Some liberal law professors have been especially influential in the gun-rights debate, the New York Times reported. It used to be that the legal community was nearly universal in interpreting the Second Amendment as referring to a collective right to bear arms, not guaranteeing an individual right — and that remains the majority view. But professors such as Laurence Tribe of Harvard University, Akhil Reed Amar of Yale University and Sanford Levinson of the University of Texas have argued against this interpretation. Their scholarship helped lead to a federal appeals court decision in March that struck down a gun-control law on Second Amendment grounds — the first such decision in our nation’s history.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
118 Comments
Well, well! Some liberals that I agree with! The NY Times story is well-written. It seems that more and more researchers agree with the NRA position. BTW, note the comment about the concern of the D.C. area, with the highest crime rate, allowing law-abiders to own guns, along with the criminals! I don’t need to carry a weapon in KS, but I would in D.C.!
Well all I can do is speak for this LIBERAL and I am 100% opposed to gun control and 100% for criminal control. It is my belief that, while a totally unarmed society would be the best of all societies, that is beyond any possibility with 300 million guns out there. Therefore since we cannot achieve an unarmed society, the next best thing is a fully armed society which is why I oppose gun control. A half armed society only works for those who have arms and they prey on those who do not.
Right to bear arms is an individual right.
So where are the wingnut gun nuts on this thread? Usually they are all over the gun topics.
Farmgrrl,
Maybe the sight of “liberals” with guns makes them afraid.
Oh, sorry I forgot. They are all busy trashing Senator Don Betts on the open thread.
Liberals with guns do not make me afraid, however nervous women with a gun in their hands does. A funny (sort of) personal story to make the point. A few years ago I was working away from home on a temporary basis. One night, my wife heard someone trying to break into the back door. She hustled the kids (wow, more years ago thanI thought) upstairs and got out my pistol, sat on the stairs and called 911, yelling at the wannabee intruder she had a gun and was calling the cops. The 911 dispatch stayed with her until the police arrived. However, they refused to enter the house, until she had acknowledged to the dispatch, and the police at the door, that she had put away the gun! Smart thinking on their part.
The Libs don’t want us to be able to defend ourselves whether or not it’s from a threat from here or over there. “I envision the day the military has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber”Kumbaya, pussies.
oh give me a break brownlee.
when are we going to see a post about white conservatives leading the way for racial integration?
probably never.
doesn’t serve Brownlee, Holman, Scholfield, et al.’s agenda.
Kumbaya, pussies.Posted by: fleettwood | May 09, 2007 at 09:36 AM
Come take try to take my .357 away from me, Asstampon, and I’ll show you the meaning of “liberal pussy.”
This reminds me of when Jon Stewart hosted SNL a few years ago. He used his monologue to blast the Bush administration over their continued firings of gay servicemen and women. He figured the _real_ reason y’all are afraid of gays in the military is “10,000 homos with rifles, saying ‘who are you calling a “faggot?”‘
“Come take try to take my .357 away from me…”
Why would I want to do that?Got anger issues, pussy?
Why would you want to start calling people you disagree with “pussies?” Do you have Tourette’s?
hee hee hee Tom. I forgot about the SNL/Jon Stewart story.
Fleetie calling someone else a pussy? hehehehehehheheeh.
I think in blog world, that’s the equivalent of saying “oh yea, well yer ugly and yo mamma dresses you funny”!
DING DING DING DING
I think this round goes to Tom by default.
Pussy is another name for wimp, sissy, Milquetoast. It’s only good for those who will not defend themselves (or this country).
Asstampon,
“Pussy” is a particularly demeaning term that compares the target to female genitalia. The only people who use it are sexist, misogynistic bullies. You only use that term because you have no respect for women – you find them weak and helpless. “Wimps, sissy…onlhy good for those who will not defend themselves.”
You’re a pig, Asstampon. Go roll in your own feces.
fleet: I don’t say this often, but please either grow up, lose the “pussy” idiocy, and say something substantive – even if I disagree with it – or shutup.
That said:
The Times article, useful as it is, still gets much of the reality wrong. The fact of the matter is that the “collective rights” theory the article lauds as the majority model was unknown by the founders, nor would it have been recognized prior to the early-20th century. It was a modern, gun-control creation, a justification born of an era when judges felt free to be creative, unfettered by the restraints of an actual constitution (euphamistically referred to as the “living constitution” – a license to do anything, unfettered by silly constitutional restraints, and a reflection of the arrogance of much the legal profession that “judges know best”).
And the individual rights view is hardly the minority; on the contrary, it is the majority view. It is frankly difficult to justify the collective view with a straight face. Parker dismantles the collective view pretty thoroughly. At base, Parker boils down to the realization that when the founders spoke of “the people” in the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th amendments, and spoke of “the people” in the 2nd amendment, they meant the same thing. And “the people” means, indeed, “the people.”
No kidding.
Thus the change, if it is a change, is really a reflection of the rise of originalism/textualism as a way of interpreting text, especially constitutional text, and the relative abandonment of overt judicial activism and the “living constitution.”
More suggested follow-up reading, if you’re interested:
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2007/05/don_kates_on_th.ph
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_05_06-2007_05_12.shtml#1178475160
Link away from there to your heart’s content.
http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue11/dont_blame_liberals.htm
gmc-Eat me.
Ah -
That must be the “substance,” I take it. Thanks for adding to the conversation.
I’m a conservative, fleet. I won’t apologize for same, and I think I can articulate why. But you (and some others, as well) make that job more difficult when you adopt the “conservative” label and then proceed to demonstrate yourself to be, in fact, an idiot.
Then eat this.
“You’re a pig, Asstampon. Go roll in your own feces.
Posted by: Tom | May 09, 2007 at 10:13 AM”
you adopt the “conservative” label and then proceed to demonstrate yourself to be, in fact, an idiot.Posted by: GMC70 | May 09, 2007 at 10:54 AM
GMC,
You’ve hit the nail right on the head. This is exactly why many so-called “moderate” Republicans have either left the party, or if still in the party, are voting for Democrats. The vitriol blasting outward from the radical-conservatives has become so repulsive that many of us have given up any hope that the Republican party can effectively lead.
Hey Tom Paine,
I notice that in your link the only real ‘conservative’ they cited (in my opinion) was the late Ronald Reagan.
All the rest were liberal republicans. You can talk liberal and conservative but don’t let that get mixed up with republican and democrat.
I’m not surprised that ronald Reagan would support the Brady bill, Brady was a very close personal friend and the Brady bill came as a result of Brady’s wound in Reagan’s assasination attempt.
Hank
PS Hey farmgrrl, consider this the obligatory post from a ‘gun nut’.
Fleet don’t lower yourself to their level.
Tom you have absolutely no justification for calling fleet any name. You started the name calling first and if you can dish it you had better be prepared to take it as farmie so often reminds us.
CC is the only fair way for this nation to go. We have always had guns in our house. I raised three sons and had many of their friend in and out of the house over the years. They were taught to respect guns from day one.
If criminals are armed,their victims should be also.
Kumbaya, pussies.Posted by: fleettwood | May 09, 2007 at 09:36 AM
Ksgrm,
If you can find an earlier time-stamp with me calling Fleet names on this thread, I challenge you to post it.
