The U.S. Supreme Court is deciding whether to take up a case that could have a far-reaching impact on gun rights and laws. At issue is the long-debated, awkwardly structured sentence of the Second Amendment to the Constitution: “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.â€
Does this guarantee an individual’s right to bear arms or just a collective militia’s right?
That’s never been settled by any previous high court, and if the justices decide to take it up (they discussed the case today but haven’t issued a decision whether to accept it), it will be a closely watched and significant battle in the culture wars.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
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
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- Raptor on Too many exemptions
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
211 Comments
A well educated electorate being essential to the stability of a free state, the right of THE PEOPLE to own and read books shall not be infringed.
Can someone explain to me how the text of the above statement could be construed to confer a COLLECTIVE right?
The hand written text of the original is a little different in punctuation than what most people refer to.
The Original Version:
“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.”
Punctuation is everything when it comes to interpretation. :)
This case involves Washington DC’s ban on handguns.
Here is what the mayor of DC has to say:
D.C. Mayor Addresses Blow to Handgun Ban
After this ruling, you still can’t walk around with a gun on Pennsylvania Ave. But you could keep one in your house. What’s wrong with that?
The ruling is not in effect yet. It won’t be in effect until our appeals process has run its course. And that should be [in] a year or two.
If we were unsuccessful, it would mean … [you could] buy a gun and bring it into your home. But nowhere else would they be legal.
What’s wrong with having a gun in the home?
Acts of violence lead to death when you have handguns around, legal or illegal.
How has it affected the nation’s capital to have had this gun ban in effect since 1976, more than 30 years?
I think what you’ve seen [is that] we’ve had a lot of homicides in the District of Columbia. But they have, steadily, been going down. And one of the reasons people think that they’ve been going down is [that] the only way you can get a handgun in the District of Columbia is illegally.
And making it tougher on people to get a handgun makes it tougher for them to kill somebody. We are trying to make it as tough as possible for bad guys to get handguns.
You’ve had the ban for more than a generation and it still is one of the more dangerous cities in America.
I think that’s akin to saying that you have stop signs, but people are still running them and getting into accidents. I think the point is that if you had less stop signs, then there’d be more accidents.
You don’t stop regulating something just because you haven’t completely eliminated the problem.
When you do consider the crime rate, can you blame the six District residents who sued?
I think that would be blaming people who are not part of the problem. I think that there are some people who, probably for legitimate reasons, want to have a handgun.
But I think what most District residents feel is that that is overwhelmed by the number of people who would probably end up with handguns and use them for the wrong reasons.
How common are handguns in the District of Columbia?
What we know is that more than 80 percent of the homicides in the District of Columbia are committed with the use of an illegal handgun. As opposed to about 20 percent … that were, probably, originally legal.
So guns are still making their way into the District of Columbia. But you can see that most of them are illegal and are being sold on the black market.
Now there’s a way to go after those handguns. We think that we need to do a better job closing down stores that are too easily selling illegal handguns to people.
But I think you can see from that statistic that that number of legal handguns that would probably be used for homicides would go up dramatically if there were more legal handguns around.
Have you ever owned a gun?
No.
Have you ever thought it might be a good idea to own a gun?
No.
The gun owners will be forming a ‘collective militia’.
Prediction: another big hit to stare decisis.
An interesting early court case of what a “militia” is.
http://adams.patriot.net/~tlj/xplaindp.htm#militia
Kansas
According to the Legal division of the National Archives the 2A as recorded in the Congressional Journal on the day of ratification had only one comma, it followed the word “state” which was spelled with a lower case “s”.
Somehow the thing sprouted a couple extra comma’s and a capital S when transcribed.
Somehow the thing sprouted a couple extra comma’s and a capital S when transcribed.
Posted by: Heckler | November 13, 2007 at 01:08 PM
Dunno Heckler, that post I made earlier is supposable “ver batim” from the original draft which hangs in Constitution Hall.
I haven’t seen it, so can’ say with one hundred percent certainity.
I am hoping that the Supreme Court will take the case, but also dreading it as well.
We do need a ruling on this issue, and with the court make up as it is, there probably wont be a better time for one.
However, there is always that chance they will rule 5-4 and overturn the lower court and even further solidify the gun control crowds claims.
However, I do think that there is a much better chance, like 20 to 1 that the court will uphold the decision of the lower court and make a statement that is “reasonable” about the restrictions which can be made, but that it is an individual right.
Kansas
“ver batim” from the original draft which hangs in Constitution Hall.”
No disagreement here. But those words existed first in the Congressional Journal before the ratification vote (by the Congress). The Journal was then copied and copies were sent to the states for the rest of the ratification process.
Well, comma placement or not…
The 2nd Amendment is surrounded by Individual rights in the Bill or Rights.
You have to ignore the founding fathers writings, ignore the context of the words used, and ignore history to arbitraily come up with the idea that the 2nd Amendment is only a collective right.
Found it!
Here is the transcription of the second amendment as it hangs in the National archive. One can read the transcription or view the actual document.
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
I just read the original document, it is exactly how I entered it earlier. :)
Issue Two: on page 124 of the Love v. Peppersack decision, U.S. v. Miller (83 L. Ed. 1206 (1939)) is used to support the definition that the Second Amendment preserves a collective right vice an individual right. But in U.S. v. Miller
• a. the term “collective right” nowhere appears,
• b. there is not even a hint of a “collective right” concept, and
• c. there is no discussion or hint that “the people” in the Second Amendment means anything different than the use of “the people” in the other amendments.
On the contrary, the discussion within U.S. v. Miller (83 L. Ed. 1209 *[179 and following] (1939)) on the militia concept stresses individual ownership of arms:
• a. “the Militia … civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.”
• b. “the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.”
• c. “And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”
• d. In a militia, the character of the laborer, artificer, or tradesman, predominates over that of a soldier.”
• e. “the militia system … implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms.”
• f. etc.
And further, in U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (108 L. Ed. 2d 222 (1990)), specifically the bottom of the column on page 226, the Supreme Court indicated that: “the term ‘the people,’ as used in the Constitution’s First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with the United States to be considered part of that community”.
You know this definition could be adopted by organize crime to prefer themselves as a militia.Also I have asked the NRA if they have considered themselves as a militia, I never did get a direct answer, only a sidestepping answer to deter the question.
As we have learned from the Bush administration all the Republicans have to do is hire Blackwater to go to your home and confiscate your guns like they did in New Orleans.
To me,
the phrase “the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” refers to an individual right. There could be some argument about what a militia is, but in the day it was written, there was no argument that a “militia” were private citizens. A lot of militia men are what brought about the freedom of the United States during the Revolutionary War. They brought their own guns. :)
Doug,
That was a decision made by the local government ( Ray Nagin) and overturned in a court ruling as well.
The Republicans and Bush didn’t do that.
Nice try. Look up the facts next time.
Kansas
“I just read the original document, it is exactly how I entered it earlier. :)”
That “original” document was transcribed from the Congressional Journal.
“…but in the day it was written, there was no argument that a “militia” were private citizens.”
It’s a good thing the South had their guns when the North invaded in 1861.
I don’t know, CF. I don’t think stare decisis takes a hit at all.
I don’t think stare decisis decides this case. There has been no direct ruling on the question presented. Certainly Miller, the oft-cited case which tangentially presents this issue, is not on the side of DC. In Miller, the appellee/defendant was unrepresented before the high court (something that would not of course happen today). Ultimately, the Court did not decide whether a sawed-off shotgun, the weapon at issue, had any valid use in a militia; it sent the case back to the trial court for evidence on that issue. And that was never decided at any level; Miller died, ending the case.
More importantly, the Miller case, in its analysis, presupposes an individual right to possess arms for the purposes of serving in a militia, in essence what we would call the “individual rights” position. The idea that Miller decided the 2nd amendment in “collective” or “state militia” terms exists only to those who have not read Miller, but rather have read the interpretation of Miller usually found in civics books. Read it for yourself: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=307&invol=174
Morever, the evidence of the understanding of the language of the 2nd amendment from contemporary sources is overwhelming: the right to keep and bear arms was universally understood to be an individual right, belonging to the members of the populace for the purpose of service in citizen militias. What is further clear is that it is not dependant only on that purpose. Others can, and have, provided those quotes; they come from Madison, from Jefferson, from Washington, from across the political spectrum of the day. If there was one thing that’s notable, it is that protecting (not ‘granting,’ for the Constitution ‘grants’ no rights, but protects pre-existing ones) the possession of arms by individuals was in the 1790’s not remotely controversial.
Moreover, a little research would turn up the nasty fact that the gun control laws we now have were primarily written to keep arms out of the “wrong” hands: here, read “wrong” to mean “black or minority.” The racist history of gun control legislation in this country is shameful.
No, CF. If the Court is intellectually honest, and decides this case on the text, as it should (what else could “right of the people” mean?), the outcome is clear. Finding for DC would take an act of intellectual dishonesty for a court which tends to be a textualist court.
What that means for the future of gun legislation in this country is another matter, of course. The Parker decision (now titled as Heller, after the appellee who was found to have standing by the DC Ct. of Appeals) left open significant room for gun regulation. It simply said that regulation that amounted to an outright ban on functional firearms is not constitutional under the 2nd amendment.
Don’t take my word for it, all. A little Googling will turn up the Parker decision, the parties’ respecive briefs, and related materials and comments, all on the web. Interestingly, appellants (the District of Columbia) are even dishonest in how they present the issue to the SCOTUS, arguing that the matter involves only a ban on handguns; that, of course, was not the issue decided by the Parker court. I suspect they did so because they see the handwriting on the wall.
This case will not end gun control debates. But the decision in this case should decide at least the Constitutional foundations and parameters within which those debates fit. In my view, assuming the SCOTUS does not sidestep the issue, a decision for DC is not consistent with the text of the Constitution, the history of the amendment, the understanding of the Founders, nor the philosophical basis of our constitutional system. I expect the SCOTUS to affirm the DC Ct. of Appeals decison in Parker/Heller.
And that’s about all I think I’ll say on the subject. Probably.
As usual Nathan you don’t know what you are talking about. Blackwater was contracted by the Department of Father, er Homeland Security. That’s a federal office if you have forgotten.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/091005A.shtml
Go back to reading your fairy tales.
Doug,
I am not disputing that Blackwater exists and is contracted by the government.
It was the part about Bush using them to confiscate weapons.
Where is your proof for that?
An interesting discussion of the TEXT of the 2A by someone who knows what he’s talking about.
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html
Only by the most tortured logic can anyone read the Second Amendment as anything other than allowing individuals to own guns. Wiseman in his 1:40 post sums up the milita description very well in that any able-bodied male was considered “militia”.
Considering the conservative bent of the current Supreme Court, I think this is a perfect time to decide once and for all what the Second Amendment really does say. And I don’t see how the court can decide against gun owners considering how many gun owners there are in this country.
An armed populace keeps the government in line, or at least gives them pause.
“they’ll get my guns when they pry my cold dead fingers off the trigger”.
