rights have been incrementally robbed via ‘common sense’ gun-control laws.
I doubt any explanation would succeed with you.
“The Second Amendment is not about hunting.”
Tim, if you read my post, I never said it was ONLY about hunting. I said people had a right to bear arms. So, according to your logic, people can buy an endless amount of bazookas and anti-tank rockets on the open market too. I don’t think that’s what the Founding Fathers had in mind. You have the right to bear arms to form a militia, but it doesn’t say that you have the right to have a cannon in your house, too. According to your interpretation, you can have anything you want. Well, swell. Then the criminals out there will be better armed than most of the SWAT teams out there. A little common sense would go a long way in keeping the body count down in a lot of shootings here in the US, especially where gangs are involved in major cities. But I guess you’re not bothered by that at all.
So, according to your logic, people can buy an endless amount of bazookas and anti-tank rockets on the open market too.
Americans do own artillery pieces, fighter jets, tanks …
I don’t think that’s what the Founding Fathers had in mind.
Feel free to think whatever you want.
According to your interpretation, you can have anything you want.
Yes, and I have.
Then the criminals out there will be better armed than most of the SWAT teams out there.
Have you ever met a single SWAT team member??
A little common sense would go a long way in keeping the body count down in a lot of shootings here in the US, especially where gangs are involved in major cities.
The gang members, some 800,000 of them, commit 75 to 80 per cent of the crimes in America. Feel free to go after them.
Do you have any idea how many law abiding gun owners suddenly turn into crime? How many carry permit holders commit a crime. To my knowledge, not a single Class III weapon has ever used in crime.
But I guess you’re not bothered by that at all.
I could not careless about gang bangers killing other gang bangers. The problem with them is that people like you keep them in the streets even after they’ve been caught with a weapon – 10 years additional prison time.
None of your “sensible” suggestions or weird ideas would make any difference, because the problem is not the law-abiding gun owners of America. It’s not the high cap mags, ‘assault weapons’ …
This like describing colors to blind …
The previous post was mine
Tim
“So, according to your logic, people can buy an endless amount of bazookas and anti-tank rockets on the open market too. I don’t think that’s what the Founding Fathers had in mind. ”
That is exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind. Take a look at this for an example of their thinking:
“To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;”
(U.S. Constitution, Section 8 )
http://patriotpost.us/document/the-constitution-of-the-united-states-of-america/
Liberty, do you know what a “Letter of Marque” is? Once you find out, consider carefully the implications of the Founders granting such power to Congress, and the necessary conditions & assumptions that must exist for that power to have any meaning.
While you’re checking that out, try reading the Federalist Papers:
http://patriotpost.us/document/federalist-papers/
And the much-under-appreciated Anti-Federalist Papers:
http://www.constitution.org/afp/afp.htm
Three thoughts:
1. You have missed the purpose of the 2nd Amendment – to ensure that the People are able to protect themselves from tyranical governemnt.
2. Semi-auto (and full-auto) firearms are easy to make by any machine shop. Obviously our military and others would still have them – so they would make their way to the public regardless of laws. Prohibition never worked well in America.
3. We are at the compromise position. The paperwork, fees, background checks, and general invasion of privacy I have to go through to legally own a firearm are all compromises. Enough.
I agree with you. Isn’t the only real difference between a semi-automatic and an assault rifle, the size of the clip? This would not go over well with the folks who see the Second Amendment as the right to have armed rebellion, keep the government honest etc., but it seems to me that limiting clip size makes sense. Right now, I think that it varies from state to state. I think that here in Mass. there is a limit to a fairly small clip (and some others may be legal if there is a welded addition which limits the capacity) but making an attempt to limit our mass murders to ten at a time (yes, skilled people can change their clips very quickly, but still it at least provides an opening in some situations) makes sense to me.
BUT, we also know that ANY added regulation will bring howls from the usual suspects.
Dwight your Masshole ignorance is amazing – glad I left that state long ago.
“Assault rifle” = a reduced power rifle (NATO 5.56 not 7.62 or Russian 7.62 x 54), select-fire (full AND semi-auto capability), detachable magazine (capacity undefined). True military versions of the M4 carbine or Ak-74 are “assault rifles”.
“Semi-Auto” means that you do not have to re-cock or work a bolt between shoots. A double-action revolver is semi-auto. So are some of the .22′s I used in Boy Scout camp.
I second.
I have found that engaging the grabbers into a dialogue is waste of time.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_KgIqQvYUs3I/S7tX5MNIfVI/AAAAAAAAWYI/_E7HT9paH-w/s1600/Humor_funny_journalists_guide_to_firearms_ak47_glock.jpg
Ya know, pal, people like you and Tim are the reasons why you can never have a decent discussion about guns in this country. You figure by insulting people it makes your point, rather than just showing how stupid you really are. Hey Einstein, if you own an AK-47 or an M-16, the difference between semi-automatic and fully automatic is NOT that huge. With the types of clips they use and the capabilities each gun has, it just means you can kill people a little faster. Again, if THAT is your goal in life, then either gun will do.
But, if you want to be a gun owner for either home protection or sport, then you really don’t need all the extra firepower. Many Americans do just fine with shotguns or hunting rifles. But to have an assault rifle with 30 or, worse, 60-round banana clips, is just not necessary. Deal with it. But, if you’re one of those “Black Helicopter” guys who thinks we’re about to have another Civil War in the next week or two, then knock yourself out. Live with your paranoia and have a great day. Hopefully, you won’t end up killing somebody with all the useless hardware you bought.
If I was going to commit murder, I’m pretty sure I would violate other laws too.
Maybe I would get a nice scoped bolt-action hunting rifle – say a .300 magnum. I could shoot my victim from a different zip-code and be gone before they figured out what direction the shot came from.
Or, I would buy two pistols, or three or four. No reloading needed, just 2-gun the thing. Or just make an extend mag in the local high school metal shop (or an entire Sten gun for that matter).
Or, just sneak up and quietly knife him in the back…
Tell me again how “common sense” gun laws are going to prevent murders.
I’ve fired many full-auto weapons – it’s overrated by gun fearing wussies and Hollywood. Only the hits count…
The reason for the unintelligent discourse is the fact that you’re ignorant of the facts. You’re merely spewing your emotional opinions.
There exist no 60-round magazines, and they’re not called ‘clips.’
There is a huge difference between a full-auto and a semi-auto.
Note to self:
Like I said, we have already compromised.
No more.
In NJ, a lot less.
What about a Remmington 700 bolt action rifle. Is that ok? A trained user can fire off 10-15 round a minute. Is that an assault rifle? should high powered hunting rifles be limited to one shot?
Wanna see what a man can do with a limited amount of ammunition then watch the following link!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DpCellB_UQ
And to beat it all there is this guy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iS9uGktUCrY
Good thing about limp wristing a revolver it will fire again but not all semiautos, but most of the modern weapons do not have that problem.
By your logic, if you’re not a professional race car driver, you don’t need anything bigger than a 4-cylinder engine in your car, because you have no need for more power than that. You just using your car to go from one place to another.
It’s not about need. I should not be restricted by someone else’s perception of my personal needs. I WANT to own an “assault rifle” because it’s fun to shoot, much the way other people WANT to own BMW M3′s because they’re fun to drive. And the capacity of the magazine really has very little to do with how many people you can kill and how quickly. I have personally seen people with 30-round magazines fire every round, and only hit the target twice. A good marksman can change mags in one second or less. How many bullets you have in your gun is only very loosely correlated to how many people you kill; sure, it ups the potential body count, but there are a million other factors that influence that as well. These are all points that are lost on the gun-grabbing lobby, and no amount of explaining will resolve that.
Your posts show the typical lack of logic when discussing gun regulations. Criminals typically do not procure their guns legally, so demonstrating that most criminals would be armed better than SWAT teams is silly. Many criminals already are better armed than police, with guns they bought off the back of a truck, not from a legal source. This is a point that gun regulators either don’t fully understand or ignore because it doesn’t fit their argument.
Jared Loughners are few and far between, and if he wasn’t able to get his weapons legally, he would have gotten them illegally because he is a mentally unstable person who was hell-bent on doing what he did. If he didn’t use a gun because he couldn’t get one, he could just as easily have used home-made explosives or some other kind of weapon. Nothing in the world would have stopped Loughner from doing what he did.
People are jumping all over you because you show the general lack of knowledge of guns and shooting that is typical of most liberal gun-grabbers, and the same general refusal to learn the facts about guns before you jump to conclusions.
The premises underlying your arguments are false. The purpose of a firearm – or any weapon for that matter – is to defend one’s life, liberty and property. The first principles argument is, therefore: to whom does your life belong? All else follows from that: your right to your own life implies the right – no, the duty – to defend it.
Further, those who presume to tell me that I cannot own a firearm – or limit the effectiveness of same – are not just pissing on the United States Constitution and the Second Amendment; they are presuming to tell me how much my life is worth. Those who wish to limit my right to defend myself, my family AND my property see no reason to make it easier for me to defend the same. You – and they are declaring their supremacy over me by presuming to judge my life and its value. If there is a more tyrannical worldview, I don’t know what it might be. History clearly illustrates the fate of the unarmed in the face of tyranny. Lost in your utopian dreams, perhaps you missed the fact that over two hundred million unarmed and defensless civilians were murdered by their own governments in the last century alone. The savagery continues virtually unabated in this one.
The venerable Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, writing in his landmark The Gulag Archepelago offered this observation:
The price of non-resistance, of helplessness in the face of tyranny, institutionalized or otherwise has always been terrible. Always. Everywhere.
Oh, and spare us the “it can’t happen here” nonsense. Forty years ago our opponents expressed a willingness to send one American out of every eight to the ovens – and not as pastry chefs, mind you. Those are the barbarians – the monsters – we face today. Some of them are now 0bama regime ‘czars’. Perhaps you missed that one, too.
So your bland, oh-so-reasonable, man-in-the-middle approach to this – and many other topics, I might add – is intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt. To persist in the absense of historical fact is merely ignorant. To willfully persist in the face of that knowledge is evil.
Ward
“To persist in the absense of historical fact is merely ignorant. To willfully persist in the face of that knowledge is evil”
Awesome, I’ll have to use that line on the next liberal moron I come across, on a whole slew of topics.