Thanks.
Tom:
The “vitriol,” at least on this board, comes from both sides, but much more from the left, I think, and I’ll stay a Republican, thanks.
I can live with a hard-right conservative, if he’ll converse with substance. I can live with a hard-left liberal as well, though we’ll probably disagree more.
But idiots are idiots, on both sides.
Reagan as a conservative still supported gun control laws as gov of California(mulford act). CC laws as they are in Kansas are stupid If I can pass the background check to own a gun then why do I need to do it all over again at personal cost to carry it. Essentially paying the state for the “right” to do that which the Constitution says i should already be able to do.
Tom:
I understand that position; however, while I think it’s clear the Constitution protects the ownership and possession of firearms, the carrying of one concealed is another matter. I don’t think the Constitution necessarily protects that (though statute clearly authorizes same). And I want an extra level of training and oversight regarding those who carry a weapon vs. those who just have one in the gun safe at home.
So if the Constitution doesn’t allow one to carry a gun then what is the point of the 2nd amendment? Isn’t that sort of like having the 1st amendment but public speaking is prohibited?
Tom Paine, picking up a bit on GMC’s thoughts. The Second Amendment grants the “freedom to bear arms” as a right. but in context, this right it may be argued applies to “long guns” in particular, and as to the pistols of the day, the same were generally worn out in the open. While it was possible to conceal a pistol, such was not easy nor common.
Thus, in context, it can be argued the Second Amendment right does not grant a right to carry a concealed weapon, while guaranteeing the right to own firearms in general, so long as the same are carried in a nonconcealed manner. Not trying to put words in GMC’s mouth, but that’s my argument on the topic, which I think tracks with his, although I’m sure we differ in some of the details. Thus, in my opinion, there is no constitutional right to “concealed carry”, which may be prohibited or highly conditioned by statute, while ownership of the weapon cannot be lawfully proscribed in the absolute.
isn’t “bearing arms” the carrying and use of said arms? i think that part of the with the 2nd adem. unlike the 1st 4th 5th. is that it never has gotten argued in the Supreme Court.
The point is, you can carry and use “said arms” without concealing them. There is a world of difference in a police officer or someone else having a holstered pistol or rifle, and someone having a gun under their coat.
The 2nd amendment is about “the people” protecting themselves from the government. Having a gun does this. Having it under your coat though is kinda irrelevant.
Now, if someone wants to argue that the 9th and 10th amendment grant you the right to concealed carry, thats a different question.
I thought the argument for CC was that 2nd amendment guarantees the right to bear arms now it and that doesn’t according to our legalistic posters. So again i ask what is the point of the 2nd Amendment if you can carry your weapon. If your gun is in your safe at home its pretty worthless in public, if its a protection against tyrannical government it outdated, someone with a shotgun and a .357 doesn’t have a chance against SWAT teams, SEALs, Tanks, and modern airpower. And technically the 2nd Adm. doesn’t protect guns it says “Arms” and their are certain ally “arms” that aren’t allowed to be used or owned by citizens, most military ordinance, chemical,bio, nuclear weapons, etc. As Vaughn pointed out when the founders wrote it the 2nd arms were long guns pistols and swords.
I meant what is the point of the 2nd amendment if you can’t carry your weapon, stupid typos
As I think of it, the real value of “shall issue” CC (now in approx. 40 states), is that it has clearly demonstrated the delusion and lie of gun control, the fantasy that more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens causes more deaths.
It simply hasn’t happened.
CC’s impact on crime rates is frankly mixed, but on balance pro-CC. And certainly, encouraging people to have an attitude of self-sufficiency and self-reliance is a positive (when properly in perspective). But CC’s repeated demonstration of the lack of threat from law-abiding citizens is key. It has demonstrated clearly that con-control laws only “control” those who were not a threat in the first place. That hasn’t changed the goals of Feinstein and Shumer et al., of course. Just their tactics.
Ultimately, of course, gun control isn’t about guns. It’s about control.
I would hypothesize that given the events predicating the writing of the Constitution, the intent of its writers was to ensure that the newly established Government would not be able to prevent its citizens from having the military tools to overthrough the Government if those citizens found it necessary.
I really doubt that the Founding Fathers worried about protecting hunting rights and allowing folks to put a pistol in their waistband and a rifle on their back. Those things were commonplace at the time. It would have been highly unlikely that they would have been able to visualize a society where those things would even be questioned, let alone worried enough about those things being taken away that they would make it the second item mentioned in the Constitution of a new Government they were created.
Actually I aggree with Tom Paine. The restrictions on CCH are really little more than those on buying a gun.
The CCH law in my opinion is not a conservative NRA victory. It is merely more strenuos adminstration and background checks before you can carry a gun that you can legally buy.
If you get into the nuts and bolts of the CCH law for Kansas, a lot of it makes no sense . . . unless you’re a liberal!
Now, all that being said, I do believe that classes for those that desire to carry concealed are a very good idea but they should not be a mandatory requirement.Hank
There exists a law, not written down anywhere but inborn in our hearts; a law which comes to us not by training or custom or reading but by derivation and absorption and adoption from nature itself; a law which has come to us not from theory but from practice, not by instruction but by natural intuition. I refer to the law which lays it down that, if our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right.
Tom:
I had a well-written (I thought)answer for you, but the ‘bot protector ate it. Lunch is over, so I’m not gonna try to write it again. Let me point you to David Hardy, however. You’ll find a link to an article of his in the article linked here:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_05_06-2007_05_12.shtml#1178475160
His own blog is here:http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2007/05/don_kates_on_th.ph
Happy reading.
You started it. I win (again).
“Come take try to take my .357 away from me, Asstampon, and I’ll show you the meaning of “liberal pussy.”
Posted by: Tom | May 09, 2007 at 09:41 AM”
It is about time I see the term “liberal” associated with the right to keep and bear arms. I have considered myself a moderate as the right and left go to extremes on many issues. As far as guns, we have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. It is also a means of self-defense and the individual is ultimately responsible for their own self-defense. Most of the times after a shooting all law enforcement can do is put up the yellow tape and launch an investigation. The individual has to have the means to protect themselves. I am not slamming law enforcement but stating facts.
I consider those who would ban guns as “gun control nuts” with the key word being “control”.
Liberal thought was the driving force behind almost every positive step this country ever took. Conservative thought fights progress at every turn. That’s why they call it “conservative.”
Fleettwood,
What alternate universe do you live in where a 9:36 timestamp comes AFTER a 9:41 timestamp?
This is stuff I learned in Kindergarten. Oh my.
Interesting comment. . . I’m wondering if you have an example or two of liberal positive steps.
I think your statement is a ‘liberal myth’ that you have bought into.
Hank
After all Fleet, Tom is an expert on “Ass Tampons.” Most likely, personal experience.
Nothing like a twice barrel shoot gun to clear the path of undesirables.
“What alternate universe do you live in where a 9:36 timestamp comes AFTER a 9:41 timestamp?”
My 9:36 post had nothing to do with you. Did it?
Since you consider me one of the “Libs” on these threads, just who *were* you referring to?