Nathan, if you can’t take the time to actually learn about a subject before commenting on it then it’s your fault, not mine. I already provided a link that answered your question but I can provide many more. However it’s not like you’ll read them since that would involve getting an education and realizing that it’s not the evil liberals taking guns away, but your neo-liberals in the White House. And gosh, if I have to explain what a neo-liberal is then I might as well stop now.
That “original” document was transcribed from the Congressional Journal.
Posted by: Heckler | November 13, 2007 at 01:53 PM
Good point, but what becomes law?
Journals or Documents presented to Congress in their finished state?
Kansas
Documents presented to Congress in their finished state.
It is however usefull when determining “what they meant” to go through the entire evolution of a document.
As far as I’m concerned, people should have all the guns they want- machine guns, Howitzers, triple A. Guns don’t kill people; bullets kill people.Ammunition should be available only in small quantities with a prescription from a practicing trauma surgeon, and taxed per round (earmarked for victim’s funds) to the extent that a person will think twice before pulling that trigger.
“False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantagesfor one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire frommen because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has noremedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carryingof arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who areneither inclined nor determined to commit crime.”
–Cesare Beccaria, quoted by Thomas Jefferson
Well, sometimes I don’t always write what I mean, but I mean to write what I want to say, I just don’t always write it with clarity to make the meaning irrefutable of what my mind is thinking.
To me, the individual’s right to keep and bear arms is without question clearly stated in the 2nd article of the Bill of rights.
With that said, I need to finish this crossword puzzle…
9 letter word for “boxed”
Why do people presume that the 2nd amendment is restricted to guns? The amendment specifically addresses “arms” not “guns” nor does it specify “small” or “light” arms. It would seem that the right of the people to own mortars, grenades, rocket launchers, cannons, anti-aircraft weapons, etc., would also be guarenteed by the 2nd amendment. All of these weapons qualify as “arms” and would be, and are, a component of a “well-regulated” milita such as the National Guard. Indeed, these arms are consistent with the context of the 2nd amendment which addresses defense of the state, not personal protection or recreational shooting sports. If the government can justify regulating private ownership of arms which serve a defense and security purpose, why can’t the government be justified in regulating private owndership of any guns, including those used for sport and recreation, as sport and recreation are clearly not addressed in the 2nd amendment?
Kansas
Well said.
Kansas, would “contained” work? :-)
BTW – according to SCOTUSblog, the SCOTUS took no action on the Heller case when it was scheduled for conference Friday. Look to SCOTUSblog as to what that may mean; but it appears we will not have an answer until th 20th, at least, as to whether the SCOTUS takes up the case.
Just more time for discussion, I guess . . .
C-lurk,I live in the flight path of McConnell. There have been days (especially when B-52’s were based there) I would have given my eye teeth for an anti-aircraft battery to persuade them to fly in another direction.
C-lurk:
There is, however, some historical practice. During the colonial/ early constitutional periond, small “infantry” arms were expected to be provided by militia members; larger arms, generally capable of significantly wider damage and requiring significantly larger costs (i.e. artillary) were provided by the city/state, and kept at armories.
The issue at present is whether SCOTUS will vote to take the appeal. There are always reasons SCOTUS will not take a case, and applicable to this case, might include a feeling that there is not sufficient split in authority among the circuits at this time requiring a resolution; the overall status of the court’s docket; a feeling that SCOTUS intervention isn’t necessary; and, just a general “we don’t want to deal with this now”.
IF SCOTUS grants the appeal, then I believe GMC’s analysis will likely be held to be correct. As I think I’ve posted before, protection of the “collective” right from government interference makes no sense in the absence of an “individual” right being protected; somewhat simplistic, I know, but this is how I’ve viewed the language of the Second Amendment for decades.
That said, affirming the DC Circuit would not, in and of itself, invalidate “gun control” regulations/statutes/ordinances. IIRC, GMC and I had a short exchange of posts some time ago wherein we discussed “time, place and manner” regulation, similar to those used in First Amendment jurisprudence.
I think, like GMC, that’s all I’ve got to say on this particular issue for now.
Ammunition should be available only in small quantities with a prescription from a practicing trauma surgeon, and taxed per round (earmarked for victim’s funds) to the extent that a person will think twice before pulling that trigger.
Posted by: Jed | November 13, 2007 at 02:25 PM
Jed, it’s irrational arguments like yours that reinforce the need to maintain the Right of Individuals to bear arms.
First you would tax bullets, then you would confiscate firearms, then you would tax tea, then you would seize property, and I would be disarmed to prevent all that you and your big government might do.
From my cold dead hands…
To the legal begals on the blog:
If the Supreme Court does NOT accept the appeal, then does the ruling of the Appeals Court set a precedent, and if so, what impact might that have on existing gun laws?
The DC law would be overturned, but would there be any other impact?
beagles
(and may respectfully, by the way!)
meant
(If I cud only tipe!)
Max, the decision of the DC Circuit would be binding only in DC; while it could be “persuasive authority”, it is not precedent in any way binding upon any federal or state court not within the district.
GMC, did I forget anything?
“Circuit”, not district. Max, I think we’re sharing some strange, inexplicable malady right now.
You know Vaughn, there must be a spellin gremlin on this blog!
Thanks for the update.
So nothing changes outside of DC, if the Supreme Court doesn’t take the case.
I guess there is fear on both sides, if the Supreme Court does agree to review the case.
I used to have more confidence in the highest of man’s courts, but after, the Kelo (if I recall the name correctly) case, I have my doubts.
Kelo, I think, was the case where the Supreme Court ruled that private property can be taken for private use. Which to me, is clearly not the way the Constitution was written or intended.
BOTTOM LINE !! Bad guys will always have guns, when you take away the good guys guns, you leave people unarmed, and unable to defend themselves.
I own a 12 gauge shotgun w/pistol grip and 18.5 inch barrel. GREAT for home protection, you don’t have to aim well if your jarred out of bed in the middle of the night. SOMETHING’S GETTING SHOT once I start pumping that baby!It stays on the shelf in my closet. I also own a .357 Magnum, which sits on a shelf in my nightstand. That’s in case I can’t make it to the closet on time. Their’s a .38 in the drawer in the living room, and a .380 in the kitchen drawer. I don’t like semi autos, but that is a nifty little gun.
I guess now I can say this, since I now do it legally, but their is a .44 MAG stuck between the seat cushions of my truck too :) That’s the “dirty Harry” gun!
Aw heck Semper, you leave the baby guns out in the living room and kitchen!
If that 357 mag and 12 gauge doesn’t do the job, you might as well forget about the 38’s.
“contained” was the word Vaughn :)
It was ironically a historic and patriotically themed crossword puzzle that had lots of words used during the time of Revolution and thereafter.
Max:
Short answer: It would have persuasive authority, but no binding authority outside the DC Circuit.
Part of DC’s argument (and I think a silly one) is that the 2nd Am. does not apply to DC, as it is not a State. One of the precepts of constitutional application is that the Bill of Rights applies to the Federal gov’t first, and against the States through incorporation. It’s still an open question whether the 2nd Am. is incorporated against the States under the 14th amendment like the 1st, 4th, 5th, etc.; that’s not been decided, IIFC.
The DC Circuit argues that “State” in the 2nd am. means formal “States” as we understand them (i.e. Kansas, Missouri, etc.), not “states” as a general political term, meaning political entity. A fairly weak argument, I think, and one the DC circuit rejected.
If that makes any sense . . .
Semper Fi,
I like your style. You and I would make good neighbors! And the neighborhood would be remarkably safe.
Happy to help, Kansas; doing crossword puzzles is one of my diversions.
GMC, the incorporation argument is interesting, but is not persuasive IMO. In fact, upon due consideration, “silly” is an appropriate description thereof. It seems to me that as the District is a creature of the Constitution, and is thus not a “State” in the traditional, political boundary sense as is Kansas and the other 49, it is a part of the “federal government” for lack of a better description, and thus, even if there is no incorporation of the Second Amendment through the Fourteenth Amendment, the same (2d A) applies more strongly to the District. If that makes any sense to anyone; long day, lots on my mind.
VT – way off topic but I want a lawyer’s opinion: what do you think about naming a defendant’s lawyer as a witness and then trying to get him barred from representing the defendant?
http://www.kansas.com/
Kline seeks to disqualify clinic lawyersOLATHE – Johnson County District Attorney Phill Kline wants a judge to bar two attorneys from representing Planned Parenthood’s Overland Park clinic on abortion-related charges.
Kline says the lawyers, Pedro Irigonegaray and Robert Eye, should be disqualified as counsel because he plans to call them as witnesses. Both attorneys are listed as potential witnesses in a 107-count criminal complaint Kline filed Oct. 17.
Irigonergaray and Eye filed notices Oct. 26 that they would be defending the clinic in Johnson County District Court.
Kline alleges that Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri and its clinic performed late-term abortions in 2003 and failed to keep adequate records. The 107 counts include 23 felonies and 84 misdemeanors.
Ben, I don’t think very highly of that at all. I would suggest, but do not know, this may be an ethical violation in and of itself. There are instances where the testimony of the attorney for the defendant is relevant, etc., but darned few.
If Mr. Kline is up on his ethics rules, he would know that an attorney appearing as a witness for his/her client does not automatically disqualify the attorney from continuing representation, as was the case formerly. Now, the attorney may continue representation (from memory, not looking at the rules) if the evidence to be adduced through testimony is not detrimental to his client, or in conflict with the client’s position.
It would seem to me that this is a grandstand move.
Now for this question VT: Suppose Planned Parenthood were to call Kline as a witness …
Who would try the case?
Ok, say the Supreme Court takes the case, then rules in favor of Freedom, that is, the individual right of the people to bear arms, shall not be infringed…
Then the ruling is likely NOT to prevent more regulatory gun laws and bans on certain types of guns, as long as some guns and ammunition are allowed?
Eg, a law similar to Clinton’s 1993 Gun Ban could still be considered Constitutional.
A future administration could then ban handguns, while allowing long guns, for example.
Ammunition restrictions could be imposed. (Hollow points banned, limited quantities allowed, etc..)
Registration might be allowed.
Semi-auto’s might be banned.
Concealed carry laws could be overturned.
Outright BANS of all guns would not be Constitutional, but Congress and a gun banning President could effectively curb 90% of what’s available today?
Bottom Line – What I’m getting at, a favorable Supreme Court ruling (if made prior to the elections next November) could benefit Hillary Clinton supporters who otherwise would not vote for her, IF they thought she could ban guns.
After such a ruling then, Clinton could actually pick-up MORE votes.
Ben, a good question, assuming that Mr. Kline has/had been listed as a potential witness by the defense. Assuming that Mr. Kline has any personal knowledge of anything that he could testify to that would be helpful to the defense and that would be detrimental to the State or in conflict with the position of the prosecution thus requiring disqualification, I would surmise that prosecution of the case would need to be assigned to either the Attorney General’s office, or a Special Prosecutor would need to be appointed by the court.