Thanks, please do. There’s no copyright on common sense. As for Libertyship, he’s conspicuous in his absence. To quote Frances McDormand in Fargo, “He’s fleein’ th’ interview, he’s fleein’ th’ interview…”
Hey Root, your pal Ward Dorrity is wondering why I’m not answering you guys anymore. Well, my mom always told me never talk to crazy people. And, like the lady in that “happy” little movie he quoted, Fargo, I answered, “Ya.” By the way, how many semi-automatic guns did those killers have? And didn’t the female sheriff in that movie only have a .38 six shooter? Funny how that works out.
Anyway, I’ve grown a little tired dealing with you paranoid nuts. If you want to read my response to Tim Ackerman, look at post #30. And if you do respond, try reading the post before you answer. I do assume that even black helicopter people like you can still read before spewing out your nonsense.
The best way to “limit the clip size” of a mad shooter is to have an armed sane person with good aim present.
The last semi-automatic handgun to use a “clip” was the 1898 “Broomhandle” Mauser. The last rifle to do so was the venerable M-1 Garand.
Modern weapons (since the early 20th Century), with few exceptions, use MAGAZINES.
The rest of your gun knowledge is equally, uh, lacking. Please get a basic education on the subject before continuing to debate it publicly.
Libertyship46 – What hobbies do you enjoy? Now think about someone who knows next to nothing about that hobby creating regulations for it. For example you like radio controlled airplanes and you like to fly giant scale planes that take large dangerous propellers. Why do you need something that big? You should be happy flying rubber band airplanes. You are just too stupid to know what is “common sense”.
Hey Ken, before you start calling people stupid, stop and think about what you’re saying, son. To the best of my knowledge, a radio-controlled airplane never killed 6 and wounded 12 in an Arizona supermarket parking lot. Whatever hobbies I have isn’t the point, bud. You’re not talking about some innocent hobby like golfing or swimming, you’re talking about owning some serious weapons that can do some serious killing, as was shown in Arizona recently and as was also shown with the Virginia Tech mass murders. I never said get rid of all guns, just the opposite. But I did say that there WERE weapons that average citizens don’t need and should not have. These are weapons that are designed for only one thing and one thing only, killing lots of people in a short amount of time, which is why armies around the world have them. So, unless you’re one of these people who approve of making a point by killing lots of people, you may want to think twice before making silly comments like the one you made. Next time, read my post, bud. You might actually learn something (although I doubt it).
Once a jihadists decides to put a couple of pounds of dynamite on a radio-controlled plane and fly it into a crowd, we will cetainly have to ban them. Way too dangerous for civilians.
But I did say that there WERE weapons that average citizens don’t need and should not have. These are weapons that are designed for only one thing and one thing only, killing lots of people in a short amount of time, which is why armies around the world have them.
Spoken like the now-out-of-the-closet elitist that you are. Regardless of your service, your contempt for the average individual is unseemly and disgusting. I’ve had high regard for your participation in the PJM colloquy, but your attitude to toards such a fundamental and first-principles right to self-defense is apalling and unconscionable. Was it your time in the service that planted the seed of that comtempt for the rest of us?
So yes, “weapons that are designed for only one thing and one thing only, killing lots of people in a short amount of time” in the hands of ordinary citizens are perhaps the only thing that will keep tyranny at bay – or at least provide a fighting chance to do so. Thank God that I own rthem and are highly skilled in their use. It’s that very idea that gave Isoroku Yamamoto pause in consideration of invading the US. “A rifle behind every blade of grass.”
So don’t look now, but we’re all living in what’s left of a seriously weakened Constitutional republic in which the collapse of the ideas underlying individual liberty is very far advanced.
Take a good long look at what’s happening now in America. Then dare to turn around and take another look. If what they’re saying doesn’t square with what they’re doing; if it looks like there’s an concerted effort to destroy our once Constitutional Republic and replace it with… something else – then you’re probably right. None of what’s happening today makes any sense unless you look at it that way – and then it makes a perfectly clear and terrible sort of sense, doesn’t it?
By every measure of reason, this regime is working to destroy our republic for their own ends. Even at its worst, America with all its faults, is a paradise compared to the concentration camp culture of the Machiavellian Marxists who have gotten the upper hand today.
So I’ll stay armed, thank you very much. And ready to do what I must when the time comes.
Hey Shipmate,
Sorry we seem to be in a pissing contest.
I generally respect most of your posts.
So, please, stop calling me paranoid… I’ve tried to be VERY CLEAR with the, yes, unavoidably unpleasant notion regarding what the second amendment means…but there is no way to sugar coat it.
There is no OTHER way to describe its intended purpose… Which is the right for us to depose our leaders by force of arms, if they become tyrannical…A horrible, horrible thing to consider, nothing I look forward to at all, and everything I will do to AVOID. I would rather DIE than see that day happen in my country. But we cannot deny that right exists, and the 2nd Amendment is there for just that purpose, and no other.
Its not OUR fault the Founding Fathers contemplated such a thing. They just fought a war for survival, and they didnt want anyone here to have to do that, ever again. The 2nd Amendment was to BE that last final gaurantee…more as a deterrent, I suspect, but none the less, they made sure the final authority on what “freedom” is, rests with US not the the govermment, and they gave it TEETH.
Accusing us of ill will, and violent tendencies, for simply pointing out this inescapable historical truth is unfair. Please consult the texts and the debates of the men who wrote it, in their own words, not mine, and you’ll see the meaning is clear, without question or doubt.
You see buddy, its an agreement…an agreement between us and our government…WE allow them to possess VERY powerful weapons, to arm agencies, departments, divisions and brigades to PROTECT US.. but with the understanding they promise never to turn them AGAINST US..We trust THEM, and they have to trust US..when they dont, I get indignant.
Because, in my small town, WE armed the police force… WE have given them the authority, on our behalf while we sleep, to patrol the area with arms…..We are fully within our rights, as a Free People, to perform this task ourselves, but for nothing other than CONVENIENCE, we together, have elected to hire the job out to SERVANTS
Servants we entrust with deadly force and arresting powers we all agree to respect, so long as they are faithful, honest and don’t abuse us with those powers. They are our SERVANTS, not our MASTERS. The Powers they have are OURS not THEIRS.
WE in turn arm THEM, with the type and style of modern firearm that best serves the purpose to PROTECT PEOPLE, while they sleep.
In return, we maintain the right to continue to possess OUR OWN WEAPONS….that are the same as THEIR weapons….because their weapons ARE “our weapons”. Simply put, their weapons AND ours, are rightfully so, the best and most modern arms available, for PROTECTING PEOPLE.
We arm them, and we arm OURSELVES, with the same style of weapons for no other reason. The fact we have hired them to patrol while WE sleep, does not change this fact. Nor does it EVER change our rights to remain as modernly armed as they are, to act as a DETERRANT to them, or to those who could order them, to bring us harm.
So, when guys like YOU say “I say six shots is enough” I worry…
Why are YOU so eager to give away MY rights?
So eager to disarm me, to the point of impotence against our own servants, if, God forbid, they become truly monsterous some day?
Could you ever trust a Nancy Pelosi, a Harry Read, an Al Sharpton, or a David Duke, or a Gov. Wallace, or a Joe McCarthy or an Al Gore…or for that matter, even a Sara Palin, or a Ronald Reagan, SO MUCH WITH YOUR LIFE AND MINE, that we should have the means to depose them taken AWAY? Forever?
Do you, really trust ANYONE in politics THAT much?
If you DO, thats more frightening to me than any gun you could ever own.
You see, when a gun-banner says:
“we need a law! I say, YOU dont need that crazy assault-machine-thingie!”
What they are ultimately saying is:
“If I had my way, tomorrow I’d send armed men to enforce MY social/political opinion that you dont NEED to be that well armed”
You dont need all that firepower as a civilian, huh..
Great concept when the guys WITH it are carrying out YOUR political will.
Not so much the other way ’round
That, my friend, is the DEFINITION of Tyranny.
If these semi-automatic rifles and handguns were never sold to the general public in the first place, odds are criminals would not have them today.
Like cocaine which is never sold to the general public is not available either right? do you really think that if we outlaw 30 clip magazines, they won’t be manufactured and smuggled into the U.S. enriching organized crime syndicates? Oh wait, it worked for liquor right?
This is similar to the argument they made in Australia, that a semi auto should be illegal, but a pump action should not. Then when the gun owners said they could use a pump almost as fast as a semi, they outlawed pump actions also.
Slippery slope my friend.
And if the people can’t be as well armed as the government, how do we protect ourselves from the government? Much less how do we protect ourselves in the event of a collapse of the government? Or do we just naively believe that it couldn’t happen?
“And if the people can’t be as well armed as the government, how do we protect ourselves from the government? Much less how do we protect ourselves in the event of a collapse of the government? Or do we just naively believe that it couldn’t happen?”
Buddy, if our government is about to collapse and if we really do need to protect ourselves from our own government with assault rifles, then an AK-47 or M-16 isn’t going to help you. Our problems will be a heck of a lot bigger than what type of rifle you own, and you know that.
Consider the answer to this question – not too dissimilar to yours.
What good is a handgun against an army?
I don’t believe that the U.S. Army, National Guard, or Marine Corps would participate in a tyrannical crackdown on the American People. Too many of them (like me) take that oath to the Constitution seriously. The National Guard isn’t going to go through their own neighborhoods confiscating their own property – silly. At worst, the military would disintergrate like it did in 1860 / 61.
It is the alphabet agencies that would wage that war, just like Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said similar things about the Soviets. If people had simply attacked the NKVD whenever they shpwed up to ship somebody to the gulag, the Soviet Union would have collapsed decades earlier.
“There really is no need for the average citizen to have all of this firepower, and if most NRA supporters out there were really honest about the subject, they would agree”
Please consult Article 2, Bill of RIGHTS, US Constitution…the part that says “shall not be infringed” does not, and SHOULD NOT BE INTERPRETED to read “you can have what we think you’ll reasonably need under most “normal” circumstances as we see them”
It is an unpleasant subject to bring up, particularly in todays manufactured claimate of fear regarding “vitriolic” rehotoric. They have set up the narrative to a point where doing so is “proof” of our craziness but the truth is what it is…and that TRUTH is, the Second Amemendment is not about hunting, sport shooting, or even personal defense…
Its about the need for the public at large to maintain its own sufficiently effective supply of combat arms, to effectively, physically prevent the imposition of a tyranny. The Elected Goverments real physical fear of us, armed and ready to resist their darker ambitions, IS THE PURPOSE this right is pointed out in our Constitution.
The Constiitution does not “create” this right for us, this right already naturally exists because we are FREE. The Constitution only mentions it to effectively, in writing, provide us with an inarguable moral AND LEGAL footing, to REVOLT WITH ARMS should they over step their bounds.
