The topic of handguns has been controversial and a life long obsession, particularly in the USA! The fear and yet the perceived safety of owning a hand gun is historical and continues with yet another case that challenges the current law. I am passionate about gaming and my guns are much part of my life, yet they are for the sport rather than a protection. Life is too short for fussing and fighting my friends. Or so the song goes!!!!!

Perhaps if you had suggested that the other amendments be abandoned as
well he might have understood.

Next time squeeze the trigger and hit the center of the target.

By Inherit The Wind, October 12 at 10:05 pm #

I’ve never shot at anything other than a target, but I can assure you it was
damned easy to pull the trigger—AND hit the target.

PatrickHenry, October 12 at 9:22 pm #

Its harder than you think.
**********************************************

I’ve never shot at anything other than a target, but I can assure you it was damned easy to pull the trigger—AND hit the target.

You can make phosgene from the crap under your kitchen sink. You can make
hydrogen and oxygen from tap water and a battery. You can even make a
single shot gun with a piece of pipe, a spring and a nail. The common plant
foxglove contains enough digitalis to kill a dozen people, and is untraceable.
Any idiot can make gunpowder from raw materials found everywhere. If you
are successful in taking away everyones guns you will find that there will be a
billion new ideas to create mayhem that will appear on the net. Instead of
worrying about the idiots that can pull a trigger you should worry about the
kid with a chemistry set that got pissed when you ‘legally’ stole his gun.

By Inherit The Wind, October 12 at 8:47 pm #

But any idiot can figure out how to pull a trigger.

By Inherit The Wind, October 13 at 12:47 am #

But any idiot can figure out how to pull a trigger.

Its harder than you think.

I’m convinced.

I’m thinking that I should be allowed to have my own arsenal of stinger missiles, mini-guns, an Abrams tank and even a nuke or two.  Never know what you may need for self-defense.

You can make a deadly weapon out of two 9” pieces of broomstick and a chunk of chain from a kid’s swing. You can make a deadly weapon out of a ball-point pen. You can make a deadly weapon out of a 5’ long walking stick.  All you need are the skills to make them work.

But any idiot can figure out how to pull a trigger.

Inherit The Wind:

How is your response related in any way to what I posted?

Beagle914, October 11 at 8:10 pm #

It seems that whenever “gun control” advocates gain the upper hand, the next
step is to impose draconian measures to ensure that whatever rights are left to
gun owners are so encumbered that they might as well not exist.
*******************

I guess you missed the years from Jan 2001 to Jan 2009.  During that time the NRA had its best advocates as President and Vice-President (who, misusing his gun, shot a friend in the face).  Yet during that time the greatest assault on American liberties since the Japanese-American internment was launched.

Yes, I DO dismiss the NRA—they have an axe to grind, an agenda, and put out only information that helps their cause, never anything against it.  They defended the continued sale of “cop-killer” bullets that pierce body armor, and even the explosive bullets like the ones John Hinckley used (that failed, luckily).

As for the other source—well, I never heard of it but it clearly is, by its name, not a disinterested party.

It seems that whenever “gun control” advocates gain the upper hand, the next
step is to impose draconian measures to ensure that whatever rights are left to
gun owners are so encumbered that they might as well not exist.

This is usually started by authorizing confiscatory taxes and other levies on gun
dealers followed closely by imposing endless bureaucracy on individuals who
actually attempt to exercise their prerogatives.  Excessive waiting periods, nanny-
like training and test requirements, fingerprinting, banning ammunition sales and
other methods are the tactics used.  Look to Washington DC, New York and
California for examples.

The goal is to make gun ownership minimally possible but - in fact - extremely
difficult.  It’s bad faith on the part of those advocating “gun control”.

Dalmazio, that was enlightening,  thank you. It should be noted that only one
of my experiences was reported and then only because I had taken his guns
away and had to turn them in to the sheriff.

(...continued)

U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention, NCJ-143454, Urban Delinquency and
Substance Abuse, August 1995. (Adobe Acrobat PDF file) Crime, Deterrence,
and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns, by John R. Lott, Olin Fellow in Law
and Economics at the University of Chicago Law School and David B. Mustard,
graduate student, Department of Economics, Journal of Legal Studies, January
1997. (Adobe Acrobat PDF file)

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Crime and Justice in the
United States and in England and Wales, 1981-96, NCJ 169284, October 1998.
by Patrick A. Langan, Ph.D., BJS Statistician and David P. Farrington, Ph.D., BJS
Visiting Fellow, University of Cambridge (Adobe Acrobat PDF file)

(…continued)

* According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State
University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be
projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year—one Defensive
Gun Use every 13 seconds.

* In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or
used force first—disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense
wouldn’t make any difference.

* In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill
the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn’t be called “newsworthy” by
newspaper or TV news editors).

* In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which
means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.

* In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or
more attackers—and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases.
(No means of defense other than a firearm—martial arts, pepper spray, or
stun guns—gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away
uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)

* Marvin Wolfgang, the late Director of the Sellin Center for Studies in
Criminology and Criminal Law at the University of Pennsylvania, considered by
many to be the foremost criminologist in the country, wrote in The Journal of
Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume
86, Number 1, Fall, 1995:

“I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the
criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I
would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the
police ... What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. [“Armed
Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun,”
by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, published in that same issue of The Journal of
Criminal Law & Criminology] The reason I am troubled is that they have
provided an almost clear cut case of methodologically sound research in
support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of
a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. ... I have to admit my
admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research.
Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun
was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is
hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. The
National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey,
nor do the Mauser and Hart Studies. ... the methodological soundness of the
current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. ... The Kleck
and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the
elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their
conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their
methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and
have done exceedingly well.”

Additional Resources:

Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a
Gun
by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, from The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology,
Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995

Gary Kleck’s Afterword to J. Neil Schulman’s Stopping Power: Why 70 Million
Americans Own Guns U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
National Institute of Justice, survey, Guns in America: National Survey on Private
Ownership and Use of Firearms, NCJ 165476, May, 1997, by Philip J. Cook and
Jens Ludwig. (Adobe Acrobat PDF file)

(continued…)

@ITW, yes you are right, the principles embodied in the Bushido code are the
ideal. And to the extent that individuals were able to realize this ideal is the
same extent to which they could be considered true Samurai. It’s the same with
any discipline with a code of conduct or ethic. You will always have those who
pretend to be bound by such a code (even if only a personal one) but do so for
ulterior motives (power, wealth, fame, etc.) The same is true for Karate-do or
any other martial art. There are those who practice and truly attempt to
embody the underlying principles, and then there are those who use such arts
to gain power, control, or dominion over other individuals.

Now, you make an interesting point about there being, historically, groups of
such Knights or Samurai in their respective places and periods that instead of
keeping to their code, terrorized the common people. You mentioned that
neither had checks and balances for those who abused their power. Well, what
better way than simply giving everyone equal access to the same means? If
every citizen were allowed to possess a sword, or a gun, then that would instil
a certain amount of fear and caution in prospective criminal and abusive
behaviour, wouldn’t it? It’s central authorities attempting to “protect” the
common people that end up (intentionally or unintentionally) creating the
greatest abuses of power against the common people.

@ITW, you said: “While the defense against tyranny argument sounds nice, in
reality the weapons given to the military make the pop-guns available legally
to the public pretty much moot.  Were the military ever to turn on us, we’d look
like, well, like Iraq, unable to resist direct military action.”