Your hypothetical reminds me of some thrown out by certain law professors; are you sure you weren’t one in a prior incarnation? :-)
Max, I’ll not say too much on your posted hypothetical other than to say regulations such as you posit would need to be reasonable, analogous to the “time, place and manner” tests applied in First Amendment cases.
Not a law professor … but … other subjects. And I took a few law classes in my environmentsl science curriculum.
Vaughn, did you consider the 1993 law reasonable, under a time, place, and manner test?
For eg:
Magazine capacity limitsCertain “assault weapons” banned
Many banned items seemed arbitrary to me, based on esthetics rather than function.
The 10 round maximum was one of the most harmful provisions. And who’s to say the next law won’t limit capacity to 6 or even 1?
Semp,”I own a 12 gauge shotgun w/pistol grip and 18.5 inch barrel. GREAT for home protection, you don’t have to aim well if your jarred out of bed in the middle of the night. SOMETHING’S GETTING SHOT once I start pumping that baby!”
I bet your kids are terrified of getting up in the middle of the night for a drink of water!
Max, if it comes to be, it will be up to the courts to determine reasonable. Now, I personally may have an opinion as to whether the ten shot maximum clip is reasonable, for example, but in making the argument to a court, I could argue either side of that issue. Same with “assault weapons”; any good lawyer could.
Basically, the issue of “reasonable” is in the eye of the beholder in most cases, and it is one to be determined through the judicial process, should any of this ever come to be.
Hey GMC70,
Actually I believe a large percentage of the field pieces and such were owned by private citizens during the revolutionary war.
Many of the initial maritime pieces converted over to fort defence and such in the begining belonged to merchants that owned the ships.
The ‘government’ in the colonies was British. The patriots captured the large field pieces, mortars or such as the war went on but initially the larger weapons belonged to private citizens.
Max,”Jed, it’s irrational arguments like yours that reinforce the need to maintain the Right of Individuals to bear arms.”
It’s irrational arguments like yours that make restrictions necessary. When any nut with a grudge can go buy enough firepower to blow away his boss and half his fellow workers, we’ve got a problem. When too many “sportsmen” think hunting is sitting on two cases of beer and blasting away at anything that moves, we’ve got a problem. When guns are accessible to children, we’ve got a problem. When the media and the government teach us that the solution for every problem is to blow somebody away or up, we’ve got a problem!
Here’s the way I see the 2nd Amendment isn’t vague the rest of the bill of rights is for individual rights not collective, maybe the 10 is a collective right. And the 2nd Amendment guarantees on the right to bear arms. What i would like to see is a definition of “arms” plenty of weapons are illegal to own or carry, automatic weapons, knives, brass knuckles, pipe bombs, acetone bombs, most explosives could be “arms” not just guns. And does the state have a right to regulate the carrying of said arms, to me the Kansas CC law violates the 2nd Amendment, no other right in the Bill of rights is one forced to train, pay fees, get checked out, and get a license to exercise
It’s irrational arguments like yours that make restrictions necessary. When any nut with a grudge can go buy enough firepower to blow away his boss and half his fellow workers, we’ve got a problem.
**Any nut can’t do this Jed, at least not legally anyway. There are over 20,000 gun laws that restrict gun sales. What one incident are you referring to?
When too many “sportsmen” think hunting is sitting on two cases of beer and blasting away at anything that moves, we’ve got a problem.
** Unfounded in fact Jed. Cite your source. Have you ever BEEN hunting? Your false stereotype says more about you then about hunters.
When guns are accessible to children, we’ve got a problem.
**Again Jed, 20,000 laws. And no organization has promoted gun safety more then the NRA.
When the media and the government teach us that the solution for every problem is to blow somebody away or up, we’ve got a problem!
**I think you are totally losing it now Jed.
Posted by: Jed | November 13, 2007 at 04:54 PM
**Jed your sensationalist, unfounded, and irrational attacks are right out of the Handgun Control Website.
If you knew anything about guns and gun laws, you would see that We Have a Problem, when the murder rate in the Capital of the US multiplies AFTER a gun ban.
Or you’d know how crime rates have gone down in states with Concealed Carry laws. So, when you take guns away from law abiding people, you take away their right to defend themselves, and then We Have a Problem.
Tom Paine,
Actually the matter of conveyance for fire arms is not addressed in the Bill of Rights, nor is the licensing, fees and etc.
Those laws not specifically addressed/prohibited by the Constitution and Bill of Rights can be legislated and governed by the States.
It gets messier with the Federal Regulations as imposed by the BATF and other agencies.
The reason the Kansas CC does not violate the Bill of Rights is it does not prohibit you from keeping or bearing arms.
It describes the manner in which you can do so, which is not addressed by the second amendment.
Either that or we would look like Yosemite Sam with gun and ammunition belts and etc. :)
Max I have heard that before, there can be no out and out ban on firearms but to limit them to those of a benign use i.e. hunting and target practice. The argument that a weapon of any ilk is still a weapon, there for within the 2nd amendment. But since in the time, manner and intent arena at the time of the writing the weapon was both used with the intent of hunting and defense. The two intents are separate but carrying equal weight. There can also be the thought that in the defense of the country, each citizen shall be given the right to keep a sufficient weapon for that defense. As is the case in Iraq right now that each house hold is allowed one Ak47 and a supply of ammunition for the weapon. Which has to be a nightmare for our troops, the good guys and the bad guys having the same weapon.
So the argument may end up being more for a weapon suitable for defense of the country and against one suitable for hunting when it come to the 2nd amendment. But then again it also falls to a weapon of any ilk is still a weapon. Be it a semi automatic rifle or a pitch fork, if there is a need to defend the country anything would be fair game. I run out of bullets, I still have a club, if the stock breaks, I have a rod, if the rod fails, I will pick up rocks, if I run out of rocks I will grab a tree limb, if no tree limbs are about then I will use my bare hands.
Something I found disturbing of late was when a friend who dealt daily with the BATF. Told me he has been getting impressions that the agency is trying to limit and “drive out” businesses that sell firearms.Violating for nothing infraction and for what seems to be made up infractions on the spar of the moment.
I had already noticed that Wal-Mart was no longer selling any firearm of any kind. I checked with an other Pawn shop ( my friend works at a pawn shop) they said that the BATF is getting a lot more restrictive. But did not see it as an attempt to drive businesses that sell firearm out.
SemperFi71, though you are putting it in a joking manner, I make one point of order. Do you know how many firearms I have and where I have them? NO, good I do not want anyone to know how many and where. By listing them and where they are now if someone wished to invade your home they have a good idea where your defense is. What they are facing and what your intent is, now for the most part the government has at least a fair idea what you have. But no one else and even in the case of the government, they come into my house I WANT them to have to guess. If they are coming into my home it is because they are violating the Constitution or committing some other illegal or amoral act.
Writerdog, I would say that the braggers do not have what they say.
Actually the Constitution supersedes the authority of the States, States cant pass laws the violate the constitution or the Supreme court will invalidate it. Here’s a question how does one bear arms without carrying it? And if state made a law that to go to church one had to get a permit and take a class, that would clearly violate the 1st Amendment, so how is doing the exact same thing with the 2nd not violating the Constitution also?
I personally think the 2nd Amendment applies to “a well regulated militia,” and hope the SCOTUS rules accordingly.
But unlike most Cons who’ve whined for 35 years about Roe v. Wade, I promise to accept a SCOTUS ruling once and for all. Even from a Shrub-packed Court that’s the most right-wing activist SCOTUS since Reconstruction.
I don’t care about banning guns. I want “a *well regulated* militia,” with *well regulated* militia members.
And, as I’ve said before, I think any American citizen should be allowed to keep and bear arms, except for those people who really, *really,* *REALLY!* want them.
I’ve yet to see one anti try to explain why the Founders would put a Collective right smack dab in the middle of a document enumerating individual rights.
I’ve yet to see an anti make a rational gramatically based argument as to why the TEXT of the 2A calls for a collective right, not an individual right.
I’ve yet to see an anti cite a quote from one of the Founders, or anyone from the period for that matter, that points toward a collective right over an individual right.
All I’ve seen from antis is snark and “I want a nuke” type arguements. Not one serious post making a legitimate claim to a collective right over personal right.
It’s about damn time we had some common sense when it comes to regulating firearms. It works for other industialized countries and it can work for us.
That’s about where I’m at Monkeyhawk.
There ARE folks and on this forum who I think have no business with guns. But I’ve no problem with reasonable restricted ownership of reasonable firearms.
I will suprise many here and say I think this was the founders position as well. I mean they HAD just won the worlds first revolution against their empire. And they did it mostly with the rawest of recruits who mostly had their own weapons. Well that and the weapons they “liberated” from the Empire.
But here I pause. What a founder brought to our time might think if informed as to modern weapons technology? I don’t know. We can’t know. It would be utterly outside their experience.
They MIGHT worry as to a tyranny of the crazed or irresponsible individual. We have commonly available weapons that can kill dozens of people in a matter of minutes or even seconds. An educated founding father MIGHT worry about so much power in the hands of one person.
Does, the 2nd Amendment allow one to have nukes? Arms could be any sort of weapon not just guns. So what kind of arms are not allowed?
Tom,
If you can’t trust me with a few thermo-nuclear devices how can I trust you with choice?
What do you suggest Mary? The Second Amendment makes perfect sense to me!
Hank
Hank, I barely trust the government with them
“Heckler” wrote –
“…explain why the Founders would put a Collective right smack dab in the middle of a document enumerating individual rights.”
For starters, “Heckler,” the premis of your statement is inaccurate.
Freedom of religion is a collective *as well as* an individual right. As is, by definition, freedom of *assembly.*
“A well regulated *militia* is a *collective* term. The 2nd Amendment addresses both individual and collective rights.
Right to assemble would also seem to be a collective right.
I don’t think there is any way to keep people from assembling alone.
Ooops. Hit the “post” button too soon. To continue with my response to “Heckler” –
But the biggie, the 10th Amendment, is about as collective as it gets: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the *states* respectively, or to the *people.* (Collective nouns highlighted.)
There are, for certain, individual rights addressed in the first 10 Amendments. But it is in no way “a document innumerating [ONLY} individual rights.”
Of course the second amendment makes perfect sense to you Hank…you’ve made that clear on many occasions and it doesn’t surprise me a bit. I’ll stop there because you’re my friend.
I’d like to see guns more regulated in that it would be harder to get one (a potential gun owner would have to pass a background check, there would be a reasonable waiting period, and he/she would have to complete gun safty training), if a felon is caught with a gun he’d get lengthy madatory prison time(not just a slap on the hand), if someone was killed in an accident (ie. a child accidently gets shot), the gun’s owner would be held responsible, and semi-automatic weapons would be totally banned.
We have to start somewhere..and those are all good places to start.Now I’m going to go sit in the hot tub, my back hurts.
Dear Tom,
After the recent Air Force fiasco I don’t trust them anymore either.
I see the same arguments come up.