If we allow, at some point, the government to control WHAT types of firearms we may own, HOW they function and operate, and HOW MANY or HOW OFTEN we can obtain them, then they have the right to dictate the following:
Single Shot
Air Powered
Syrofoam bullet
One
Per lifetime.
And what will we say then? Its not fair? Aw come-on? Please?
A better policy to prevent gun crime would be to procecute, under EXISTING FEDERAL LAWS every 17, 18, 19, and 20 year old gang banger ever aprehended with a HANDGUN.
Every criminal discharge of a firearm in a “drive-by” whether anyone is struck or not, is defacto attempted MURDER, and treated as such.
These would effectively stop a lot of crime, by punishing the GUILTY…but thats NOT what the gun grabbers want.
They want POWER, and will call us lunatics and paranoid while, pointing to YOUR talking point about “who needs that much firepower” as proof that we are “extreemists” for simply speaking up to defend our rights against their intrusion.
We need to call the 2nd Amendment what it is, a physical check on their power, without apology or compromise.
Hey Root, you said, “They want POWER, and will call us lunatics and paranoid while, pointing to YOUR talking point about “who needs that much firepower” as proof that we are “extreemists” for simply speaking up to defend our rights against their intrusion.”
Then you said, “Its about the need for the public at large to maintain its own sufficiently effective supply of combat arms, to effectively, physically prevent the imposition of a tyranny. The Elected Goverments real physical fear of us, armed and ready to resist their darker ambitions, IS THE PURPOSE this right is pointed out in our Constitution.”
Naaaa, who’s paranoid? Especially when you mention the part about resisting their “Darker Ambitions.” I can almost hear the black helicopters coming our way, bud. If things are going so bad that we have to defend ourselves from our own government with assault rifles, you’re going to have bigger problems than gun ownership. With people like you there never is any compromise. Let them keep their 30 or 60 round clips, their Semi-automatic rifles and handguns. Own it all, because you never can tell when “they” will come to get you.
Unfortunately, I don’t think you would find one cop or one law enforcement officer who would agree with you. Since they are on the front lines and have to deal with your interpretation of the Second Amendment, I trust you won’t mind making that argument, again, to the families of police officers killed by criminals and gang members armed with semi-automatic handguns or semi-automatic assault rifles. Go ahead, bud, I dare you.
Buddy,
Please READ the constitution, and please READ the Federalist Papers that clearly explained why an armed population is needed to ensure freedom.
Its not MY interpretation…it is clearly, inarguably WHY they put it in the Constitution for. Not MY opinion, but the opinion of the men who crafted the language. And went to GREAT lengths to expound, explain, and clarify, IN WRITING, WITHIN IN THER OWN LIFETIMES exactly what the meant, so NO ONE could mistake or misconstrude the intent.
As I said, its an unpleasant subject to bring up…no one wants to sound like a loon talking about overthrowing the government, but thats WHY they put it there….thats the reason for it, and people (the media, hollywood, and well intentioned, but sadly ignorant folks like you) have created and/or ENABLED a false narrative, where a simple TRUTHEFUL conversation about the Second Amendment really means, equals dangerous paranoia.
“To live free or DIE”, as some state mottos say…is regarded as frightening language today by the left, and all who say such things instantly suspicious.
Or how about “the right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, and the State, shall not be QUESTIONED” as my (pennsylvania) State Constitution says.
See that? Not even QUESTIONED, no debate AT ALL on the right. And thats not MY opinion, thats what the STATE CONSTITUTION SAYS about owning guns.
If I point that out to a Philly Political Democrat gun-grabber as the reason their “common sense laws” are unconstitutional, they inevetably call me a dangerous blood-thirsty maniac.
Remember, the “original” gun banners in the 1970′s went after handguns… Their “story” was, the 2nd Amendment protected only “military style, shoulder fired long guns” as soldiers werent typically armed with handguns as their primary weapon…so (they reasoned) if they ONLY BANNED HANDGUNS, they were in-line with the intent of 2nd amendment, as military arms were still available to the “public militia” to defend against tyranny.
A little while later, the SAME PEOPLE argued that “military style, shoulder fired long guns” should be BANNED, and claimed the 2nd Amendment NEVER meant to protect a “soldiers weapon of war” because they had no “sporting use”
See the duplicity?
THIER story changes with the wind, contradicting their previous arguments while angling for wahetever they THINK they can get away with.
MY story is the same as Jeffersons, Madisons, Washingtons, Adams and the rest. And simply pointing that out makes me an “extremist” to you, and the rest of the left
Hey, if you want to change the Constitution, you CAN DO THAT….
But there is a process that (unfortunately for them) involves a CONSTUTUTIONAL CONVENTION where changes are approved BY THE POEPLE OF THE STATES VIA THEIR VOTE OF APPROVAL ON THE CHANGES.
They will not subscribe to that…They dont trust us to to give up our rights….they want the changes to creep in slowly, by royal fiat, by exectutive order, by the Divine Rule of The Elite under the cloak of “common sense” while deamonizing those who call upon them to repect the Principals of the Constitution as they are.
And you are helping them.
“Naaaa, who’s paranoid? Especially when you mention the part about resisting their “Darker Ambitions.””
Sir, you are profoundly ignorant of the basic principles on which this country was founded. Such “paranoia” (as you naively call it) about the nature of man and of power was very much front and center in the minds of the framers of our Constitution.
You are destroying any credibility you ever had as a conservative.
I suggest you start reading.
That only gives the edge to the criminals
who eventually have access to these weapons.
The sort of ‘criminals’ who rule by assassination in Mexico ?
In the US, the combat trained citizenry outnumbers the criminals;
When the Hard Times and the accompanying ‘Social Unrest’ arrive,
no enemy, foreign or domestic, criminal, terrorist or subversive,
can succeed—unless the citizenry is disarmed.
Libertyship
I take you at your word that you are not interested in keeping Americans from owning “reasonable” weapons with which they can defend themselves. Fair enough, but you’re position betrays your bias and your ignorance.
Many responses to your post have pointed out that the 2nd A. is indeed precisely for the purpose of allowing the civilian population access to weapons for the sole purpose of protecting us from a tyrannical government to which you basically reply – “nonsense”.
I note that your WEB site is all about the Navy and its storied history. Why do we have a Navy? Air Force, Army, Marines, ETC? To protect the collective citizens of the US from the Tyranny of foreign powers. The government, under the approval of the people, have the tools, weapons and power at their disposal to protect the collective citizenry from tyranny. The 2nd A. provides the individual citizen with the same ability. One without the other is useless.
Why you ask? Our founding fathers understood that human history had, up to that point, provided no examples of governments that lasted for any length of time, that didn’t eventually engage in the direct infringement of its citizen’s liberty. (In fact, historically, governments that granted the citizens true autonomy and liberty are shockingly rare. Most started from the presumption that the state is superior to the citizen.) Knowing this, the founding fathers had no reason to believe the government they just formed would be any different!
One of a multitude of quotes that address this fact is Jefferson’s:
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
He was talking about our government in particular and he didn’t quibble about if this would happen but rather when!
Enough said from me. Surely you can address the specific historically accurate comments we have posted by citing evidence that contradicts us rather than your unsupported opinion. That is the basis of a debate.
Finally, your really are choosy about who you respond to.
Ward Dorrity’s response to your post # 2 surely is deserving of a response, yet you have ignored him altogether. I think the reason you ignore him is that you are utterly incapable of making a cogent argument that contradicts the points he so eloquently makes.
Try responding with facts rather than your opinion that a gun with 6 bullets is good but one with 15 is bad! (Many have pointed out the lameness of that opinion which you have utterly ignored.)
The Second Amendment protects weapons suitable for war, not for hunting. The whole purpose of that amendment was to have an armed populace as a check and balance against an armed government. That was to “convince” the government of the new Republic that their was very little future in becoming authoritarian, and , as a last resort, we the people were to reinstate the Constitution by force of arms. During the 1700′s hunting and military weapons were pretty much the same. These days, they are not, they are the semi-automatic and full automatic military style weapons like the M16 and AK47. These are the very weapons, the Founders would have protected under the Second Amendment, and for civilian ownership. They wanted “we the people” to constitute a potential threat to the government, to make sure it honored the new Constitution.
To allow the government alone to own such weapons, imbalances them against us. Criminals will always be able to get these types of weapons, just look at the Mexican drug cartels. No gun control law will prevent that.
“But why can’t people be allowed to own revolvers (with six shots in them), shotguns, and hunting rifles, and NOT M-16 or AK-47 assault rifles and semi-automatic handguns? Why can’t there be certain weapons that can ONLY be used by law enforcement and the military, such as assault rifles and semi-automatic handguns, but NOT by the general public?”
The answer is very simple, “Liberty”.
The entire purpose of the 2A is to ensure that Americans remain armed with MILITARY grade weapons (as they were in colonial times), so that they may successfully carry our an armed revolution against a federal government gone bad.
It’s NOT about personal self defense, it’s about the MILITARY defense of our basic liberties, by the general population.
Our current restrictions on the private ownership of canons, rockets, grenades, etc., are unconstitutional.
I’m sick of the term assault rifle. Many rifles are semi-automatic. New Hampshire only allows for 5 rounds or less. Why wouldn’t I take my AR-15 hunting, because ridiculously under-powered compared to a hunting rifle which has 3 to 4 times the impact power than an “assault” rifle. Assault rifle is leftist newspeak for scary looking gun that we can attempt to regulate through fear, which is how the left attempts to pass all their idiotic regulations.
Secondly, gangs don’t buy legal weapons. Your argument has no weight. A infinitesimally small number of murders are committed by people with legal purchased firearms. Stricter gun laws are not the answer. Stricter punishment is. As we saw with Brian Aitken, a person who did nothing but have a disassembled gun in his trunk got SEVEN years. Seven years. There are rapists and murders who get less, and are paroled even sooner. Bring back the death penalty for murders and the crime rate will go down. Not this 20 years of appeals nonsense. One appeal, and then out to the gallows for public hanging.
I know this is as broken as a broken record gets, but look at the facts. Cites with draconian gun laws have higher crime (period).
Rik, you’re heart is in the right place, but the correct phrase you are lambasting is “assault weapon”.
“Assault weapons” are any firearms, usually semi-automatic, that “look scary” to anti-gunners and those who are generally ignorant about firearms functionality. Typical “assault weapon” features are: having a dark synthetic stock, “carrying handle” sight (like the AR-15 and its variants), “banana clip” (modern 30-round detachable magazines), a pistol grip (ergonomics), folding or telescopic buttstock (for easier storage and to accommodate different body types), a threaded barrel (to attach a sound suppressor or aftermarket muzzle compensator), and anything else those morons can think of.