This argument has been advanced before and is simply not true. If a powerful
and well-organized centrally-controlled force ever were to “turn on us,” you
can be sure that true patriots rising to defend their liberties wouldn’t be
fighting these forces head-on, even if armed with semi-automatic weapons, in
the face of tanks, missiles, and even more sophisticated weaponry. Many would
rise to the occasion, and those with military experience or knowledge would
help organize and train other individuals, and the type of resistance that would
ensue would likely be a form of protracted highly-organized guerilla warfare.
Just look at Vietnam. The U.S. lost that war largely because of an inability to
identify the “enemy” and the skillful and protracted guerilla-warfare tactics
employed.

In any case, the following data and statistics contradict your statements.
According to the data, permissive gun carry laws reduces crime. Several peer-
reviewed studies in highly respected journals have been published, with the
results greatly surprising many gun-control advocates. A copy of one land-
mark paper can be found here:

  http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck1.html

Here are some interesting statistics with many more (sourced) available at
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

* Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976
and 1991, Washington D.C.‘s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose
12%.

* In the early 1990’s, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms reported
that only 7% of armed career criminals obtain firearms from licensed gun
shops.

* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996 these
changes occurred:
     
  homicide rate:        -36% (Florida) and -0.4% (U.S.)
  firearm homicide rate:      -37% (Florida) and +15% (U.S.)
  handgun homicide rate:  -41% (Florida) and +24% (U.S.)

* 221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of
1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded only 18 crimes
committed by licensees with firearms.

(continued…)

The first two statements demonstrate the need for balance. When the
government and the criminals disarm I will consider disarming as well.

Show me the statistics.

If our military ever turns on us they will think of D-Day as the good old days.

By Inherit The Wind, October 10 at 8:05 am #

  Neither had checks and balances to offset those who wallowed in their
power.

Medieval Japan DID outlaw all weapons to anyone not Samurai. 

Having guns for self-defense sounds great but the statistics show clearly that
far more self-defense guns get used to commit crimes, frequently due to rage,
than EVER get used for self-defense.

Were the military ever to turn on us, we’d look like, well, like Iraq, unable to
resist direct military action.

Dalmazio,
You express the ideal, not the reality.  The ideal for medieval knights in Europe was a similar noble expression.

But like the European knights, the Samurai’s reality was very different and far less admirable than the ideal.  In fact, both behaved like thugs, mafiosi, and bandits, using their power to terrorize and completely dominate the “inferior” classes.  Neither had checks and balances to offset those who wallowed in their power.

Medieval Japan DID outlaw all weapons to anyone not Samurai.  Thus Karate-do was born (The Way of the Empty Hand). Sophisticated fighting techniques were developed using nothing but bare hands or simple tools like staffs and sickles, which had other pastoral uses.

Having guns for self-defense sounds great but the statistics show clearly that far more self-defense guns get used to commit crimes, frequently due to rage, than EVER get used for self-defense.

While the defense against tyranny argument sounds nice, in reality the weapons given to the military make the pop-guns available legally to the public pretty much moot.  Were the military ever to turn on us, we’d look like, well, like Iraq, unable to resist direct military action.

@ITW: No I don’t think my statements on the Samurai code and martial arts are
tainted, they express the facts. I was very clear to state that Buddhism
tempered their earlier more violent existence. They were fearsome and fearless
warriors, whom few would cross, and were often employed in wartime as well
as peace-time. But they did have a code of ethics which can be summarized in
seven essential principles:

1. Gi: the right decision, taken with equanimity, the right attitude, the truth.
When we must die, we must die. Rectitude.

2. Yu: bravery tinged with heroism.

3. Jin: universal love, benevolence toward mankind; compassion.

4. Rei: right action—a most essential quality, courtesy.

5. Makoto: utter sincerity; truthfulness.

ó. Melyo: honor and glory.

7. Chugo: devotion, loyalty.

These are the seven principles underlying the spirit of Bushido, Bu—martial
arts; shi—warrior; do—the way.

Also, the elements of Buddhism found in Bushido are:

Pacification of the emotions;
Tranquil compliance with the inevitable;
Self-control in the face of any event;
A more intimate exploration of death than of life;
Pure poverty.

Again, this all just goes to show that one can possess the means to defend
oneself, mortally, if need be, and yet not employ those means except only as
necessary and as a last resort. It sounds as though you know something about
martial arts or perhaps were trained in these arts. Think about it. If an
opponent threatened you with physical harm and/or death, and after courtesy,
graciousness and acquiescence failed, and if you had the ability to incapacitate
such an opponent, would you not use these abilities to defend yourself?

A sword, and today a firearm, is just the technological extension of the same
principle. If you outlaw the firearm, then you may as well outlaw all forms of
self-defense and martial arts. In another time, this article could be titled, “The
Slippery Slope on Martial Arts” or “The Slippery Slope on Self-Defense.” Where
does it end? My point is: let not central or government authorities decide, but
instead let the people decide on an individual basis: each individual chooses for
him or herself whether they wish to carry a firearm, a sword, a knife, or
become adept in the martial arts.

ITW:
You are already in the hole. Stop digging.

I’m sure if there was a martial art of insults, slurs and bigotry you would be another Chuck Norris.

I figured that with your black belt that you would be safe from an old flower
picker.

By Inherit The Wind, October 9 at 9:06 pm #

Y’know, STC…everytime some yahoo “invites” someone to “come teach me” a
martial art, we all know it’s a bullshit threat that means “yeah, come down
here and I’ll beat the shit out of you as part of that ‘lesson’”.  Now you try to
weasel out of it claiming it’s a “polite invitation”.  I call bullshit.  We’ve all
heard that same threat since grade school.

Y’know, STC…everytime some yahoo “invites” someone to “come teach me” a martial art, we all know it’s a bullshit threat that means “yeah, come down here and I’ll beat the shit out of you as part of that ‘lesson’”.  Now you try to weasel out of it claiming it’s a “polite invitation”.  I call bullshit.  We’ve all heard that same threat since grade school.

Dalmazio’s history of the Samurai and Bushido are tainted with wishful thinking.  Samurai had the right to kill anyone at anytime for any reason who was NOT a Samurai or higher.  Kara-te, or “empty hand” was developed in secret on Okinawa as a way to allow unarmed peasants to defend themselves against your “benevolent” Samurai.  It came, of course, from the Chinese Kung-fu and Kara-te can also be translated as “Chinese Hand”.

I don’t walk around with a gun or a samurai sword. I don’t live in the Wild West and, in Western Europe, they have FAR less gun violence than we do.  Yet they are also freer and more open, too.

ITW missed the point that I did not ‘blow away’ the gunmen just because I
could legally get away with it. I guess that shoots (pardon the pun) down his
theory about gun owners.

STC & Dal

It is good some choose not to own or posess firearms as they tend to shoot from the mouth and not the hip.

Composure is one of the most important attributes I have found in dealing with firearms, it directly affects being able to put rounds on target and employ ones weapon in an effective and serious manner which hopefully will unnerve your opponent and prevent its use.

Very good post. I doubt if ITW will change, he believes that all ‘gun nuts’ are
drooling mouth breathers. It would be incomprehensible to him that we may
have read the documents that preserve our rights, much less the Tripitaka, the
Popul Vuh, the Vedas or any book other than the Turner Diaries.