For those who think the 2nd Amendment was written for hunters or a milita only, I challenge you to find any supporting documentation in the Constitution, Federalist Papers, or any other documents in the 1700’s to support such a conclusion.
Hint: You will not find this documentation at
http://www.handguncontrol.org/
MHawk:
The 10th am. arguement does not cut for a collective right. When the Founders wanted to protect a right for the States, as political entities, they knew how to do so. So how do you explain the term “the people” in the 10th Am. as contrasted to rights reserved to the States? And why would the Founders use the “the people” term if they intended a right reserved to the states as a political entity?
It simply makes no sense. What you are doing, MHawk, is substituting your policy preferences for language of the Constitution. You are entitled to your policy preferences, of course. But you are not entitled to enshrine them as constitutional law in the face of the language of the text and the clear intent of nearly every writer of the Founding generation.
JR -
What the founders would think today is irrelevent, and is speculation at best. If that is our standard, there is no standard, for we all seek to project our preferences on the Founders. No, the language is what it is. If you don’t like it, change it.
You use the term “reasonable” regulation. Fair enough. But I suspect our standards of what is “reasonable” are quite different, and I don’t trust many on the left when they say “reasonable” regulation. The NEXT regulation will always be portrayed as “reasonable.” My strong suspicion is that “reasonable” will never end until “reasonable” means “all.”
For example: The “scary-looking gun ban” of 1994 (AKA the assault-weapon ban). An AR-15 was banned, a Ruger Mini-14 was not. Tell me the difference? (in function, there is none, of course; the AR is scary looking, the mini-14 looks “normal”) Is there any rationality to such a regulation? And would such a distinction survive scrutiny in the face of a clearly defined constitutional right?
The media doesn’t help, of course, mindlessly repeating Brady idiocy like “assault rifles designed to shoot from the hip.” (!) I’ve actually seen a news report refer to a “Model 98 Mauser bolt-action ASSAULT RIFLE.” Idiots. This is either abject stupidity, an attempt to drive ratings with sensationalism, or agenda driven “journalism” – perhaps all three.
So excuse me if I am unwilling to rely on the “reasonableness” of those who would “regulate” firearms.
Mary,
You almost had me at thinking you were reasonable up to the complete ban on all semi-automatic weapons.
For Jed, what would you do if a robber broke into your home?
How would you defend yourself, your wife, and your kids?
Oh, and you wouldn’t know for sure if he/they were just robbing you or maybe they wanted to rape your wife and murder y’all too.
Would you try to dial 911? Is that all you could do to protect yourself?
Mary -
“and semi-automatic weapons would be totally banned.”
Define what you see as a “semi-automatic weapon.”
I am worried as you are GMC but in the different direction.
YOU worry that all guns will be confiscated. You are not alone. I worked with a buncha coconuts for whom that was their ONLY issue voting. To whit:
“The dems will take my guns away!”
That all guns would be confiscated is a rediculous suggestion.
What is MORE likely is a complete and utter end as to ANY regulation as to guns.
The very wealthy already have quite enough power thank you. I do not care to find myself at the mercy of private armies of those who might have a beef with me or the population in general. The little armament I could afford would protect me little or not at all.
Consider Blackwater and their recent activities in Iraq. It can happen here.
Mary has no clue what a semi-automatic vs repeating rifle, vs automatic vs bolt action, vs lever action, vs pump action, vs single-shot rifle is.
Gun control proposals come from the depth of IGNORANCE.
JR, you haven’t studied history much, if you don’t worry about government gaining too much power.
“Max” –
You amaze me with the depth of your “what if” paranoias.
I have to assume you’re sitting at your comuter with a locked-and-loaded assault weapon at your side.
I mean, *if* “a robber broke into your home” *RIGHT NOW,* would you be ready to gun him down? Right now?! You wouldn’t have to go to the gun cabinet or a closet and open fire on the intruder *this minute?!*
Good for you. Hope your toddler grandchildren can’t get to Grampa’s Glock. But if they do, I guess them’s the breaks.
Or maybe your sense of security with your arsenal placates your fear of robbers, rapists, and mad men who are cruising your neighborhood just to get to *you.*
Fine. It that cooks for you, solid. But forgive me if I’d prefer some system that makes sure people who are armed to the teeth can prove themselves to be as sane and rational as you are.
Set up a machine gun nest on your front porch, for all I care. Just as long as society has a reasonable expectation you won’t go out there and start sniping at Jehova’s Witnesses who happen onto your sidewalk.
Deal?
For Jed/Mary/MonkeyHawk or others who want to ban guns, how would you defend yourself in this situation?
Independence Daily Reporter, Independence, KS, 07/12/06
Police say a man may have broken into a residence in conjunction with a plan to rob a local bank. When the homeowner confronted the suspect he was ordered to wake his wife and get the keys to the bank where she is employed. The homeowner went to the bedroom, leading the intruder to believe he was waking his wife. But instead he told his wife to call 9-1-1 and grabbed a handgun from the nightstand. He told the burglar to raise his hands and drop any weapons he had. Reportedly, he dropped a 12-inch butcher knife to the floor before sheriff’s deputies arrived on the scene.
Y’all see the Crime Map for Wichita every time you come to this blog.
Don’t think crime can’t happen to you.
And why would you think banning guns would change the Wichita Crime Map for the better?
Oh, one more lil detail, HOW would you go about banning guns effectively to ensure no one had guns?
Arkansas City Traveler, Arkansas City, Kan., 10/1/04
When three men tried to force their way into an Arkansas City, Kans., house, Jody Foster acted. Foster called the police, retrieved a handgun and fired at the intruders, wounding one in the left hand. Police responding to the call apprehended all three suspects.
Max
RE: your 8:08 post.
That is absolutely true – most gun conrol proposals come from the depths of ignorance about that they propose to regulate. The Brady website is full of misinformation and outright lies regarding basic facts re: firearms and their operation.
But if you believe your cause is just, I guess you can justify same to accomplish the goal . . .
JR -
I’m with Max. The experience of history is that the State is far and away the greatest threat to liberty. Concern over infringement of rights is legitimate; I just think you’re looking in the wrong place.
Max
Quite recent history shows the danger of too much power in the hands of one or a few individuals.
Warlords In Afghanistan for instance?
The wealth of the bin Laden family and how it was used?
If the populace is largely similarly armed, there is less potential for one or a group of individuals to subjugate the many. We have enough of that already. Better weaponry is only in the range of those with the money to afford it.
MonkeyHawk, your answer then is “you would be able to do nothing to defend yourself”.
Fine. That’s your choice.
My choice is to have either my sidearm on my waist (I have a permit) or in my home it’s in my finger-touch gun safe.
Safe from kids. Takes away your argument there.
Yet readily accessible to me.
You dial 911 MonkeyHawk. Then in the 10 minutes it takes for the cops to arrive, you can watch the criminals do whatever they want to, to you, to your wife, and to your kids.
I elect to defend myself, my wife, and my kids, should I ever be in such a situation. Always prepared.
And no threat to you.
Well, of course, “Max,” you’re wrong. Again.
I have never advocated banning guns.
I have consistently advocated takes measures to eliminate gun nuts.
And your attempt to distort my views gives me a lot of evidence you might be one of those guys who really, *really,* *REALLY!!!!* want your guns.
On the basis of one incident three years ago in Ark City, you’ve justified your paranoia.
Are you posting on WEBlog with a firearm in reach? Frankly, I’m not. The doors are locked and the alarm is armed and I feel — poor, poor, foolish me — pretty secure. Over three years ago, “Jody Foster acted.” Three men broke into her home and she wounded one of them. Sorry if I’m not all that encouraged by those odds.
But I’m not starting at your level of abject fear. Maybe I have more courage than you do.
Agree with your 8:20 post JR.
As far as affordability, there are many firearm options available for home defense for under $250. For concealed carry, there are options in the $400 – $600 range.
Compared to the cost of being defenseless, priceless.
I honestly feel more safe at the local gun range then I do almost anywhere else.
Contrary to one posters sterotype, we are not a bunch of red-neck drunks shooting anything that moves.
(Ok, I might be a redneck, but drinking NEVER takes place until AFTER a round of shooting is finished)
There is a wide range of people at every gun range I’ve been to. Doctors, Lawyers, and other professionals, farmers, office workers, factory workers, retail, blue-collar, white-collar, Republican, and mostly in my experience – Democrat. Oh, and women at the range are not dominate, but quite frequent.
We all follow range rules to the nth degree.
Very safe, and I’ve never seen any accident during countless hours of range time in over 30+ years of shooting.
Your alarm system been tested MonkeyHawk?
What’s the response time to get to your house?
Most doors, even with deadbolts, can be busted down in 30 seconds or less. Never more then 60 seconds.
Oh, and yes, have gun will travel. Always within a few seconds of reach and always secure. The exact location and nature shall not be disclosed, but I will say, I am at all times – armed.
“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that… it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45
In a nation governed by the people themselves, the possession of arms to defend their nation against usurpers within and without was deemed absolutely necessary. This right is protected by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. A gun was an everyday implement in early American society, and Jefferson recommended its use. “A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks.” –Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. ME 5:85, Papers 8:407
Everyone forget that shooting at the Wichita pharmacy last summer, just a few months ago?
The robber, pointing a gun at the store employees, was shot dead as the store employees exercised their right to bear arms to defend themselves.
When a gun is pointed at your head, what will you do?
you might be one of those guys who really, *really,* *REALLY!!!!* want your guns. Monkeyhawk.
Monkeyhawk uses this expression in every gun debate.
He’s afraid of people who really wants to keep their guns.
Yes, I am one of those.
I really want to keep my gun.
I really want to be able to defend myself, my wife, and my kids.
I really want to live, I really want my wife to live, and I really want my kids to live.
And I really want to have Freedom.
If you want to attack me for that Monkeyhawk, make my day.
(It’s like you saying you really want your Socialist handouts from Government!)
The Wichita Eagle, Wichita, KS, 05/23/02
A Wichita, Kan., smoke shop owner shot and wounded an armed robber in his store after the man tried to shoot him. Lorenzo Harding, owner of H&H Cigarette Shop, told police he was with a customer when an armed man burst into his shop. The man reportedly pulled a mask down to cover his face, said Sgt. Jeff Davis. “Initial reports are that he was trying to fire the gun, but the gun jammed,” Davis said. The owner then pulled a handgun from under his counter and fired one shot at the man.
Max,
You won! You won! Look! No one else is left standing in the ring. Down, boy, down. If I hadn’t already agreed with you, you would have already slaughtered me by now.:-)
You’re just weird David. And kinda creepy.
Oh and I saw what you said about me and a friend of mine on a thread I said I was not fighting after I said it and said why. You’ll answer for that later. Count on it.
JR,
Making threats now? Were you not just saying how Kansas was bad for doing the same thing?
When are you going to start living up to the expectations you have of others?
“Max” wrote –”When a gun is pointed at your head, what will you do?”
“When” it is, huh, “Max?” Not *if,* but *when!”
