The Verdict is in: Alan Korwin Told a Lie on C-Span (and refuses to admit it)

Alan Korwin - LiarDespite claims to the contrary, Alan Korwin did make a public statement that is untrue (a lie), and given the opportunity to apologize or correct his statement, has chosen to defend this untruth.

On April 9th 2008, Alan Korwin appeared on C-Span. In that speech, in reference to gun ownership in America, Alan Korwin claimed “hundreds of thousands of lives are saved each year” [by the defensive use of guns]. His defense is a 1995 poll by Kleck.

But that poll never won peer review, and the 1997 National Institute of Justice Research Brief, “Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms” concludes, NSPOF (National Survey of Private Ownership of Firearms) based estimate of millions of DGUs each year greatly exaggerates the true number.

So Alan’s claim is not only laughable and absurd but also, demonstrably false and therefore irresponsible.

Just in the last 3 pages of this analysis (pg 9-12) finds the following phrases to describe the Kleck and Gertz poll:

“…surprising figure, estimates are far too high.”
“It does not make sense”

“…results are almost as absurd”

“If those percentages were close to accurate”

“That number also appears completely out of line”

“Evidence of bias in the DGU estimates is even stronger…”

“…many DGU reports are exaggerated or falsified..”

“…greatly exaggerates the true number…”

“…the DGU estimates are not informative…”

Please find below, the full excerpts from which the above phrases are taken for your convenience.

It is quite clear that integrity and honesty are not qualities that reside in the same personage as many gun-advocates, and most certainly, not ones possessed by Alan Korwin.

Alan Korwin certainly has the ability to verify the accuracy of his claims, as do his interlocutors, many of whom have come to his defense on this blog.

I repeat. THIS is the beauty of the Internet.

“Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms” – Excerpts”

Page 11 Conclusion:

The NSPOF does not provide much evidence on whether consumers who buy guns for protection against crime get their money’s worth. The NSPOF based estimate of millions of DGUs each year greatly exaggerates the true number, as do other estimates based on similar surveys. Much debated is whether the widespread ownership of firearms deters crime or makes it more deadly—or perhaps both—but the DGU estimates are not informative in this regard.

Page 9
Victimization Survey (NCVS) data, one would conclude that defensive uses are rare indeed, about 108,000 per year. But other surveys yield far higher estimates of the number of Defensive Gun Uses (DGU). Most notable has been a much publicized estimate of 2.5 million DGUs, based on data from a 1994 telephone survey conducted by Florida State University professors Gary Kleck and Mark Gertz.13 The 2.5 million figure has been picked up by the press and now appears regularly in newspaper articles, letters to the editor, editorials, and even Congressional Research Service briefs for public policymakers.

Almost half of these respondents reported multiple DGUs during 1994, which provides the basis for estimating the 1994 DGU incidence at 23 million. This surprising figure is caused in part by a few respondents reporting large numbers of defensive gun uses during the year; for example, one woman reported 52!

…our comparisons are conservative, as they assume only one defensive gun use per defender. The results still suggest that DGU estimates are far too high.

For example, in only a small fraction of rape and robbery attempts do victims use guns in self-defense. It does not make sense, then, that the National Survey of Private Ownership of Firearms (NSPOF) estimate of the number of rapes in which a woman defended herself with a gun was more than the total number of rapes estimated from NCVS (exhibit 8). For other crimes listed in exhibit 8, the results are almost as absurd: the NSPOF estimate of DGU robberies is 36 percent of all NCVS-estimated robberies, while the NSPOF estimate of DGU assaults is 19 percent of all aggravated assaults. If those percentages were close to accurate, crime would be a risky business indeed!

NSPOF estimates also suggest that 130,000 criminals are wounded or killed by civilian gun defenders. That number also appears completely out of line with other, more reliable statistics on the number of gunshot cases. The evidence of bias in the DGU estimates is even stronger when one recalls that the DGU estimates are calculated using only the most recently reported DGU incidents of NSPOF respondents; as noted, about half of the respondents who reported a DGU indicated two or more in the preceding year. Although there are no details on the circumstances of those additional DGUs, presumably they are similar to the most recent case and provide evidence for additional millions of violent crimes foiled and perpetrators shot.

Page 10
Regardless of which estimates one believes, only a small fraction of adults have used guns defensively in 1994. The only question is whether that fraction is 1 in 1,800 (as one would conclude from the NCVS) or 1 in 100 (as indicated by the NSPOF estimate based on Kleck and Gertz’s criteria).

In line with the theory that many DGU reports are exaggerated or falsified, we note that in some of these reports, the respondents’ answers to the followup items are not consistent with respondents’ reported DGUs. For example, of the 19 NSPOF respondents meeting the more restrictive Kleck and Gertz DGU criteria (exhibit 7), 6 indicated that the circumstance of the DGU was rape, robbery, or attack—but then responded “no” to a subsequent question: “Did the perpetrator threaten, attack, or injure you?”

, , , , , ,

  1. #1 by Rob F. on April 18, 2008 - 12:55 pm

    So how do you intend to refute that firearms save innocent lives? All I see you bickering about is an exact number. One study makes an estimate, and you reject it because you refuse to accept that so many people are saved using an object you are clearly terrified of. Then another number comes out, and you can’t accept that one, either, for the same reason.

    It appears to me that you’ll only be happy when firearms save no lives whatsoever. This would be pretty consistent with the general attitude of the gun control lobby with their response towards how one should handle a potentially dangerous situation: don’t resist.

    That’s what rapists, murderers, and thieves want, too. I guess you think alike.

  2. #2 by Cliff Lyon on April 18, 2008 - 1:55 pm

    Rob F,

    I think you’ve misunderstood my purpose. I set out to question Alan Korwin’s claim. You guys finally pointed me to the source, and it turns out the 400,000 number is just plain absurd and any honest person must come to the same conclusion.

    I do not “refuse to accept that so many people are saved” by guns, I refuse to accept that 400,000 Americans each year are saved by guns.

    I think what you are trying to get at is the idea that broad gun ownership outweighs the bad because they save so many lives. That logic doesn’t necessarily follow.

    The conclusion of the NIJ brief says,

    “Much debated is whether the widespread ownership of firearms deters crime or makes it more deadly—or perhaps both—but the DGU estimates are not informative in this regard.”

    My God, I think the authors were actually making fun of the Kleck study- to the extent one can do that in a gov’t document.

    I learned long ago, that if you are truly interested in objective truth, then the best path is to seek out and listen to experts. In doing so, one must consider both credentials and motivation. i.e having a gun does not make you an expert on the social cost or benefit.

    The evidence seems to be that gun control is directly correlated to lowered gun violence. Just look at other countries.

    btw: I am not terrified by guns. I am terrified by some of the people I see at the gun range.

  3. #3 by Richard Warnick on April 18, 2008 - 2:00 pm

    Inconvenient facts FYI:

    The leading category of death by firearm is suicide.

    Members of handgun-owning families were twice as likely to die in a suicide or homicide as members of the same age, sex, and neighborhood who had no history of handgun purchase.

    For every case in which an individual used a firearm kept in the home in a self-defense homicide, there were 1.3 unintentional deaths, 4.6 criminal homicides, and 37 suicides involving firearms.

  4. #4 by Tiffany on April 18, 2008 - 2:01 pm

    I am reminded of an argument for wiretapping. “If you are not doing anything wrong, then who cares if Uncle Sam taps your phone?”

    Hearing these arguments, I can’t help but think, if there is no reason for someone to kill you, why do you need a gun for protection?

    i.e If you’re not doing anything bad, why would you need a gun?

  5. #5 by Glenn on April 18, 2008 - 2:17 pm

    Cliff,

    I think you are confusing a couple of issues. First, the 400k references “defenseive gun uses” not necessarily lives saved or are you saying the only legitimate use of a firearm is to save a life? Preventing robberies, burglaries, rapes, assaults, auto theft, etc are valid reasons to use a firearm, would you agree?