By Dalmazio, October 8 at 11:16 pm #

@Inherit The Wind:

Well then, don’t purchase a firearm, and just walk away from all conflict.

Sensi, I politely ask you to come and teach me and you assume that it is a trap
of some sort. You see threats where none exist and create stories to justify
your fears. In your glial cell starved little world you may actually believe that
the phallus is a symbol of manhood. If you were knowledgeable you would
know that the gonads are the true measure of manhood. This may come as a
shock to you but for the last 20 years I have been a wild flower farmer, a real
macho job. You sir are an idiot, it is my guess that you needed at least 16
years in the public fool system to become brainwashed to that extent.

@Inherit The Wind:

Well then, don’t purchase a firearm, and just walk away from all conflict. That’s
your choice, and I respect that. But don’t insist that governments be allowed to
take away my choice, my freedom, and my ability to defend myself if the need
arises. You may have your views about conflict, and you may even be “right” on
moral grounds, but that doesn’t give you the right or authority to legislate away my
freedom to exercise my rights, nor does it give you the right to force your views
upon me, just as I have no right to force my views upon you.

Note, in later martial artist history, it was the Samurai who were often called upon
as protectors of peace and justice in many Asian societies. They carried swords
and followed the Code of the Samurai or Bushido (Way of the Sword) which was
influenced by Dao through Zen-Buddhism, which tempered their much earlier more
violent existence. The code suggests peaceful resolution of conflict, and use of
force only when necessary. Well, that is exactly what I’m advocating here. Walk
away from unnecessary conflict. And if you are unable, and no other choices exist,
then, if you are so inclined, at least you have the means to defend yourself!

Stc,
Now we come down to it—the implicit threat that you’ll pound me in a “lesson” on martial arts.  You are just another scared macho poser using threats and your gun as a phallic symbol of your manhood, and your insecurity about it.

You have proven my point with your own words and implicit threat. And with that threat you have failed the true Black Belt test.  I doubt I, or anyone, could teach you anything of value.

Obviously you were too dull witted to see that my having a gun prevented
violence. You seemed to miss the fact that I did not use the power of the gun
to kill or wound my opponents. If you believe that I need a lesson in the
martial arts you are welcome to come here and give me a lesson, I promise
that I will not use a gun.

By Inherit The Wind, October 8 at 10:30 pm #

Dal and STC: you two are making fools of yourselves.  Had I attempted to pull
mah own shootin’ arn, I’d be dead now and we wouldn’t be having this debate.
Carrying a gun around daily like you carry your car keys is bound to make you,
well, act stupid—like the idiot who brought a loaded gun to a Presidential rally.
Or stupid-macho.

The essence of TRUE martial artistry is NOT to fight unless there is no
alternative.  My being alive today is proof there was an alternative, Q.E.D.

Dal and STC: you two are making fools of yourselves.  Had I attempted to pull mah own shootin’ arn, I’d be dead now and we wouldn’t be having this debate. Carrying a gun around daily like you carry your car keys is bound to make you, well, act stupid—like the idiot who brought a loaded gun to a Presidential rally. Or stupid-macho.

The essence of TRUE martial artistry is NOT to fight unless there is no alternative.  My being alive today is proof there was an alternative, Q.E.D.

One gets the feeling that he would rather have every American have a cop with
them at all times. Oddly enough, the government might like that…

By Dalmazio, October 9 at 12:40 am #

Of course, as @stcfarms suggests, if you had your own firearm, then the
chances
of a crazed trigger-happy individual with a gun taking your life are much less
likely. You would have the ability to defend yourself, your first amendment
free
speech right would not be curtailed, and if he did pull a gun on you,
threatening
your life, you would be free from blame using your own firearm, as you would
be
acting in self-defense.

Of course, as @stcfarms suggests, if you had your own firearm, then the chances
of a crazed trigger-happy individual with a gun taking your life are much less
likely. You would have the ability to defend yourself, your first amendment free
speech right would not be curtailed, and if he did pull a gun on you, threatening
your life, you would be free from blame using your own firearm, as you would be
acting in self-defense.

Back to the main point.

This is not about destroying the right to bear arms and personal defense, of everyone
everywhere, as provided in the second amendment, just because there are a very very few
people, relatively speaking, that are mentally unstable or trigger happy. In doing so, you remove
the ability of the people to keep their government’s in check, and the *need* to have their
government fearful of the citizenry.

As it is today, the people are fearful of their government. In a society where people’s right to
bear arms are not taken away from them, problems such as you mention (@Inherit The Wind)
would be dealt with on a case by case basis. If a crazed individual was trigger-happy and shot
another without just cause (i.e., not in mortal self-defense), you can be sure s/he would obtain
a very long jail sentence, if not hang for it. The innocent people that become “casualties” of
these kind of unstable individuals is extremely unfortunate, but there is no way around it. Such
a system would gradually remove mentally unstable trigger-happy arms-bearing individuals
from society. And the society would maintain it’s check on unbridled expansion of government
power and increasing government oppression of it’s people.

“God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all,
and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the
importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is
lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its
liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and
pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be
refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”—
Thomas Jefferson, 3rd American President

Let me get this straight, because you did not have a gun this yahoo was able
to take away your right to free speech? We have been trying to explain this to
you all along.

By Inherit The Wind, October 8 at 8:06 pm #

Furthermore, I never had a harsh word with this guy—and after he damn near
shot me I made sure never to have any words with him at all, harsh or
friendly. 

PH:
You are already in the hole. Stop digging.

The yahoo didn’t know I was a Jew.  In the 70’s, Down South, if you worked construction, it wasn’t the wisest thing to reveal that I was Jewish, and few could tell from my accent that I was from the North.  Lots of people were getting a whole lot more open-minded back then, but not many worked construction.

Furthermore, I never had a harsh word with this guy—and after he damn near shot me I made sure never to have any words with him at all, harsh or friendly.  Just another one of your @$$#0le assumptions, which goes along with the illogic of bigotry, be it racism or anti-semitism.

I live life with no fear, you obviously do not. I would not live life like you do
and I am quite certain that you could not live life as I do. If guns become
illegal in this country I am prepared to leave, since guns are legal here perhaps
you should move to where they are illegal.

By Inherit The Wind, October 8 at 6:39 am #

Amazing, STC—you’ve gotten yourself in 2 situations where you felt you
needed a gun, and ASSUME there was no way out without one.  I’ve been in all
sorts of situations in 50+ years and never needed a gun.

By Inherit The Wind, October 8 at 10:39 am #

If you are as obnoxious and loud mouthed in the flesh as you are in your posts he probably thought you were a semite terrorist.  They have been known to brandish such “weapons” as you know.

I have known of a few jobsite fights between trades, they didn’t involve guns but hammers and kindorf are equally as deadly and getting thrown off a building is a sure test of Newtons theory.  They all usually start with a obnoxious loudmouth.

You can’t even get in to many federal buildings now with such a “tool” without prearranged security and a reason why you have it.

In the past, police in our county use to carry small knives or unregistered guns as “throwdowns” in case they shot someone unjustifiably.  I don’t believe they are the only ones who do it.

Amazing, STC—you’ve gotten yourself in 2 situations where you felt you needed a gun, and ASSUME there was no way out without one.  I’ve been in all sorts of situations in 50+ years and never needed a gun.