Well, ya see, I guess I go through life not quite as paranoid as you are. I kinda doubt it’ll happen to me, and I suspect it’s never happened to you and frankly, I pity your constant abject fear of people with guns.
I kinda live my life trying to avoid situations where people are inclined to shoot me. The alarm has gone off and the cops actually shocked me by showing up… pointing guns at *me* until I identified myself… lickety-split.
And yet, even as they pointed guns at me, I had a modicum of faith that the cops were well-trained, relatively sane, and had adult supervision. I’m beginning to lose confidence that if *you* were pointing a gun at me, “Max,” I’d feel so sanguine.
At least you’re honest in your scaredy-catness. You’re sitting in your computer room confident you can pump lead into any room of the house at the creak of a floorboard. Bully for you.
But hey, I’m a liberal. I’m all for liberal gun laws. Convince some encaration of a 21st Century militia that you’re not crazy, and you can sleep with any gun of your choice under your pillow. But as a member of a “well regulated [21st Century militia], you’ll be held as responsible for your weaponry as any soldier in the regular military.
If your ready-at-hand gun happens to fall into the grasp of your toddler granddaughter and she kills herself, you should be responsible for not controlling your weaponry. That may require you taking your close-at-hand gun to the bathroom with you when you walk out of your computer room. But that’s a small price to pay, right? You do that, don’t you?
And it all comes down to me just not understanding how you function, “Max,” in the real world with your constant abject fear. Okay, I know sometimes bad things happen to good people, and I consider myself to be generally a good person, but I cannot generate the paranoia you express when you start talking about your obsession with guns. I pity the terror your life must be.
I must not be an adventurous sort, but for 99% of my life (at least) I honestly cannot think of anywhere I’ve been so afraid of people I felt I really needed a gun. The remaining 1% of my life… well, I made it through, so I guess the gun wasn’t neeeded in the first place.
You, apparently, live a much more exciting life and can’t be comfortable in society unless you’re packing heat. You have a much more interesting life than I do, “Max.”
What are you, “Max?” An “International Man of Mystery?”
Hope you don’t sleep too soundly tonight. The Boogey Man is probably lurking in the shrubery.
JR,
If I’m not mistaken, I didn’t say anything about you after you “left” this morning. I did, however, copy and paste several of your own words. And, I shall answer for that, you say? And how shall I answer for it? Only you can retract what you said, which I would encourage, if indeed you wish you hadn’t taken that stance. If you still agree with your position, why are you now threatening me with posting your words?
I should let you, though, that because I was so shocked at Ed F’s largely unchallenged racist rants and your defense of him, I spent some time earlier gathering several quotes (two pages of them), including their sources, just to see if had misread anything. I haven’t. And his rants are disturbing.
Get yourself some context before you start tossing judgements Nathan. I’ll leave it to you after that.
I said I would not fight that thread Atkins. And I said why.
I’ll be happy to fight it with you here or elsewhere elsewhen.
Max,”For Jed, what would you do if a robber broke into your home?How would you defend yourself, your wife, and your kids?”
Firstly, in my 63 yrs of life, it’s never happened, so I really don’t rate it anywhere near the top of my “what if” list.Secondly, should something like that happen, rather than trying to out-Rambo Rambo and probably end up getting all of us killed, I would treat it the same as any other home disaster; keep ny unsurance paid up, get my family out of the house to safety and then call in the authorities. I realize this goes against every fantasy you’ve ever had, but it jibes pretty well with reality.
No I will not retract what I said. I’ll only modify it by saying I do not see every single one of Ed’s posts. I also do not spend all day tracking them down.
I have a life. You should try it.
I found nothing that Ed said over there racist. I found nothing of his you re posted racist.
I found nothing that Ed said over there racist. I found nothing of his you re posted racist.
Posted by: J R | November 13, 2007 at 09:21 PM__________
Speaking of terrorists who attack the US, Ed F says:
>>We ought to generate Martyrs as a glaring reflection of our war-crimes against innocent people.Their cause was pure and just. A retaliation for inexcusable wrongs committed by disgusting degenerate Zionist Jews.Trying to punish these brave soldiers for our own unpunished depravity is to trying to draw attention away from the decades of our war-crimes crimes against these men, their homes, farms, land and families.The shame belongs to us, and it seems the Zionists derive great satisfaction in compounding our childlike foolery.Posted by: Ed Friedemann | April 07, 2006 at 02:40 PM
DA,Those of us who’ve been blogging here for a while are fully aware of Ed’s biases and nail him from time to time for them. But we are also aware that he provides a balance in a nutty sort of way to the rants of the “Nuke the Ragheads” crowd that has been so vocal lately. And every once in a while he makes a pretty valid point. Like him or not, he’s one of the original members of our little community.
It couldn’t have waited for the next open David?
Ok
Well here is a good example.
My last post or ability to consistently read others’s posts was gone by the last week of March.
What else Ed may have said in April or between then and late September, let alone on any other forum you might find an “Ed Friedemann” I can’t answer for.
But no, I do not see this post as racist. It is heated. It is angry. That is Ed. But his anger is with politics not race.
I did not write that.
I believe that any non felon who is not mentally ill and 18 should be able to carry a concealed or open gun at all times as they wish.
An admittedly quick search and I am not finding that quote.
Your search terms Mr. Atkins?
I see: Posted by: Ed Friedemann | April 07, 2006 at 02:40 PM
Does anyone know under what heading?
You’re not alone, “J R” –
I doubt if anyone actually reads Ed’s posts. Just about every evil in the world, it seems for him, can be hung on the Israelis. Which, of course, in right-wingdom is a tidy little code word for classic old anti-Semitism. Which I never really understood in the first place.
It takes a whole lot more permutations of conspiracy and illogic to understand how “The Jew” is somehow singlehandedly responsible for all the ills of the world. But that seems to cook for Ed’s approach to world issues. And, as with most extremists, he won’t change his mind and he won’t change the subject.
I’m old enough, “J R,” to remember Abbie Hoffman. He absolutely *hated* liberals. “Liberals,” he said, “keep trying to understand the enemy.” And I guess we do.
It’s a whole lot easier to be a NeoCon and drag out the guns and bombs against anyone deemed an “enemy.” So long as you can minipulate patriotism and the media and politics and send others to die for your cause, that is.
The Republic Party coalition since Reagan has been the crafty alliance of people who have nothing in common, except fear and religion. Part of their faction hates taxes. Part of their faction hates brown people. Part of their faction hates women. Part of their faction simply hates. At the height of the Republic Party’s success, they kept those factions together to eke out a contested presidential election in 2000 and a marginal victory in 2004… against perhaps the weakest politicians the Democrats could have possibly nominated.
There’s simply no guarantee the Democrats won’t once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, but the Republic coalition is in all sorts of disarray. The fiscal conservatives look at Shrub’s $3 Trillion debt and shake their heads. The isolationists look at Bush/Cheney’s overt war in Iraq with no provocation and (like Ron Paul) can’t believe of Republicanism has become. The Religious Wrong is waking up to the fact that Republics have no intention of losing abortion as an issue, rather than deal with it.
And companies such as Halliburton and Mobil/Exxon et al are makin’ money while the makin’ is good.
Many times in this forum I’ve asked the Con regulars to tell me exactly what they believe *in.* Mostly, there’s been no response. Almost as often, I see diatribes about what Cons are *against.* Stuff like, “Hillary will steal your guns,” or “Poor kids will get health insurance,” or “A guy who combs his hair…”
George WMD Bush has killed more Americans in Iraq than Osama bin Laden did in NYC on 9/11. So just *who* is the enemy?
Okay, forget that, Cons. We already know the “Democrat” Party is your enemy. But what is it you’re *for?*
A second attempt using search engine math did not find the quote either.
The time stamps are oddly out of order, but this appears approximately in the middle of the day’s blogs.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2006/04/is_death_too_go.html
It bears your name, Ed, and is consistent with your language and tone.
Yes Ed you DID write that.
It is angry. You had lots of angry posts that day.
But it is NOT racist.
If I say, “I think black people who vote Reoublican are stupid.” it is not racist. It is political and a personal judgement.
Incredible.
And a point of clarification.
I didn’t imagine Davy would go back to 2006 almost 19 months ago.
If that is the best you have to make Ed a racist David, you will have to spend all day tomorrow trying again.
Ed is what he is. I don’t THINK he is a racist from the posts you show and the ones I’ve seen.
MonkeyHawk,Man, that was splendid. Would you consider helping Obama get a backbone? He is such a nice guy, he has difficulty in politics, it seems to me.
I never use the word ” Martyrs ” because I had to cut and paste it just now, as I can’t even get the spelling close enough for the spell checker.
Davy boy is trying to shutdown critiquing Israel by have it all covered by racism, bigotry, or the all handy anti-Semitism.
JR,
I see you trying to gain a little wiggle room, and I think you are now acting wisely. I picked a random quote out of the two pages I copied and pasted. And most of the quotes pasted on those pages were random selections from the myriad posts that could have been copied ranging from today back a few years. They were fairly easy to find, as blog poster XXX indicated earlier. Evidently none of them were written with an eye toward discretion or secrecy. I didn’t cherry-picked the worst ones, I’m sorry to say.
I’m disinclined to re-post all the quotes here with the mere motivation of proving the point. I don’t need to do that, and several of the quotes are breath-taking in their venom. Several people “from your side of the aisle” have already discredited Ed. What I’ve discovered about whomever posts under the name Ed Friedemann is more than a little disturbing.
“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that… it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45
Which state constitutions in 1824 made it the DUTY of the people as individuals to be at all times armed? None, I think.
Jefferson no doubt was referring to the people-as-state-militias, not as individual persons.
“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks.” –Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. ME 5:85, Papers 8:407
The Second Amendment, of course, makes no more mention of exercise than it does of hunting, individual self-defense, or insurrection.
Jefferson’s attitude toward the Second Amendment was that it was a provision “for the substitution of militia for a standing army,” one of the provisions that he had urged Madison to include when he drafted the Bill of Rights for Congress.
If the so-called “Conservatives” really meant it when they carp about “original intent” of the Constitution of the United States of America, they might be able to twist the 2nd Amendment into the right of all Americans to keep and bear a smooth-bore, muzzle-loaded, flintlock musket… the state-of-the art and most common weapon of warfare in the world at the time the Bill of Rights was ratified.
So which is it, Cons? Do you believe only in “original intent” of the Constitution when it serves your biases?
So much for your principles.
Ed,
Political speech, even the hateful kind you proffer, is protected here in the United States. But you, sir, go far beyond that, and are a racist. And I would love to shut that down.
Oh I think it is you who is searching for wiggle room David.
You’ve proven Ed only what he has already been accepted as. You’ve not proven him or me a racist.
Least you forget, the first President Clinton ordered the ATF into the Christians home in Waco, Texas, which resulted in the slaughter of innocent men, women, and children.
The Clinton Administration (AG just as Bush is responsible for his AG), ordered TANKS against women and children.