    Tiffany,
    please tell me you are greatly exaggerating? As I asked Cliff, preventing rape isn’t a good reason for a woman to need a firearm? How about the same reason I listed above?

  6. #6 by Glenn on April 18, 2008 - 2:23 pm

    Flawed thinking Cliff. As a society we would have quite along way to go to equal the mass murder perpetrated in Europe before they as a people became “non violent”, they all had guns and have a much worse record than we ever had historically. Heck, they invented shooting people over insults, formalized it, and made rules. It was called dueling.

    What is it with credentials? Everyone has a political bias, and it comes out in how they perceive reality. Study does not truth make. It can though bloat ones opinion of what they think is the truth. You spend that much time being wrong, it can be hard to admit. Cognitive consonance.

    The reality in the US is that there bad people that can be deterred by guns, it is really that simple. The law abiding shall have them if they desire.

    So since guns have limited value in your opinion, should we disarm the police as well in your world? One way or another, criminals will have access to guns. Heck we lost hundreds of thousands of them in Iraq. They are here to stay.

    At this rate your terror of who legally uses guns doesn’t matter. Now should we regulate peoples access to the internet, where far more damage can be wrought by one person spreading untruths, than a guy with a pistol in his house for self defense? If we can pass that, would you believe that infringes on your inalienable rights?

    Up ahead directly at this rate.

  7. #7 by Anonymous on April 18, 2008 - 2:50 pm

    Is it not true that you have had a .44 magnum pistol within the confines of your home Clifford Lyon?

  8. #8 by glenn on April 18, 2008 - 2:53 pm

    Those posts were not posted by me. Cliff once again is changing peoples names in order to serve some purpose not known to me. The fact that he does this should tell you all what you need to know about why he is doing this.

  9. #9 by jdberger on April 18, 2008 - 3:01 pm

    Still running, eh, Cliff?

    Rather than respond to criticism, facts, posted references and honest questions you continue to stand on the corner and scream at traffic.

    What’s funny is that in your aim to pump up your search ranking, you expose yourself as a hysterical fraud.

    You’ve posted that you do own guns. May I suggest that you divest yourself of them until you can control your urges to threaten people with violence.

  10. #10 by Ethan on April 18, 2008 - 3:05 pm

    Someone told a lie on C-Span?

    IMPOSSIBLE!!!

    Sorry Cliff, couldn’t resist that one.

    But I am enjoying the discussion…

  11. #11 by Cliff Lyon on April 18, 2008 - 3:33 pm

    Glenn, you are not paying attention. Korwin did say 400,000 people use guns to prevent crime, he said save lives. I am well aware that the Kleck study is 400k DGU.

    Korwin should correct his mistake.

    Now about the 400k. The experts agree, even that number for DGUs is wildly off base.

    And, as a matter of fact Glenn. I do not believe that preventing robberies, burglaries, rapes, assaults, auto theft, etc are valid reasons to use a firearm.

    Why would you kill someone who is trying to steal your car or your girlfriend. Isn’t that a bit heavy-handed?

    Do you seriously want a bunch of folks out there carrying guns just in case they think they see someone trying to steal something?

    Don’t you have to polish some bullets or something?

  12. #12 by Rob F. on April 18, 2008 - 3:49 pm

    I think Cliff is merely arguing semantics. Now, in every situation where a legally-owned firearm is used to protect one’s rights, property, and well-being within the law, one’s life is not therefore saved inherently.

    You could use a firearm to deter an assault; not all assaults are inherently life-threatening.

    So, if he’s arguing that all DGUs are being recorded as saving one’s life that would otherwise have been taken had a firearm not been used to defend oneself, I guess he’d be correct.

    But then again, that’s not really a victory in any way, shape, or form. I think he’s arguing semantics simply because he has nothing else to argue in his favor.

    Why would you kill someone who is trying to steal your car or your girlfriend. Isn’t that a bit heavy-handed?

    So, uh, exactly when is it okay, in your idealistic, pacifistic mind to defend yourself? Or do you value the life and well-being of a person who ignores laws and attempts to injure you more than your own?

    There’s a word for people like you: “victim.”

  13. #13 by Cliff Lyon on April 18, 2008 - 4:02 pm

    Mr. Berger,

    You may accuse me of anything you like, a rather easy thing to do when you are anonymous. Feel free to identify yourself and present your credentials anytime.

    In the meantime, lets be clear. I have been very consistent. The Kleck study is absurd. The numbers cannot be proven, and a real man would admit that.

    How would you feel if someone began repeating a bad poll that said people named Berger are 1000x more likely to molest children? Would you accept that?

    So why don’t YOU answer this question Mr. Berger; do YOU believe what Alan Korwin said on TV? Do you accept his numbers? Do you accept the Keck numbers? Do you have any better proof that the Kleck poll that has been repudiated as unscientific and highly exaggerated?

    Is truth and honesty something you stand on? Or are you the type to ignore a lie just because is suits your cause.

  14. #14 by kofi anon on April 18, 2008 - 5:23 pm

    Cliff; Keep your opinion in mind when a few robbers want to know a easy neighborhood to knock off.

    As for thieves in the house, it isn’t my law, but in Colorado, it is even called the “make my day” law. Yeah, you can shoot people stealing your stuff in Colorado. Your choice of load though, some are less lethal, and cause the home less damage. It is also your choice to shoot or not, if they are armed criminals, at your own peril do you offer license to steal.

    Interesting, if you are caught stealing those things, and do not respond to law officers, you can then be tazed, if you resist arrest. If you have a gun in your hand, you can be shot. Hell you can be tazed for just about anything. Believe what you want, leave reality to the rest of us.

    Let’s see, if the criminals know that death may await them for their criminal behavior, it is for sure a known deterrent, unless I am dealing with the people in bomb jackets, and then I know it isn’t my possessions they want.

    “Is truth and honesty something you stand on? Or are you the type to ignore a lie just because is suits your cause”.

    Now go look in the mirror Cliff.

    You are silly, who polishes bullets? Dirty ones get thrown out. You don’t know anything about guns, and you fear them like any other thing that requires a bit of physical manipulation. That in your case would be physical labor. If you are unarmed consider quitting smoking, and learn how to run.

    Finally, who cares if the figures are wrong, it is irrelevant to the right to have a weapon, and use it for defensive purposes. The whole premise of this argument is plain stupid. If it deters a crime once, good enough. Nothing more than an armed cop/guard/soldier does every day in the field.

    Interesting isn’t it that Vermont, where no permit is required to carry a concealed weapon, the rates of gun crime are the lowest in North America?

  15. #15 by Cliff Lyon on April 18, 2008 - 5:44 pm

    Glenn (Kofi),

    I choose to live in a world where people do not place their material possessions on par with human life.

    This isn’t a movie.

  16. #16 by jdberger on April 18, 2008 - 5:54 pm

    Gee Cliff? Should I really tell you who I am when you are going around threatening to shoot people?

    Yes, I accept Mr. Korwin’s statement. I accept Prof. Kleck’s study. Prof. Kleck has defended his research. I’ve provided you links to his defense. You have chosen to ignore them, stick your fingers in your ears, and scream, “I can’t hear you”.

    Mr. Korwin has shown up on your blog to defend himself and you simply shouted him down. You’re Omorosa style of debate is truly the last refuge of a scoundrel.

    I’m not quite sure what my credentials have to do with the veracity of my statements. Are you implying that somehow your IR and Philosophy degrees make you a competent statistician? Or, are you simply reverting to effete snobbery to try to bully your opponents with your “vast” resume?

    Continually within your blog, you’ve posted outlandish assertions, personal attacks and made physical threats. Your claims have been quickly and cleanly refuted without fail, most times with linked references. You’ve ignored the counter-posts and instead insisted on shifting the goalposts.