PH, you continue to show your @$$ in your posts.  Here’s what I did: I whipped out a matte knife (you know, a Stanley knife with a 1” long blade) to trim a bit of a cabinet we were installing in an apartment kitchen…and he freaked.  Seems some other guy had threatened him on the job with a matte knife and because I didn’t announce it—“I’M NOW TAKING OUT MY MATTE KNIFE, BILLY!”—this idiot grabbed his gun.

You work on a job as a carpenter, a reasonable person should expect the guys to pull out their tools and use them without fanfare.  It’s what the courts like to call the “reasonable person’s” actions, as in “How would a reasonable person act?”  He wouldn’t pull out a f***in’ .38!

As I said, PH, you continue to show your bigoted @$$.

By Inherit The Wind, October 7 at 10:24 pm #

But I HAVE nearly been shot by a red-neck yahoo who I wouldn’t have trusted with a water-pistol much less a .38, who carried it out of a combination of macho, cowardice, and insecurity.

What a trajedy that could have been, were you holding him up? was it an accident? or were you just being your typically pleasant self?

There are arguements for handgun training and the ability to hit what your aiming at, but a gun whose indiscrimminate use against another should and usually is sanctioned severely.

Your lucky he didn’t come after you in a motor vehicle or with a machete.

You see gods where none exist, I am an atheist.

By Inherit The Wind, October 7 at 10:48 pm #

(Too bad I’m Agnostic and don’t believe in gods)

You seem to measure all gun owners with the same ruler. In 1975 I was
foreman on the headwaters of the Nehalem ranch in Oregon. While taking the
ranchers children out to cut firewood we encountered a drunken city boy that
forced us off the road. We got out to see if he was hurt and he pulled out two
pistols and pointed them at us. I pulled out the .22 rifle from the gun rack and
pointed it at him. He did not have the balls to face an armed man and I took
away his guns.

The second time that a gun saved my ass was in West Texas in 1987. My
girlfriend and I were driving across country from Az. to Il. We stopped to sleep
in a parking lot. Later that evening a car pulled up and parked about 50’ away.
Three young armed men got out and approached our truck. I got out and
slammed the bolt shut on my .303 Enfield, they got back in their car and left.
When you need a gun, nothing else will do.

By Inherit The Wind, October 7 at 10:24 pm #

So far, I’ve almost NEVER heard of a gun used successfully in self-defense. 
Not “never”, but almost never.

stcfarms, October 7 at 10:29 pm #

The public fool system has destroyed conceptual thought in the masses. It will
be difficult to teach them how to think on the level that will be required to get
them out of the mess created by the government. The takeover has been
carefully crafted so that few can see the depth of the problem.
*****************************************************

Well, THANK GOD! we have YOU to show us the light!

(Too bad I’m Agnostic and don’t believe in gods)

The public fool system has destroyed conceptual thought in the masses. It will
be difficult to teach them how to think on the level that will be required to get
them out of the mess created by the government. The takeover has been
carefully crafted so that few can see the depth of the problem.

A few more thoughts:

We already KNOW that former Vice-President Cheney cannot be trusted with a gun.  While shooting captured birds just as they were released, he managed to shoot a “friend” in the face.

Also, he had Justice Scalia down shooting with him just as the USSC was supposed to be deciding on whether the VP should turn over significant information…

No wonder Bush, dumb as he is, was smart enough never to go shooting with the Veep, especially in the last 2 years!

Erik, October 7 at 5:19 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

It’s amazing how happy it makes me to see them squirm.
***************************************************

Watching you engage in such emotional masturbation is as unpleasant as I imagine watching you engaging in the other personal release would be.

Hey, John Wesley Hardin: It’s not the buying of the car that’s regulated, it’s the LICENSING OF THE DRIVER! (along with the extreme consequences of driving without abiding by those rules).

So far, I’ve almost NEVER heard of a gun used successfully in self-defense.  Not “never”, but almost never.  I HAVE heard of lots of guns used by angry persons to kill someone close to them—usually a man killing a woman or another man.  Also, most of the ex-mil types I know used their guns for such useful functions as rendering old hard disks totally unreadable—but a hammer or drill press can do the same job just as reliably.

But I HAVE nearly been shot by a red-neck yahoo who I wouldn’t have trusted with a water-pistol much less a .38, who carried it out of a combination of macho, cowardice, and insecurity.

@stcfarms: Excellent post—thanks for that.

I have come across these arguments before, but not so clearly and eloquently
as you have made them. The original version of the second amendment text
was clear, cogent, and concise. The “revised” or “dispersed” version is the
obfuscated and confused object of debate and legal justification (with only two
seemingly innocuous commas no less!), that holds us teetering on the brink of
a precipice where the final outcome is no less important than deciding the
freedom, self-determination and fate of all men everywhere, in contrast to the
complete enslavement to totalitarian central authorities and the unappeasably
power-hungry machine of state.

<Shudder>

What we need first is a petition to fire the bastards signed by more than half
of the people. I know that petitions have no teeth but if you have the petition
and the guns it becomes a legal mandate. The original Constitution was
designed to limit the power of the government, the corporations just bought
all three branches and both parties and turned the Constitution into a
document that limited the power of the people.

The Declaration of Independence clearly states “We hold these truths to be
self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and
the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are
instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of
these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute
new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its
powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety
and Happiness.”

By PatrickHenry, October 7 at 8:27 pm #

A couple of million angry armed Americans comming to Washington to clean
house, senate and rid us of the lobbiests would do the trick.  A peoples
commission could man the guillotine. 

By stcfarms, October 7 at 6:34 pm #

Thank you for that most excellent post, both educational and well thought out.

Big B

It would take a galvanizing event such as the truth comming out on 9/11 which implicated politicians, civilians and corporate interests in the U.S., Israel and Pakistan who planned, executed and covered up acts of treason and acts of war. 

Bush’s death by a thousand cuts of our democracy was not obvious at first because of the furor over 9/11 but the freedoms we lost began one at a time, then another and then another.

A couple of million angry armed Americans comming to Washington to clean house, senate and rid us of the lobbiests would do the trick.  A peoples commission could man the guillotine. 

I’m glad you don’t want to take my guns because when the TSHTF you will be glad I have them and one for you too.   

Now only if I can find some more ammo to buy as there seems to have been a shortage lately.

Descriptive information not important to the meaning of the
sentence are separated by commas.  ***Examples:  Eternal
vigilance, by the People, is the price of Freedom.  

So why were two commas added?  I am not sure, for the
commas could have been introduced for carelessness, or an
attempt by the scribe to promote his sense of proper
punctuation, or to confuse the meaning, intent, and the
importance of the essential clause by raising the importance of
the unessential clause.  By fragmenting with commas, the
unessential Militia part gains importance while the
Arms part loses its unique purpose.  Because commas may
separate unessential from essential information, the additional
fragmentation disparages the importance of the “right to bear
arms.”  It is for the three commas, and the four sections that
many interpret the Second Amendment as a collective
prerogative of the Militia and the State and not as an individual
right for the People.  

Some may argue, Then why was People used and not
Persons?  

The use of People for describing individual rights is
consistent with other Amendments written between 1787 and
1791.  

The First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment of Religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or
the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
government for a redress of grievances.  These are individual
Rights, not cumulative or group Rights.  

The Fourth Amendment, The right of the people to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and
no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by
oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized. These are
individual Rights, not cumulative or group Rights.  

The Ninth Amendment:  The enumeration in the constitution, of
certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others
retained by the people.  These are individual Rights, not
cumulative or group Rights.