They put barbed wire fences around the Christians home.
Then crashed their tanks into their living room and bedrooms.
This wasn’t in Iraq.
This was in the USA.
Clinton’s going after guns.
DA,Be careful what you wish for; there are probably people here more capable than you that would equally love to shut you down, and you’re handing them ammunition.
You brilliant posters in OZ Kansas have all the expertise we need in our deliberations and decision making.
I can see it here, on the weblog.
Sea lawyers and scurvy.
Trash talkers and interpreters.
PS: I will refer the UN delegation here next.
You’re just weird David. And kinda creepy.
Oh and I saw what you said about me and a friend of mine on a thread I said I was not fighting after I said it and said why. You’ll answer for that later. Count on it.
Posted by: J R | November 13, 2007 at 08:58 PM
Big bad JR, threatening people again.
JR, you said you were here to save the world.
Go back to “your people” and have them feed you some really killer lines to attack David. You can’t do this on your own.
Here I come to save the day!
Attention JM gang! Attention JM gang!
JR is taking lot’s of bullets on the gun thread. He is loosing and needs wisdom and reinforcement.
Can’t some of you libs help him gang up on the NEOCON’S!?
Didn’t any of you libs call J R and tell him he is wasting his breath on your friend Ed? He is “the one” with you regulars, right?
The spittle foaming from his royal lips reflects your common theme and core beliefs?
Candycoat it any way you want – but the guy is promoting the destruction of a nation and the death of millions of Israeli citizens.
But he does represent the views of the liberals on this blog?
PS: Max, I’m a girl
I admire the trust you put in the government to NOT take away your freedoms. In fact, the rapidity with which you are willing to hand over your rights to the government. In this manner, you subjugate yourself and put your life, health, and safety in the hands of an entity which is NOT legally required to prevent evil from befalling you, even if you call in advance. They are only required to launch an investigation of a crime after it has been committed.
I have been the victim of crime (person crime, not “my stereo got stolen.”) I know what it is like to feel helpless, to be unable to mount an attack, to be at the mercy of someone who means you harm.
I pray you never are in this situation.
Life is inherently dangerous. I wouldn’t have it any other way. I refuse to forfeit my liberties so that I can feel “safer.”
I’ll take care of myself, thanks.
I’ve seen a few of Ed’s worst posts yanked from the blog.
No point in beating a dead horse, but thought I might save some time for those who want to reread Ed’s garbage, and can’t find it because it’s been pulled from the blog.
In Prague last Saturday, there was a Nazi march. The march was scheduled a day after the anniversary of Kristallnacht, the night in 1938 when the Nazis attacked synagogues and Jewish homes and businesses throughout Germany and parts of Austria.
Ed, JR, and a few others might want to go there to help them out. There will be a revenge demonstration on 11/17 by the Nazi’s to protest the violence inflicted upon them in Saturday’s March.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21727119/
I heard a story about a Nazi march in Frankfort a few years ago.
There were thousands of protestors lines up. It was a peaceful non-violent protest, unlike the one in Prague last Saturday.
The Frankfort crowd was well organized and laughed and mocked the Nazi’s and shamed them so much, apparently they didn’t return to that neighborhood again.
I support the 1st Amendment right in America for everyone, no matter how repulsive their speech may be.
1st Amendment rights also include the anti-Nazi protestors, whom I hope are never silenced.
Max, I checked out the Nazi March Link it looked like the one guy got his master race ass kicked
Yes Tom, even though they deserve it, even ask for it, I’d still rather see the enmasse peaceful protests like the one I heard about in Frankfort.
Where are all 2nd amendment rights folks on the desecration of our 4th amendent rights?
Take heed:
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm
Steven,
What 4th amendment rights have you lost?
Max, I agree peaceful protests are the way to go and Im a 100% suppoter of free speech but im not shedding no tears over nazi’s or if a bunch of vets were to give the phelps family a thrashing good for them.
SD:
You’re in my court now. Be specific; of what do you object?
Steven, that’s why I’m not a conservative too many of them while willing to die for the 2nd Amendment could give a shit about the other 9 in the bill of rights. And Liberals are willing to fight for the 1st and 4th and a few others generally have a piss off attitude towards the 2nd.
Actually it would a appear that the 7th amendment needs to be adjusted for inflation, I can get a jury trial for a 20 dollar judgment?
Tom:
Yes. But the federal courts don’t have jurisdiction unless the amount at issue is substantially larger (I’ll defer to VT, the civil guy, to remember the exact amount). And Congress defines the jurisdictional limits of the courts. Art. III, Sec. 2.
Those of us who’ve been blogging here for a while are fully aware of Ed’s biases and nail him from time to time for them. But we are also aware that he provides a balance in a nutty sort of way… Like him or not, he’s one of the original members of our little community.
Posted by: Jed | November 13, 2007 at 09:36 PM
_________
Jed, Your little community has some blight that you’ve grown accustomed to, but is glaringly obvious to new move-ins. The rational you presented to defend its presence is very similar to language, thinking, relationships and affections that enabled and protected the Klan for decades in the South, and still does in some rare parts. It seems that from your side of the aisle, Ed’s sort of racism is acceptable. However, if a white man in Mississippi were to make similar rants about African Americans, you would rightly excoriate him. Why is it easier to tolerate one over the other? Somehow you’ve grown either immune or blind to this hatefulness. Or perhaps you simply drive around the blighted part of your community so you don’t have to deal with it. If that’s so, that’s not very Liberal of you. Don’t you want someone to come in and fix all those run-down shacks? Racism is repugnant, be it against Jewish people or against people of color. Your blight needs to be renovated. It’s degrading your “community.”
Federal gun dealers are legal people, but some they are anti government nuts that hate the Fed.
Nuts want to be armed when the Fed knocks, just in case.
Not much is done by some gun dealers to determine why a customer wants guns. They ask the customer for their ID, and small talk about different kinds of guns to purchase, but not asking why.
Millions of people have lived in America safely unarmed. So someone has to feel that society fear to arm themselves.
To be safe, just in case, some of that is paranoia.
To be a society protector for someone else. That’s a leap of consideration. Conceal carry is about self defense. Wanting to be out there just case for someone else. I’d say don’t be out there so much. Join the police department or something.
Some conceal carry probably put themselves in areas where it might be possible to make a difference. A little vigilante in them.
A lot of vigilante possibly.
Guns can be made different quickly if government didn’t listen so much to the gun lobby. Politicans have corrupt taking the gun lobby to task.
Ammo can be changed in formula to track shells. To follow bullets from store to purchaser. What gun used the shells.
If a gun is sold, it shouldn’t be freely transferred to another unidentifiable person.
Guns require record keeping that must have transferred To: information.
Person buying the gun should have a drivers license. Should be using a legal ID. Shouldn’t have warrants on them!
States should have websites so citizens can sell their guns. Not on Ebay!
Only within the state they live. People can’t mail guns across state lines! Even if its called a “collector” gun.
Some want anonymity in gun purchases and transfers that isn’t good for society. Guns end up the wrong hands. An unloaded gun is easily loadable.
Guns are dangerous as a definition.
A loaded gun on the ground someone or animal can cause that gun to fire by stepping on the trigger.
The safety could be off and there’s a bullet in the chamber.
If left in a irresponsible way, a loaded gun is very dangerous.
Consumer safety labels should be slapped on guns. Fewer federal licensed dealers. Gun dealers should have degrees in sociology, psychology or affirm rules of law in America.
Counter culture hating the Fed, shouldn’t be selling guns to anybody. They do.
Some communities hate the Fed for reasons ,especially around Federal Land managed areas.
They shouldn’t have arsenals of weapons if the Fed want to enforce Federal Law.
Some take their view of State’s Rights way too far. County Rights somehow the rule of law over the Feds.
Feds can go anywhere in this county with a search warrant. Serve a search warrant on some people, Feds have to be careful.
That’s wrong. Americans shouldn’t be allowed to arm themselves acting against the Feds or State Police.
Sometimes there is too much hate the Fed, mistrust the gov consideration in gun sales and transfers.
Distrust the police they will respond in time. Call the police, demand they come instead of trying to solve a problem with someone and use a gun.
Some people believe in their gun abilities better than police.
Their individual training superior to real police group tactics how to solve a problem.
When the police get there, its possible they can stop crime from happening worse just because they can act as a group of people.
Vigilantes want to think on their own with a gun in their hand.
Vigilante purchases guns from a militia minded anti government gun seller, that’s a toxic soup transfer of dangerous products.
Everyone is law abiding, but nuts are transferring guns.
Future guns can be altered. Today guns could lose their ammunition so there’s no reason for the Fed to mass confiscate.
The gun manufactures must be held accountable for the guns they create. Some semi-auto rifles have no use for hunting. Why are they sold?
Some semi auto rifles can be altered to fully automatic.
Home protection can be done with hunting shotguns, rifles and pistol.
What’s the semi auto version guns used for war, why are they being sold to the public?
In the future, limit shots fired from handguns to only 6 bullets. Clip or revolver.
Remember ammo can be altered by laws, so todays stock stops being sold.
Guns had no reason to create more shots. Not guns sold to the public. No training required to get it.
Easy for the criminal to have and promote them as a status symbol.
A large capacity handgun can easily be fired by smaller and younger criminals. So lets limit their shots fired from handguns.
A properly trained person that practices can drop one criminal with 6 shots. Can wound two or three with deadly intentions.
Get behind something and easily reload, with a smaller clip.
It’s the training that helps a person be a responsible gun user.
It’s a dangerous product unloaded, because once loaded and used by a irresponsible person, its a very deadly weapon.
“It takes a whole lot more permu-tations of conspiracy and illogic to understand how “The Jew” is somehow singlehandedly responsible for all the ills of the world.”– Monkeyhawk –=========================
Hey Monk — Just substitute the word “Liberals” for “The Jew” in your quote above, and ask the conservativeds how THEY do it??
Might be interesting!!
Mrage
Yours must be an interesting mind; swirling bits of thought, spilling randomly forth, completly oblivious to organization (or sentences, for that matter). I suspect, to you (and only to you) there is a sort of logic there . . .
God only knows what it is.
Karl Rove was a good student of History — Note the following quote, and how closely Rove and Co. drove the Bush Administration and the Iraq debacle >>>>
“Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy.
All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”
– Quote from Hermann Goering –(Interview during Nuremburg Trial)
GMC — There might well be a lot of rambling from Mrage… But your response didnt say ANYthing about what Mrage posted… only about his/her style… I think you can do better than that, unless that isnt really you!!
Chas, I’m all he!
That’s GMC. Some anti gun blather, he’ll stop reading and only comment on my writing style.
It’s thoughts sometimes, because I’m typing fast as they come to mind.
I’m tired it gets worse.
You were kidding about GMC — or anyone — responding to Mrage, right?
Well, here’s just a small response from me. I’ll leave the heavy stuff to GMC.________
>>An unloaded gun is easily loadable.