    Fortunately, you are receiving the attention you deserve. You are being exposed, not just in Utah, but across the entire blogosphere as a narcissistic fraud who couldn’t best an 8th grader in debate.

  17. #17 by kofi anon on April 18, 2008 - 6:09 pm

    Good for you, it is a free country. All anyone has to do to stay out of harms way is stay the hell out of others things.

    You certainly don’t give any credence to initiation of the process of how a thief ends up at the end of a gun. Resistance isn’t futile.

    I figure that every citizen has the same rights as law enforcement within the confines of their home. Considering that felons cost some 50k to adjudicate, and 40k a yr. to incarcerate, the value of home defense is a bargain.

    Who knows what a felon in your house may do? We don’t ask them in, and rarely is it asked what their intent is. You are so right. This isn’t a movie. Real life and criminals are not for the squeamish.

    Do your views on theft extend to the right of return to Arabs that owned land that was taken from them in what is now Israel? In the interests of making amends, should they get the value back?

    jd; Cliff is a polisci major. Make sense now? This is purely political, motivate the “base” you know? It is done in the basest of manner…that’s politics.

  18. #18 by jdberger on April 18, 2008 - 6:42 pm

    Kofi – thanks, I’m aware of what an IR degree is.

  19. #19 by kofi anon on April 18, 2008 - 7:37 pm

    Sorry, International Relations connotes a tad of prestige, and polisci is what many take to gut their way out of college. Sure does show in how the country is run. First a polisci degree, then a law degree, then to congress… what a mess.

    IR degree: Irrational reductionism.

  20. #20 by kofi anon on April 18, 2008 - 7:39 pm

    A lie told on C-span? Isn’t that where congressmen bather to the bleachers?

    At least no one important was watching.

  21. #21 by Tomare Utsu Zo on April 18, 2008 - 9:38 pm

    Cliff Lyon Says:

    April 18th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
    Glenn (Kofi),

    I choose to live in a world where people do not place their material possessions on par with human life.

    This isn’t a movie.

    But, Cliff, you don’t live in that world. Burglars place your goods at a higher value then your life. And, when they try to rob me, they are placing my goods at a higher value their own life. I really don’t care that your the sort of pansy who doesn’t value his own life more then he values those who would take it. I do care that you wish to take away my right to defend mine (or those who I love. Which by the way, if you ever managed to get your disgusting ideas for victim disarmament made law, please understand, I will not follow said laws. And in the social chaos that would follow, who do you think will come out on top?)

  22. #22 by Larry Bergan on April 18, 2008 - 10:53 pm

    Bush is the “unitary executive.” Since any illegality he commits will be retroactively made legal, he can use the phone services to wiretap anyone he wants. That means people who will give away EVERY OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to Bush, (as they have), in order to prevent liberals from taking their guns away will probably get to keep theirs AS LONG AS THEY STAY LOYAL NO MATTER WHAT BUSH DOES TO THEM OR THEIR CHILDREN.

    What a country!

    The Bush crime family has learned to:

    Create problems.
    Pretend to solve problems.

    They make tons of money doing both things. Either you’re with them or you’re against them.

    I’m against them. Alan Korwin has some reason to be telling this ridiculous lie, but he’s not the only ridiculous lie teller around these days. I’m surprised we haven’t seen a lot more of him. Maybe we will.

  23. #23 by jdberger on April 18, 2008 - 11:14 pm

    Larry, I think that I’m going to start posting nonsensical crap about orchid cultivation or community responses to jenkem abuse in your threads – just as a fun non-sequitur.

    Just curious, Larry, are you related to this guy?

  24. #24 by Larry Bergan on April 18, 2008 - 11:32 pm

    You’re going to START posting nonsensical crap.

    What ever they’re paying you, it’s not enough jd, but then it doesn’t matter (to you) because you don’t use your real name anyway like I do. Your mother must be proud.

  25. #25 by jdberger on April 18, 2008 - 11:40 pm

    Yes, Larry, you’ve discovered my secret.

    jdberger is an anagram for “Larry is a lunatic”. Put down the jenkem, Larry. Larry, your cat really isn’t saying all those things.

  26. #26 by caveat, quizling (real name) on April 19, 2008 - 5:11 am

    Can we move on th the sentencing phase? And lethal injections? Please.

  27. #27 by steward on April 19, 2008 - 10:30 am

    “But that poll never won peer review, and the 1997 National Institute of Justice Research Brief, “Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms” concludes, NSPOF (National Survey of Private Ownership of Firearms) based estimate of millions of DGUs each year greatly exaggerates the true number.”

    Where is the peer review on the NIJ-sponsored study? I see none in the methodology on the link you give. I don’t know much about Mr. Korwin, but if you are holding him to the standard of peer review, why are you not offering evidence of peer review of the NIJ-sponsored study?

  28. #28 by Bob S. on April 19, 2008 - 12:21 pm

    Cliff,

    Jd and Kofi are correct, but let’s find out how it stands with you. Please let us know when it is acceptable to defend self or others with a firearm?

    You state you don’t want to value property over another human right. Luckily in America you have that right and no one can interfere with it. But does my father who is on home oxygen have a right to defend the property that keeps him alive with a firearm?

    How about against bodily assault? Should a person by able to defend themselves with a firearm? Is there a requirement that you have to be outnumbered before using a firearm?
    Rape? Child abuse or abduction?
    How is a person to know that a criminal only wants to steal property and not kill? Or do you simply feel the criminals have a right to life that is superior to the victims?

    Over and over again the cry of the gun grabbers is “if it just saves one life” so how many lives have to be saved by defensive gun use before that is acceptable.

    I fully support you freedom to own a firearm or not, all I ask is that no one interferes with my right to defend myself.
    Can you support that freedom?

  29. #29 by Quentin on April 21, 2008 - 5:15 am

    I choose to live in a world where people do not place their material possessions on par with human life.

    This isn’t a movie.

    The place that exists is in inside your head. Not in the real world.

  30. #30 by Bob S. on April 21, 2008 - 7:10 am

    Cliff,

    No answer to my post on April 19th at 12:21 p.m.?

  31. #31 by Cliff Lyon on April 21, 2008 - 7:52 am

    Hi Bob S,

    I believe we should ban handguns and regulate all firearms.

  32. #32 by Bob S. on April 21, 2008 - 8:34 am

    Cliff,

    Does that ban of handguns include the police and military? Will there be any medical exceptions, e.g. I have a relative who is medically incapable of using a rifle or shotgun to defend himself, should he be allowed to own a handgun?

    By the way, how are the handgun bans in Chicago and Washington D.C. working out?

    How much regulation on rifles and shotguns? Will anyone be allowed to carry rifles or shotguns in public or will be twenty year old daughter be required to fight off a rapist using only her hands and feet?

    Does the regulation you propose allow for defense of self or others with firearms? Still didn’t answer that question.

    So we are supposed to respect your right not to own a firearm, but you can’t support my right to own a firearm? By the way, none of the firearms I may or may not own have ever been used to break a law, why should I have to give them up?

  33. #33 by jdberger on April 21, 2008 - 9:47 am

    Cliff,

    All firearms are regulated under Federal Law – some are additionally regulated under the laws of the various States.

    Why would you want to ban handguns? Please explain.

  34. #35 by John Hardin on April 21, 2008 - 12:57 pm

    Cliff:

    Alan Korwin claimed “hundreds of millions of lives are save each year.”

    “400,000 lives” or “hundreds of millions of lives”? Which is it?

    Was this an honest mistake which you will admit and correct?

    Or are you intentionally misquoting for hysteria value and to put forth a straw man that’s easier for you to defend?

  35. #36 by Alan Korwin on April 21, 2008 - 3:36 pm

    Sir,

    You’ve ignored my response, misquoted me, and are publicly calling me names bordering on libel.
    There are 13 studies I cited, not just one as you keep insisting. At least get your facts straight.
    I sent you a copy of a chart summarizing many of the studies. You have ignored the evidence.