If you still think commas are unimportant read this. “The
government said the people may not own guns” or if you prefer
“The government, said the people, may not own guns”. 

[1]  A comma may be used to link independent clauses of equal
value.  ***Example: “Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of Religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or
the right of people peaceable to assemble, and to petition the
government for a redress of grievances.”  

[2]  Without the comma, independent clauses may stand by
themselves as complete sentences.  

***Example:  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.   The first independent clause A
well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
state. . . .  is joined by the right of the people to keep
and bear arms shall not be infringed. as the second
independent clause of the same sentence.  (These clauses
would not lose their value if a period separated them.)  Because
we are discussing the Rights of the People, these two clauses
are also essential and unessential.  The Militia part is a
duty
and unessential to the Right, while the arms part is the
essential Right.   

[3]  If a dependent clause alters the meaning of the main clause
a comma should not separate it.  ***Example: The Citizens of
each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of
Citizens in the several States.  

[4]  A comma or coordinating conjunction such as and, or, but, for
or so, may separate independent clauses in the same sentence.
 
***Examples:  No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in
any house without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war,
but in a manner to be prescribed by law.    

To understand the Second Amendment we should analyze it as
it was ratified, and not with the editorialized versions offered by
the National Government or other political organizations.   It is for textual
differences that we must investigate and decide which
version is true and which is not.  

Words have meanings, and for universal understanding, we
create conventions such as language, spelling, grammar and
punctuation.  Nevertheless, there are times we ignore these
conventions that we may emphasize a point, a convenience,
attract attention or to be creative.  Because these variations are
considered poetic license, they too, are conventions.
However, in transcribing Constitutions, inventiveness,
convenience, drama and creativity must end.  I consider any
variation from the Constitution’s original texts as improper, and
anti-constitutional.  

The U.S. Government Printing Office Superintendent of
Documents, Senate Document 105-11 presents the Second
Amendment as . . .  “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.”  Notice the three commas and
the four parts.  

According to photocopies of the earliest printings of the Second
Amendment, it should read, “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.”  Notice there is only one comma and two
parts.  

My certainty comes from the photocopies of nine different
printings of the Constitution.  Each version printed in distinctly
different type styles and formats.  [Which demonstrates they
were not reprints from the same typeset.]  They were printed for
distribution in different States, on different dates between 1792
and 1799.  Each were cross referenced for textual
inconsistencies.  I found they all had one comma positioned
after the word State.  Nevertheless, most of the contemporary
printings of the Second Amendment are consistent with the three
comma version.  With this historical documentation, I concluded
that the contemporary three comma version is a fraud, and the
one comma version is correct.  

Too often, we make assumptions that are based on information
that is without verification.  Too often, we place our confidence in
those in offices of trust.  Too often, we parrot what they interpret
for us and adopt their bias and their errors for our own truths.  
Should we believe that our scholars, professors and politicians
do not have any political bias or political agenda?  Should we
assume that their interpretations are without error, omission or a
demonstration of their selfish motives?  While it is true that they
may innocently advance such anomalies, we should also
consider they are there by design.  

I believe the addition of two commas to the Second Amendment
was and still is an attempt to refashion the Second
Amendment’s true meaning and intent.  To discover how
commas have affected our perceptions of the Second
Amendment, let us examine some ways commas are used and
what they infer.  

A comma:  [1] is used to link independent clauses of equal
value.  [2] is used to link independent clauses that are, by
themselves, as complete sentences.  (Some clauses  may be
considered as essential or unessential.)  [3] should not
separate a dependent clause if it alters the meaning of the main
clause.  [4] separates two words or parts of the same thought
that without the comma would confuse the intent of the words.  
[5] separates independent clauses in the same sentence or
separate coordinating conjunctions such as and, or, but, for, or
so.  [6] for convenience, or the discretion of the user. *  

*For this monograph, I assume the Constitution is too important
to omit or introduce a comma.  

@stcfarms: Brilliant and apropos quote!

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the
subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have
allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by
so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the
underdogs is asine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not
have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole
responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied
Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to
cover the entire occupied country.”—Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11,
1942, quoted in Hitler’s Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations,
Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H.
Stevens. Introduced and with a new preface by H. R. Trevor-Roper. The
original German papers were known as Bormann-Vermerke.
 
It could never happen here, we are a Constitutional republic. Those that do not
know history…

All sales by a dealer at a gun show are regulated just like at any gun store/business. It is the law. A form 4473 must be filled out. Background checks are performed. There is an apparatus at all gun shows set up to do this and delivery of the gun happens at a later time after the BG check is completed.
What is allowed and is not against the law is for individuals to buy and sell guns privately. This happens all the time at gun shows. I see no reason to change this.
I think the author needs to check his facts. I just see a propanganda piece to scare the public.

@Marie Cocco et al., you really need to do more and better research on the
origins and nature of the 2nd amendment. The reasons that this amendment
was established by the Founding Fathers is just as pertinent today as it was 230
years ago. The loss of the right to bear arms does not protect us from
criminals. Criminals will obtain their weapons regardless. What it *does* do is
remove protection from those who wish to destroy our individual rights and
liberties.

Consider this: who is it that would have benefited most greatly with “gun
control” laws back in the revolutionary days and the war(s) of independence?
Well, if the government of the day, the British Monarchy, would have removed
all possibility of any kind of militia response (through gun control) after many
peaceful statements of grievances had failed to be addressed on multiple
occasions, there would have been no American Revolution, no Founding
Fathers, no Constitution, no U.S. That is exactly what the power structures of
the day would have wanted: to declaw it’s “citizens” and to maintain the status
quo, and prevent them from making their grievances heard.

Just because a citizen packs a pistol, doesn’t mean they can use it
indiscriminantly. If they do use it, they had better have good reason. I.e.,
defence of their person against severe physical injury or death. Otherwise they
are looking at a life-time jail sentence, and possibly the electric chair. The laws
don’t suddenly stop applying when citizens carry firearms for their personal
protection. And that should be sufficient “motive” to prevent the crazies from
using their weapons of self-defence for non-defensive purposes.

Also consider this: do you really think policing groups who have been given ill-
conceived and misguided orders from on-high to disperse groups of peaceful
protestors who are attempting to make their grievances heard through peaceful
public demonstrations, would do so if those protestors were armed for their
defensive and personal protection? Do you think we would have the same level
of infringement of 1st amendment rights — the right to peaceful assembly,
association, and expression? Do you really think as many individuals would be
abused by ignorant policing authorities, many of whom don’t understand that
they are supposed to protect the rights of the common man, instead of infringe
and abuse them?

You really need to better educate yourself before writing such nonsense. In fact,
I’m quite surprised that Truthdig would allow this kind of poorly researched
rhetoric. Balance of perspective, certainly, and multiple points of view, yes. But
please, spare us the nonsense, and glaring misrepresentations of the truth and
whole-sale shill-like ignoring of the core issues.

You seem to miss the point, the veterans do take an oath to defend the
Constitution but we are only a tiny minority in a sea of undisciplined civilians,
it is not up to us to arbitrarily choose revolution. It is the people that must
choose revolution and it is our duty to respect the will of the people. Calling
us cowards for not reacting to every whim of the left or the right is ludicrous,
there would be a revolution every four years if we did. Since you mistake self
control for cowardice you would be better off starting the revolution yourself,
being the last brave man it should be a piece of cake for you.