Your mother?
Wichita Guy:
It’s not nearly that simple, I’m afraid. And whether some of what you might consider “progress” is actually “progress” (as in better) is debatable.
Ultimately, liberals and conservatives need each other.
Conservatives need to be reminded that because X has always been so, it need not necessarily always be so.
Liberals must be reminded that institutions and policies reflect the experience of history and human nature, which has never changed and will never change (at least this side of heaven). Tread carefully in making change.
Vaughn Tolle
I’ve got a Nit to pick with something you said. But it’s an important Nit. A mistake made to often by folks who should know better.
The Bill of rights does not GRANT us rights. The enumerated rights are considered to be “Natural” and pre-existing.
In the case of the 2nd, the syntax of the amendment assumes a pre-existing condition. It doesnt say ‘The people have the right to’ it says ‘The right of the people to’. There’s a big difference.
The text of the 2nd Amendment is very clear in it’s meaning when proper rules of usage and grammar are used. The only confusion is that created by people who don’t like what it says.
For a clear explanation of the textual meaning of 2A see the following link.
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html
http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=3230
Heck, sorry for the poor “wordsmithing” there.
It’s a delusion to desire carrying a gun. Criminals are crazy. Citizens are more paranoid.
With a gun, some can be caught unaware, unprepared for the attack.
It’s too bad gun play affects citizens everywhere but we never get to vote on how their sold.
Let’s vote to put background check at gun shows. Let’s vote to create eye tests at gun stores.
Let’s vote to create a state database where gun sales are cataloged what a certain person does.
Self defense is one thing. But the continual buying and selling of many guns without records, should be known.
Someone is arming street criminals and making a profit doing it. They alter guns too, make them more deadly. Continually supply the ammunition to criminals cheaper than retail.
Criminals walk into gun stores with fake names and straw buyers. What’s the intention of gun purchase, some conversation has to be required.
Tragedy at V-Tech showed, no talk can lead to deadly retail consequences. Talk to the gun buyer what’s their fear or anger. Find out.
Every gun purchase, the book
“100 reasons not to shoot at other people. Especially unsuspecting citizens. Don’t threaten people with the gun your buying.”
That book doesn’t exist.
The 2nd Amendment doesn’t say we can’t control guns in our society.
The NRA is highly irresponsible, their push to arm EVERYBODY. Many are irresponsible and their law-abiding! Criminals are totally irresponsible.
If a gang or militia, some religious bent, the mafia, that have meetings spouting outrage and hate, the NRA should say those groups are TOO JACKED UP to have guns. Too wanna be attacking goverment or other people.
The NRA wants those groups under police suspicion to have their access to guns.
The NRA corrupts the gun industry. America is much corrupted leading the world in arm sales.
Phillip
The Times article is a piece of crap. Though refreshing on the surface, the substance still reveals a biased ignorance.
Don Kates,a noteworthy legal researcher responds-
To the Editor
The pervasive inaccuracy of the N.Y. TIMES on gun issues is epitomized by the fact that “A Liberal Case for Gun Rights” is the most accurate treatment the Times has ever given the Second Amendment – and yet is still highly misleading.
From the article the ordinary reader would come away with the following misimpressions: 1) from its enactment in 1791 to roughly 1980 everyone viewed the 2nd Am. as a states right
or a meaningless “collective right”; 2) since 1980 a few ivory tower intellectuals have theorized that the Second Amendment might be a right of individual gun owners; 3) nonetheless the great majority of authorities say that is wrong.
The truth is almost diametrically opposite. Specifically:
1) From its enactment till the 20th Century gun controlmovement the Second Amendment was universally understood as protecting an individual right to possess arms. Not one court or commentator asserted otherwise; 18th and 19th Century judges and commentators routinely described the Amendment as a right of individual gun owners and expressly analogized it to the rights of freedom of speech, religion, jury trial etc., etc. [See David B. Kopel "The Second Amendment in the Nineteenth Century," 1998 BRIG. YOUNG L. REV. 1359.]
2) The states’ right and collective rights theories are previously unknown artifacts of the 20th Century gun control movement having no constitutional provenance whatever. William Van Alstyne, a paramount figure in 20th-21st Century constitutional law, summarized the matter thus: “In recent years it has been suggested that the Second Amendment protects the ‘collective right’ of states to maintain militias, while it does not protect the right of ‘the people’ to keep and bear arms. If anyone entertained this notion in the period during which the Constitution and Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, it remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis.” William Van Alstyne, “The Second Amendment and the Personal Right to Arms”, 43 DUKE L. J. 1236, 1243, n. 19 (1994)
3) Far from the Second Amendment creating a states’ militia right, nearly 200 years of Supreme Court cases on the militia hold that the federal government has plenary power over the militia with state authority being limited to issues on which Congress has not spoken. [Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. 1, 24 (1820) (federal authority over the militia is paramount -- federal militia legislation preempts state), Martin v. Mott, 25 U.S. 19 (1827) (federal authority over the militia is paramount -- president's power to call militia from state control into federal service), Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366, 383 (1918) (federal authority over the militia is paramount -- Congress has power to abolish state militias by bodily incorporating them into federal army), Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990) (federal authority over the militia is paramount -- state militias may be called into federal service over state objection).]4) Over 120 law review articles have addressed the Second Amendmentsince 1980. The overwhelming majority affirm that it guarantees a right of individual gun owners. That is why the individual right view is called the “standard model” view of the 2d Am by supporters and opponents alike.
More at this link-http://johnrlott.tripod.com/2007/05/don-kates-responds-to.html
This blog item is such a farce. Leftists and their anti-individual views are hardly leaders in the gun rights debate. A few professors does not add up to leadership. The correct title should be “Not all Liberals are Against Individual Gun Rights”. I realize that to newspaper folk that words are the ultimate gold. However, quoting some trite expressions:
You can’t just ‘talk the talk’, you have to ‘walk the walk’.Actions speak louder than words
I think the truth is that liberal strategists know they lose a massive amount of voters over gun rights. So they are doing their best to change the perception that liberals want only government to have weapons. They are doing that through the usual channels. For instance you could write a blog entry titled, “Liberals led way on gun rights”.
“So they are doing their best to change the perception that liberals want only government to have weapons.”
Who said? I am a liberal, as are many of my friends. Some own guns, some do not. Not one of them is of the opinion that only the government should have guns.
In fact, I do not know a single person that has ever made such a claim. As a former and future gun owner, I really do not care if you have a gun or not.
If the answer to the question is “more guns” then it is a really stupid question.
It is the same if the answer is “ban all guns.”
Good point, Clark, and mega dittos.
I am a lefty and I have guns too.
I must admit, I felt a little out of place pulling up to my favorite gun range with a “John Kerry” sticker on my bumper, but, hey, what were they gonna do, shoot me?
Nobody–ever–said “ban all guns.”
Some people like Rudy Giuliani and Arnold Swartzenegger have tried to restrict certain guns (pistols and big clip rapid-fire military style rifles) in certain places.
Look what happened in England and Australia, they banned guns and the crime rate went up. When the right of self-defense is taken away, then criminals have no fear from the public. They have a duty to retreat law in England and many citizens whotried to defend themselves from criminals were prosecuted by the very government who is charged with protecting the citizens.