    You wrote: “hundreds of millions of lives are save each year” but I never said that. YOU said that.
    The figure is foolish on its face.

    Your egotistical attitude that you somehow are empowered so I or anyone can be “given the opportunity to apologize or correct his statement” by you is absurd.

    The numbers you provided yourself suggest 166,000 DGUs at the low end (1 per 1,800), and the Kleck figure, which I didn’t cite specifically but you are attached to, per your posting, “appears regularly in newspaper articles, letters to the editor, editorials, and even Congressional Research Service briefs for public policymakers.”

    Be cautious about any future attacks on my reputation if they are not provably true.
    I will overlook your current diatribes.

    Alan Korwin.

  36. #37 by Cliff Lyon on April 21, 2008 - 4:45 pm

    Hey Korwin,

    I heard what you said very clearly. It was on C-Span, and you can go back and check it. You said “hundred’s of thousands of LIVES saved.”

    If you please, I will find it for you and post the actual footage, but I charge $250/hour.

    This would be the time and place to say, “If I said that, I was mistaken. I meant to say defensive guns uses.”

    You are on record.

    I know the libel law quite well, and have been very careful to be clear and exact.

    BTW: I have not “cited” any numbers in an affirming way. As far as I have seen, NONE of those studies have survived the scrutiny of peer review.

    More importantly, the experts claim those numbers do not support you argument for handguns anyway which simply means, you are a middle of the road purveyor of propaganda, bad information and bad arguments that perpetuate deadly policy and law that has resulted in my country being the laughing stock and murder capitol of the world.

    You are not a policy wonk or social scientist. You are another hard working stiff who has ch0sen a living as a professional advocate.

    I am too. Except, my professional integrity depends on using accurate numbers and honest interpretation. You, on the other hand it seems, have found a cause that depends upon feeding people bad information on top of bad interpretation.

    That is your choice. Its a free country.

  37. #38 by Bob S. on April 21, 2008 - 5:20 pm

    Cliff,

    Care to answer my questions? I am interested in finding out how your ideas would work in the real world.

  38. #39 by Blink Da! on April 21, 2008 - 5:26 pm

    “hundred’s of thousands of LIVES saved.” Can’t be proven, can’t be disproved.

    “As far as I have seen”. In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

    Dude, yer a yapper and are gonna get sued.

    Consider Alan turning his cheek as a favor. All your crap is under review here. You aren’t that smart. Please refer to your chess skills.

    The numbers don’t matter anyway, Americans have the Constitutional rights to arms.

    The right to bear arms is non negotiable, part of the Bill of Rights. In fact, Mexico has a higher per capita murder rate Cliff, and personal arms expressly illegal.

    Find another dick to jerk would you?

  39. #40 by jdberger on April 21, 2008 - 6:42 pm

    Cliff,

    You’re moving the goalposts again.

    Initially you challenged Mr. Korwin’s assertion that “Guns save hundreds of thousands of lives a year.” You asked for sources and were provided a number of them with links (in case you are like Crazy Larry and only have Dial-up).

    You asked where Mr. Korwin got the numbers. He told you. Others provided links to the studies.

    You then asserted the the studies hadn’t received peer review. Mr. Korwin and others provided links to peer reviewed journals where the data and studies were published.

    You insist that ONE study invalidates all of these previous ones published. Where is the peer review for the NCJRS study? Surely you don’t believe EVERYTHING the government tells you, do you (you might want to consult Loony Larry on this one).

    The following PEER REVIEWED journals have published Mr. Kleck’s work. Why don’t you take it up with them if you think that they are all liars.

    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology
    Criminology
    Journal of Criminal Justice
    Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency

    Instead of offering evidence to support your position, Cliff, you simply cover your eyes. You asked for an honest answer and received one, with supporting easily confirmable references and data. But because it doesn’t comport with your suprisingly statist worldview, you discount it. That’s pretty reprehensible.

  40. #41 by jdberger on April 21, 2008 - 8:20 pm

    NB: The NCJRS study that Cliff keeps quoting from take issue with the National Crime Victimization Survey, claiming that the numbers of 1 in 1,800 DGUs was probably too low.

    Interestingly enough, the authors of both studies are the same Messrs. Cook and Ludwig.

    Further, in the introduction to their book, Evaluating Gun Policyxxxx, they state:

    Whatever the actual number of defensive gun uses, the mere threat of encountering an armed victim may exert a deterrent effect on the behavior of criminals. A growing body of research within criminology and economics supports the notion that some criminals are sensitive to the threat of punishment. It is therefore not surprising that the threat of armed victim response in a criminal’s decision; around 40 percent of prisoners in one survey indicated that they had decided against committing a crime at least once because they feared that the potential victim was carrying a gun.

    Considering that Messrs. Jens and Ludwig receive funding from the Joyce Foundation, I doubt that it could be claimed that they change their opinions based on funding from Gun Industry sources….

  41. #42 by Blink Da! on April 21, 2008 - 10:06 pm

    Cathy; The recent killings in Chicago, the police say too many gangs, too many guns. Let’s see, illegal gang activity and illegal guns and murder are some how going to cured by restricting law abiding peoples access to guns.

    We can all see how well waiting for law enforcement worked.

    Yeah, that’ll work. There are hundreds of millions of guns in this country in the homes of the citizenry.

    What would anyone propose? Go house to house an seize them all? A vast majority are unregistered, the criminals will always have them.

    Consider that in the Afghanistan one of the poorest nations on Earth, with our military, and nato roaming around applying their law, there is no lack of guns to go around for the people that want them.

    Those people in Chicago that are killed acted criminally. Wonder how many people saved their own lives killing or deterring the crazy perps? What a weekend! Yeah, let’s disarm the law abiding…are you NUTS?!!

    This is America, guns are going nowhere. They are here to stay.

  42. #43 by Blink Da! on April 21, 2008 - 10:09 pm

    From the bumper sticker.

    My gun has killed less people than Ted Kennedys’ car.

    Let’s ban TED. There ought to be a law.

  43. #44 by jdberger on April 21, 2008 - 10:10 pm

    Waitttt-a-minute….

    Handguns are almost totally illegal in Chicago. You’re not implying that the people shooting each other are breaking the law by owning illegal guns, are you?

    Why!? That’d be criminal!

  44. #45 by Blink Da! on April 21, 2008 - 10:13 pm

    What a hoot! Put these people on a reserve or something and charge an entry fee.

    Seriously endangered species free foaming at the mouth park.

    C’mon in, mingle with the animals, they are harmless.

    Please don’t feed them everyone.

  45. #46 by Cathy on April 21, 2008 - 11:33 pm

    I’m implying no such thing; rather, to the contrary, as a mother, sister and wife, I am implying that fewer guns would be a good thing.

  46. #47 by jdberger on April 22, 2008 - 1:06 am

    The contrary is true, Cathy. By removing guns, you only cede power to the strong, the young and the violent. Essentially you take us back to the Middle Ages.

  47. #48 by Cathy on April 22, 2008 - 2:12 am

    Mr. Berger,

    The one thing that strikes me while reading this string of comments is the statements such as yours (and others) that just come out of nowhere. It is fact because you say so, and for no other reason. I choose to feel differently, but do not mean to offend you by saying so. Personally, I think many of you have watched too many episodes of The Wire!

  48. #49 by Bob S. on April 22, 2008 - 5:30 am

    Cathy,

    Please show us where our comments come out of “nowhere”. Select a comment and I or others will provide documentation or links to the background information.