“Assault rifle”, on the other hand, is a legitimate term simply referring to select-fire (being able to change fire modes e.g. safe/semi/burst/auto) rifle chambered in intermediate calibers like 5.56 x 45 NATO or 7.62 x 39mm Soviet. The term comes from the word sturmgewehr, meaning “storm rifle”. This is what Hitler called the MP-44, the first true assault rifle that was manufactured by Nazi Germany. Storm as in “storming the enemy lines”. An infantry weapon with the firepower and accuracy similar to a rifle and the rate-of-fire, capacity, size, and handling similar to a sub-machine gun. Military terminology refers to the act of storming as “assaulting”, hence the word, “assault rifle”.
You are completely correct, and it was simply the rage dripping off my keyboard, that I didn’t correctly phrase that.
A revolver is a semiautomatic hand gun. A semiautomatic is one shot per trigger pull. So by banning semiautomatic handguns you would be banning all but the old single shot pistols of a bygone era. At least know what you are talking about before posting.
“At least know what you are talking about before posting.”
Yes, please do. A revolver is not a semi-automatic. Your definition is incorrect.
Actually that is not true of all revolvers. I had a single action 357 magnum made by Ruger which required that I cock the weapon each time before pulling the trigger. If you fired this weapon and then pulled the trigger again nothing would happen you have to physically cock the gun with each shot fired!
And would you admit that your post suggests more discriminatory subtle protection for members of government agencies than allowed for common citizens?
Police are prohibited from interdiction in any public conflict unless satisfied that a crime has been committed usually a day late and a dollar short. Would you suggest a Louisville slugger bat for use between citizens and armed criminals? Just what do you think qualifies anyone for exclusion from the undeniable term “shall not” wherever used in your constitution?
Any related state legislation is by definition direct infringement of the 2nd amendment and prohibited by article 1 of the 14th amendment. Ask what the difference is between may and shall in legal terminology.
A Chinese ship quietly delivered a load of small arms and ammo to a port on Mexico’s Pacific coast two years before the drug wars began to make headlines. I hope you don’t think they were for use by their common citizens. If the US laws and almost unlimited DEA property seizure authority can’t stop high profit drugs why would you believe they can stop any other high profit items?
I doubt that there are many jealous of a police pay check but dilution of constitutional guarantee will never diminish their real risks, Just face the glass at all times at KrispyCreme and post one at the cruiser radio. If you’re alert and lucky you can make retirement. I did.
“However, if the criminals don’t have access to them, then they will have to use the less powerful but still deadly revolvers.”
That’s a MIGHTY BIG “if” there. The criminals will ALWAYS have access to illegal weapons. That is what crime is all about. If there is a criminal shooting people at an event, I don’t want the law abiding people present to be out gunned.
You ask “Why can’t there be certain weapons that can ONLY be used by law enforcement and the military, such as assault rifles and semi-automatic handguns, but NOT by the general public?”
Do you recognize the statement “…That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”?
If not, look it up; it’s the bedrock of this discussion.
It says that the government can only exercise powers delegated to it by the governed; I have a right to protect my person and property, therefore I can delegate to the government the ability to establish a police force to protect my person and property.
If I do not have a right to own “assault rifles and semiautomatic handguns”, I cannot delegate that right to the government.
Therefore, if I don’t have a right to own them, then the government doesn’t either.
To the left, it’s “common sense” that we shouldn’t own guns.
Liberals use the Mantra of “gun control” to disarm law abiding citizens who might rise up in rebellion against liberal infringement of constitutional rights. Since Criminals care nothing about the law, laws against firearms are irrelevant to them.
Let’s just accept that fact, and realize that we will always have to fight for our second amendment right to protect ourselves against both the criminals and the left
Even in a second amendment friendly state like Virginia gun laws can be perverse. Last week I purchased a 22 caliber rifle for target shooting and coon hunting. When I went to the store to pick up my rifle I filled out the paperwork and waited for the “instant” background check. The clerk comes back and apologizes because the Virginia State Police have to do an additional background check as I had popped up on an FBI database. The database in question was the FBI register of people holding a security clearance. (I have just about every ticket in the book.) It only took a couple of hours for me to “pass” the check so it was only a minor annoyance. If I were just an ordinary citizen, say a strange 22 year old, without any kind of record, I would have walked out with 9mm handgun within a few minutes. It is just this kind of silly regulations that allowed Tuscon to happen.
Common sense gun laws = universal safety training.
That should about do it, I should think. Cheap, effective, and shows that guns do not walk around on their own, do not chase people down the streets, do not cause mental conditions to suddenly manifest and the only net negative is to the bank account for ownership, cleaning supplies and ammo.
And being able to do a basic cleaning of a pistol or rifle, not a full strip cleaning but after range maintenance cleaning, should be part of the universal safety training. Guns also do not take care of themselves and an owner has a responsibility to care for those just as much as any other tool in the house… and to use it properly. Safety begins with the owner, not the gun.
I am a Firearms Instructor, I agree that training is a good thing…
But Government approved re-education?
Government REQUIRED re-education?
How long is the “school” before youre allowed to have a gun?
A week? A Month? 5 years?
Once you give them that right over you, they can change it at will, because its not “your right” anymore, its their “responsibility” to “public safety”…and only X-number of classroom slots are available for “certain people” that “need it”, so sorry, no gun for YOU.
Do you propose “re-education” to exercise to other Constitutional rights as well?
Like, which books you can read? Like, how to vote responsibly?
What tests do you propose, and what ‘score” shall we need to “pass” and be “allowed” to speak our minds, read, vote, etc etc etc.
Be careful what you with for, you just might get it.
Not the federal government, that’s for sure.
States have the militia authority for non-standing military, and a simple cirriculum change for a State would allow that to take place. It in no way jeopardizes the right to keep and bear arms, and by famaliarizing the population with common firearms safety it makes for a safer exercise of one’s liberty. That would be a positive support for the citizen’s militia responsibility under the Dick Act and help the States to have ready capability under Art. I, Sec. 10.
I do not approve of new federal regulations in this realm, at all. But a robust State could and arguably should familiarize its citizens with arms for the defense of the State in times of invasion or danger when the federal government does not have the time, willingness or ability to respond. The defense of the States, plural, is up to the people of the States, and we would hope the federal government would respond to a State in danger, but federal capability just can’t be everywhere, all the time…
The Department of Civilian Marksmanship has been around a very long time…It is (almost) free, and voluntary.
You can (or used to be able to) obtain a surplus “service rifle” at a nominal fee, as it was recognized for many generations there is a public benefit to having basic rifle marksmanship skills, and familiarity with the standard government service rifle, spread out among the general population.
Since the Clinton Era, (and before) they have been hard trying to shut it down, always moaning “why are we selling weapons of WAR to civilians” and the danger of “more guns on the street”. Not to mention destroying, or refusing to release, highly valuable caches of WW-2 era weapons that the collectors market would love to have available. Guns that in no way would become black market crime pieces, but rather valuable historic and FUNCTIONAL collectors pieces, in the hands of Real Patriots that LOVE their country….
Which to them, means “dangerous freaks” because All guns are “bad” and anyone who wants them is “bad”, too
Thats why I’m certain any “training” requirement from them in the future would be a punitive measure.
A burden, rather than a bennie like the C.M.P.
A requirement, because they dont trust us.
A threshold to meet, with a continuously moving bar.
A way of segregating the “suspicious”, controlling, and ultimately denying our right because it too…(chose one)
expensive to fund, difficult to administer, dangerous, creates legal liabilities, health risks (lead) and hearing loss (noise) and of course, the government should be “teaching people to kill”
Once the “program” stops, people are now “untrained” and since training was SO important it became a requirement, how can we let them be armed but not trained?
Since no one would tolerate required “Training” to surf the internet, or read a book, no one should tolerate required “training” to posess arms either…
Its a Trojan Horse
I agree with your concerns, Root, but ajacksonian didn’t say anything about REQUIREING safety education before gun ownership is “allowed”.
I think it would be great for each of the States to put basic firearms familiarization and training into their education requirements for public schools.
Try, as I have to get the “eddie eagle” program into schools….and see what happens.
Its says only:
“if you see a gun STOP! DO NOT touch it. LEAVE the area. Tell a RESPONSIBLE adult.”
Simple, basic, A-Political, common sense steps to avoid the tragedies of liberal nightmares “when kids find a gun”
AS soon as they hear about it, they hate you…guns need to be BANNED, any mention of them must include that message or you are a bloodthirsty MANIAC encouraging kids to KILL.
The level of emotional un-hingement I’ve gotten from school administrators when I try to introduce that to them is frightening.
I’ve literally been threatened with ARREST, not to mention all the “how DARE you!”
Nothing that ever becomes “policy” regarding firearms training can ever be anything BUT punitive with these leftist freaks.
In fact, the anti-gun, crime-ridden city of Chicago recently mandated training at a public gun range for anyone who wanted to legally own a gun. Then they outlawed gun ranges.
The “enlightened elite’” have no interest in “making us safer”. Except where the term “us” means only themselves.
They are terrified of the rest of society, which they view as illiterate, stupid, crazy, and dangerous. Mainly because the rest of society repeatedly refuses to worship them as they believe they deserve, and give them the absolute power they believe they are entitled to. So, if we won’t give it to them on demand, they’ll just take it by force. (“Force”, by the way, is another word for “We control the government, and thus control you.”) Disarming the law-abiding public is one way of doing so. (It has worked very well in every dictatorship in history, after all.)
Also note that those who demand “gun control” are invariably the ones who insist that they have a “right” to armed bodyguards. “Leading by example” isn’t their style, unless the example they seek to emulate is Al Capone. Note that “Snorky” rarely carried a gun himself; he “had people” to do that. (Besides, he preferred a baseball bat for serious social intercourse, anyway.) They hold that as long as they don’t touch an “evil” gun themselves, but have someone else carry it for them, they’re not hypocrites.
Well, sorry. They are. Also power hungry, duplicitous, arrogant, corrupt, and notably lacking in anything resembling a conscience. Claiming they “are on a higher moral plane” just means they have an exaggerated opinion of their own wonderfulness. Which probably explains most of their theories on “The Way Things Ought To Be”.
clear ether
eon
Camel’s nose – tent.