I fear those who would ban guns would also pass laws that would take away the right of self-defense. I do not care about the liberal or conservative label, I only know there are those on both sides of the labels who want to control the citizens by any means necessary.
“if our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right.Posted by: Wiseman | May 09, 2007 at 01:12 PM”
FYI This is from the Roman philosopher Cicero around 52BC
If people would only see through the false dichotomy propogated by the media of conservative vs. liberal they would realize that reasonable people believe in the right to defend themselves, their families, and their property, no matter their political party. Gun control worked very well in Nazi Germany and the Eastern Bloc Nations after WW II, e.g. Hungary, that is, well for the authoritarian governments, not so great for ordinary citizens. If you think that can’t happen here, think again. Support the Second Amendment!
WSC,
As I said, there is a perception that liberals want to ban guns. Liberals are trying to change that. For instance when someone makes the statement some left-wingy types could jump in and say:
“In fact, I do not know a single person that has ever made such a claim. As a former and future gun owner, I really do not care if you have a gun or not.”
or
“I am a lefty and I have guns too.”
All of which proves the point. Liberals are trying to change the public perception that left-wingers want to take guns from private citizens.
ProudMan–
We want to change the public perception “that left-wingers want to take guns from private citizens” because that perception is not true now nor was it true in the past.
Many liberals support the idea that not all guns are equally protected everywhere. You can’t own a bazooka or a mortar or a RPG last time I checked, for instance. You can’t carry a pistol on an airplane.
But a blanket ban on all guns in the United States?
No way. No how. Liberals never said it and never wanted it.
The “perception” that liberals want to “ban all guns” is perpetuated by the right wing – not the left. It is a scare tactic developed and perpetuated by the NRA.
Liberals wanting to ban guns is just flat out false.
I support your right to have a weapon.
In fact, if it is a nice or unusual piece, I might just want to take a look at it. I appreciate fine workmanship.
Capn, WS:
“Nobody–ever–said “ban all guns.”" — to quote the good Capn, 2:30.
Yes, they have.
I do not doubt your sincerity on this position. And certainly this issue does often does not break along the usual liberal/conservative lines.
But there is leadership, primarily in your party, who given the opportunity would do exactly that. And make no mistake about it, the goal of the Brady Bunch & Violence Policy Center is exactly that; “reasonable” regulation is merely incremental steps toward that goal.
“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right ban,picking up every one of them… “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,”I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.”–U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), CBS-TV’s “60 Minutes,” 2/5/95
“Our goal is to not allow anybody to buy a handgun. In the meantime, we think there ought to be strict licensing and regulation. Ultimately, that may mean it would require court approval to buy a handgun.”Michael K. Beard,Washington Times, p. A1, President of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, 1993-12-06
“Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.”Joseph Biden, U.S. Senator, quoted by AP, 1993-11-18
“I don’t think there is a Second Amendment right to own a gun. But I think it’s a loser political issue.”James Carville, Clinton-Gore strategist
“And we should — then every community in the country could then start doing major weapon sweeps and then destroying the weapons, not selling them.”Bill Clinton (he has heard of the 4th amendment, hasn’t he?)
“If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government’s ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees.”Bill Clinton, 1993-08-12 (a truly scary statement!)
“If it was up to me, no one but law enforcement officers would own handguns…”Richard Daley, Chicago Mayor,Federal Gun Legislation Press Conference in Washington, D.C., 1998-11-13
“You know I don’t believe in people owning guns, only the police and military. And I’m going to do everything I can to disarm this state.”Michael Dukakis, in conversation with Mike Yacino, MA Gun Owner’s Action League, and Roy Innis, CORE1986-06-16
“Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.”Janet Reno, U.S. Attorney General, 1993-12-10
“We’re here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true! We’re going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy. We’re going to beat guns into submission!”Charles Schumer, quoted on NBC nightly news,1993-11-30
There’s more, but you get the idea. Please don’t insult my intelligence and tell me that “no one has proposed banning guns.” Please don’t try to tell me that the slippery slope is a fantasy. It’s not. The goal of the gun-banners is clear.
No retreat, no compromise. No more. The laws on the books are more than sufficient. Not one further step.
“fleet: I don’t say this often, but please either grow up, lose the “pussy” idiocy, and say something substantive – even if I disagree with it – or shutup.”
This is a favourite tactic of conservatives- to call people names whom they cannot win a debate with. You could always tell in school who would grow up to be a Republican by their use of calling people names to cover up for the fact that they are mostly dumbasses themselves.
Hey Kev, why don’t you call out Tom for using “ass tampon.” That’s more disgusting that what Fleet said.
Democrat – Hypocrite is thy name.
Kev -
It’s a favorite tactic of those who can’t, or won’t discuss substance, be they Republican, Democrat, or Martian. And you’ve engaged in it, full bore.
Fleet’s stupid statement is Fleet’s. No one’s else’s. Tom’s label is equally stupid.
So please don’t quote me if all you’re gonna do is toss around stupid mischaracterizations with a broad brush.
Republican,
I also called Fleettwood a bully, a misogynist, a sexist, and a pig. I stand by every word of it.
I get weary of Fleettwood’s use of demeaning names like “pussy,” like the anti-gay crap he’s spewed, like the constant attacks on people’s patriotism and loyalty (remember “seditionist pigs?”), etc. If he’s going to come on this blog and start spewing his hate-filled names, I’m going to give it right back to him.
If you all can’t take it, too bad.
I am a LIBERAL and a DEMOCRAT too! I also:1. Oppose gun control almost 100% of the time and am a member of the NRA (right next to my ACLU card in my wallet)2. Support the police and think that they should use whatever force necessary to bring down the thugs and scum trying to destroy our communitties.3. Support long prison terms- especially for crimes involving guns, children and the elderly. I also think prisons should be places of punishment and, if I were in charge, I would remove things like TV sets from prisons. I also support the death penalty but think it needs to be much more fairly applied to rich and poor and black and white.4. As a liberal I support public schools 100% but I also believe we have every right to demand accountability from them and to remove disruptive students and sub par teachers. I fully support No Child Left Behind and I also support vouchers when it is clear that the local school refuses to maintain discipline and a learning environment for children.5. I fully opposed starting the war in Iraq but I believe that, since we did, we are obligated to stay there as long as the Iraqis want us there. The only timetable we should have for leaving is when the Iraqis tell us that we can. And yes, I did serve in the military but not in wartime.6. I fully support abortion on demand but have no problem with restrictions on it after 3 months of pregnancy and banning it after 6 months except for the life of the mother or requiring parental notification. If my daughter is going to undergo a medical procedure, I want to know about it.So please do not get the idea that all liberals think alike. We don’t and never have.
I cannot fully comment GMC on the quotes that you attribute to various politicians, not that I am questioning your integrity personally. I do not remember such statements and have not found the source for them.
If they made those statements, they were wrong to do so. It is not the gun that concerns me.
Maybe my closet conservative is showing, but I just do not see the point in even trying to ban guns.
Do I think that some weapons should be banned? Hell yes! I don’t want my drunken neighbor to have an RPG launcher in his garage.