    You say fewer guns would be better, take a look at the crime patterns and rates in England. Firearms have been controlled and banned for a long time there, has it reduced violence? Here is the crime rate as reported by Victim Surveys comparing England and the USA
    Here is the pattern on crimes as reported by the police

    Notice anything on the patterns? Hmm, perhaps England is climbing dramatically. How is this comment coming from nowhere?
    Did you take the time to read Mr. Lyon’s 2 previous posts? I hope that you noticed a trend within the posts. Over and over again, the civil rights advocates (pro-gun) provided evidence, citations or links to back up most of the claims. Read what the anti-civil rights advocates (gun banners) say and try to find their links.

    As a female, do you really want firearms banned or reduced? Won’t that put a woman at dramatically worse odds against a rapist?
    If you or anyone else do not want to carry or possess a firearm, more power to you, you won’t find civil right advocates stating that you should. Just don’t deny us our rights to keep and bear arms if that is our choice.

  49. #50 by Blink Da! on April 22, 2008 - 7:42 am

    “I choose to feel differently”. I respect your feelings, but they have no bearing on my reality.

    Cathy, the guns don’t shoot themselves. How about concentrating on having a society with less IDIOTS? Canada has per capita legal gun ownership rates like the US, and they are simply not murder prone.

    Vermont has the lowest gun crime rate in North America, and you do not need a permit top carry a concealed weapon. It has to do with the people.

    Again, mexico has a higher per capita murder rate than we do and personal guns are expressly illegal. What gives? You have a better chance of you and your kids dying driving to the grocery store, yet I do not see any clamor to quit driving all over the place.

    I dislike drunk drivers and rage drivers, you dislike handgun ownership, it is all to bad for both of us. Do something illegal in your car, and people can die, same thing with a firearm. Get caught and there are consequences. Having a gun is like driving a big truck, if there is an incident, you may well have a better chance of survival because you possess more mass. In respect to guns, get jacked with a knife, and you are armed with a gun, you get the picture. Having a gun, and at the appropriate moment letting criminals know, is the obvious means of deterrent. Would you choose to see your kids victims as not have a gun? some people live in places that just are not civilised. If you don’t experience this, consider yourself lucky, but by and large, large parts of the USA are uncivilised.

    For a period of time last year, you had a better chance of dying in Detroit that being deployed to Iraq, a place we can agree are full of guns. People are dreaming about what life is like in some parts of America.

    Adults deal with this reality. That you may not respect or appreciate the value of sensible firearm ownership is not the problem of those that do.

  50. #51 by caveat, quizling (real name) on April 22, 2008 - 7:43 am

    Bob S, I have found your comments to be consistently cogent and informed. At the risk of yet another diversion, I wonder what your take on the recent comment by Condolezza Rice, Sec O State: (Paraphrase) In a fucntioning Democracy, guns should be in the hands of the State…not owned by individuals.

    Cliff Lyon’s position may not exactly support hers, but I wonder If you would please attempt a philosophical scetch. Thanks

    Blink Da, By your logic, shouldn’t we all be seeking our own nukes?

  51. #52 by Blink Da! on April 22, 2008 - 7:51 am

    Anecdote.

    Englishmen are fond of brawling. It is nothing for a hooligan to smash a mug into someones teeth at a bar. We have seen this kind of brutal behavior at soccer matches all over Europe with these kinds of idiots.

    In Denver once, an Englishman got into some argument with a Mexican over something at the bar I was sitting at. He threatened the man with his beer mug, to wit the man pulled a knife and slashed him, not injuring him, but ruining his coat. He was stunned. When things had calmed down and he was thrown out, I encountered him in the parking lot. He said that he was just in it for the fight and didn’t wish to kill anyone.

    I explained to him, in this country, some people are not going to take the chance of losing their teeth, or suffer lifetime alterations in their body because you want to fight, some people would just as soon shoot you as risk it, you are only so lucky the man didn’t have a gun and shoot you. He again was stunned that there were people in his presence not the law, that had lethal force at hand.

    I said, you don’t get to be an idiot, your desire for a good ‘ol brawl will not be tolerated here. You may get lucky, you may get shot. I would probably assume more of a mantle of respect and civility as you wander around this country.

  52. #53 by Blink Da! on April 22, 2008 - 8:04 am

    What do you think proliferation is all about Cav?

    It is no surprise to me that psycho republicans and Cliff have agreement on this issue. They share their peculiar Fascism, and propensity to control.

    Condi of abu graib, bunker busting, 2000 pounder block bombing, shock and awe. Only the weak get crapped on. This isn’t happening to nuclear armed Korea, France, China, Russia, or anyone else that can respond to crazed interlopers with devastating force.

    Keep in mind when America was the only nation to possess nuclear weapons, it nuked human populations twice. There has not been another instance of this since others have joined the game. Better that everyone have them, as only a few assholes.

    An armed society is a polite society.

  53. #54 by Bob S. on April 22, 2008 - 8:59 am

    Caveat,

    A quick search turned up the question and answer from where the quote originated.

    “QUESTION: How concerned are you about Sadr and his role at this point? And are you — do you feel like you actually have a pretty good idea of what his goal is here? It seems a little bit scattered.

    SECRETARY RICE: I think it’s been very difficult to get a read on what his motivations on, what his intentions are. I assume the Iraqis may have a somewhat better view of that than we do. But I would just make the point that the Prime Minister has made, which is that he’s looking to unite all Iraqis who are prepared to be a part of a political process, eschew violence and lay down their arms in favor of the authority of the central government and the proper security forces that belong to the central government. That’s the point the Iraqis are making. So I think that the issue of Sadr, from my point of view, is an internal Iraqi matter to resolve at this point. But clearly, the Prime Minister has laid down some ground rules which any functioning democratic state would insist upon, having to do with, you know, arms belonging to the state, not to — not in private hands.”

    From a 2003 news article ” Iraqi citizens will be required to turn over automatic weapons and heavy weapons under a proclamation that allied authorities plan to issue this week, allied officials said today.

    The aim of the proclamation is to help stabilize Iraq by confiscating the huge supply of AK-47′s, machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and other weapons that are used by criminal gangs, paramilitary groups and remnants of the Saddam Hussein government. ”

    Personally, I feel the citizens of a country should be able to possess any arms that the military of that country can possess. Key components of that; are the militias in Iraq citizens of that country, are they violating the country’s law, etc.
    Disarmament should only occur for violating the law.

    By the way, these comments are at odds with Ms. Rice’s previous statements on the 2nd amendment.

  54. #55 by Utah Mom on April 22, 2008 - 9:03 am

    This article is in our local paper today- The Salt Lake Tribune. Why would anyone be allowed to have a gun? Why?

    Police: Mom told child to fetch gun
    Court documents state 12-year-old brought out a .45 caliber during dispute with neighbors
    The Salt Lake Tribune
    Article Last Updated: 04/22/2008 01:25:20 AM MDT

    A West Valley City mother is accused of instructing her 12-year-old daughter to wield a handgun when neighbors became angry because the woman’s children were yelling racial slurs at them.
    The confrontation began July 3 when the woman’s three children began hurling sticks and shouting racial slurs at five neighbors who were lighting fireworks on South Brock Street (2910 West), near 3400 South, police wrote in court documents filed Monday. When the five confronted the mother, she told the neighbors she was going to shoot them and instructed her daughter to bring a .45 caliber handgun from their home. The child, 12, returned and pointed the gun at the five neighbors, saying she was going to kill them, police wrote.
    When officers arrived, the mother concealed the gun in her waistband. She later admitted to carrying the gun, which was listed as stolen in Georgia, and ordering her child to carry it. The woman has no permit to carry a concealed weapon.
    She is charged with threatening with a dangerous weapon in a fight or quarrel, carrying a concealed dangerous weapon, providing a handgun to a minor and contributing to the delinquency of a minor, all misdemeanors. -Erin Alberty

  55. #56 by Bob S. on April 22, 2008 - 9:32 am

    Utah Mom,

    Some people drink, drive and cause accidents that result in injuries and death; why should anyone be allowed to have a car?