No. I only own a bolt action .22 rifle. This doesn’t affect and isn’t about me. It’s about the principle of “shall not be infringed.” If you want to change the Constitution, amend it. No more wink and nod.
Single shot or a magazine? Be careful.
Joseph Pelleteri won a Marlin 60 in a shooting match and brought the little .22 home to NJ, threw it in his safe and forgot about it. He was charged with owning an “assualt weapon” because you could stuff more than 15 .22 short rounds into the tube.
He was convicted, lost his livehood and his firearms collection.
Judas H. Priest; A _lever_action_ assault rifle ?!?
Well, yes, he could have added the same mod that John Wayne
and the Rifleman used, and become a second Vincent Cole.
The deadly weapon is political/judicial power, in the hands
of officials like the ones who perpetrated the travesty of
Justice above, which is common enough, and ignored enough,
to make it clear that during Hard Times, the citizenry needs
to be armed to defend themselves against ‘criminals’ of all
kinds.
Yep – a tube-fed, lever action, .22 Short assault rifle.
Product of “common sense” legislation written by people who have never fired a gun.
So; These elected psycho’s now think THEY have “common sense”? I know other countries are publishing this news about our politicians, and getting more readership than the comics section. And a lot more guffaws.
We look like a nation of fools.
No, they think they have superior intellect, education, and moral standing.
“Common sense” is all they expect from we inferior creatures, and, of course, common sense in their world means agreeing with their superior intellect, education, and moral standing.
See how it works?
I think it’s always scary when the government wants to do something for the people’s own good, particularly when the government is being run by people from a party who took part in chanting “keep your hands off my body” during the 1960s. Actions for our good are obviously a cover for actions that increase the government’s power in our lives.
Yes, the government should indeed “keep your hands off my body”…
I agree, a human body is sacred, inviolable. Everyones body, particularly a womans, is 100% THEIRS to do with, what and how THEY decide, 100% of the time, no exceptions, ever!
Which raises the question:
“WHEN, exactly, was it “yours”, and not YOUR MOTHERS body?”
And the liberals head explodes!
Just like the 2nd Amendment, their version is detached from reality.
Jared Loughner should not have been allowed to have a gun. OTOH, he should not have been allowed to ride a bicycle either. Or have access to matches and gasoline. Or OTC medicine. Or household chemicals. Or power tools. Or non-power tools.
The debate should not be about guns. It is well established by now that guns in the hands of sane, law-abiding private citizens benefit society.
The debate should be about how to handle insane, law-breaking people.
Bill is correct; he hit the nail squarely on the head. The recent disaster in Tucson should, but has not, focused on how to deal with a dangerous psycho. The PM has been filled with the agonies of loved ones who state they have been told by government workers that there is nothing that can be done prior to a crime, when an adult is probably insane. There should be careful debate on some temporary means whereby via some low level legal action, e.g. a temporary restraining notice, a person must lose their freedom long enough to be examined by a mental health expert, and during this interim, their weapons are taken away. Our police – medical interventions need strengthening, and increased funding, over existing priorities. This will require legal balancing against the 2 nd Amendment.
We do need common sense legislation on guns. One must be the repeal of the miasma of current Byzantine laws which were intentionally created to chill law abiding citizens from truly exercising their Constitutional rights. It is quite clear that a large portion of our legal profession considers the constitution simply a piece of parchment, which can be trumped by regulators and bureaucrats. This is the conflict. They do not care about a few insane people; they do not trust armed Americans.
Example: There has been a decades long effort to allow sworn police officers to fly civilian airplanes with their weapons. These people are trained on the use of a weapon in crowded urban environments. With common sense legal requirements, e.g. notice to the pilot prior to boarding, the proper weapon characteristics, and certification, we could vastly increase our defenses against terrorists. The reason we created the non functioning TSA is that Washington leaders do not trust armed Americans who do not report to them.
This is the reason we can not enact common sense gun laws.
Thank you, R L.
Maybe if a certain Sherriff’s department had follow-up on the complaints filed against Loughner – and the death threats he supposedly uttered against them, he would have been in the background check system…
Exactly, the sheriff screwed up and the NICS did not stop the guy.
If memory serves, of the ~14,000,000 checks in 2009, 0.004% of the applications were stopped by NICS.
We already have hundreds of gun laws on the books already and they aren’t working. Let’s try a different approach that will actually improve the situation – let’s repeal our existing gun laws, so that criminals aren’t the only ones with guns. Stop putting the burden on the sane and the moral, and giving advantage to the criminal and the crazy. The police can’t be everywhere, nor do we want a society where they were. In an environment where a criminal could regularly expect to meet with deadly force during the conduct of their criminal enterprise all but the most hardened would learn to control their urges and their opportunism. And we should make it easier to put loonies into confinement, while we are at it. Then we would see our currently low crime rates fall even lower.
Gun control doesn’t work because criminalizing otherwise law abiding gun owners doesn’t deal with the actual problem of crime. Of course if you’re a democratic corporatist (the accurate name of our current form of government) turning law abiding citizens who want to be able to defend themselves into criminals is a feature, not a bug. The criminal class and the crazies are their allies, and by all means to be protected. The rest of us don’t benefit from that approach, and shouldn’t settle for anything less than the restoration of the 2nd Amendment as the law of the land.
Ever notice how the guys who don’t care for the 2nd Amendment, don’t respect the 1st either? Gives you a hint, anyway, doesn’t it?
And we can’t miss the fact that phrasing gun control as “common sense” is another way for the Left to shame us into obedience. For who wants to go against common sense?
They have forfeited the presumption of good will. Like every other law on the book, “that will never happen” will be transformed into “I’m sorry, but it’s the law.”
Don’t even start. Shall not be infringed, repealed, or changed by further amendment. That’s the rule.
We already have at least 10,000 “common sense” gun laws; they do not prevent people from being shot by madmen, nor criminals from shooting each other and honest citizens every day. A few more won’t make any difference to the madmen or the criminals, just the honest citizens.
Even if the Progressives finally achieved their ultimate goal and outlawed gun ownership in the US, the criminals would still have guns and would sell them to madmen as well. The only people without guns would be the honest citizens. If we can’t stop foreigners who illegally cross the border and openly work in our society and if we can’t stop illegal drugs from being imported, how are we going to stop illegal guns from being imported?
The large magazine argument is just the target of opportunity that is available to the gun grabbers this week. Their long term plan is to outlaw the ownership of guns of various types, and with various features one type or feature at a time until they are all outlawed.
If you extend the argument that the Framers of the Constitution didn’t envision this or that type of gun, and therefore it is OK to ban them, we will be left with muzzle loading flintlock muskets that burn black powder as the only legal guns. And of course, black powder gives off toxic fumes and lead is a pollutant which can poison children and cute animals, so the shot and powder will be taken off the market by the EPA.
Common sense tells me that once again the Progressives are cynically exploiting a tragedy to take away our rights and increase the power of the State, which is them, the party of government.
Progressives are exactly the type of people the Constitution was written to protect us from. That is why they keep trying to annul it, one nibble at a time.
I believe the real figure is well over 20,000
The Second Amendment IS a common sense gun law. If the idiots in D.C. keep attempting to infringe upon our rights in violation of that Amendment, there WILL be another American Revolution. The Constitutionally astute citizenry will not continue to sit by and let the Government do what they’re doing.
The original colonists sat by and endured the King’s edicts until finally, they could no longer stand it. It will be the same here. Remember if you will that the vast majority of colonists didn’t originally support the Revolution, only about 10-20% EVER officially did. Those who got involved later on did so because of the depredations of British troops against the colonists, not because they supported independence.
Clean weapons, dry powder and peace.
For folks who balk over the rhetoric about the 2nd Amendment being intended to give us a defense against the government, let me give an example that doesn’t quite rise to that level:
The 2nd Amendment let Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and his followers defend themselves against the Klan, which was the unofficial enforcement wing of the governing powers in the South at the time.
Remember the “protest” that surrounded a guy’s home and terrified his family? How about the anti-Walmart march announced this week that includes a march on the developer’s private home? You think that kind of protest doesn’t have a chance to develop into violent assaults on those homes? Shouldn’t the targets of those protests be allowed to defend themselves and their families? Considering these “protests” are being organized primarily by government employee unions, why should the government be given a veto over the ability to defend themselves?
Also, in 2004, the AFL-CIO organized “protests” in multiple states that turned into assaults on Bush-Cheney campaign headquarters. Campaign workers and volunteers were assaulted, and at least one person suffered a broken leg. Do you think those “protests” would have turned violent had the “protesters” thought they might be attacking people able to defend themselves?
If gun laws cannot keep guns out of the hands of criminals then what is the point of any gun control laws?
All gun laws exist for one reason only, and that is to totally disarm the honest law-abiding citizens in order to make them fully dependent on the government. The first rule in Lenin’s Bolshevik/Communist/Socialist Playbook was to make all citizens dependent on the government for everything – from food, to jobs, to health-care, to safety. Gun laws have no effect on criminals, or the criminals would not commit crimes with guns. Anyone who thinks passing a law prohibiting a criminal from using a gun to commit a crime must wonder why we still have crime – although there are already laws prohibiting murder, rape, robbery, etc.
We MUST remember we can’t be divided on the type of gun that’s legal. To be divided makes us vulnerable to defeat!
Now that a pipe bomb was found in Washington state it’s obvious we need a law to prevent this from happening again. Maybe we should limit pipe sales to only allow lengths over 6 feet from being purchased. Of course, we’d also have to a have a law limiting the sales of saws.
I think there should be a 3 day waiting period on the purchase of fertilizer also. A little of that and some aviation gas can go along way. Would you anti-gun types be happier if the those six people died by truck bomb.
Or, as Archie Bunker said to his daughter, Gloria, when she rattled off some statistic about how many people are killed with hand guns. “Would it it make you feel any better, little girl, if they was pushed out a wind’ah.”
I am sure the police will need their firearms like my former shreiff who is in a Federal prison for drugs, etc.
Dwight
You are basing you opinions on emotion and hot facts. You haven’t taken the time to learn anything about firearms and seem go get all of your information from CNN and FOX. Both organizations have talking heads spouting nonsense from the information they get from teleprompters. That information is written by 20 year old interns that also don’t have factual information.
Your statement ” I think that here in Mass. there is a limit to a fairly small clip (and some others may be legal if there is a welded addition which limits the capacity)” Sir, you wouldn’t know a clip from a magazine from a toilet seat.
