Gun Control: The Bureaucratic Method
Attorney Alan Gura is dragging the District of Columbia into the United States — and my, what a lot of work it is!
The U.S. Supreme Court struck down D.C.’s handgun ban in D.C. v. Heller (2008). There was nothing ambiguous or uncertain about the result: D.C. could not prohibit law-abiding citizens from having a handgun at home for self-defense. Predictably, D.C. government has come up with one bureaucratic obstacle after another to discourage residents from actually doing so.
The latest obstacle was requiring that residents only buy guns that appear on the California Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale. Isn’t California rather far removed from D.C.? D.C., you see, wanted to find a way to limit the number of handguns available to its serfs. The only plausible argument for restrictions would be based on safety — so they adopted an existing state definition of “safe handguns.” There were actually several state standards available to them — and guess what? They picked the state whose list had the fewest models on it. (Yes, California’s Roster has 1,329 different models — but depending on the color of the gun, and the barrel length, you can have a dozen different “models” that are really one gun with either a 5″ barrel or a 4.25″ barrel, in blue, stainless steel, nickel, blue receiver and nickel slide. There aren’t even close to 1,329 different types of handgun offered in California.)
Now, I don’t want anyone buying an unsafe handgun. But the days when handguns were so poorly made that they went off by accident are long past — the result of the Gun Control Act of 1968 and lawyers filing suits against makers of crummy little guns in the 1960s and 1970s. (Hold your breath: I’m admitting that lawyers are sometimes useful.) For example, there are industry standards for dropping a loaded firearm and verifying that it doesn’t go off. But if California had used that standard, nearly all existing handguns would have passed, because handguns are already tested to that standard. Instead, California created its own test, both to drive up the cost and because a manufacturer has to pay for the test. If the manufacturer is out of business (not implausible for some older handguns), there’s no way for that gun to be certified — and therefore, no way to sell it in California. Some of the standards were also designed rather obviously to prohibit inexpensive handguns. Part of California’s effort to disarm a certain class of persons who are a bit too dark for California liberals to trust with firearms.
The problem is that no one knows their history, expecially the Supreme Court Justices!
They don’t understand the term “Militia”. The Militia was the armed citizenry. Sure, they fought alongside the troops, but they also functioned as Highway Patrol, beat cops, posses, etc…. The Militia’s role was the armed Citizenry keeping us all safe. Any man could step up to the plate when he was armed. He needed not be strong, just courageous.
So, the right to bear arms is personal and universal. No guns may be restricted at all. The right may not be infringed.
There’s also a clever slant here. They’d like to create the impression that firearms are a luxury item available only to rich white persons (read racists). Then make the connection that the people buy guns only because they’re racist. Therefore daddy government needs to step in to help the victims by taking things away from the ‘Man.’
Self defense? Wait for the police to save you, offer no resistance to the bad guys or you might get hurt. After all, robbers like to invade houses occupied by persons they know will try to shoot them down.
Hunting? That’s cruel to animals, dunn’cha know they’re people too? In fact you should go vegan, but only eat plants that have died of natural causes, because they might be able to feel pain too.
Sport Shooting/Plinking/Fun? That’s a racist threat to minorities!!! How dare you!
Meh, let the trolls come. We shall crush many before this day is true.
There’s also a clever slant here. They’d like to create the impression that firearms are a luxury item available only to rich white persons (read racists). Then make the connection that the people buy guns only because they’re racist. Therefore daddy government needs to step in to help the victims by taking things away from the ‘Man.’
Self defense? Wait for the police to save you, offer no resistance to the bad guys or you might get hurt. After all, robbers like to invade houses occupied by persons they know will try to shoot them down.
Hunting? That’s cruel to animals, dunn’cha know they’re people too? In fact you should go vegan, but only eat plants that have died of natural causes, because they might be able to feel pain too.
Sport Shooting/Plinking/Fun? That’s a racist threat to minorities!!! How dare you!
Let the trolls come. We shall crush many before this day is through.