Guns are dangerous as a definition.________
I reply only:1. Yes, it is, and
2. Yes, they are.
No, DA, not kidding at all… Mrage makes some valid points… But some folks choose to revert to ad hominem with their responses, instead of directing their comments to the point made… I didnt ask you, DA, but you responded anyway….
Nite now!!
DA,Please don’t try to lecture me on racism; I’ve been in that fight for 50 years now, and I’d be willing to bet that someone digging around in your skull would find equally racist notions.
Mrage
It’s like reading a display rack of bumper sticker slogans.
You never had a pen pal I gather. :)
Whatever floats your thoughts don’t happen in mine folks, when I’m tired.
WORD fixed my post. Some words dropped out in the original message screwed up what I meant to say. A word there, comma somewhere, making plurals.
Generally, it would have passed English class with red marks, but a decent grade.
To answer your query Kansas, I’ve stayed in message only contact with some long distance friends for over a decade. I don’t get discussion how I write, only here.
I’ve had rants, letters to Editor published a few times. One made to the State archives. I vehemently didn’t want only dog track slots in our County. Someone in the Topeka liked that post when they were planning allowing Counties to Casino vote.
I do okay blogging when I’m not tired.
Read again if ya want to!
—–
Federal gun dealers are legal people, but some, they are anti government nuts that hate the Feds.
Nuts want to be armed when the Feds knock on their door, just in case.
Not much is done by some gun dealers to determine why a customer wants guns. They ask the customer for their ID, and small talk about different kinds of guns to purchase, but not asking why.
Millions of people have lived in America safely unarmed. So someone has to feel that society fear to arm them selves.
To be safe, just in case, some of those reasons to carry concealed is paranoia.
To be a society protector for someone else, that’s a leap of consideration. Conceal carry is about self defense. To be out there just in case for someone else, I’d say don’t be out there so much. Join the police department or something.
Some conceal carry probably put themselves in areas where it might be possible to make a difference. A little vigilante in them, lots of vigilante possibly.
Guns can be made different quickly if government didn’t listen so much to the gun lobby. Politicians have become corrupt taking the gun lobby to task.
Ammo can be changed in formula to track shells, following bullets from store to purchaser. Figuring what gun used the shells.
If a gun is sold, it shouldn’t be freely transferred to another unidentifiable person. Guns require record keeping that must have transferred To: information.
Person buying the gun should have a driver’s license. Also should be using a legal ID. Shouldn’t have warrants on them!
States should have websites so citizens can sell their guns. Not on Ebay! Only within the state they live. People can’t mail guns across state lines! Even if called a “collector” gun.
Some want anonymity in gun purchases and transfers that isn’t good for society. Guns end up the wrong hands. An unloaded gun is easily loadable.
Guns are dangerous as a definition. Gun lobby says it’s a person, the more responsible party for guns being misused.
A loaded gun on the ground someone or animal can cause that gun to fire by stepping on the trigger. The safety could be off and there’s a bullet in the chamber. If left in a irresponsible way, a loaded gun is very dangerous.
Consumer safety labels should be slapped on guns. Fewer federal licensed dealers. Gun dealers should have degrees in sociology, psychology or affirm rules of law in America.
Counter culture hating the Fed, shouldn’t be selling guns to anybody. They do.
Some communities hate the Fed for reasons especially around Federal Land managed areas. They shouldn’t have arsenals of weapons if the Feds want to enforce Federal Law. Some take their view of State’s Rights way too far.
County Rights somehow the rule of law over the Federal government.
Feds can go anywhere in this county with a search warrant. Serve a search warrant on some people, Feds have to be careful.
That’s wrong. Americans shouldn’t be allowed to arm themselves acting against the Feds or State Police. Sometimes there is too much hate the Feds, mistrust the gov consideration in gun sales and transfers.
Distrust the police they will respond in time. Call the police, demand they come instead of trying to solve a problem with someone and use a gun.
Some people believe in their gun abilities better than police.
Their individual training is superior to real police group tactics how to solve a problem.
When the police get there, it’s possible they can stop crime from happening worse just because they can act as a group of people.
Vigilantes want to think on their own with a gun in their hand.
Vigilante purchases guns from a militia minded anti government gun seller, that’s a toxic soup transfer of dangerous products. Everyone is law abiding, but nuts are transferring guns.
Future guns can be altered. Today guns could lose their ammunition so there’s no reason for the Fed to mass confiscate.
The gun manufactures must be held accountable for the guns they create. Some semi-auto rifles have no use for hunting. Why are they sold? Some semi auto rifles can be altered to fully automatic.
Home protection can be done with hunting shotguns, rifles and pistol.
What’s the semi auto version guns used for war, why are they being sold to the public?
In the future, limit shots fired from handguns to only 6 bullets, clips or revolver.
Remember ammo can be altered by laws, so today’s stock stops being sold.
Guns had no reason to create more shots. Not guns sold to the public. No training required to get it. Easy for the criminal to have and promote them as a status symbol.
A large capacity handgun can easily be fired by smaller and younger criminals. So let’s limit their shots fired from handguns.
A properly trained person that practices can drop one criminal with 6 shots. It’s possible to wound two or three criminals with deadly intentions.
Get behind something and easily reload, with a smaller clip. It’s the training that helps a person be a responsible gun user.
It’s a dangerous product unloaded, because once loaded and used by a irresponsible person, it’s a very deadly weapon.
Well there it is then Mrage. :D
Be sure and get that rest fellow.
We can’t have people blogging and sleeping at the same time. :)
Mrage:
#1. Try typing complete sentences.
#2. You obviously have no firearms experience, just the hyperbolic ideas perpetuated by the Bradys/VPC/Handgun Control, Inc. If you want, I can take you shooting, and teach you proper handgun safety and operation.
#3. Our founding fathers envisioned able-bodied men having military weapons for self-and-common defense, and they protected that right. If you want to live in a country where this is not so, you can find one.
“Mary has no clue what a semi-automatic vs repeating rifle, vs automatic vs bolt action, vs lever action, vs pump action, vs single-shot rifle is.
Gun control proposals come from the depth of IGNORANCE.”
What F**king difference does it make, Max? Maybe I should have said assault rifle…you’re splitting hairs to detract from my point, you ignoramus.
Not at all, Mary. I’ll pose the question to you I posed to JR.
Under the Clinton ban, an AR15 was illegal, a Mini-14 legal. What was the difference?
You wrote you would ban “semi-automatics.” What do you define as “semi-automatic?”
It’s been my experience that those who seek to restrict the most are the most ill-informed over what they seek to regulate. Max is dead on.
Mary,
What was your point?
That “assualt rifles” should be banned or that all semi-automatic weapons should be banned?
GMC70,
Looks like we were thinking the same thing.
Mary
Long time gun owners like me know that once “reasonable restrictions” are passed there will always be another round of “reasonable restrictions” that are necessary to curb the crime that wasnt stopped by the first round of “rr’s”.
So when banning all semi-autos doesnt put a dent in crime the next round of “rr’s” will be banning “high capacity” pump actions rifles and shotguns. And so on.
Mary, American gun owners need only look across the pond to Great Brittain for a text book example in the progression of “rr’s” that eventually lead to all out bans. And for those with a brain it’s also a lesson in how banning guns fails to curb violent crime. Brittains murder rate and violent crime rate is higher than it’s ever been (in modern times at least).
I could rant back on most of Rage’s dogma, but just a couple of points:
“Ammo can be changed in formula to track shells. To follow bullets from store to purchaser. What gun used the shells.”
Guess Rage doesn’t know many of us roll our own ammo. You will never find all those machines or outlaw them.
“Person buying the gun should have a drivers license. Should be using a legal ID. Shouldn’t have warrants on them!”
You know, I’ve been saying this very same thing about voters. But for some reason, liberals don’t think you need a photo ID to vote. (I think they are protecting those dead voters)
With reference to the inquiry of someone upthread concerning the right to a jury trial in federal court, and in response to GMC’s subsequent post, the last time I checked (don’t do much in federal court) for there to be a case brought (civil case) there must be “diversity in citizenship” between the parties (that means residents of two different states) and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000.
Steven, that’s why I’m not a conservative too many of them while willing to die for the 2nd Amendment could give a shit about the other 9 in the bill of rights. And Liberals are willing to fight for the 1st and 4th and a few others generally have a piss off attitude towards the 2nd.
Posted by: Tom Paine | November 14, 2007 at 12:02 AM
Tom, when have I shown that I do NOT support the entire Bill of Rights?
I haven’t seen other conservatives trash it either.
A loaded gun on the ground someone or animal can cause that gun to fire by stepping on the trigger. The safety could be off and there’s a bullet in the chamber. If left in a irresponsible way, a loaded gun is very dangerous. MRAGE——————————————————————
My favorite line from Mrage is above. You know, this happens a lot. Some animal gets control of a gun and kills other animals and sometimes humans.
We need to ensure that animals are 18 before they buy a gun and 21 before they buy a handgun.
The animals should be US citizens. No illegal alien animals should be allowed to own guns.
Animals need to go through a background check to ensure criminal animals do not purchase guns.
Before a concealed carry permit is issued to an animal, they need to meet the qualifications above, go through training, and pass a competency test.
(Animals need to wear clothing or have long enough fur, in order to ensure their carry gun is concealed.)
And if animals are to hunt other animals, then they need to get a hunting license. Animals should not be allowed to be canibals, that is, they should not be allowed to hunt within their own species. (Though animals may be allowed to shoot their own species in self-defense)
Max,
I am a Hunters Safety Instructor.
Um, as silly as it is, there are hunters who do get shot by their dog.
Oh, a couple more rules for animals with guns:
Ducks, Geese, Eagles, Hawks, and other flying animals shall not be allowed to hunt from the air. (This would be an unfair advantage.)
Air to Air hunting is also not allowed. (Bullets could fly to far and strike unintended targets too easily.)
And animals shall not hunt under water. (Ricochets in water are too unpredictable and thus dangerous).
Animals hunting over water shall not use Lead Shot.
Nor shall animals be allowed to hunt at night. (With their superior night vision, the animals would have an unfair advantage)
Shining of animals is also not allowed.
Nathan, I’ve heard of only one case of an animal shooting a gun, and that was in Iowa this fall.
Some Idiot Out Wandering Around supposedly set his gun down to cross a fence, and his dog pawed the gun and it went off, shooting the hunter in the leg. (He was not seriously injufred.)
I question this whole story though.
1. The safety would have to be in the fire position.
2. The gun would have to be aimed at the hunter.
3. The dog would need to have a revenge motive.
4. The dog would have to be able to insert his paw somehow into the trigger guard and pull the trigger.
My theory is that the hunter made up the story because he didn’t want to admit he accidently shot himself.
Yeah Mrage, that 3:55 am post is much better then the 1:08 am post.
Chas said you made some good points.
What good points Chas? Can you interpret?
Max,
It is not just one story.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E5DC1438F931A35751C1A962948260
http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/hunting/news/story?id=3086588
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071029/od_afp/usanimalhuntingoffbeat
I get a subscription to a Hunters Saftey Journal which outlines all the retarded ways Hunters shoot themselves or get shot by others or their dog.