The Second Amendment’s intention was to allow citizens to be armed so they could fight the army, IF and I repeat IF the citizens found that course of action necessary. Until about 1933 there were really no Federal Firearms controls. Would you care to guess how much this control costs now?
Well, I don’t take gun magazines with me when I sit on the toilet seat, but without unlocking my gun safe, I vaguely recall that the clips to my .303 Enfield British hold about ten rounds and the pump shotgun holds about six, but I will admit that I do all my hunting with a bow, single shot shotguns and a Kodiak CVA black powder beauty. You on the other hand, probably don’t even hunt; many gun cultists I know don’t want to take their range time to hunt, which is obviously not in God’s plan for us as I see it.
Guns don’t kill people in the exact same sense that automobiles don’t kill people and no one is arguing that the automobile be banned. Those who’ve experienced and understand the real world, that is the one we actually live in, recognize the unavoidable if regrettable fact that making new laws will in no way prevent criminals, the law breakers, from acquiring weapons while definitely making it more difficult for law abiding citizens, that would be the ones in need of protecting themselves from the aforementioned criminals, to legally acquire a gun. Gun Control only makes sense to those who will use the tragic, gun related death of a child, pregnant woman, elderly person, etc. to play their “emotion” card for political gain.
Gun control advocates and, understandably perhaps, law enforcement agencies, do not believe that the average citizen is in possession of the necessary faculties, experience, training, intelligence or self control to responsibly own a potentially lethal hand gun for the protection of themselves, their family and property but are they less so than the violent criminal? And where is the evidence that the average law abiding citizen in possession of a hand gun is inflicting death on anyone other than him or herself?
Jared Loughner was not an average citizen or, as has been alleged, a radical extremist motivated by “hate speech” from the Right. There were signs of emotional instability but all the existing gun laws formed no protective deterrent against his determination to kill Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, a sweet, innocent little nine year old girl and all the rest, and none will ever be sufficient to elevate or eliminate the inherent inadequacy of that speculative process and prevent a hand gun from getting into the wrong hand.
Human fallibility, frailty and unpredictability can never be removed from consideration or ignored. There will always be problems with this, problems that were perhaps more prevalent when the Founders wrote the second amendment but their intentions remain cogent and relevant in an increasingly violent world with a Government actively and determinedly vying for more and more control in direct contradiction of the Founders intent. Americans should demand their Constitutional right to bear arms to prevent the undesirable occasion necessitating their intended use.
As our intelligent and wise county sheriff said, we have a kinder, gentler populace with conceal carry and other freedoms. He said there already are so many laws he had to enforce the possession of firearms by those that should not have them. The problem is his officers do not get the phone calls from the public and when they try to enforce the law the prosecutors don’t have the time on their dockets to take it to trial. But we are going to have more laws to restrict everyone that obeys the laws we already have.
Remember there was no paid police force at the signing of the federal Constitution. The founder had in mind an armed citizenry to protect itself. The police are a statutory construction. This statutory construction did not deprive us of the basic right of self-defense, including the right to keep and bear arms. Statutes do not overrule Constitutional provisions.
Anyone who is familiar with semi-automatic handguns, knows that it only takes seconds, for a proficient shooter, to change a magazine. So, it makes no difference whether that magazine holds ten, fifteen, or thirty rounds. The rounds that hit the Congresswoman and judge were fired at the very beginning of the incident. Lesser magazine capacity would have had nothing to do with preventing their death and wounding. Indeed, a smaller magazine, only makes the handgun more concealable.
That the perpetrator was tackled when he stopped to reload, probably indicates that he was not proficient in his reload, allowing bystanders to disarm him. Had he been proficient, there likely would have been no time to disarm him and stop the firing. Thus it wouldn’t matter if the magazines he carried had the capacity to hold ten, fifteen, or thirty cartridges.
It should be noted that one of the gentlemen who tackled the perp and held him for police, was legally armed, and without a doubt would have shot Mr. Loughner if it had become necessary. Where were all the legally armed, both open and concealed carry, Arizonans? Did the authorities disallow anyone carrying a firearm to attend the event? Why hasn’t the press clarified or reported on that question? Had there been legal guns there would the perpetrator have decided against the attack? All questions that should be asked and answered.
Representative McCarthy’s attempt to reinstate the high capacity magazine ban, is wasted effort, and will prevent nothing. I fully support, instead, those Congress people, who have stated that they will begin carrying concealed weapons, at least in their home states where they have carry permits. Perhaps they should be allowed to carry nationally, as should anyone else with a valid state carry permit. I am really afraid that the Republicans will fold, and support more useless gun control, because they are afraid they will look bad if they don’t. Cheney and Lugar have already set the stage.
The Second Amendment allow me to defend myself and family. I do not wish to try in today’s society to try and do so with a musket or flintlock! I want a modern firearm and one that is reliable and one that I am comfortable with regardless of the action that allows it to operate.
In my vehicle I prefer to carry a semiautomatic full sized 9mm with a 17 round magazine while at home after I go to bed the same gun nearby as well as a pump action 12 gauge Mossburg shotgun.
I am a United States Navy Veteran and part of my job while training pilots and aircrew was also the training on nuclear weapon delivery. I do not believe certain people should have the knowledge of how this is done even if they have access to such weapons (terrorist and certain rogue nations, Iran North Korea in particular)are available and certainly people of this country do not need access to the same.
But access to class 3 weapons to those that might somehow need them should only be made to the police and military and kept in a secure location just the same as a nuke might be! This is just my opinion!
Hey if you really want a bazooka grenades or something like that then go to a store that sells them (I doubt you will find one!)
Not one single Class 111 registered weapon has ever been used in a crime, zero, zip, nada…no reason other than tyranny to restrict them any more than they currently are.
Bazookas and grenades are classified as “destructive devices” not firearms. There are ways to legally obtain them, but the same situation with class 11 exists, no criminal history
Sir, You are an obvious traitor to the gun cult, who have already made it clear that the Constitution assures their right to obtain whatever weapons would be needed to protect them from an oppressive government. Now we know what the government’s firepower is, and our cultists obviously have every right to match it. I am saving up my pennies for a fleet of ten drones armed with tactical nuclear weapons. I know it’s not much, but how else could I reasonably expect to have a chance against the Feds? Soon I will be asking for donations; maybe we can go for twenty.
“Sir, You are an obvious traitor to the gun cult, who have already made it clear that the Constitution assures their right to obtain whatever weapons would be needed to protect them from an oppressive government.”
He actually is a traitor, most probably a Brady and the One supporter.
No pro Constitution or Second Amendment American would would start with “I own a – your only known handgun here – and go on to declare that ‘but’ certain firearms should be denied access to. The Class III weapons are especially poor example, because they’ve never been used in a single crime.
Americans own tanks and fighter jets, cannons and machine guns.
Nuclear weapons are, of course, ordnance.
Yup, a gun-grabber
The second amendment refers to “a well-ordered militia.” This would exclude criminals and the insane.
Its “well REGULATED”, and that meant EQUIPPED…
As in the phrase “with full REGALIA”
And “for the security of a Free State” begs the question:
What is “a free state” and, secure from WHAT?
That would be “the free, self governing” people of the State, secure from government tyranny AND petty crime.
Thus:
A well equipped civilian army, being necessary to remain free from “whatever”, the right to be armed is “DUH!”
Sorry dude but your post invites argument about the second amendment guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms in the last sentence in paragraph six. (should not be infringed). Just what do you think qualifies any attempt of exclusion from the undeniable term “shall not” wherever used in your constitution?
Any related state legislation is by definition direct infringement of the 2nd amendment and prohibited by article 1 of the 14th amendment. Ask what the difference is between should not and shall not in legal terminology. The former has options while the latter means take it since you can’t leave it.
Gun Control: Because the Peon “Littel People” Shouldn’t Have Them! (if left/liberals were honest).
Hey Tim Ackerman, I’ll make it easy so even you can understand this. Here is a video showing where the term “clip,” or “banana clip,” came from. I must be showing my age because the term was in vogue probably in Vietnam and shortly after that, the “Banana clip” referring to the curved magazine of an AK-47. Here’s nice video by some people even you can understand:
http://firearms.atactv.com/?mediaId=798
Also, there may not be a 60-round “clip,” but I’ve seen some gang members acutally tape two 30-round magazines together so that the assault rifle can be reloaded very quickly. So, although not technically a 60-round magazine, it functions almost like one.
As for the difference between a semi-automatic rifle and fully automatic, according to the Colt web site specifications for the M16, it has a CYCLIC RATE OF FIRE of between 700-950 rpm and fire control selections for either Safe, Semi, or Full Automatic. The gun has a 30-round magazine, so however fast you want to shoot it, you still have only 30 bullets before you have to put in another magazine. You can take a look at the specs here if you like: http://www.colt.com/mil/M16_2.asp
Obviously, a fully automatic rifle is not available for civilian use (or at least it shouldn’t be, legally). So yes, there is a difference between 700 and 950 rpm. Does it really matter? If you’re fighting in Afghanistan or Iraq, it matters a great deal. If you live in Arizona, it’s a lot of firepower you just don’t need, unless you want to kill a lot of people in a shopping center. The Arizona shooter had only a handgun. Could you imagine what he could have done if he had even a semi-automatic M16 and knew how to use it? You’re splitting hairs here, bud. Whether semi or fully automatic, the M16 or AK-47 can get a lot of bullets out in a short amount of time.
So if you think you need these weapons because the black helicopters are coming to get you, then knock yourself out. It’s stupid, but if that’s your only argument in some twisted interpretation of the Second Amendment, as my kids say, “whatever.” But just know that one day some insane nut out there really will take an M16 and empty it out on a crowd of people in a parking lot. Then I guess you’ll say that all those dead people were sacrificed to maintain your right to own an assault rifle under the terms of the Second Amendment. Try telling that to the families of the dead people. Try telling that to the parents of that 9-year-old kid, that she died so you could hold on to your stupid right to own a semi-automatic weapon whose only use is to kill a lot of people quickly. Go ahead, tell them. I triple dog dare you, you moron.
You are not winning people over to your side in this debate. First I don’t get the black helicopter reference and why you should bring that up in every post. The constitution says what it says and that is it until it is changed by amendment. Don’t see that happening soon. You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine. Until that opinion steps on my rights. I live in Tucson (all my life) and have made my feelings known about how I feel about maintaining my rights. I am pretty unimpressed with you, and others using the deaths of the people at the safeway as a means of taking rights from me. How’s about focusing on the guy who committed the crime?
Liberty,
After so much research, I’ll give you an F.