Although we have freedom of speach, no one has the right to cry fire in a crowed theater. So to the right to bear arms is not an absolute right. The state can intervene for public safety and the common good
they aren’t going to limit anything to the ones who want them. i used to bounce and i’d see crews come in and pay 150 dollars for a bottle of Hennessy. that would be 10 to 12 bottles on the floor, then they would leave in these monster suv’s. i got the feeling that money wasn’t an issue with these guys. restricting cheap handguns is a nonstarter and it is so yesterday.
Very good article, Mr. Cramer. (Or should I say “piece?”
I would add that of those “darker-skinned” poor, a very small percentage is responsible for gun violence — mostly in the service of protecting some drug racket.
The fact is, gun ownership PREVENTS crimes (see http://tinyurl.com/lye4m8) and saves lives.
Following on your article, I’d like to see someone look into the recent phenomenon of gun and ammunition buying frenzy — specifically addressing why it’s happening.
To those who would try and abrogate my Second Amendment rights, I repeat the old saw with fresh intent: You’ll have to pry my guns out of my cold, dead hands.
So to the right to bear arms is not an absolute right. The state can intervene for public safety and the common good
Care to explain how preventing poor people from protecting themselves from criminals is intervening “for public safety and for the common good”?
Oh; We MUST let the Prince of Incompetence and his Czars (read paid worshippers) dictate what is Safe and Right!
I feel so much more protected from evil now!
The fact is, gun ownership PREVENTS crimes (see http://tinyurl.com/lye4m8) and saves lives.
Eowyn, here’s an even better site for you to visit along those lines: the Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog.
The Second Amendment is probably the single most powerful reason our Country is STILL free.
Therefore…
the socialist-commie-totalitarian crowd will NEVER stop fighting AGAINST it.
It’s not eminently a “political” thing, it’s something that deeply disturbs their herd-mind.
They adore daddy-figures (stalin, mao, castro), the all-powerful superdad to whom you shall obey.
They can’t stand the bold independence of the individual who doesn’t bend to the will of the criminal.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Marc Malone is right. The Militia was the body of enfrasied citizens. The right to vote was considered more dangerous than carring a gun and eveyone who got the vote had a responsibility to enforce the law and defend the country. People really do not know any history and what history they do know simply was never so. My home had primary source materials. Writings of Benjiman Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, the Federalist Papers by Hamilton, Jay and Madison. My school liberaty did not have primary source material. The school library had book “about” Jefferson, Lincoln, Hamiton but nothing written by them outside of selected quotations. You can never learn histoy that way.
Clayton E. Cramer said: “At some point in the near future, California’s handgun roster law will end up in court. It is extraordinarily clear that the real objective of California’s handgun law was to make handguns expensive and to disarm the poor, in the same way that the Gun Control Act of 1968’s ban on “Saturday Night Specials” tried to stem the rising tide of crime by blacks in America by making guns expensive.”
See this URL: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=179227
It’s happening right now. The Second Amendment Foundation, the Calguns Foundation, and four California residents have filed a lawsuit challenging the California state law and regulatory scheme that arbitrarily bans handguns based on a roster of “certified” handguns approved by the State.
Depending on the out come of the request for an en banc hearing by an anonymous 9th Circuit judge regarding the Heller decision; this lawsuit is looking very promising. If there’s no en banc I don’t see how California’s disingenuous safety roster will survive post incorporation of the Heller decision in the 9th Circuit.
The right to vote was considered more dangerous than carring a gun and eveyone who got the vote had a responsibility to enforce the law and defend the country.
You might find my book Armed America of interest. I discovered a curious coincidence: when the various colonies took the vote away from free blacks in the 17th and 18th centuries, it was often the same year, or within a couple of years of taking away the right of free blacks to be armed.
I do think that the lefties are scared of too many “darkies” having guns and in an effort to be politically correct they want to ban them for everyone. Enforcing the laws in place even if you have to profile a little could really make them feel safer than a gun ban because really even lefties have to realize that gun bans don’t keep guns away from criminals. Are far as profiling, if you have a group of guys all dressed as gang bangers they are either gang bangers or want to be treated like gang bangers.