It happens.
The last step of quality control for every rifled weapon sold in the United States should be a bullet shot though the gun and the lans and grooves recorded on a centralized computer data base.
Every legal purchaser of a gun in America should meet the same basic requirements now generally required for a concealed-carry license.
It should be a Class-E felony to allow a legally-purchased gun to fall into the hands of someone who is not qualified to be a legal purchaser of said weapon. No more “it was stolen” excuses for under-the-table sales of guns.
All weapons suitable for lans and grooves analysis should provide a sample slug from those guns for the centralized computer data base, to assist law enforcement officers if a stolen or illegally-sold gun end up needing to be traced.
Most computer files on most guns will never ever be accessed. Most guns, after all, don’t show up in crimes (or defense, or anything untoward).
Got a problem with that?
Not only YES, but HELL YES.
From Syd at Front Sight Press.
I don’t carry a gun…
to kill people. I carry a gun to keep from being killed.
I don’t carry a gun to scare people. I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.
I don’t carry a gun because I’m paranoid. I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.
I don’t carry a gun because I’m evil. I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.
I don’t carry a gun because I hate the government. I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.
I don’t carry a gun because I’m angry. I carry a gun so that I don’t have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.
I don’t carry a gun because my sex organs are too small. I carry a gun because I want to continue to use those sex organs for the purpose for which they were intended for a good long time to come.
I don’t carry a gun because I want to shoot someone. I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.
I don’t carry a gun because I’m a cowboy. I carry a gun because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a cowboy.
I don’t carry a gun to make me feel like a man. I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.
I don’t carry a gun because I feel inadequate. I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.
I don’t carry a gun because I love it. I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.
http://www.snubnose.info/wordpress/rkba/i-dont-carry-a-gun/
Jed,
Not everyone is a panty wearing bed wetter like you are. My children were never afraid to get up in the middle of the night and knew full well I have a .45 under my pillow. You are simply projecting your irrational fears on others. You are the one with a problem and I suggest you get help for it.
“Not only YES, but HELL YES.”
Posted by: Nathan | November 14, 2007 at 11:56 AM
And you have a reasonable refutation of my proposals, a logical argument that might, perhaps, transcend “HELL YES,” don’tcha, “Nathan?”
When you’re finished pissing your pants, you might present your arguments. Thanks.
Agree with Nathan on the MonkeyHawk plan. His plan is Gun Registration.
Gun Registration is the last step before Gun Confiscation.
BTW-Nathan, 2 of your 3 links on dogs shooting guns, described the same Iowa shooting this year. The other link was 1984.
Ya gotta admit, it’s pretty rare. There are more lottery winners, then victims being shot by their dogs!
Moneyhawk
Your plan was tried in Maryland I believe.
They spent millions building a database. (seems like it was about 15 million. but I can’t remember)
In it’s first 2 or 3 years they never matched a single gun used in a crime.
To understand the problem you need to look at some bullets out of similar guns under a microscope. You can tell the difference between them but they are very similar. Writing software that can tell the difference when searching a database is difficult. You may try matching a .40 cal bullet fired from a Glock pistol and come up with thousands of potential matches because they all look quite similar.
It’s an unworkable monstrosity.
Moneyhawk
…not to mention the fact that 15 seconds of work with a rat tail file will completely change the profile of the barrel, making it unmatchable.
And it’s not the easiest thing to find the bullets, and even when you do, they typically expand and fracture into pieces when they strike an object.
It’s a backhanded approach at gun registration.
Moneyhawk
Same problem with microstamping the chamber and firing pin.
30 seconds with a piece of sandpaper and the whole fiasco is wasted, a burden on the law abiding and a joke to criminals.
Max,
I was not saying it was common. Just saying it happens.
There are a bunch of stories you can’t help but laugh at and wonder what the heck some of these hunters were thinking…
Henry the 5 3/8ths,”My children were never afraid to get up in the middle of the night and knew full well I have a .45 under my pillow.”
Then they’re idiots!You’re the one who’s so scared he can’t sleep without firepower. I’ve lived in neighborhoods that would make you crap your panties and never felt the need to keep a gun, although if I’d had one when I lived in the country the world would have been well rid of a few drunk hunters. Believe me, they’re far more dangerous than gangs!
Jed,
Please at least try to be reasonable.
Hunters are more dangerous than gangs?
Lets compare the number of homicides from hunters with gang members.
Could you at least pretned to be reasonable?
Nathan,I found being reasonable difficult while your drinking buddies were shooting holes in the road sign that my house was in back of. I also found it hard to come by when they shot my dog in my fenced yard. It took them five shots to finally kill him. I also didn’t appreciate the Jackass Brothers who hunted squirrel with a full auto AK-47 about a hundred yards away from us.I never had that kind of trouble when I lived in gang territory.
Oh great…
More personal stories from Jed to prove everything.
I would ask you if you had any proof, but alas, you would probaly just refuse like you have done with every other anecdotal story of yours.
Nathan,Sorry, I patched the holes, replaced the glass and buried the dog. I didn’t know at the time you’d have to see them to believe.
Um Nathan, what would you do if someone was shooting into your back yard at your dog?
I’m guessing you’re reaction would be about the same as mine.
My wife and kids would be in the basement safe room, wife would be calling 911, and I’d be in a strategic spot upstairs firing back at the SOB’s.
Initially a few rounds of buckshot, then if they didn’t leave, the rifle would come out.
Thanks, “Heckler” and “Max” –
– for telling us all how one might corrupt a gun’s lans and grooves signitures to prevent law enforcement from tracking a gun used in a crime.
Just what, exactly, is your priority here?
The only thing my proposal offered — to record the fingerprint of a gun before it’s sold — was an attempt to help law enforcement track down a gun involved in a crime. You, “Max,” and you, “Heckler,” represent those peoeple who contend (with a certain amount of credibility) that most guns never are involved in crimes. So why bother?
The gun you buy has a lans and grooves profile in a computer data base, so what? Big deal. *Your* gun will never be involved in a crime, right?
If you guys really want to attack “a backhanded approach to gun registration,” attack the NRA’s campaign for concealed-carry. Every application for a concealed-carry permit identifies a gun owner. In Kansas, instruction is required and you’re in a (horrors!!!) government data base.
That’s the law you lobbied for and got. If you live your life so dangerously and really need a gun to placate your fears of stuff that, most likely, has never happened… you’ve proven to the government that it’s worth it to you to be a licensed concealed-carrier.
What I propose is nothing close to “the first step” too gun registration. The NRA promoted it long before I ever did!
As I have said in this forum over and over again: I don’t care what you carry or where you carry. I care about who is carrying.
It’s not about *gun* control for me; it’s about *who* carries.
If you fear you can’t live up to some basic standards of gun ownership, perhaps you don’t need a gun. Or aren’t capable of owning it.
Prove to me you’re a reasonably responsible person and can keep a nuke in your garage, as far as I’m concerned.
But if you’re obsesses with owning a .25 callibre pocket gun on the basis of “fighting off an oppresive government,” we probably have to dicuss some stuff.
Dear MonkeyHawk,
The weapons I have for “fighting off oppressive government” are a lot larger than .25 cal. Do you still need to talk?
Hank
MHawk:
The CC law does not require any gun registration. That’s a red herring.
What you propose is, in fact, defacto registration of the firearm. Further, it is ineffective registration, for it’s asserted purpose is easily defeated (and not even purposefully, though that’s easily done; just a thousand rounds or so through the barrel will change that supposedly identifiable “signature”).
It is, however, a registration that can be easily used for another purpose; i.e. confiscation of firearms, should that ever be sought. While YOU do not seek same, I am less confident of some of the leaders of your party. Their words and deeds speak otherwise.
I don’t doubt your intent, MHawk. I just don’t think your proposal
1) has any realistic chance at success for it’s intended purpose, and
2) is fraught with the possibility of abuse.
In other words, in the cost/benefit analysis, it’s a loser. And when otherwise intelligent people propose ineffective and silly gun “control” proposals, one has to wonder what the real agenda is.
Further, MHawk, you’re comparing apples and oranges. CC, or that “.25 cal. pocket gun,” has nothing to do with “fighting off oppressive government.” While I firmly believe an armed populace is, in the long run, the most effective and only real deterrent to an oppressive state, that has little relationship to one who carries daily just out of safety or prudence.
Two purposes. And yes, two different types of arms. But I’ll not say more than that.
BTW – if you’re carrying a .25, you might wanna upgrade your artillary. With a .25, you might as well just throw the gun at the bad guy; it’s likely to be more effective. You’d be better off with a .22LR (or a slingshot).
Plus, MonkeyHawk, the guns used in crime are typically stolen, and the microstamping/ballistic marks are only registered to the original owner, not the legal sale or a theft thereafter.
In addition, your scheme only marks the upper receiver (barrel, firing pin, etc.) which is NOT part of what is defined by law to be a firearm, requires no firearms license to sell, and on many semiautomatic firearms can be completely changed within seconds (a Glock barrel can be changed in under 15 seconds.) The FRAME is the gun with the serial number.
I would just buy a second barrel and slide, and keep the “registered” one in a box, in case someone ever stole my gun it wouldn’t come back to me if they killed someone with it.
Your plan works brilliantly. :)
.25 caliber, give me a break.
Here’s another ignoramous proposing gun control laws, without knowing what the H he’s talking about.
A ‘baby’ gun Monkey would be a 9mm. A real semi-auto would be .40 or .45. For revolver fans, .357 magnum is nice and Harry’s .44 magnum is even better, but more difficult to carry and conceal. There’s also .454 Casul, .460, .480, and the ultimate bear gun, .500 S&W.
MonkeyHawk and Jed, y’all don’t want to defend yourselves, I’m ok with that. But as for me and a few million others, we choose to defend ourselves, and our families.
And Jed, if you are out in the country somewhere shivering in your boots with all those bad buys shooting at your house, you have 3 choices. One, do nothing and wait for your dog killing neighbors to show up and do whatever they want to do to you and yours. Two, move back to a safer neighborhood in town. Three, defend yourself the best you can, and that is with – a firearm.
I’ll be damned if I’d let someone repeatedly shoot at my house without firing back a few rounds.
You want to cower and surrendor, that’s your business. Just don’t take away my legal right to defend myself and my own.
And to those who think I cower in fear holding on to my firearm under my pellow at night, I sleep more soundly then most. And my firearms are locked with a couple in finger touch safes so they are safe and readily available.
I would sleep less soundly, if I had little or no means of self defense in my own home.
You might wear rose colored glasses and think it won’t happen to you, but just look at that crime map on the home page of the Wichita Eagle to see what the real world is like.
Hey Max, you could always put mines around the perimeter of your property!! Nathan might even like that idea, from what I read yesterday!! LOL
Max,I moved to a much safer neighborhood- near 13th and Hillside. No hunters, no bullet holes, no dead dog and much nicer neighbors. lived there for 14yrs!