Should guns have reasonable restrictions like automobiles – hell yes.
I will do some more research – again not to question your honesty – but I just can’t see why anyone would take that approach.
“Kev -
It’s a favorite tactic of those who can’t, or won’t discuss substance, be they Republican, Democrat, or Martian. And you’ve engaged in it, full bore.”
Never have I called anybody on this board a name of any kind. I have perhaps called the Republicans a few things but I have never called an individual on here a name. The Republicans as a group and are, to me, an evil cabal bent on the destruction of the USA and the freedoms for which it stands. But not all of them are horrible people. As I stated a few of them, like Dwight D Eisenhower truly loved the country and wanted to do things for us. Could you imagine a Republican today proposing something like the Interstate Highway system or Amtrack? The party has been taken over by right wing nutcases and religious freaks.
“The Republicans as a group and are, to me, an evil cabal bent on the destruction of the USA and the freedoms for which it stands.”
“The party has been taken over by right wing nutcases and religious freaks.”
No, no name-calling there. Yea, there’s lots of substance there. Yea, boy.
I rest my case.
WS:
Treat firearms like cars?
Lets see – 500 hp corvette, no problem (i.e. 50 round AK, no problem).
Universal license, revoked only for misuse of same.
Pro forma licensing, designed to be made for everyone to pass.
My DL is good anywhere in North America; do you propose the same for my CC permit?
Cars kill 40,000 or so a year. See any proposals to ban cars? I thought not.
So if your proposal is to regulate firearms like cars, most gun owners would answer SIGN ME UP!!! Guns are now FAR MORE RESTRICTED than cars.
Careful what you wish for . . .
I don’t doubt your position, WS. But don’t be naive to think that some, mostly in your party, don’t have other goals.
Yes, GMC, and I know (of) gun owners that think there should be absolutely no restrictions on weapons whatsoever. The are extremists on both sides.
“Guns are now FAR MORE RESTRICTED than cars.”
It has been a few years since I purchased a gun. At that time, there was no waiting period, no extensive background checks or anything else. I wrote a check and walked out of the shop with a .38.
When I sold the gun, the guy (a police officer) came by my house, gave me a check and went home with the gun.
Hardly restrictive I would say.
A good Democrat keeps his gun hidden until he needs it. A Republican likes to wear his in the open and then he gets robbed of it!
“The party has been taken over by right wing nutcases and religious freaks.”
At least we’re not owned by the socialist George Soros!
Hank
“My DL is good anywhere in North America; do you propose the same for my CC permit?”
Yes, actually.
“I also called Fleettwood a bully, a misogynist, a sexist, and a pig. I stand by every word of it.”
All hogwash. Were you a member of the Fisting With Fury bunch?I don’t seem to recall a “Tom”. That may say something about you.
Pussy=fact Seditionist=fact.I don’t know where you get the “anti-gay” deal.
As i sit here and read this blog, i find it amusing that the far right really is out of touch with mainstream america. As i read fleetwood and republicons replys it makes me wonder…..If these two are representative of the conservative right, there is a definite reason why this country is in the position/shape it is in. If anyone had any question in their own mind about the current political situation, i truely believe these two have answered those questions. One just needs to read their posts and the conclusions are readily apparent. Keep up the good work you two, 2006 was just the start!!
It just isn’t right to call Fleet a pig, Tom. If prepared correctly, pig makes a for a great barbecue.
Smoke a well marinated pork tenderloin, rubbed with a good blend of spices, serve with a side of sauce, corn on the cob and cole slaw, chased with pitchers of iced cold beer – a perfect Saturday afternoon barbecue!!!
Fleet shows up – barbecue is ruined, all your guests go home pissed off.
first time, I’m hardly what you would call a conservative republican. I tend to be moderate on most issues and liberal on others.
If you need things taxed and a nanny state – you vote Democrat.
If you need things done and a good economy, you vote Republican.
Perhaps First Time, stop listening to the Main Stream Media hype and do your own research.
“I tend to be moderate on most issues and liberal on others.”
Now that is the best joke I have heard since the one about the Penguin, the Nun and the Priest.
FYI This is from the Roman philosopher Cicero around 52BCPosted by: brian | May 09, 2007 at 02:44 PM
“Yes I know and you do too, good philosophy to know isn’t it.”
“If you need things done and a good economy, you vote Republican.”
By ALL economic measures, the economy has done better under Democrats and the stock market has done better under Democrats. FACT
Yep, I believe in Pro-Choice, Less Federal Government, Separation of Church and State on most issues, Gay Rights, Civil Unions, Strong Military, States Rights, No Subsidies (except as described), NAFTA, Anti-UN, Limited Law Suits Awards, Institutionalizing and Castration of Sexual Predators, Environmentally Friendly (as long as the U.S. does it without the UN), Equal Opportunity, Anti-Affirmative Action, Anti-Fairness Doctrine (that’s only for squeaky wheels), Competitive Government Contracts, Trade Embargoes and Tariffs, Shuttle Diplomacy, Space Exploration, Government Funded Museums, No Government Funded TV or Radio Stations, Independent Council, Domestic Secret Agents, Pork Barrel Spending as long as it is IMBY, Free and Subsidized Public Transportation, Mandatory Military or Public Service, Welfare by Work Credit (more hours you work – the more Welfare you are eligible for, free medical to mentally ill or incompetent, energy alternatives, appointed judges – not elected with limited terms not to be served consecutively and so on and so forth.
“My DL is good anywhere in North America; do you propose the same for my CC permit?”
I like that idea! I think it should be. Look at, for example, your over-the-road truckers who have to sleep in their trucks and sometimes in dangerous industrial areas. They need to be able to carry their guns in all states at all times.
The Seven Dwarfs were walking down the street when Grumpy stopped in front of a Catholic Church….
over-the-road truckers
That’s what re-chargeable nail guns are for.
I would rather an army of red ants, a swarm of flies and a hail storm show up at a BBQ than a Republican! I mean, would a Republican eat BBQ anyway? Most of those people eat Caviar and Sushi don’t they?
Lot of good Republicans eat, make and are in the business of BBQ. Just take a trip to Texas and find out.
GMC–
1. Most of those quotes are over ten years old or older.
2. Many of the quotes are not exactly supportive of a blanket ban. For instance, the James Carville quote may mean that he thinks that gun ownership should be permitted, but doesn’t believe that the 2nd amendment guarentees it.
That’s my personal position actually. I still believe that if the founders had wanted a blanket guarentee for private gun ownership, they would have had felt the need to “justify” it with the militia proviso.
3. When I try to find primary sources for these quotes, google lights up like a pin ball machine. Every gun nut on the web apparently has them posted. They’re passed around like a social disease.
Got any .GOV links?
Kev you live in such a make believe world that I have trouble thinking you aren’t a plant, trying to stir the pot. That what it is isn’t it?
We were thinking the same thing about you, GRM.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=47154&st=major+weapon+sweeps&st1=Clinton
Okay, I found the context of that Clinton quote.
And guess what, he wasn’t talking about a blanket ban. Surprise, surprise.