You have no idea how fast a proficient shooter can empty a semi-auto, whether a handgun or an ‘assault rifle.’ “Assault weapons” do not exist.
You’d be shocked if you knew how fast and accurate a ‘six-shooter’ is in competent hands. Actually, the fastest shooting I’ve ever seen is with a ‘Wild West’ single-shot revolver, and this includes machine guns.
So, I suggest you go back to You Tube and watch some more videos. You can start with Bob Munden and Jerry Miculek and end with VTAC videos. Should give some idea how ridiculous your claims are.
I’m sorry, I did not bother to read your post.
Much like a neutered dog, Tim, you still don’t “Get it.” Doesn’t matter how fast a person is with a six shooter, he still ONLY HAS six shots, and that’s the point you still don’t seem to grasp. So, unless he’s carrying about four guns with him, he’s still not going to be able to put out as much firepower as a guy holding two semi-automatic guns, as the Virginia Tech killer so ably proved. It’s all about volume, NOT how fast you are.
And, if you don’t bother reading posts before you comment, then, please, don’t waste our time with your comments. That’s why I’ve stopped answering you at my previous post. If you only want to make your stupid claims about things that do NOT exist in the Second Amendment, then knock yourself out. Me, I’ve decided not to argue with idiots. It’s just a waste of time.
“Much like a neutered dog, Tim, you still don’t “Get it.” ”
That’s is the best you can come up with?
What you don’t get – and now I assume you’ve been neutered? – is that it does not matter how many cartridges you can carry in a magazine at one time, it’s how many bullets you’re able to shoot at the targets.
Any proficient shooter is able to reload in less than a second. In fact, the nut in AZ was extremely lucky that his 33-round mag worked. They are notorious for their FTFs. I’d take 3 ten-round mags any time over 1 thirty-round.
To the lurkers: http://www.atom.com/funny_videos/3EFBFFFF00EE3C7F0017001D0370
Note to self: Do not engage grabbers into a ‘dialogue’. Remember the pig/mud wrestling joke.
Your argument is based on the assumption that the bad guys will thusly only be able to have six shot revolvers. I can assure you that they will circumvent any such law and obtain whatever weapons they want, from those who will traffic banned weapons illegally. All gun control laws only affect the law abiding who will obey them, not the criminal who will not.
Virgina Tech was a prime example of gun laws failing the citizenry. VT was a ‘gun free’ zone. Had I been there, with my 6 round .45 He wouldn’t have gotten through the next magazine. Not because I’m some badass, though I have years of military firearm training, but because people like him are cowards. That was proven at the Law school in Western Virgina where a cop went to his truck and got his gun and the shooter realized he was about to be in a firefight and not a massacre, and he fled. Had more people been carrying at VT, it would have ended much faster than it did. Campus police aren’t going to engage, they’ll wait around for SWAT.
Ah, another gun cult ploy: “you know nothing of guns, so I will not respond.” Or, I will just insult you, call you a traitor, blah, blah.
Obviously Libertyship knows something of guns, as I do. Admittedly, I don’t spend a lot of time in gun stores and hanging out with gun guys, or reading Gun literature, even though I am in a rifle and pistol club. Being an expert on firearms specs and lore , does not make one an expert on the Constitution or politics.
I can’t draw an exact line between those who have a practical knowledge that weapons are useful for hunting and self defense and those in the cult, whose meaning in life revolves around the fact that they have the “God-given right to bear arms.”
But the deeper issue here and not an easy one (except to a cultist or a banner) is what a proper interpretation of the Second Amendment’s “shall not be infringed” should be in 2011. Is the principle of citizens owning firearms to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical Federal Government similarly defined both in a motley collection of states which are FORMING a country, which they have many hopes and plenty of fears about how it will turn out (and all arms are relatively small and simple) the same “right” in a country with a 240 year history, whose weapons have evolved far beyond what any private citizen could conceivably acquire or use and for which millions have shed their blood to defend (in some cases against those who were asserting their God-given rights to hold slaves and secede)? In 1790 there were not a lot of people shooting each other in cities, either.
Times change, and interpretations of laws and rights change with them, whether they are defined as natural, God-given, or whatever. I also think that Heller gets it about right.
So much of society and its armaments have changed that the idea that citizens could be armed enough to in any way equally resist Federal firepower is absurd. (I can possibly see a medium rationale that one should have enough firepower to more or less equalize CIVILIAN authorities, but that is still obviously some infringement.) If a Republican House passes a limited capacity law, (unlikely, to be sure) I will look upon it as reasonable progress.
Reasonable progress, or one more step towards the eventual disarming of the civilian population? The death of the Second Amendment by a thousand cuts. The gun banners will always find a reason to “progress” one more step using “sensible” gun control laws.
We do in fact have a “God-given right to bear arms.” It’s a first-principles argument based upon the fact that an individual has a right to their own life. All else follows from that. The premises and the logic of this argument appears to have escaped you, as it has in other cases as well.
Ward, thank you for your comments. I get so tired of hearing supposed gun owners, falling for the lies and tactics of the left. They are aiding the left in their totalitarian agenda, which is nothing less than the destruction of our freedoms and our Republic. We are even seeing waffling, regarding further gun control by Republicans, Cheney and Lugar ( RINO?). To quote Benjamin Franklin:
“If we don’t all hang together, then surely, we shall all hang separately.”
Nothing baffles and enrages leftists and elitists more than to be confronted with a first-principles argument. The mental gymnastics they display attempting to dodge the question would qualify them for a slot in the Cirque du Soliel. If you really want to see their heads explode, expose the pedigree of their ideas.
Times change, and interpretations of laws and rights change with them, whether they are defined as natural, God-given, or whatever.
Why, how high-minded and, well.. progressive of you. Fine, let’s roll with that. Say the country finds itself in a monumental financial crash. Those from whom we have borrowed demand their due. To avoid more dire consequences, the majority votes to re-institute the debtor’s prison and chattel slavery. After all, the times and circumstances have changed. No problemo, righty-right?
All sarcasm aside, you’ve got a big, big problem, Dwight when it comes to a no-absolutes, it’s-all-relative stance. Consider what Chantal Delsol, writing in Icarus Fallen has to say concerning that curse of modernity:
Consider the implications. You’ve set yourself a terrible dilemma, should you choose to consider it.
Ward D wrote “All sarcasm aside, you’ve got a big, big problem, Dwight when it comes to a no-absolutes, it’s-all-relative stance.”
But your problem is that even if you think you are holding onto an absolute, it has to be adjudicated in 2011, by judges applying standards that they have grown up with.
How do you respond to the absolute assertion. “Thou shalt not kill”? Do you follow that dictum absolutely or define 25 exceptions etc.
How do you respond to the absolute assertion. “Thou shalt not kill”? Do you follow that dictum absolutely or define 25 exceptions etc.
I don’t. Because your premise is false. The original commandment translates as “thou shalt not murder.” Now there’s an absolute with which I can agree. Nothing in the bible or the ten commandments ever forbade self-defense. US jurisprudence also draws the line between the two concepts, and that’s a fact that you cannot debate. Leftists love to conflate murder with self-defense, preferring to reserve the “right” to slaughter those who don’t agree with them to themselves. It’s the old moral equivalency fallacy and it doesn’t fly.
Besides, you haven’t responded directly to my previous question. A strawman based upon a false premise does not constitute an answer, my not-so-artful dodger pal.
Hey Root, your pal Ward Dorrity is wondering why I’m not answering you guys anymore.
In other words – you’ve got nothing. Nothing except your arrogance and your elitist attitude. Disgusting.
Addendum: The previous was for Libertyship, whose garbage scow has long since foundered in the Sea of Facts, Reason and Logic with all hands lost.
Facts, reason, and logic. Three things that have really passed you by, Ward. Why don’t you spend some time with June and the Beaver and stop bothering us with your lame non-arguments. The only garbage on this scow, son, is you.
Still no answer. My premise stands. You’re down to ad-hominems now. Which means you’re firing blanks. Have a nice day.
I will note that no one is attempting to address the question of how we are different in so many ways now than we were in 1790. Yes, there can be a first principles assertion of the right to defend oneself, but that in no way translates to an absolute right to possess whatever weapon one can attain and carry it in every moment of one’s life. Some of you guys form your own version of the nanny state in which there is danger EVERYWHERE. The nannies want laws and you guys want guns to face this ever-present danger of living. Maybe you guys are more “modern” than I previously thought. In fact, fifty years ago, I don’t nearly recall this many people expressing the need to carry etc. How many of you carriers had fathers, who also carried. Has anything changed?
And fifty and more years ago, there were fewer gun laws, and less violence. Seems the more gun laws they pass, the more violence there is. Could it be that our focus is off? Perhaps we should be worrying about the bad guys instead of inhibiting the good guys.
We have all stood by while the left has worked to inhibit our rights and subvert the democratic process. PC speech is a means to limit free speech, Gun control is a means to disarm citizens, Czars and agency regulations are a way to do an end run around the Congress, and refusing to pass positive voter ID laws, is a way for the Democratic Party to continue getting votes from the dead, and those really not eligible to vote. I have to wonder how many votes from illegals, kept Senator Reid in office.
Being different from the 1790s has no bearing on the basic rights laid out in the Bill of Rights. Are you an adherent to the “living Constititution” concept? That concept means that our rights are defined by the politicians as they see fit, and will change as they see fit, i.e. no rights at all. Whatever solutions to our problems, the politicians come up with, they have to respect the basic rights laid out in the Bill of Rights, AS ENVISIONED BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS.
Since you bring up the living Constitution issue, here’s what I just posted on the domestic abuse thread:
“What am I implying? That the Founders could not conceive much about court cases which involved domestic violence. Women had no vote and almost always did not own property unless they were widows. Therefore, if one is a strict constructionist, no laws can be made without amendments regarding such issues, because the Founders were silent on the matter. That is the conservative core of strict constructionism; if the Founders did not address it, then we may not either without a Constitutional Convention. The beautiful thing is that strict constructionist judges can make the Constitution live, when they happen to come across a case in which their own political beliefs can be affirmed by going into new ground and affirming something odd like Kelo.”
And I am also asking you to reconsider your statement that basic rights have nothing to do with 1790 vs 2011. Let’s boil it down to the question, IF the Founders wanted people to be able to bear arms, muskets and I suppose cannon, IS IT THE SAME THING to now permit people to acquire drones with nuclear weapons, Abrams tanks, and full auto weapons? The Founders drew no line; is it common sense that we should draw no line either?