Two things truly scared me about the supreme court ruling against DC was the dissenters. I can’t remember which justices they were but one “couldn’t understand why the founding fathers would put something in the constitution that they couldn’t change later” (can’t understand the purpose of the Bill of Rights ?) The other couldn’t understand “why a person living in a high crime area would be allowed to have a firearm in their home” ( no right to self defense ?)
Everytime I think of that it really gives me the willies to think that these are the folks who are employed by us to interpret the Constitution.
Another thing. They changed the definition of machinegun to mean any firearm that can be fired more than 10 times without reloading as opposed to a firearm that can fire more than once with one pull of the trigger. They apply this to anything with a box magazine because a magazine can be manufactured to hold more 10 rounds for that style of firearm. I believe it was Hellers 1911 that they first applied it too.
“I do think that the lefties are scared of too many “darkies” having guns and in an effort to be politically correct they want to ban them for everyone.”
That’s a very viable theory. I will have to think about it for awhile. Minorities are disproportionately responsible for firearms murders—especially in the larger metropolitan areas. The politically correct inclinations of the lefties prevent them from admitting this harsh fact of life. It’s easier to advocate outlawing guns for everybody.
Right to bear arms,freedom of speech,freedom of religion,right to have a fair and meaingful vote,property rights,and so so–all right are under attack.
I do think that the lefties are scared of too many “darkies” having guns and in an effort to be politically correct they want to ban them for everyone.
Without question, this is why gun control has become in my lifetime a “liberal” cause. (In fact, you can find some conservatives who support gun control and some liberals, even progressives, who oppose it.) The problem of violent crime in modern America is overwhelmingly black on black, Hispanic on Hispanic–and this problem became more severe as the Great Society expanded its efforts to help the poor. The cognitive dissonance between these liberal ideas (“poverty causes crime” and “the Great Society is helping the poor”) and the facts of rapidly rising crime rates, forced many on the left end of the spectrum to look for a new explanation (“gun ownership makes ordinary people do horrible things”).
That liberals are overrepresented in urban, heavily minority areas added to the problem, because where one traditional (and not fair) response to fear of minority crime was racial prejudice, liberals did not have that option, so it was easier, rather than confront their fears, to turn this into a “guns are the problem” idea. Where traditional gun control in some parts of the country relied on laws that in practice discriminated based on race (such as the Sullivan Law in New York, and concealed weapon permit laws in most states), liberals needed something a bit less obviously racist, and so they became enamored of laws that applied equally–and thus sought to disarm almost everyone.
The shadow # 4.
Your analogy is false. The is no prior restraint on speech in a theater. We don’t tape mouths shut to prevent them from shouting “fire”. However you are advocating prior restraint on the 2A. If a person abuses the use of a gun he can be prosecuted just like a person who shouts fire.
The SC does not say that the 2A extends the right to murder or steal with a gun. Just that people like you and me can own a gun in their homes in DC and without being locked up so they are not available for use.
So the 2A is not aboslute, there does not exist a right to murder with a gun or use a gun for criminal purposes. But carrying for self defense is not a criminal use of a agun. Even shooting a robber or mugger is allowable use of a gun for self defense.
Carry provisions are still not allowed under DC law and until a court case or Congres changes that carry still is penalized. Only criminals carry freely since they are not concerned about a carry charge. In fact most time when criminals are caught DC never charges with gun carry even though they can.
In a resent ruling people with a CCW of which I am one can legal carry on federal park land. To extend that logic since DC is technically federal property shouldn’t I be allow to carry in DC?
RAH
Thank you for that response re: comparing limits on first amendment speech…perfect. I’ve always wondered how to counter the “but you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater” arguement.
Kris
Mr. Cramer, thanks for the link — grassroots evidence that the national figures are correct. Slam-dunk!