Here’s the full quote:
“Now, I believe we should have stronger gun control measures than the Brady bill. For example, let me say again what I think we should do. I think we should pass one of a number of good bills that are in the Congress which would ban assault weapons. There are a lot of them out there for the sole purpose of killing people, and they should be banned, either at the national level or in every State. We should follow the lead of the 17 States which have now made it illegal for young people to possess handguns, unless they are, I’ll say again, with their parents, hunting or at some target range, some approved place. We should have much stiffer penalties against possessing these weapons illegally. Then every community in the country could then start doing major weapon sweeps and then destroy the weapons, not selling them.”
Now, you are free, GMC, to agree or disagree with Clinton’s position on HANDGUNS for CHILDREN and the so-called ASSAULT WEAPONS, but the thing you can’t do is argue that Clinton wanted to round up ALL THE GUNS and melt them down.
That clearly isn’t right, and I hope you can agree with that simple fact.
Good work, Capn’. Context makes a world of difference.
“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right ban, picking up every one of them… “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,”I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.”–U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), CBS-TV’s “60 Minutes,” 2/5/95
“Our goal is to not allow anybody to buy a handgun. In the meantime, we think there ought to be strict licensing and regulation. Ultimately, that may mean it would require court approval to buy a handgun.”Michael K. Beard,Washington Times, p. A1, President of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, 1993-12-06
* He doesn’t represent liberals. He’s got a PAC.
** He’s talking ONLY about HANDGUNS, not long guns.
“Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.”Joseph Biden, U.S. Senator, quoted by AP, 1993-11-18
“I don’t think there is a Second Amendment right to own a gun. But I think it’s a loser political issue.”James Carville, Clinton-Gore strategist
* He’s talking about the 2nd amendment. No implication he wants to ban guns . . .
“And we should — then every community in the country could then start doing major weapon sweeps and then destroying the weapons, not selling them.”Bill Clinton (he has heard of the 4th amendment, hasn’t he?)
* Already refuted above.
“If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government’s ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees.”Bill Clinton, 1993-08-12 (a truly scary statement!)
* We have no idea what “freedoms” Clinton was referring to.
** There is no record of Clinton making this statement at The American Presidency Project, which has compiled all presidential speeches from Washington to Worst President Ever.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php
“If it was up to me, no one but law enforcement officers would own handguns…”Richard Daley, Chicago Mayor,Federal Gun Legislation Press Conference in Washington, D.C., 1998-11-13
* Again, he was only referring to HANDGUNS.
“You know I don’t believe in people owning guns, only the police and military. And I’m going to do everything I can to disarm this state.”Michael Dukakis, in conversation with Mike Yacino, MA Gun Owner’s Action League, and Roy Innis, CORE1986-06-16
* A Lexis-Nexis search of all articles in all major papers between 1980 and 1989 using every combination of keywords I could think of for full text search brought up no citations. This “conversation” must have been second hand, because no newspaper reported it at the time.
“Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.”Janet Reno, U.S. Attorney General, 1993-12-10
* Most gun nut websites have this article cited to an AP story of that date. However a Lexis-Nexis search turned up nothing for that date or any other date when she was Attorney General.
I did find this second-hand reference:
Copyright 1993 The Buffalo NewsBuffalo News (New York)
March 16, 1993, Tuesday, City Edition
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE; Pg. 2
LENGTH: 335 words
HEADLINE: NEW ATTORNEY GENERAL SHOULDN’T BE THERE
BODY:
In 1992 Janet Reno asked a Dade County grand jury for an indictment of guns in a public relations ploy to express her personal opposition to gun ownership by the public. She also spoke at a Coral Gables B’nai B’rith chapter and stated clearly that waiting periods were the first step, with national registration the second, and total prohibition of firearms as the ultimate goal.
The author is one HAROLD “BUDD” SCHROEDER, Director, National Rifle Association, Lancaster
Where he got his information for this LETTER TO THE EDITOR (sheesh!) is anybody’s guess. Subsequent Lexis-Nexis searches of all major newspapers articles in 1992 turned up nothing.
“We’re here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true! We’re going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy. We’re going to beat guns into submission!”Charles Schumer, quoted on NBC nightly news,1993-11-30
* Obviously, he meant “guns” as the gun lobby, which will not even allow common sense controls like gun powder taggants to help track Tim McVey bombers and gun fingerprinting like John Malvo. Not a blanket prohibition.
So once again, when you spend the time to really look beyond the hype, spin and mock outrage, you find that the CONs got nuthin’.
I gotta hit the hay now, but I’ll work on the Feinstein quote later.
Nice group of posts here, again as usual GMC70 obviously has much expertise on this topic. I wanted to make a couple of points on carrying concealed, that I don’t beleive anyone mentioned here.
1. I agree with those who believe the 2nd Amendment confirms the right to bear arms – period. It does not specify HOW they may be carried. My opinion then is that open or concealed carry are both lawful means to bear arms.
2. The main advantage, in my opinion, to carrying concealed, is that no one knows who is or who is not carrying a gun. Why is that important?
Because a criminal planning to commit a crime, seeing citizens on the street nearby, doesn’t know if one or more of the citizens has a gun – thus carrying concealed is a huge deterrent to criminals.
Once a state has 2 or 3% of the population with concealed permits, then violent crime rates in most states decrease. Since the downside risk is death, even if there is only a 2 or 3% chance someone with a CCW might shoot you, that’s still much higher than 0%.
If you had the choice of crossing a busy street with a 2% chance of getting hit and killed by a car, or walking in another direction with a 0% chance of getting killed by a car, what would you do?
Open carry is ok, but then if that is the only option allowed, a criminal can easily see who is and who is not able to defend themselves with a gun. And grandpa getting out of his Cadillac without a gun becomes an easy mark.
You are assuming, Max, that the CC holder is going to best the criminal, one on one. At best, that is going to be a fifty fifty proposition. Given that the criminal mind is predisposed to violence, the odds may not be that good. Shooting someone is not a normal instinct. As I have said before, even trained police officers miss at point blank range.
Everyone that is legally entitled to carry is welcome to it, in my view, but it is by no means a panacea.
Capn, WS:
10 years old? Sure, but so what? All that means is that they’ve learned that saying what they think is political death. The goal hasn’t changed, just the tactics.
The “major weapon sweeps” quote isn’t notable so much for the “ban guns” idea, as the idea of “weapons sweeps.” Bill C. has heard of the 4th Am., I presume? How do you think “major weapons sweeps” would fare under even the most generous 4th amend. adjudication? If you’d consider that acceptable, we have frankly bigger issues than firearms.
BTW WS, I have a new respect for you. My CC good all over North America? Yea, that’d be nice. I’m not holding my breath, though. As to the rest, on balance, I suspect that treating firearms like cars would go over very well, ASSUMING one thing: The SCOTUS affirms, clearly and unequivocably, a constitutionally protected right to own and possess firearms. Do that, and registration (just as we do cars) may well be on the table. Of course, that car registration is only necessary if it is driven on public roads. Likewise, unless my firearm is carried outside my own property, should it be registered at all? (While I don’t endorse it exactly, registering a carry weapon is much harder to oppose than registration in general, for obvious reasons).