    Just because some people mis-use a tool, should all those tools be eliminated?
    How is the gun at fault here? Did the gun get out of a drawer and point itself at the neighbors? Did the gun steal itself from Georgia?
    No, let’s focus on the people, the criminals using the tool and not the tool.

    What other tools have been used to threaten or kill someone? Knives, baseball bats, tennis rackets, wrenches, frying pans….are you going to ban those also?

  56. #57 by Bob S. on April 22, 2008 - 9:47 am

    To all on the left,

    this is too good of a link to pass up….1 liberal’s view of the 2nd amendment at daily kos.

  57. #58 by Cliff Lyon on April 22, 2008 - 10:32 am

    Bob S,

    Do you have any idea how pathetic and corrupt your argument is?

  58. #59 by Bob S. on April 22, 2008 - 10:39 am

    Cliff,

    How is it pathetic and corrupt?
    Please explain and how about answering the questions I asked prior to this. You propose banning handguns and regulating rifles and shotguns (would that be like double secret probation regulation?), what exactly do you have in mind.

    How are firearms different from any other tool?
    Instead of trying to be insulting, how about trying to have an reasonable conversation?

  59. #60 by Cliff Lyon on April 22, 2008 - 10:54 am

    Bob S.,

    Handguns are different from another tool because anyone can pull a trigger and kill another person.

    Other weapon arn’t so easy to use, and the attacker’s risk are much higher.

    By your logic, we should all be able to own a nuke.

    Get it?

    You can’t just gloss over application parameters.

  60. #61 by Bob S. on April 22, 2008 - 11:09 am

    Cliff,

    Can anyone use a baseball bat? Yes. Will some have to work harder than others to kill with it, yes. But that doesn’t change the fact that it can be used to kill by just about anyone, right?
    How about a car? Can teenagers without licenses drive a car? Yes.
    Can anyone swing a frying pan? All tools are designed to make work easier, just because one tool is easier to use doesn’t mean it is like others.

    And by your very own admission, shouldn’t handgun be given extra protection from confiscation or restriction? People with disabilities, advanced age or infirmities should be allowed to effectively protect themselves. So “because anyone can pull a trigger” shouldn’t those people be given a right to use the easiest tool around for protection?

    How are the attackers risks higher with weapons that are harder to use? Are you arguing that we need to do everything we can to reduce the risk to the criminals? Or do you see anyone using a firearm as the attacker, discounting defensive gun uses completely?

    You never answered about banning handguns, should the police and military be required to turn in their handguns?

    Do you agree that people have a right to protect themselves, their families and their properties?

  61. #62 by Utah Mom on April 22, 2008 - 11:22 am

    Bob S- I don’t know quite how to refute your argument other than I know deep in my core it’s wrong. All of the other “weapons” you listed can’t irrevocably change someone’s life in a blink. It’s not a fair comparison. I don’t think this can be about the right to protect your property or yourselves because by giving yourself this right you are taking away the rights of someone else. Why do you use fear as the motivating reason to have guns?

    How do you feel about the laws prohibiting smoking in public, restaurants, airplanes, etc…? Should we allow people to smoke because it’s their right even though it endangers those around them? Of course not.

  62. #63 by Bob S. on April 22, 2008 - 11:40 am

    Utah Mom,

    Please tell me how a drunk driver or someone committing vehicular homicide doesn’t irrevocably change someone’s life in a blink of a moment? I am sorry you don’t think it is a fair comparison, but is someone any less dead because they were hit with a baseball bat over the head, stabbed in the heart with a knife or shot with a gun? Nope.

    I can understand the confusion about my rights versus others rights, but I’ll respond with the wise words of Will Rogers “The right to swing your fist stops at the end of my nose.” The person attacking me, my family or trying to take my property has decided to risk his right to life in order to gain from it, would you agree with that?

    I’m not sure how I’ve been using fear as the motivating reason to have guns, please explain. I talk about self defense as the primary reason to own firearms, wouldn’t you agree that everyone has a right to protect themselves?

    As far as laws about smoking in public I think the government should not be in the business of passing those laws. If a business wants to make a rule against smoking in that establishment, it is the right of the business owner to do so.
    If people don’t want to go to places that allow smoking, establishments will open to cater to that desire. Should business owners be allowed to determine what happens in their business?

    This is the same approach to firearms that should be taken. If you choose not to own or use firearms, isn’t that your right? All I ask is that my right to keep and bear arms be respected.
    Please don’t take this as anyway condoning violence. The misuse of any tool should be punished appropriately.

  63. #64 by Larry Bergan on April 22, 2008 - 11:59 am

    Bob S:

    I’ve been calling the guests here “gun nuts”, not because I think they’re stupid or crazy, but because I’m always on the look out for liars. They are everywhere these days. I disagree with Cliff that people should have their guns taken away, but I am very glad he provides a free speech forum where people can say anything they want.

    I think the perception that liberals are against guns is a bunch of BS. I saw Bill Maher say he carries a big handgun with him last week. My favorite (only real) liberal talk show host, Mike Malloy carries a gun because he got threats from the religious right reconstructionists.

    The liberals I like, believe we should talk things out and reason to keep the violence down. Todays conservatives want to shut down discussion and blow people away that don’t agree with them. If you think that’s a ridiculous statement, just look at who the NRA put in as a spokesman. Ted Nugent.

    Keep your gun, just help me stop Bush from taking every other right away. Why does everybody want to avoid that subject here. Bob G isn’t answering my post here because I knocked down his argument that it was only the Democrats that took peoples guns away in New Orleans. What do YOU think about the short Gore video link I provide at the end?

  64. #65 by caveat, quizling (real name) on April 22, 2008 - 12:10 pm

    Bob S and Blink Da, Thanks.

  65. #66 by Albert O. on April 22, 2008 - 12:23 pm

    Bob S:

    You raise an interesting point with your rhetorical question:

    Do you agree that people have a right to protect themselves, their families and their properties?

    An equally valid rhetorical question is, however: Don’t you agree that the government has the responsibility to protect its citizens?

  66. #67 by Bob S. on April 22, 2008 - 12:26 pm

    Larry,

    Currently the only information I can find is that Ray Nagin ordered the confiscation of firearms in New Orleans. It was carried out by elements of the N.O. Police department, parish sheriff’s office, U.S. Marshals and State National Guard. Many of those elements were required to obey the orders of the mayor.

    I apologize if I have mistakenly claimed that all liberals/democrats want to ban guns. I try to be very careful in not casting too wide of a claim like that. I think that most gun banners are liberal, but not all liberals are gun banners.

    I have not watched the video. I will try to do that this evening and comment later.

    As far as the conservatives wanting to shut down discussion that is not been my experience. Do an internet search on “Reasoned Discourse” a term coined by a blogger to describe the sequence of events for my anti-gun people’s websites. I believe it has gotten to the point where pro-civil rights advocates are tired of compromising. The compromises usually mean not all of our rights will be taken away immediately.

  67. #68 by jdberger on April 22, 2008 - 12:30 pm

    Bob S. – That’s a great link and an excellent representation of why liberals should oppose “gun control” schemes.

    Mr. Berger,

    The one thing that strikes me while reading this string of comments is the statements such as yours (and others) that just come out of nowhere. It is fact because you say so, and for no other reason. I choose to feel differently, but do not mean to offend you by saying so. Personally, I think many of you have watched too many episodes of The Wire!

    Cathy,

    Guns are an equalizer. No other instrument allows a 115 pound woman to effectively deter or fight back against a 200 pound man. Men are on the average stronger and more aggressive. They’re also statistically more likely to be predators. This isn’t a “statement out of nowhere”.

    Now, if you’ll indulge me a little, let’s look at history.

    Prior to the Renaissance, there weren’t really any guns. Power was wielded by force of arms. Swords, spears, clubs, knives, etc. Training at arms was a lifelong pursuit that often could only be afforded by the wealthy. And only a well trained man had a chance against an armored man, thus, only they held power.