Other rights are slowly being eroded while people stay largely apathetic. But this one is a loser for the socialists, and they know it. It’s a case of “you can tell me what to do, but if I don’t want to, you’re going to have to make me.” And “making me” involves putting their own miserable lives at risk, when push comes to shove. Don’t see THAT happening.
Seems to me that if we zealously protect both the First and Second Amendments, we stand a chance in these times of creeping totalitarianism.
In a resent ruling people with a CCW of which I am one can legal carry on federal park land. To extend that logic since DC is technically federal property shouldn’t I be allow to carry in DC?
Uh, no. The Bush Administration tried to change national park rules to use whatever the surrounding state’s rules are concerning concealed carry. The courts blocked this. Congress has by statute changed the rules so that national parks will use surrounding state rules about firearms possession–a much broader liberalization than the proposed Bush Administration change. This applied only to national parks and the surrounding state’s rules. It won’t help with DC, which has a discretionary carry permit system.
Although we have freedom of speach, no one has the right to cry fire in a crowed theater.
No one has the right to fire their gun in a crowded theater either. And no-one is advocating that either.
Mike – so you agree the state has a right to regulate guns?
Cramer – The aim is to lesson the incidence of gun violence. We have too many guns out there many in the hands of people who have not idea of safety or how touse them and the easy availability creates too many opportunities for guns to fallinto the hands of coiminal or kids
RAH The analogy is correct because I was using it to show that the government has the right to regulate the sale of guns just as it has the right to limit free speech or free press in certain circumstances where it serves the public good
Minority on minority murder is the elephant in the room. The Ku Klux Klan is a vile organization. And yet, more black youths have probably been murdered by other black youths in the last four years in Chicago—than the entire history of this racist organization throughout the entire country! White liberals feel uncomfortable with such statistics. They are indeed likely more inclined to seek responses that are “race neutral” even if they are senseless.
I believe the solution, in both the District of Columbia and California, is quite simple, legal, and Constitutional.
Since this decision (Heller) was handed down by the Supreme Court Of The United States, it should be enforced like any decision handed down by a superior court. That is, when public officials seek to “dodge around” the decision by deceptive practices, they should be informed that continuing to do so violates the court’s authority. And that if they do not cease and desist, they will be held in contempt of court, arrested, jailed, and the local government they represent fined an amount determined by said court (SCOTUS, in this case) every day they continue to violate the provisions of the court’s decision.
If it continues long enough, the Supreme Court, citing the continued refusal of the government entities in question to obey its writ, can and should invoke the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act on said local or state governments. People often forget that RICO was originally designed to give Federal prosecutors leverage against state and city governments which were acting in unison with organized crime or other entities which sought to violate Federal law. Since D.C. and California are no doubt receiving “advice” from various anti-Second Amendment groups, which are assisting them in refusing to obey the high court, this would fit the parameters of a violation actionable under RICO. Which means that those groups could be prosecuted, as well. And they should be.
The various levels of government in this country should not have to have the concept of “You are bound by the Constitution” explained to them. I, for one, believe that if they do not understand this, or refuse to abide by it, they deserve to be behind bars, not in a position of power over the citizenry.
clear ether
eon
Shawdow: (1) define regulate (2) You do not lessen Gun violence by taking Guns away from law abiding citizens. Britian and Australian are good examples of that. (3) Your analogy is incorrect. I can yell fire in a crowded theater but will suffer the consequences for endangering others. You are still arguing for prior restraint that doesn’t apply to the 1st Amendment situation.
“Justice Scalia’s opinion stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on carrying a concealed gun or on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, on laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, and laws putting conditions on gun sales.
The Court took no position on whether the Second Amendment right restricts only federal government powers, or also curbs the power of states to regulate guns.”
This was a 5-4 decision and could be overruled by future courts
(“)The Court took no position on whether the Second Amendment right restricts only federal government powers, or also curbs the power of states to regulate guns.”
Not sure where you pasted that from, Shadow, but it’s spot-on. The Supreme Court may mandate federal government powers, if it so chooses, which it chose NOT to, in this case.