And WS, I’ll take the 50/50 option you propose to Max over no protection at all, anytime. You also seem to have a faith in police training and assume that citizens are incapable of similar preparedness. My experience in dealing with police daily says that your opinion of their training is generous, in many cases, and certainly there is nothing magical about becoming competent with a firearm. It simply takes practice. The decision to use force is an intellectual one; the ability to do so once the decision is made is largely training and muscle memory. I fire more rounds than most officers do. I’ve taken officers qualifying courses, and passed, each time. I’m a decent shooter, but certainly not an expert (yet!!!). Citizens can become quite capable of being competent in using firearms. And officers must go in harms way, perhaps using his weapon offensively; the CC citizen has no such duty. I’ve read some writers who claim that CC shooters in defensive situations actually have a significantly higher hit percentage than officer shootings. If true, that probably reflects the different circumstances in which the weapons are used. Don’t know how reliable that claim is, however.
Capn – true enough, context says a lot, but your absolute statement “no one wants to ban guns” is obviously all wet. A number of someones want to do so, and are working for just that. “Reasonable regulation” for some is simply code for “first step.”
I suspect, gentlemen, that we’re not far apart on this one; perhaps not far apart at all. I’ll keep a healthy paranoia, thanks just the same. The Founders’ deep mistrust of gov’t is clear in their writings, and it has served us well.
And once again, we seem to have beat this horse to death. We may yet have to meet up at that range sometime. Perhaps Bullseye some weekday evening? You buy the beer afterwards, I’ll provide the hardware?
Have a good evening, gentlemen. And be safe.
GMC,
I’d love to go put holes in paper with you, WS, Capn, etc someday.
Name the range and the day.
The only person I can remember specifically that wanted to ban guns was the wife of Brady – forgot name.
GMC70, even if the Supreme Court ruled as you suggest, swearing on a stack of bibles that the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals and that individuals will always have the right to bear arms, I wouldn’t trust them NOT to change their mind at a future date, with a new set of 9 jokers on the bench.
So, I will always be opposed to gun registration because it is that first step to confiscation, through gun sweeps as Clinton and others have suggested.
And yes, they would also have to violate the 2nd, 4th, 14th Amendments, and the Posse Comitatus Act to use the military to go door to door with gun sweeps. But there are those who don’t care about breaking the law, as long as “their end” justifies the means.
What’s the enjoyment of shooting guns, boring! Go play golf, shoot some hoops. Play baseball catch with someone. Catch pop flies, swing a bat.
Games! Not practice shooting dead something or someone.
Waste of ammunition. If your life isn’t an immediate threat, put the gun down. Exercise, quick react practice without a gun.
Many get through life without wondering about carrying a gun and none are more targets than any other individual.
The gun lobby doesn’t like Gun Free Zones, because it means the spirit of shared safe community is desired. We all can have the idea, guns shouldn’t be in some places.
Tragedies happen, crimes exist. But way more good times occur than the deadly moments, no gun play at all. No threat of guns being pulled.
The paranoid gun lobby thinks registration leads to confiscation. Some freaking guns shouldn’t be in anyone hands because their made for war.
That paranoid threat, suspicion of the Fed, their rules of law, Supreme Court, or the Alphabet Agencies. Someone wants to arm themselves against them!
Are those treason thoughts or self protection? Some foreign guy announces public suspicion of the government can be put in a hole behind bars for weeks.
I may hate some appointments and disagree with President some years, I do respect authority of the Fed government and have no ideas I’ll ever go to war with them.
Its great the gun lobby wants guns in counter culture group hands. Those who fear and will fight the FED, need access to guns, its their right. Join a Militia against the Fed. Paranoid!
Marge, this is what I love about your posts, every thought cell in your smallish brain that you have is based on pure passion and emotion.
And that’s the one little flaw in every one of your posts, but for a couple of hours you are interesting. After that, your posts ramble on and on, and on and on, and what the heck is the point anyway to anything you write?
I bet you are one exciting person to be around in the horizontal mode. Not one cell is devoted to logic and reason. Every titilating nerve cell in you is stimulated by pure emotion and raw heat.
And you can dream that we live in a safe world (9/11 was just a fluke) and that in any case, Big Brother Government is on your side to take care of you, from cradle to grave.
Many get by you say, with little thought in their heads about the crimes that occur every day and how they might be able to defend themselves. They just pretend that reality doesn’t exist for them, they live in their own fantasy world. And afterall, the odds are on their side, and if there are a few casualties from time to time from crime, no big deal. Crime probably won’t happen to them.
You’ll never go to war with your government, even if they take away your home (through emininent domain – pretend that isn’t happening today!), or search your home, and tear it up looking for any guns you may have.
Then when we are rid of the guns, we will truly be free, or at least the government will be free, to do whatever they want. But that’s ok with you Marge, because you are so easy to take care of, and easy to please, and even the government will be able to satisfy you.
And you won’t have to make any decisions on your own (though you are unable to do this anyway)because the government will take care of you.
Have a nice day Marge. Oh, isn’t it such a nice sunny day!
The only reason we see this headline from the NY Times is because the Libs now know they must at least “appear” to support the 2nd Amendment and gun owners’ rights.
Not just because of the NRA, but because the voting block of 100 million gun owners is much stronger than the Libs realized, until they lost controll of Congress in 1994.
And so the NY Times fictiously reports the change in the “almost complete scholarly and judicial consensus” that the 2nd Amendment now supports Individual gun rights as opposed to Collective gun rights. (Who knows what “Collective” gun rights means. Sounds like a Communist term to me.)
Only until the 20th Century was there even a HINT of a view that Individual gun rights were NOT protected. Then the radical left started preaching the view of Communist Collective rights, though clearly that opposes the text of the 2nd Amendment and the intent of its authors.
So why is the NY Times reporting now that Libs suddenly support the individual rights protected by the 2nd Amendment? Because they want their Liberal Democrats elected in 2008, that’s why. More propaganda – don’t be fooled. Next the Libs will be supporting limits on abortion – yeah right!
The Libs have to disguise their true agenda – banning all guns – because they know they cannot be elected showing their true colors.
As for the offer of gun registration in exchange for a 2nd Amendment guarantee from the Supreme Court, that’s BS. 1) The Supreme Court will never give an absolute guarantee of any right. And 2)Congress can pass onerous gun laws (like the one banning all self-repeating or auto-loading rifles, shotguns, and handguns – which effectively bans 98% of all guns) and the Supreme Court may very well let such law passed by Congress (or a registration law) stand.
So don’t be fooled by any registration scheme. Registration will not prevent a single crime and will not solve a single crime. Registration will provide a list of law-abiding gun owners who voluntarily comply with a new gun Registration law. And that list will be used for what purpose? Hmmmm…….
“The Libs have to disguise their true agenda – banning all guns – because they know they cannot be elected showing their true colors.”
That is an absolute lie – many liberals on this blog are gun owners and complete support the right to bear arms.
I am one of them.
That line is just NRA bullshit.
And the Lib gun owners then vote for Bill Clinton. (Gun ban 1994) And you’ll vote for Hillary next. What’s the Clinton/Obama/Edwards view on guns?