If you think not, then send along $500 or more and I will cut you in on my drone deal.
As someone succinctly said her at pajamas, there is no 2a clause in the second amendment forbidding cannons.
Dwight keeps comparing apples to oranges. I suspect he is a lib plant making comment here to try and convince we supporters of the Second Amendment, of the error of our ways. Probably nothing will dissuade him from the delusions that he holds. I refer him to the writings of the Founders themselve, but I’m sure he will just say “Hell those are over 200 years old, things have changed. I kind of think Rik has properly classified the change that has occured.
“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American peoples’ liberty, teeth, and keystone under independance. To secure peace, Security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interferance – they deserve a place of honour with all that is good.”-George Washington
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson
“The Constitution shall never be construed… to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”-Samuel Adams
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
–Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).
“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that… it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
–Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”
– Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
– Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
Dwight keeps comparing apples to oranges. I suspect he is a lib plant making comment here to try and convince we supporters of the Second Amendment, of the error of our ways. Probably nothing will dissuade him from the delusions that he holds. I refer him to the writings of the Founders themselve, but I’m sure he will just say “Hell those are over 200 years old, things have changed. I kind of think Rik has properly classified the change that has occured.
“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American peoples’ liberty, teeth, and keystone under independance. To secure peace, Security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interferance – they deserve a place of honour with all that is good.”-George Washington
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson
“The Constitution shall never be construed… to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”-Samuel Adams
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
–Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).
“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that… it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
–Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”
– Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
– Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
A lib plant, eh? What would you prefer, a potted plant?
Do you know the source of the George Washington lines? When and where did he say that? I am not trying to deny; I just want to know.
I repost an earlier comment. Please answer some of the questions that I asked Dwight.
Anyone who is familiar with semi-automatic handguns, knows that it only takes seconds, for a proficient shooter, to change a magazine. So, it makes no difference whether that magazine holds ten, fifteen, or thirty rounds. The rounds that hit the Congresswoman and judge were fired at the very beginning of the incident. Lesser magazine capacity would have had nothing to do with preventing their death and wounding. Indeed, a smaller magazine, only makes the handgun more concealable.
That the perpetrator was tackled when he stopped to reload, probably indicates that he was not proficient in his reload, allowing bystanders to disarm him. Had he been proficient, there likely would have been no time to disarm him and stop the firing. Thus it wouldn’t matter if the magazines he carried had the capacity to hold ten, fifteen, or thirty cartridges.
It should be noted that one of the gentlemen who tackled the perp and held him for police, was legally armed, and without a doubt would have shot Mr. Loughner if it had become necessary. Where were all the legally armed, both open and concealed carry, Arizonans? Did the authorities disallow anyone carrying a firearm to attend the event? Why hasn’t the press clarified or reported on that question? Had there been legal guns there would the perpetrator have decided against the attack? All questions that should be asked and answered.
Representative McCarthy’s attempt to reinstate the high capacity magazine ban, is wasted effort, and will prevent nothing. I fully support, instead, those Congress people, who have stated that they will begin carrying concealed weapons, at least in their home states where they have carry permits. Perhaps they should be allowed to carry nationally, as should anyone else with a valid state carry permit. I am really afraid that the Republicans will fold, and support more useless gun control, because they are afraid they will look bad if they don’t. Cheney and Lugar have already set the stage.
PS: Our fathers didn’t carry, because the laws then didn’t allow them to carry.
So what is up with that?
So in 50 years, we have moved from the days when the rich had to pay up to 90% to the tax man and people could not carry, BUT it is NOW, not then, that Obama and the Commies are taking our rights away?
Priceless.
Depends on the state or town, kja.
Dwight: “I will note that no one is attempting to address the question of how we are different in so many ways now than we were in 1790.”
Dwight, I hope you are aware you are making a case for holding an annual review of the Constitution to see what the entirety of America may or may not want to change in it. I sure hope you are not trying to make the case that you and like-minded folks can write a letter to the editor or to your Congressperson demanding that they ignore the plain language found therein. In other words you aren’t trying to prove that your opinion trumps the Constitution that formed this nation and is the basis of our entire legal system. Tell me I am correct, I beg of you.
I will tell you that 240 years have passed since the Declaration and 200 since the Constitution got sorted out. You are avoiding like death the question as to whether or not anything significant has changed in more than two centuries. You can’t boil it down to any letter to anyone that I would write; it is a question of YOU thinking about what is different now. This you steadfastly refuse to do, but why am I not surprised? That would be too complicated. It is simpler for sure to say, “what part of shall not be infringed” do you not understand? Maybe the part which would apply to tanks, missiles, and RPG’s for three.
My sense of Tea Partiers is that they get out their Constitutions, which they have just started to study in the last three years and say, or echo Glenn Beck, “Oh my God! it doesn’t say anything in here about limiting the size of clips in firearms or keeping nuclear drones away from civilians.
And “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Case closed, eh?
50 years ago we did not have the government trying to pass laws making criminals out of law abiding people.
Yeah, Yeah, blah blah, Nuclear drones, Abrams tanks equals meaningless rhetoric. No one is advocating those things and you only look silly repeating it ad nauseum. You want to know what has changed since the 50s. Crazy people aren’t locked up and criminals are not punished, especially illegal ones. People carried back then, but most people didn’t need too. There was no requirement for a permit. If you had a gun and you defended yourself against an aggressor, no one was going to lock you up for it. That is not the case today. How about some common sense criminal prosecution? Fifty years ago, the government was just starting their march toward totalitarianism. Today, they are in full goose-step, and I don’t blame citizens for clinging angrily to their right to defend themselves by whatever means are necessary.
Rik, I agree with most of post – it kind of sums it up nicely.
However, the NFA in 1934 was the first real hit against the 2nd Amendment (GCA 68 being the second) and it was down hill from there until the Floridians voted for the CCW in 1987. Now we posses tens of millions of more firearms – from tanks to fighter jets to cannons – and billions of rounds of ammo. More important, only a few states are not Shall Issue.
The grabbers are a dying breed of loonies.
Once more, The US Constitution does not grant Americans the right to own and bear arms, it merely says that the God given right existed prior to America and the feds ought to stay out of the gun business.
For example, it’s illegal to make a new handgun purchase in any state other than the one in which you’re a resident, unless you purchase it over the internet, have it shipped to a firearms dealer in your state, then go through a background check with that dealer and pay a processing fee for his involvement. And if you walk into a gun store in your town or city, federal regulations require that you go through an “instant background check” that can take up to three government business days. (Only in federal government lingo can three government business days equal “instant.”)
You mean the way you compare apples to oranges, yeah, your a real intellectual heavyweight.
For example, it’s illegal to make a new handgun purchase in any state other than the one in which you’re a resident…
Nope. I have, on several occasions, purchased firearms across state lines with no trouble or repercussion. So this is just not true, at least in NE IA KS ND or CO.
It is unclear exactly what the apples and oranges are in my comments, but let’s see if I can help. We can say that the apple is the Second Amendment construed as a citizen’s right to defend himself. The orange is the citizens right to defend himself against a tyrannical government, which possesses awesome firepower in its arsenal.
At various times, the ambiguous connection between the “need for a well-regulated militia” has been parsed different ways, resulting in the various interpretations and limitations on what citizens can own in various eras. Frankly, I cannot see how the militia connection, ambiguous as it is, changes one way or another the issue of the citizens possessing let’s say, RPG’s. Some have said that the references to advanced weaponry are irrelevant distractions from the issue at hand, whereas a few say that ANY weapon should be available to the citizen. The former are talking about apples, the latter are referring to oranges. With oranges, anything goes. With apples, restrictions (infringements, if you will) are going to kick in somewhere (which is the common sense approach) and limiting the size of clips, MIGHT be one of those infringements. Hope this helps.
By apples and oranges, I mean your attempt to equate small arms with nuclear weapons and tanks. And, that because there are limits on the latter, that limits on the former are justified.
First, our Constitution is a document that provides checks and balances on the federal government . The 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights, provides an armed populace to act as a check and balance against an armed government . The Founders meant for citizens to own military grade small arms. That the Founders did not specify single shot rifles and pistols, is because they were bright enough to understand that firearms technology would advance. Thus, the military style weapons of today, are precisely the small arms, the Founders would have wanted law abiding civilians to own, and thus are the very weapons protected under the 2nd Amendment.
The Founders never envisioned, nor wanted the large standing army of today. They were against large standing armies, because, historically, those armies had been used by governments against their own people.
No government ever believes that anything it does is illegal or unconstitutional. Yet, all governments push and exceed the limits, very rarely are they ever called to task for that behavior by the citizens or other members of government. Americans are now taking their government to task for decades of excesses.
You used the word infringement in post #39. That’s precisely the issue. The 2nd amendment uses the words “shall not be infringed”, and those are key. Any regulation of firearms cannot infringe on law abiding citizens possession of military style small arms, as those are the very weapons the Founders wanted in the hands of citizens as a counter to an armed government. While military small arms and hunting weapons were pretty much the same in the 1700s, they are not today.
Well, we are getting a little closer here, even though you haven’t made it clear why one stops at small arms. But when you acknowledge that the Founders did not envisage a huge standing army, I could not agree more. But since the standing army and every other aspect of government have grown to monstrous proportions, the limitations of government that the Founders imagined (or agreed to in order to get states to ratify) are pretty much of another time and place. That is why we have a contemporary Supreme Court, to try to bridge the gap between then and now.
I have said several times that the growth of the Federal Government has paralleled the growth of a massive military most of the time since the Civil War. It is too big to put back into the bottle. Still, I’m a dreamer and pushing 4-4-4.
What is 4-4-4?
The Dwight 4-4-4 plan: cut spending 4% including the military; increase taxes on incomes over 1 million dollars 4%, have states tax their non taxable pensions 4% for any amount over $50,000.
The first one is virtually impossible, so I would settle for 1-1-1. In fact, I settle for a 1% increase in spending, if I could get the other two. Will you vote for me?
Are you a Republican
@ kjatexas:
No; this “candidate” is a professional distorter. One prone to railing against military spending even though it’s obvious that entitlements are the true reason for the hole we’re in. Military spending at the height of the Iraq war was lower than it was during much of the U.S.’s peacetime history. He has a bizarre post elsewhere rambling on about how terrible it is for people to criticize 0bama’s social spending, so the fixation on military-produced deficits is quite funny.
All spending, baby! Can you tell the difference between “including the military” and “primarily the military?” I’m probably closer to Ryan than to Obama on cutting spending here, but I do plan to get 4% more from the people with income over one million.
comment