States may mandate their own powers. Sometimes these conflict with federal powers.
In either case, it remains to lawyers to represent opinion of such strength of popular will as to change law. You know, precedent. That is what the Supreme Court is obliged to respect, and which determines its decision to hear, or not to hear, cases.
And I say to you: Never will popular opinion support restricting gun rights. And by “popular,” I mean a far GREATER margin than the slim 51 percent that elects presidents.
Cramer – The aim is to lesson the incidence of gun violence. We have too many guns out there many in the hands of people who have not idea of safety or how touse them and the easy availability creates too many opportunities for guns to fallinto the hands of coiminal or kids
The difficulty with the first part of your concern is that the people who misuse firearms are overwhelmingly in the prohibited categories already: convicted felons; minors; and the severely mentally ill. Once you exclude those three groups, the number of gun crimes in actually pretty small–about 5-10% of the murders in the U.S.
The easy availability of digital cameras, computers, and the Internet creates too many opportunities for creeps to make child pornography. Which of these three should be tightly regulate to solve the problem? Or perhaps, like with guns, we should be focused on punishing those who misuse the tools, rather than taking the tools away from responsible adults.
Marc, good point. ‘twould not surprise me one bit to learn that the phrase “well regulated” in 18th Century parlance meant “properly equipped and up to date.” Just a guess… butgiven the debauchery ‘progressives’ have done to via misinterpretations of plain English, it makes sense.
You have the right, indeed the obligation, to yell “Fire” in a crowded theater if there is a fire.
The analogy is correct because I was using it to show that the government has the right to regulate the sale of guns just as it has the right to limit free speech or free press in certain circumstances where it serves the public good
The Court has held that fundamental human rights are subject to strict scrutiny–which requires more than a legislative finding that some regulation serves the public good. I’ll be overjoyed if guns are regulated even close to the standards used for free speech.
Shadow, I can yell fire in my backyard, I can yell fire in my house, I can yell fire wherever I want! If my life is in danger while I’m in a theater and yelling fire would save me then I’m yelling fire and it would take a jury of morons to find me guilty of anything. There is no limit on free speech. There is a limit on stupid speech, if it causes undo harm to other. Just as there are laws against any crime whether it be with a gun or knife or your hands.
Do you think the protesters in Iran would’ve been murdered in the streets by their government had they had our 2nd Amendment?
“Effective January 1, 2001, no handgun may be manufactured within California, imported into California for sale, lent, given, kept for sale, or offered/exposed for sale unless that handgun model has passed firing, safety, and drop tests and is certified for sale in California by the Department of Justice.”
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me…I will never obey that law. I will never cooperate in the enforcement of that law.
Shadow,
Going through all the other posts on this site, one thing that can be said for you, you certainly are consistent in advocating for the state against the individual. I wonder if you are a state worker and member of a union. It would go a long way to explaining why you believe that state direction of individual lives is the end all be all. You must see the opinions voiced in these various site comments as threatening your income. But that’s just a hunch and can’t be substantiated one way or the other.
kevin – I am actually an manager for a private company. I have worked for private firms all my life except for three years in Army Intelligence
Ms Attitude – Read the Supreme court’s decision before you say anything stupid
Actually all sane people are afraid of any nut having a gun
Cramer – if you can’t see the difference in degree of potential bodily harm between a gun and speech, you have no common ground with the majority of the citizens
The Shadow @ 41: “Cramer – if you can’t see the difference in degree of potential bodily harm between a gun and speech, you have no common ground with the majority of the citizens”
That is true but not for the reasons you assume. As for nuts having guns, I am more afraid of the mentally unhinged armed or not than I am of normal citizens. Crikey, pay attention to what has been going on in Iran the last days. Axes and knives make very effective weapons IF AND ONLY IF the population has no weapons.
Shadow, there is actual case law in the Fed courts that state that the government in any of it’s forms has NO obligation to protect the individual. NONE, sparky. Are you familiar with the hierarchy of conflict escalation? Actual requirements have to be fulfilled before one may use a firearm on someone else. AND those requirements vary state by state. What does that tell you?