By Big B, October 7 at 8:08 am #

I just wonder why the gun nuts have chosen now, this president, who has
done nothing yet to limit gun ownership, to go apeshit about the 2nd am?
Again, I reiterate from my previous post, where were you guys(and veterans,
you did take an oath to protect and defend the constitution, not the office of
the presidency, or the republican party) when GW was pissing on the great
document and letting Dick Chaney run amoke in the back hallways forming an
illegal shadow government?

No, I don’t want to take your guns away from you, for you just may need them
someday if the fat and pliant american people ever wake up to fight the
corpratocracy that has taken over our nation. Or the day our neo-liberal police
force comes knocking at your door to hall you away for reading something
subversive on the internet. Off to guantanamo with you! And don’t forget to
take a copy of the 2nd am with you, so that you can sit in your 8X6 cell and
lament about the day that you and your gun could have taken a stand againt
tyranny. But wait! you and your ilk were too busy supporting the gutless
monster that was Bush/Cheney to notice that it was they who tread on you
precious 2nd am(and your 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, ...well you get the point)

The sad part of this story is that you gun nuts fail to realize that we hippys
have the same agenda as you. We too believe that the government is coming
to take our rights away. The only difference between our two factions is that
we are not armed to the teeth. And we have sadly had the same impotant
effect on the man as have the gun nuts. Nothing.

Gun control is a 3” pattern at 800 yards.

“Better to live one day as a tiger than a thousand years as a sheep” Tipu Sahib

Big B, it would be much appreciated if you re-evaluated your notion that all gun owners are the same, and if you ceased referring to them as “gun nuts.”

I mean, really.  Why name-calling?  It gets wearisome, to be sure.

I doubt whether the government (and their military) are all that concerned about the “citizen’s militia” being much of a threat.  A soldier who has faced an RPG or AK-47 in the hands of a fanatic is not going to be very impressed by a shiny, little used AR-15 in the hands of a PTSD vet.  And the guy holding it is dead meat as the soldier will shoot first and never ask questions later.  So the idea of guns as a deterrent to government tyranny holds very little water.

Guns are rarely about anything other than the emotional rush of having a lethal weapon on your hip.  The potential of actually using it is what gets your rocks off but, as Big D points out, you let the previous administration take away most of your freedoms and not a single one of you stood up and fought back.  That’s because actually pointing a weapon at a living, breathing human being and pulling the trigger scares the hell our of you.  If it doesn’t, there is something fundamentally wrong with your head.  The military spends months training a young recruit how to overcome this fear and yet a significant number of soldiers have trouble pulling the trigger even when facing deadly force.

As for protecting yourself from street crime, I doubt you will ever get the chance to actually use that concealed weapon.  Any self-respecting criminal who is prepared to use his gun will not stand by and let you uncover your weapon, aim and shoot.  You will be wounded or dead before you hand even reaches the pistol grip.  Would you really want to get involved in a shooting match with some criminal?  You have no control over the outcome.  Far better to let him take whatever he wants and walk away.  Protecting your material goods is a really stupid idea ... not worth your life or your family’s either.

Your carrying guns does not put the population at ease.  Anyone who sees your weapon is automatically apprehensive and wants to get away from the situation.  I don’t even feel comfortable around cops who are armed.  Guns have a way of being used in situations where they should not be.  Most gun owners are not properly trained in the psychological aspects of anger management and conflict resolution.  You are too willing to use your firearm because it automatically gives you power (you think).  In actual fact, it escalates a situation and creates the potential for a bad outcome.

Sorry, I went to bed before I was accused of not interpreting the constitution in a way that pleases the veteran crowd. You must remember of course that Jefferson suggested that we have a constitutional convention every ten years or so to address a changing american landscape. The Framers did indeed realize that the constitution and bill of rights needed constant revision due to changing times. Our founding fathers could not have forseen the problems we face today, that’s why the original document was meant to be ameneded. (BTW, Gen Washington and many other of our founding fathers warned us of the dangers of foreign entanglements and having a sitting and professional military, It seems they could be quite prophetic as well)

But I digress. Anyone who has ever read any of my posts knows that I am no fan of Pres Barry. I just wonder why the gun nuts have chosen now, this president, who has done nothing yet to limit gun ownership, to go apeshit about the 2nd am? Again, I reiterate from my previous post, where were you guys(and veterans, you did take an oath to protect and defend the constitution, not the office of the presidency, or the republican party) when GW was pissing on the great document and letting Dick Chaney run amoke in the back hallways forming an illegal shadow government?

No, I don’t want to take your guns away from you, for you just may need them someday if the fat and pliant american people ever wake up to fight the corpratocracy that has taken over our nation. Or the day our neo-liberal police force comes knocking at your door to hall you away for reading something subversive on the internet. Off to guantanamo with you! And don’t forget to take a copy of the 2nd am with you, so that you can sit in your 8X6 cell and lament about the day that you and your gun could have taken a stand againt tyranny. But wait! you and your ilk were too busy supporting the gutless monster that was Bush/Cheney to notice that it was they who tread on you precious 2nd am(and your 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, ...well you get the point)

The sad part of this story is that you gun nuts fail to realize that we hippys have the same agenda as you. We too believe that the government is coming to take our rights away. The only difference between our two factions is that we are not armed to the teeth. And we have sadly had the same impotant effect on the man as have the gun nuts. Nothing.

A good percentage of the ‘gun nuts’ are veterans and as such they are the well
trained militia. We understand the Constitution and will not start a revolution
without just cause and the backing of the people. It seems that you wanted us
to kill Bush but when an armed man appeared at an Obama rally you went
ballistic, double standard? Obama is every bit as bad as Bush, yet we stay our
hands and wait for the people to call us to action (sorry, one moron does not a
public make). We learned our ‘mean game’ in places you fear to go, we also
learned not to be goaded into action by men with no balls and limited glial
capacity.

I have a challenge for you, read the federalist papers, the anti federalist
papers, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. You might also
want to broaden your knowledge by reading the works of Thomas Paine,
Lysander Spooner, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and Samuel Clemens. If,
after finally reading something, you still want us to blow away your politicians
all you have to do is get a majority of the people to agree with you.

By Big B, October 6 at 9:25 pm #

I have a challange for all the gun enthusiasts out there. Guns were supposed
to protect our freedom, keep our government officials honest, keep our cities
and towns safe. I would like you all to prove that these premises are true. You
cannot say that you have not had ample opportunity to prove the hypothesis
that weapons will protect us from all evils, be they the NSA or the Cryps. The
last 9 years should have been the proving ground for the 2nd am. We have had
a president and congress that suspended habius corpus, sent us off to an
illegal war, formed a shadow government, began an office of “fatherland
security”, arrest and hold people without charge, and of course, torture US
citizens.

Where were you gun nuts when this shit was going down? How come our
sleazy polititians and military industrial complex aren’t scared shitless of our
“armed citizenry”?

I’ll tell you why, it’s because you talk a mean game, but when it comes to
actually blowing the head from the shoulders of a scumbag politico your little
peckers shrivel up inside your guts like on a brisk february morning as you sit
in the darkest corners of your uni-bomber shacks polishing your shotguns,
and hoping someone else will take the first fateful shot.(wow that seemed
mean, even for me) But seriously though, where were you gun nuts when it
was time to protect us from Bush? or Clinton? or Bush I? or Reagan? Or Nixon?
Did any of these sleazy pols change their ways when confronted with the
threat of an armed citizenry?