    The invention of the gun changed that. Men could be taught to load and fire a gun in a day. It didn’t require a lifetime of training. Suddenly, the average man could contribute to the defense of his community. This gave rise to walled towns where unlike previously where only the lords and their armored guard held sway, the merchants held power.

    With this newly held power, the merchants were able to negotiate more liberties for themselves. They no longer needed the sponsorships of the local lords. They could provide for their own security. And so we have the rise of the Bourgeoisie.

    From this new political class comes revolutionary concepts promoted by thinkers such as Hobbes, Locke, Calvin and Rousseau. These ideas were picked up by our Founding Fathers – thus spawning our (and the French) Revolution.

    In the majority of America, due to the influence of the gun, people need to negotiate by pursuasion, not by force.

    Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

    In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

    When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

  68. #69 by Bob S. on April 22, 2008 - 12:35 pm

    Albert,

    Thanks, but the courts do not agree that the government has an obligation to protect its citizens, at least not as individuals.
    There are many cases such as Warren v. District of Columbia that the courts have consistently determined that the government does not have a responsibility to provide protection. Should they, yes; is the government capable of providing protection to every single person, NO.

    Many gun bloggers have covered this subject better than I could ever hope, try an internet search on the subject.

    It ultimately boils down to who do you want to be responsible for the safety of self and others when it is absolutely needed, yourself or the police who might get their in 2 to 30 minutes?

    The most recent college shooting, NIU I believe, had an incredibly fast police response of 6 minutes. Imagine being faced with a criminal, intentions unknown and count out 360 seconds.

  69. #70 by jdberger on April 22, 2008 - 12:37 pm

    An equally valid rhetorical question is, however: Don’t you agree that the government has the responsibility to protect its citizens?

    Albert,

    Government may have the “responsibility” to protect its citizens, but it does not have the DUTY. See Warren v. DC. (444 A.2d 1, 1981). Ultimately, the citizen has to be somewhat self-reliant.

  70. #71 by Bob S. on April 22, 2008 - 12:40 pm

    Jd,

    I am not sure if you know the source of the quote, but it is from a fantastic blogger named Marko Kloos at the Munchkin Wrangler. That link will take you to his full essay in case not everyone has read the entirety

  71. #72 by jdberger on April 22, 2008 - 1:00 pm

    Thanks, Bob. I knew the source of the quote. I’ve been having posts rejected as spam when I post too many links – that’s why I just put it in quotes.

  72. #73 by Cathy on April 22, 2008 - 1:50 pm

    Reading this series of posts among what I see primarily as American males either for or against allowing government to regulate a so-called “right” to possess firearms makes me wonder how you same folk feel about my right to privacy – i.e., my right to choose. I am particularly curious whether those advocating a “right” to bear arms will also support my “right” to choose. What say you?

  73. #74 by Bob S. on April 22, 2008 - 1:57 pm

    Cathy,

    Sorry, but it’s not a so-called right to keep and bear arms. It is a inherent or God given right guaranteed by the Constitution.

    Are you talking about the right to choose abortion Right to choose your sex partner? I support the right of women to choose abortion. I don’t like the idea and the abuse of it by some women. Also, I believe that the father’s rights should be respected also.

    The government that governs the least is usually the best. Hope that answers your question

  74. #75 by Cathy on April 22, 2008 - 2:08 pm

    Bob:

    The “right to choose” generally refers to abortion, so yes, that is what I am referring. I am just curious how you folks feel about the subject.

    PS I am struggling with the concept of the right to bear arms being a “God given right” as you suggest. That seems a bit strained to me.

  75. #76 by Bob S. on April 22, 2008 - 2:33 pm

    Cathy,

    The right to choose and the right to keep and bear arms derive from the same source. Is our body our property or does it belong to the government or society as a whole?

    Our body is our ultimate property right, if we don’t “own” it we don’t have any right to do as we choose. Defending our life or physical well being is a God given right. It is inherent in our right to exist. If we have a right to exist, do we have a right to effectively defend ourselves? I’m in my mid 40′s, should I be limited to hands and feet in defending myself against someone, maybe younger or in better shape?
    In California, a school resource officer (police) was struck in the face with a baseball bat by a student. The student was a male, 6’1″ and 250 pounds, is it far to ask a female to defend herself without a weapon.

    Did you read the link to Marko Kloos essay “Why the gun is civilization”?

    This is where abortion gets tricky. If we have a right to life, doesn’t a child also?
    As I said, I don’t like the idea of abortion, but at some point it is a person’s body and I have to respect that right. The decisions each person makes are their own responsibility.

  76. #77 by Cathy on April 22, 2008 - 2:47 pm

    Bob:

    I did read the essay by Kloos, although I greatly question one of his major points. Kloos states:

    When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

    I guess the point is all well and good until someone having greater “force” comes along and negates Kloos’ attempt to negate the threat or employment of force. Call me silly if you will, but where does it end?

  77. #78 by jdberger on April 22, 2008 - 2:48 pm

    Cathy,

    I don’t care how you regulate your fertility as long as it doesn’t harm someone else and I don’t have to pay for it.

    Like Bob S. says, I don’t like abortion as an elective measure, but it’s really none of my business.

    I’d hope that you respect my right to bear arms in the same way. I won’t use them in any way to illegally harm another and I won’t ask you to pay for it (though I did find a neat historic Colt SAA that was purchased by the Wells Fargo Co. and I’d be tickled if you sent me a check to pay for it). :p

  78. #79 by Larry Bergan on April 22, 2008 - 2:52 pm

    Bob S:

    I don’t know how many more times I have to bring this up to get a response, but BLACKWATER, a private mercenary army cultivated and incorporated into the US military during the Bush presidency with very dubious right wing ties sent members to New Orleans and was paid a lot of money by the Homeland Security Department. The leading expert on Blackwater is a man named Jeremy Scahil who was astonished to find members of the organization in New Orleans who told him they were there to “confront criminals and stop looters.” Do you think they confronted the “criminals”, but let them keep their guns? I’ve provided the link for you.

    Would an organization striving for “reasoned discourse” put Ted Nugent in a leadership position. Do you think Ted was a good choice to bring liberals over to pro-gun arguments? My brother in law used to write hunting articles for “Field and Stream” and was horrified the NRA hired Ted.

    The people who are not compromising and who NEVER will are not the liberals. It’s today’s “conservatives” who are taking away your civil rights in the light of day. Please help me!

  79. #80 by Anonymous on April 22, 2008 - 2:52 pm

    Utah Mom. Your statement is truly a feeling. The majority of murders in Mexico are conducted with knives and bludgeons. The people are just as dead. Someone shooting you in an instant and someone killing you with a club in a single blow take about the same amount of time.

    In addition Mexico has a higher per captia murder rate that the US.

    Let’s just say you are afraid of guns, because they are a DEDICATED weapon. You know when you see one, it is expressly made for killing. You define hoplophobe. There are retired law enforcement officers that have never pulled their weapon in offense or defense in their entire careers. Like any reason to arms that are defensive, they DETER. This simple fact is de facto recognition that there are elements that would do you harm in life. It is really simple.

    Cliff you can kill people quite easily with a nail gun, and the new ones require no hoses, and operate on gas cartridges. Not only that, but they come with a 100 round “clip”.

    To date there are doctors prescribing drugs that kill more people, and drugs that have no use at that, people are taking and ruining their lives, and they are legal. 100,000 people died last year from legal prescription drugs.

    The fixation on guns being bad is an obsessive/compulsive mental disorder, so profound, that the afflicted cannot see any purpose to having a gun. This is due to the dis-ease, and fear of an inanimate object. It becomes real and ill used when an IDIOT or a CRIMINAL picks it up. They are often one and the same.