My best advice to you is not to come to gunny sites or articles UNLESS you have actual facts at your disposal. You are not well informed.
“Cramer – if you can’t see the difference in degree of potential bodily harm between a gun and speech, you have no common ground with the majority of the citizens”
That’s a preposterous statement. Potential bodily has nothing to do with it. We either have rights or we don’t. Obviously it’s just that you don’t care. Your claim that “you have no common ground with the majority of the citizens” is indubitably false. If the former chairman of the anti-gun Joyce Foundation president Obama thought he could remove our gun rights outright there is no doubt that he would. That he can’t is a testament to the overwhelming millions of like minded Americans. That is why he lies and claims that he’s all for the 2nd Amendment. Your statement reads more like a left inspired pipe dream.
A parent may prevent activities due to potential harm to children. Shadow you are treating free adults as children. A civil right to keep and bears arms does have potential for harm or good. However America is set up under the understanding that the citizens are not children and will rule themselves and accept the risks inherent with that, therefore any arguement of potential harm violates the freedom of an adult.
That is prior restraint. If an adult misuses a a tool like a car, nailgun or gun then they can be presecuted for the misuse not the mere posession or use if done responsibly.
So the analogy is false. People can misuse a car and often do and are subject to penalties. Driving is not a right just a priviledge. Posession of arms is a right not a priviledge and subject to a much higher standard to restrict any use or carry under the constitution.
So Heller said that regulation can be restricted from felons and minors, not the adult lawabiding citizen. Felons have many rights removed and that has been held constitutional.
The tool has no ability to act on its own but needs a human to wield it. So until a person misuses the toool they have every right to carry and own it and use it correctly.
No prior restraint based on what a person may do.
Your theory of people control is worse than a police state based on what potential harm can be done. There is potential harm from any action.
And to think our children are exposed to “weapons” in school every day and all their lives; I’ll bet that every reader here has one in their house!
Do you think they’re going to regulate SHARP PENCILS? And to think these could be used for HATE SPEECH!!!!
Congress could take this up in the next session.
Couple accused of assault using Cheetos…
http://www.t-g.com/story/1549895.html
Congress needs to look into this, too!
Cramer – if you can’t see the difference in degree of potential bodily harm between a gun and speech, you have no common ground with the majority of the citizens
Oddly enough, a strong majority of citizens of the U.S. support restrictions on speech.
1. Libel laws.
2. Slander laws.
3. Child pornography.
4. Animal sex pornography.
5. Giving aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war.
And guess what? All of these are unlawful, either under criminal or civil law. But you will notice that all of these punish acts after you have committed the act. The equivalent are laws that criminalize misuse of a gun, instead of attempting to prevent these crimes from taking place by controlling who is allowed to speak, print, or own a camera.
Actually all sane people are afraid of any nut having a gun
And that’s why the NRA backed a law in the last Congress to tighten reporting of mental illness commitments. That’s never been terribly controversial–to our side. The ACLU has fought such changes at the state level repeatedly.
Not only can someone be punished for misusing tools, but that punishment can include the forfeiture of the right to continue using those tools. Thus, convicted felons can be prohibited from owning guns and reckless drivers can lose their licenses. However, the 5th Amendment protects people from being so stripped of their rights without due process.
Guns! Liberties teeth,without them there is no freedom, only the illusion of freedom. You are then only a slave to tyranny. This country was born in rebellion,by gun toting patriots. That’s why tyrants want the weapons,pure and simple! The tyrants of America want the reinstitution of feudalism. Bare you neck to the boot,or take up arms,the choice is yours.
Hmm, methinks I saw Shadow post something on another recent thread (day before yesterday?), claiming he was a teacher. Now, he claims something else. Anyone else remember it?
I teach HS English. I had a student (16 yrs old) stabbed to death 4 months ago. I’m in a wretched area of NY, and I keep waiting for people to suggest banning knives. Something about guns worries the state and the statists.