Big B:

They may not like it, but you hit the nail on the head: When Bush&co; were stripping our rights, the “Ah’m d’fendin’ mah fre’dom” gun advocates did NOTHING, but egg them on.

They aren’t interested in freedom but in taking it away, as they showed by their actions.

As for DC’s murder rate? I LIVED in that area for 10 years and I can tell you, the guns in DC that were used in that excessive murder rate were coming in from Virginia and Maryland and West Virginia.

Mark Twain wrote about this phenomenon in Huckleberry Finn, when the mob comes to lynch the Colonel.  He lays them and all of the Southern redneck ethos out flat, the ethos that became the Klan, the Dixiecrats, today’s Re-thuglicans—and the handgun advocates.

The people that fear guns should open a third grade science book. There are
many things that can do far more damage than guns. Under the average
kitchen sink are the chemicals to make enough mustard gas to kill thousands.
There are microbes in your yard capable of destroying millions. Cars like the
one in your garage kill tens of thousands every year. Doctors kill 300,000
people a year and they fear guns?

By mike112769, October 6 at 8:12 pm #
A semi- or fully automatic rifle is not the deadliest gun, but it looks scary so
they want to ban it. Most control advocates are just scared of everything.

Big B:

It seems to me that you already have your answer, and you firmly believe it to be true.  No one is going to “prove” anything to someone like you. 

Not only do you hate law-abiding gun owners, but you also hate over-reaching politicians.

Your post was hardly even worth my response, as it was filled with vile and hatred.  I am sorry.

I have a challange for all the gun enthusiasts out there. Guns were supposed to protect our freedom, keep our government officials honest, keep our cities and towns safe. I would like you all to prove that these premises are true. You cannot say that you have not had ample opportunity to prove the hypothesis that weapons will protect us from all evils, be they the NSA or the Cryps. The last 9 years should have been the proving ground for the 2nd am. We have had a president and congress that suspended habius corpus, sent us off to an illegal war, formed a shadow government, began an office of “fatherland security”, arrest and hold people without charge, and of course, torture US citizens.

Where were you gun nuts when this shit was going down? How come our sleazy polititians and military industrial complex aren’t scared shitless of our “armed citizenry”?

I’ll tell you why, it’s because you talk a mean game, but when it comes to actually blowing the head from the shoulders of a scumbag politico your little peckers shrivel up inside your guts like on a brisk february morning as you sit in the darkest corners of your uni-bomber shacks polishing your shotguns, and hoping someone else will take the first fateful shot.(wow that seemed mean, even for me) But seriously though, where were you gun nuts when it was time to protect us from Bush? or Clinton? or Bush I? or Reagan? Or Nixon? Did any of these sleazy pols change their ways when confronted with the threat of an armed citizenry?

How stupid I feel. I should have taken an AK-47 with me to protest at the G-20 last week. Those scumbag heads of state would have rolled over right away, and stopped raping the poor and downtrodden in the name of big business. Or their nazi security guards would have shot me down like a dog. Either way, the world would have changed because of my magical weapon. Well, it would have changed for me, anyway. The powerful still wouldn’t give two shits.

Inherit the wind, your ignorance is showing in oh so many ways. You DO need a license for a gun. The guy with the rifle was black. We are ALL potenetial assassins. Please get the facts straight before talking.

There is nothing wrong with guns. Period. People are the problem and always will be. Guns can be banned tomorrow, and it wouldn’t matter. There would still be guns everywhere. Most people who scream about gun control are blind anyway. A semi- or fully automatic rifle is not the deadliest gun, but it looks scary so they want to ban it. Most control advocates are just scared of everything.

While I don’t totally agree with Bojan1, he does have a point. This country is not what it used to be. For the record, there are a LOT of people (not all conservative) who fear we are heading into another civil war. There is a massive disconnect between the governing bodies and the governed in this country. When the common man gets trampled for too long, he doesn’t like it. The last time that happened here was around the late 1700s.

When crime happens police are no where to be found.  In event of a natural catastrophe, the majority of police are going home to protect their own.  The national guard and army is on the other side of the world.

Anyone remember Katrina, the NY power failure, Rodney King verdict?  Actions become unraveled in a hurry and those who would do you harm don’t give a shit about gun laws.

Washington DC had one of the nations highest murder rates when all guns were illegal, once the gun ban was repealed the crime rate and the murder rate both went down considerably. 

Virginia allowed anyone who could pass a background check to conceal carry a couple of years ago, before that it was a police chief’s discretion which was usually a corrupt favor.  Since then the crime rate in Virginia has fallen dramatically.

The Bill of Rights was created as a counterweight to the U.S. Constitution and many states refused to ratify the Constitution unless the Bill of Rights was included.  The second amendment was of paramount importance as in the ability to speak truth to power and back it up.

The good people who created the United States knew then what we are forgetting now “That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness”.

Try that without a gun.

Whether the gang-bangers like guns or not, I don’t see many Black people in the NRA. It’s as simple as that.  The @$$#0le who took a gun to an Obama rally should be seen as what he was: a potential assassin and a right-wing nut.

I’m sure more and more liberals are looking to home defense as more and more right-wing nuts are blatantly arming themselves against….who knows what?

You need a license to drive.  You need a f***in’ license to catch a fish.  Why should guns be less regulated than driving and fishing?

Perhaps you are right. You have convinced me that any efforts to save the dull
witted humans is pointless. It will save me a fortune as my floating island can
be much smaller if I delete all non essential elements that would have reversed
global warming, provided food, water and energy for the masses and homes
for refugees and the homeless. Thank you.

“We have met the enemy and he is us” Pogo

By JFoster2k, October 6 at 4:30 pm #

Perhaps it’s best that we reap what we have sown. The human race, for all it’s
greatness, has too many stupid, selfish and violent neocon members to endure
for much longer.

It’s such a shame to see these exchanges degrade to childish name-calling.  It would seem that those on all sides of the political spectrum are capable of such behavior.

“JFoster2k” thinks that it may be best that we reap what we have sown.  I don’t know.  But I would prefer to be among those that sow respect, honesty, and rational exchange of ideas on how to make our world a better place.

By stcfarms, October 6 at 5:14 pm #

“The bill of rights keeps Hitler types, like yourself, from making draconian laws.

“Hitler types”? Where did that come from? Did you take it personal because I expressed my disgust for the “stupid, selfish and violent neocon”?

Besides, I never said anything about doing away with the bill of rights. Overall, it has stood the test of time… except for the 2nd amendment.

The second amendment is the reason that you have any rights at all.
Switzerland, the most peaceful, crime free land in the world, demands that all
of it’s citizens own guns. The bill of rights keeps Hitler types, like yourself,
from making draconian laws.

By JFoster2k, October 6 at 4:30 pm #

What’s so great about the 2nd amendment?  What makes the bill of rights so
sacrosanct?

What’s so great about the 2nd amendment? We don’t issue science textbooks written hundreds of years ago to our modern day school kids. What makes the bill of rights so sacrosanct? The authors were not gods. The were men - fallible men.

The 2nd amendment was a big mistake. It was a wrongheaded approach to a difficult problem. It has allowed our country to become the most murderous and least secure nation on earth.

That said, we are now stuck with it and it is not going to go the way of the 1809 science texts, but that does not mean we should amplify the mistakes of our predecessors by relaxing reasonable restrictions.