You are not even remotely rational. There was no gun ban in 1994, there was a ban on assault weapons – a bill that was passed by a bi-partisan Congress.
Get real. Learn to read. The only people that say that Liberals want to ban all guns are the NRA types – and they are wrong.
Christ. Grow up and get a life.
You are so full of Liberal bullshit – you cannot even define Assault weapon.
Dan, a good friend of mine was like you. Dan worked at a hardware store part-time (Union factory worker full-time) and sold me my first handgun after the Clinton gun ban. I bought the gun just because of the ban. We both saw what could happen with the next law the Dems passed.
Then Dan voted for Clinton again in 96. Why? Because the Union told him too. He knew Clinton was attacking his gun rights, but Dan couldn’t see the big picture of why the 2nd Amendment is so important to protect our other rights. And he was brainwashed by the Union and the Libs. You are in the same mold.
Keep voting the way you do and you can kiss your guns goodbye.
“You are in the same mold.”
What are you, a NRA plant? Nothing you have stated so far is even close to being accurate. What makes you think that you, of all people, know what LIBERALS want?
What a joke. You CONS like to paint the Democrats as being anti-gun to attempt to appeal to the emotions of gun owners.
Hear it now, LIBERALS do not want to take your guns away from you.
Read that several times if you are continuing to have problems with reading comprehension.
After that has sunk in, go out and get yourself a life. You’re making a fool of yourself doing this.
Wahawk! Dembots I call them. Just vote what the Party does.
A suggestion to Democrats though. Since they control Congress, why not pass a law making the Democrats the only legal political party in the USA. That’s a great idea, right? Many Democrats would love that.
Pass it along to the DailyKos, Democratunderground, Moveon, Soros and everybody else of the Dem blogophere and elites. Let’s start a movement.
They have come out of the gun cabinet tonight!
What’s that Winny? Your one to arm yourself against ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY! Your one to board up the windows and doors, finger on the trigger ready.
It’s cash knocking at the door! It’s more freedom to buy more guns and bombs that you could ever desire!
The Supreme Court (the gun lobby doesn’t believe in the Court) has allowed Eminent Domain in communities for civic improvements.
Most States have values figured out for the process to purchase properties. Negotiations can happen without guns drawn, for property owners to try and get a better price.
Two, three, four times value of the property!
Again, they say registration leads to confiscation! I don’t want confiscation just the registration so its known what citizens are in the street gun and ammunition business. Illegal cash opportunity where no taxes or records of sales are kept.
Ban a list of guns is reasonable.
Non hunting weapons should be on a state database. Guns are stolen, sold, something should track the irresponsibility of gun owners trading them.
I have fears for others in society, but I’m positive more are still not carrying a gun and their not afraid.
Protect your home with gun, I careless. Be afraid of the Fed barging in your door. I don’t have that fear.
When the police show up because of something. The police don’t visit where I’m living so far. I rarely have contact with police, traffic tickets are decades apart.
I haven’t had a domestic violence situation, so miss understandings with the police don’t happen.
I can protect myself, so can others and we do it without a gun.
It doesn’t mean we’re not thinking about self protection and survival in situations.
The best tactic against violent criminals and bad streets is create more economic opportunity and job skill training. Arming everyone doesn’t make society safer.
Y’know paranoid parents, fear of Fed, teach that to their children.
I screamed at a friend teaching his son to shoot a Ak-47, the boy was 8 or 9. He had no reason to own so many guns and not be the gun business. That wasn’t a weapon to teach his son to shoot even playing around.
That’s the problem, people have arsenals, walk in rooms full of weapons for what reason?
Paronoid. I love the guy, hate the guns he has.
I have no fear of registration, because its only hunting weapons I own.
I believe in the Supreme Court. The Alphabet Agencies most have my respect. The INS, ATF or FBI don’t bother me. CIA isn’t interested what I’m doing.
I doubt the IRS will ever show up with assault weapons ready!
You lock and load, massage that paranoia all you want. Sniff deeply from gun oil. Inhale the air with ammunition is fired. Keep the mania going. Read your NRA magazines too.
Come on, Joe. You are better than this. You know better. You need to sit down and have a little talk with yourself.
You might want to start with recognizing that over fifty percent of the population is represented by Democrats.
We are the majority.
You folks had your chance and you blew it. It only took twelve years for you folks to get kicked out. At least the Dems had been in power for 40 years until 1994.
The way you folks are going, it’s going to be another 40 before you guys hold the gavel again.
Work on this, Joe, take two beers and call me in the morning.
Can’t answer a couple of simple questions? What’s Clinton/Obama/Edward & Co’s position on gun rights? How about Democratic Governor Kathleen Sebelius’ position?
What’s an Assault Weapon?
Yeah, bi-partisan support for the 1994 Gun Ban. 2 Republicans voted for it.
Care to review the voting record of your Liberal Democrats on gun rights? Or quote some of their pro-gun positions?
No, you can’t do it, cause that will expose the truth, which you either don’t want to beleive, or you are just trying to fool gun owners in to voting for the Liberals.
You need some serious help, Wahawk.
Stop with the paranoia – nobody is coming to take your gun away from you – put it back under your pillow and go back to sleep – it’s all going to be okay – no one is coming for you or your toys – no one wants you god damned gun – get over yourself and stop playing “gun owner victim.”
It’s all a figment of your imagination.
Christ, you’re almost as bad as the poor prosecuted Christians.
There is some truth to Wahawk’s position, WS. YOU and the Capn may not seek to bar firearms, but there are some in the leadership of your party who do. Don’t kid yourself, and don’t insult our intelligence claiming otherwise.
We know gun bans simply don’t work. Bill Clinton’s assault weapons ban in fact sold more “assault weapons” (a meaningless term if there ever was one – it really means “scary looking gun”) than anything else. And it had zero impact on crime. That doesn’t prevent some in the new Congress from proposing it’s reauthorization – HR1022, if I remember correctly. If Hillary is elected in November 2008, there will be a run on AR15s and other scary guns in the weeks that follow (I’ll probably join them, if for no other reason than to piss her off!).
So I understand exactly where Wahawk and others are coming from on registration. It serves no purpose UNLESS it is an incrimental step toward seizing weapons – just what other purpose would registration have? If registration is to come (and I’ll continue to oppose it), it MUST come in the context of a clearly recognized and firmly established 2nd amendment individual right.
Certainly the NRA is a convient boogyman for the Dems. But the NRA has clout for one reason: it represents 100 million gun owners. And when energized, they vote.
Which is why many of the gun banners have backed off their goals – publicly. Tactics change, goals do not. A healthy paranoia is a very good thing.
How ’bout that range trip, gentlemen?
GMC,
Start a collection among the NRA, each raise $1 and show that $100 Million in cash. That should be easy to prove, right?
If they can vote, they can raise $1, surely.
Golly gee WSClark, now you even attack Christians? You have one whacky Demo way of arguing your position. When you can’t or don’t want to answer any questions on your positions – just go on the attack.
This attack/deflect criticism approach worked for Bill, God help us (if you believe in God) if it works for Hillary too.
(And great post GMC, you always state things more clearly then most, especially me.)