Those with political power just do whatever they want. Damn the Constitution. But it has always been this way in my lifetime, so I’m used to it by now. It sort of feels like the 15th lashing at the whipping post, it just doesn’t hurt anymore.
The statist wants an unarmed citizenry for the same reason a slave owner wants unarmed slaves.
The bottom line is, those who believe in the power of the government over their citizenry, believe guns should be seriously regulated or banned. Those who believe in individual rights do not. Our founders came here for many reasons. One was, to escape the tyranny of their governments, whether that be a state or a monarch.
Guns are dangerous. Just as many other things in everyday life are dangerous. Those who have &/or carry a gun, should seek training as a matter of personal obligation & common sense.
Just because people have guns, it does not mean there are more crimes or more violence. When Florida became a “shall issue” concealed carry state, over the next few years crimes dropped, & rather significantly. Gun control advocates claimed there would be blood on the streets & we would have a wild west type situation.
None of that came true. In fact, crime dropped. In the end an armed citizen, acting responsibly, is more of a deterrent to crime than the entire criminal code. And Florida proves that to be true. As other states followed Florida’s example, they too experienced a drop in their crime rates & especially home burglaries & assaults. I think there are now 14 more states that operate based on ‘shall issue’ a concealed carry permit, since Florida became a ‘shall issue state’.
Few criminals want to deal w/a potentially armed citizen. And those who suggest the police are there to protect you, have never waited for an available officer to get to them while a crime was being committed in their homes. Even cops will tell you, they cannot be everywhere & initially, each of us is responsible for our own self defense.
51. Marc Malone:
Could you be thinking of “Strawman”?
1. Marc Malone:
“The problem is that no one knows their history, expecially the Supreme Court Justices!”
Marc, You are right about your understanding of the right to bare arm, how ever I believe that the Supreme Court Justices do understand it fine. They are just ignoring it because they (Government) want as much control as they can get. they do not like that our forefathers wrote “for the people by the people”, the Government should be afraid of us, not us afraid of them.
We continue to give up more and more of our rights every day, it won’t be long before we are all referring to each other as comrade.
http://torquedmarine.blogspot.com/
Semper Fi.
4. The Shadow:
“Although we have freedom of speech, no one has the right to cry fire in a crowed theater. So to the right to bear arms is not an absolute right. The state can intervene for public safety and the common good”
You are partly right Shadow. The problem is this is not the States doing it, it is the Fed. The constitution specifically gave control of these types of debates over to the States, so the Fed. could not interfere with the local Gov. They(Fed.) are over stepping their boundaries.
We the people need to take back control of our own safety and lively hoods or we may as well shed the founding documents today, and tell all of our troops thanks for your sacrifice but we don’t need you any more, we have the Almighty Obam-Bam to protect us now.
Choice is a beautiful thing, I can choose to call 911, and wait for help to arrive 15-30 min. after I and my family are murdered, or I can take a steady aim, and double tap the bastard in the chest, and then call 911. I prefer to take control of my own life. You go ahead and trust the Gov.
Semper Fi.
25. The Shadow:
“the government has the right to regulate the sale of guns just as it has the right to limit free speech or free press in certain circumstances where it serves the public good”
Please tell me your joking, or else show me where in the Constitution it gives Gov. these rights.
It does not say “the right to bare arms unless we think it’s not safe” does it?
Semper Fi.
Guns keep us free
Amendment 2 – Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Shall not be infringed, I think that is my favorite part of the 2ND. Amendment. The founding fathers knew that unless they did something to keep Gov. in check, we would quickly end up as we were in England. That just did not set well with them.
The Right to bare arms guaranties all the other rights. The right to free speech. the right to privacy. The right to your own faith. The right to protect your self, etc.
If we give up this fundamental right, we give them all up. Remember, it was armed citizens that made us free and it will be armed citizens that keep us free.