In the end, I guess it doesn’t really matter. The same folks toting their guns to political events are the ones denying climate change and perpetuating the gluttonous consumerism that is destroying our environment. Perhaps it’s best that we reap what we have sown. The human race, for all it’s greatness, has too many stupid, selfish and violent neocon members to endure for much longer.

If you want my guns you will have to give up the bill of rights. You will not be
allowed free speech, the government could choose your religion for you. You
could be arrested and held forever, well, you get the drift. When you start to
pick and choose which amendments that you should honor it is best to stop
and think about what you will lose.

Many people fail to realize or acknowledge that the right to arms secured by the second amendment is rather broad.

Bear with me if you are interested.

First, we must realize that the preamble (“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state”) reminds us of a purpose.  The purpose comports with the militia clauses of the constitution (Article I, Section 8; ratified 1787, four years prior to the Second Amendment).  It of course is not an exclusive purpose (see DC v Heller), and the purposes for the guarantee have changed over time in terms of emphasis and need.

Second, we must acknowledge that whatever purpose the right may or may not serve, the operative clause (“the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”) is a command to limit governmental power.  The command is simply that the right shall not be infringed or diminished.  In effect, the guarantee (operative clause) stands regardless of whatever purpose described in the preambular clause.

Regarding the evolution of the guarantee’s purpose, it can be summed up quite easily.  Some of these ideas can be attributed to constitutional scholar Akhil Reed Amar (though I can’t recall which paper).  The main “purpose” or “purposeful emphasis” can be summarized into a (1) founding-era purpose, a (2) reconstruction-era purpose, and (3) a modern-day purpose.  The three purposes are not mutually exclusive, and all three purposes are relevant to all time periods.

(1) The founding-era purpose was mainly about the people being able to protect themselves against tyrannical government.  People were to remain armed so they would physically overturn a tyrannical government, but just as importantly, so that the government would not become tyrannical in the first place.  This is truly about a balance of power.  The founders believed (and many of us believe this today) that in order to secure the rights of the people, governments are instituted among the people, and that they derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.  In other words, the governed (that’s us) reserved to ourselves the right to arms … or the means to effectively wield deadly force.  This is the true militia purpose, where the militia were just common citizens.

(2) The reconstruction-era purpose (reinforced by passage of the 14A) was mainly about newly-freed slaves having arms with which to protect themselves from terroristic hate groups such as the KKK, which were often backed and supported by local governments (police, sheriffs, etc.).  The second amendment supposedly guaranteed them that (as free men), but various states after the Civil War were infringing their right to arms (the right of free black men and women to wield deadly force for lawful purposes).  Hence, the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, commanding that states not infringe our right to arms.

(3) The modern-day purpose (reinforced by Heller) is mainly about citizens protecting themselves from common criminals running wild and terrorizing people, families, and communities.  However “bad” crime may be, or get, or however much we might debate the degree to which the right to arms contributes to their use for unlawful purposes, part of our guarantee of being free people is having the means to wield deadly force for lawful purposes, which certainly includes the defense of self, family, and others.

I wanted to thank the mod that posted my first response (under username C.W.P.) Based on my imited perusal of this website, I have gotten the impression that it has a liberal bias (if I have this wrong, someone please let me know.)

Due to this impression, I am mightily impressed that my response was posted, since at the time I was not a member and it had to be cleared through a moderator. If a liberal bias does exist here, it is wonderful that my conservative viewpoint was posted. This speaks volums of what a great country we live in, where freedom of speech is held in such high regard.

Inherit The Wind:
’... I still remember the Greensboro shooting in 1979, when a bunch of left wing nuts called the “Communist Workers Party” held a “Death to the Klan” rally on the streets of Greensboro.  A contingent of Nazi and Klansman came to the rally and somehow, a lot of shooting happened and a lot of the CWP were killed.  None of the Nazi/Klansmen were even hurt.  This was all captured on video by WTVD-Channel 2 from Greensboro.

They insisted they were fired upon by the CWP.  Several went back to their cars, got guns, and started shooting at the CWP.

The Nazi/Klansmen were all acquitted of murder charges because an FBI audio expert testified that he couldn’t determine where the sound of the first shot on the tape came from….but rumors went around the state of North Carolina that their unarrested buddies got to the jurors and their families.  Just like the old-time lynch mobs that thought NOTHING of killing an “uppity nigger” because they knew they would get away with it.

I’m convinced these are the same kind of people who are pushing for these gun laws.’

As I recall the CWP claimed they were armed and were going to fight the Klan.  (At least, this is what CWP literature I read about the incident said.)  So what we have is two sets of people who wanted to shoot one another.  Everyone should have been pleased.  Perhaps both sides should have been made to post cleanup and property-damage bonds beforehand, however, unless the confrontation took place out in the woods.

Thanks, Ouroborus.  Well noted, and taken.

Bojan, just let me say that people are already generally “armed to the teeth.”  It is their good sense and responsibilities that has kept things from getting out of hand.  And I suspect that will remain the case.

And from reading that post, you do appear to be a bit whacko, because you seem to be hoping and wishing for very bad things to happen.

Reign it in a little bit, will you?  Appreciate the freedoms and opportunities you have, and work with us for the betterment of our nation and its people ... rather than toward the demise of half of them.

Carl from Chicago, October 6 at 10:28 am # and
Surgere, October 6 at 10:26 am #
In case you hadn’t noticed, bojan1, who has posted here
a number of times, is a wacko. Nobody, as far as I
know, has ever responded to “it”. Please don’t feed the
trolls.

Bojan1—-

Your comment makes no sense. There is nothing to support an assertion that Chicago’s gun ban, or incorporation of the second amendment, have anything to do with hunting or with civil wars.

If you are going to comment, please be clear and relevant.

bojan1:
Your irrational fears do no good to anyone, and are not founded in reality.

Inherit The Wind:
I’m glad you’re convinced of something even though the vast majority of the 2nd Amendment crowd are neither nazi nor klansmen. It’s also wonderful that you’re basing your argument on rumors…sounds accurate to me.
Additionally, you’re very lucky to be surrounded by so many CCP owners/carriers as this makes you one of the safest people in the country. At least that’s what the CDC thinks when their statistics say that conceal carriers account for at most .03% of all crimes related to firearms each year; while at the same time, there are at least 2 million justified self-defense uses of firearms each year.

Considering how many right-wingers I come across carry guns and seek CCPs, and how few left-wingers I come across who do, I can’t help but think they intend to bring their guns to any political function to intimidate the Left in their insane attempt to regain the power they’ve been voted out of.

I still remember the Greensboro shooting in 1979, when a bunch of left wing nuts called the “Communist Workers Party” held a “Death to the Klan” rally on the streets of Greensboro.  A contingent of Nazi and Klansman came to the rally and somehow, a lot of shooting happened and a lot of the CWP were killed.  None of the Nazi/Klansmen were even hurt.  This was all captured on video by WTVD-Channel 2 from Greensboro.

They insisted they were fired upon by the CWP.  Several went back to their cars, got guns, and started shooting at the CWP.

The Nazi/Klansmen were all acquitted of murder charges because an FBI audio expert testified that he couldn’t determine where the sound of the first shot on the tape came from….but rumors went around the state of North Carolina that their unarrested buddies got to the jurors and their families.  Just like the old-time lynch mobs that thought NOTHING of killing an “uppity nigger” because they knew they would get away with it.

I’m convinced these are the same kind of people who are pushing for these gun laws.