Semper Fi.
http://torquedmarine.blogspot.com/
#4. Shadow, you are correct in that not everyone has an ‘absolue right’ to carry a firearm. However, those of us who have been vetted and have carry permits do have the right. Obambi notwithstanding. [or is that, Obambi notPRESENTING].
‘shall not be infringed’
I believe like the torqued jarhead, however – it is waaaay too late – we have passed ‘infringement’ long ago. One law is infringement, no?
But, hey, it’s just our government – they are kind, beneficient, and have only our best interests at heart.
NOT.
Try this one instead:
‘cold, dead hands’
I intend to distribute those, not possess them, should this come to blows. Remember who has the guns (and if you say ‘the military’, think of the last liberal Marine you met).
Whether there are regulations on the books or not, anyone enforcing regulations that in effect deprive a citizen of his rights is guilty of Deprivation of Civil Rights Under Color of Law. A charge that seldom goes unpunished when it is targeted at someone who, for instance, refuses to permit a citizen to sacrifice a chicken in his prison cell. What the hell is wrong with the so-called conservatives that they haven’t learned to fight fire with fire and continuously bring suit against every little tin Gawd that enforces rules that infringe individual rights? Is there some form of mania that infects them and makes them think that what’s good for the goose isn’t good for the gander if it entails using the system against those who do the same to them?
Regulating a right out of existence has been fought successfully a large number of times. If gun right, speech rights, or any other rights are regulated out of existence, “Sue the Bastards”, is the way to go and it works. Trying to blame “them” when “we” don’t even put up a fight makes no sense at all. Look in the damn mirror at one of the people who won’t put their money where their mouth is and support lawsuits out the ears against every one of the little games these numbskulls play.
Have a nice day
#53 Jim Baker – The supreme court was threatened by FDR with financial and political ruin to implement the unconstitutional portions of the New Deal. Since then, the judges have abdicated their check and balance function. Google “judicial deference” to find out what is happening. Then start asking judges and congressmen why they violate their oath to support the constitution.
62. Bill Johnson:
“it is waaaay too late – we have passed ‘infringement’ long ago. One law is infringement, no?”
Bill, you are correct some of it is to late. That , and I am sure you know this, does not mean that we quit, I will never quit.
I and many of us on line and my daughter fought for and are still fighting for our rights. Every time I begin to let those types of thoughts into my head, I remember the towers and the fighters flying out of Fargo N.D. where I was living at the time.
When I remember that, I reassert my conviction to do every thing I can to change things back to where they were and where they should have never left.
All one has to do is look at how the crime rate has climbed in Europe since they outlawed guns. The criminals love their victims to be unarmed. That’s one of the nice things about being in Colorado, we have the make my day law, which means “break into my house and I get to shot you dead” and no charges will be filled.
About a month or so ago some guy broke into an elderly man’s house near Denver, thinking it was easy pickings. He was sorely mistaken, I figure it took the better part of a week to clean hi inside up from all over the walls and floor. (Gut Shot With 12GA.at close range). Good for the old man.
There is still hope, even if it is slim.
Now I’m starting to ramble. (Guns are kind of a hot button topic for me)
Semper Fi.
P.S. Thanks for the support, and prey for my little girl. Class 2010 U.S. Naval Academy. She is going to be a Marine under Bam-Bam. God be with her and all our serving troops at home and abroad.
I’m done.
Two questions about gun control
1: There are four reasons that someone would be in favor of gun control. What is your reason?Those reasons are:
Tyrants want to disarm the people to make them fearful and controllable.
Criminals want to disarm the victims to make it safer for themselves from injury and capture.
Ignorant want to protect people from accidents not realizing how many are injured or die from accidents as compared to crime, and especially tyranny.
The unknown to me reason that you will fully explain.
2: Where is the line separating when you would fight for the Constitution and the people on one side and against an insurrection of the people against the Constitution and on the other side or
when you would fight for the Constitution and people on one side and against a tyrannical government acting under color of law on the other side?
Please give your answers to me at gmweber@q.com especially those in favor of gun control.