    Why does this compel a person to demand that others that have capacity to safely and responsibly use firearms, to stop them from utilizing a tool that can stop crime, and keep the right people safe?

    It is a mental disorder.

  80. #81 by Bob S. on April 22, 2008 - 2:54 pm

    Cathy,

    I wish I could answer that question, but I do know that most criminals are like bullies, they want helpless victims not people willing to use force in return.

    I hope that the right to keep and bear arms makes a little more sense as a God given right now. Thanks for keeping an open mind and a having a reasonable discussion about the issues.

  81. #82 by jdberger on April 22, 2008 - 3:00 pm

    Yes, Cathy. Thank you.

  82. #83 by Anonymous on April 22, 2008 - 3:01 pm

    Larry, there is no reason to compromise, the right to bear arms(non specific) is in the Bill of Rights.

    Ted is an excellent choice, there is no way that guy is getting rolled by some liberal hoplophobic bandwagon.

    Compromise is the slippery slope, that leads to disarmament. You want to be disarmed with neo-cons in control of the government? In such cases of wayward governemental movements, disarmament is followed historically by persecution of minoroties, and then genocide. Plain and simple history.

  83. #84 by Larry Bergan on April 22, 2008 - 3:11 pm

    Anonymous Coward:

    Ted Nugent is a chickenhawk coward and you don’t give a crap about the Bill of Rights!

  84. #85 by John Hardin on April 22, 2008 - 3:13 pm

    Cliff:

    I note that you’ve corrected the misquote in your post – it now says “hundreds of thousands of lives” rather than “hundreds of millions of lives”.

    I do also note that you did not acknowledge the error – and, in fact, you appear to now be attacking Mr. Korwin for pointing out the same misquote that I pointed out:

    “I heard what you said very clearly. It was on C-Span, and you can go back and check it. You said “hundred’s of thousands of LIVES saved.””

    What is going on here? Was this an intentional ambush or an honest error?

  85. #86 by John Hardin on April 22, 2008 - 3:15 pm

    Utah Mom:

    You say “I don’t think this can be about the right to protect your property or yourselves because by giving yourself this right you are taking away the rights of someone else.”

    Defending yourself is an inherent right, like the right to life. Nobody gives it to you.

    But, pray tell: when I arm myself in order to defend myself against someone who would attack me, what right of yours am I taking away?

  86. #87 by Albert O. on April 22, 2008 - 5:13 pm

    John Hardin says:

    But, pray tell: when I arm myself in order to defend myself against someone who would attack me, what right of yours am I taking away?

    The right you are taking from me is the right to be secure in my house, among other places. DGUs are just as likely to result in projectiles being sent into the noggins of the innocent as they are the guilty.

  87. #88 by Blink Da! on April 22, 2008 - 5:27 pm

    Larry and Albert, you are the last dying gasps.

    If you wish to disarm honest law abiding citizens, would think it is you that doesn’t give a damn about the Bill of Rights. Nugents’ politics have nothing to do with him not being rolled by the hoplophobes Larry. If finding a way not to go Vietnam is bad, then look at the crowds left and right that did it.

    Albert, there is ammo that can be used in airplanes, that will effectively stop a wayward human, so you need not be worried. Learning to aim helps. I’m not current on DGUs. Fill me in.

  88. #89 by Bob S. on April 22, 2008 - 5:54 pm

    Albert,

    Do you have evidence of your claim that DGUs (defensive gun uses) are as likely injury bystanders as the attackers?
    This is strange when most DGUs do not even result in shots being fired. In a perfect world it would be possible to guarantee that no third party would ever been involved, but this world isn’t perfect. Does it happen yes, but very rarely.

    Can you provide statistics on the number of injuries in that type of situations?

    Check out the crime statistics in areas before and after the concealed carry laws have been liberalized? Crime goes down then compare that to the violence rates in England.

    On the flip side of the issue is the benefit non-gun owners receive from gun-owners. As I stated, crime goes down when concealed carry goes up. Criminals don’t know who might be carrying so they are reluctant to anybody.
    Is that a fair trade off for the minimal risk of stray shots?

  89. #90 by Cliff Lyon on April 22, 2008 - 6:08 pm

    Mr. Hardin,

    Yes, honest mistake. Thanks for pointing it out.

    Go back and read the original post and comments.

    I am challenging the “hundreds of thousands” number.

    The Kleck number is a bad one, and everyone knows it except the pro-gun propagandist.

  90. #91 by Bob S. on April 22, 2008 - 6:14 pm

    Mr. Lyon,

    Nice to see you back, care to respond to the questions posed?

  91. #92 by Albert O. on April 22, 2008 - 6:18 pm

    Sorry, Bob, no, I don’t have the statistics you request.

    But, on the other hand, when I hear outrageous statements like God bestowed on his people an inalieanable right to keep and bear arms, then I have every right to respond as above – i.e., to respond without supporting data.

    Are you guys really that nuts? God gave you a right to keep and bear firearms?

  92. #93 by Blink Da! on April 22, 2008 - 6:20 pm

    So then we are to be at the mercy, all of us law abiding in your world, to all of those that initiate offensive gun, or any other, actions in a criminal manner Albert?`

    This is beyond any logic anymore. There are hundreds of millions of guns in this country. Do you propose to alleviate your fears in a military style house to house operation to “clear” the country?

    Just say you are scared of guns and people who are not, and leave it at that.

    I’ll leave the night light on for you guys.

    Albert,

    The inalienable right is not granted by “God”, but by natural law, that of self preservation by any means.

    From the smallest creature at the teeth of predators, to the great carnivores hunted by men, the right to destroy those that would harm and destroy you is a right of simple natural law. Fighting back is a basic human right, no a basic “living right”. For those without faith in afterlife, this reality is all there is. It’s defense has no price, or excuse to deny.

    It is nonsense to instill it with some high minded morality based upon your own thoughts. It has been this way since life existed, if you will not defend yourself and your treasure, then you can become prey at the hands of predators.

    It is the most basic right of being alive. Ask a Jew, or any others that have been enslaved or persecuted.

    Though not all are cut to defend their peoples, and personal treasures right to life, and peace, martially, there will come among any society, family, band or group of humans, individuals that WILL, and they will do so against those that will not leave them in peace…with extreme prejudice.

    I applaud and support them their right to do so, though to be sure, it is a fearsome thing.

    We would not deny them their tools to do so.

  93. #94 by Bob S. on April 22, 2008 - 6:35 pm

    Albert,

    Do you have a god given right to life? Or if you are an non-believer, an inherent right to life ? Does anyone have the right to kill you at their will?

    Read the Declaration of Independence
    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.”

    If we have an right to life, do we have a right to defend that life? Simple answer is absolutely, undeniably, YES. Throughout history the answer to that question has been Yes, we have a right to life and to defend; read John Locke if you haven’t.
    If there is a right to life, isn’t there a right to defend it using the most effective weapons available?

    By the way, can you show an argument that I have made without support evidence?

  94. #95 by Albert O. on April 22, 2008 - 6:36 pm

    Actually, Blink, that is not at all what I said – you are letting your shrill atmospherics get ahead of you.

    What I said was at some point, reason needs to enter the equation, and when I hear that GOD has bestowed upon us a “right” to carry a handgun, I find the proponents of such a statement to have abandoned all reason, replacing such with tribalistic arguments designed to stir emotion (Karl Rove comes to mind) but devoid of reality.

  95. #96 by John Hardin on April 22, 2008 - 6:44 pm

    Mr. Lyon:

    I realize you’re challenging the “hundreds of thousands” number. However, when Mr. Korwin responded:

    “You wrote: “hundreds of millions of lives are save each year” but I never said that. YOU said that.”

    In other words, “you misquoted ‘millions’”. Rather than saying “yes, I misquoted”, you said:

    “I heard what you said very clearly. It was on C-Span, and you can go back and check it. You said “hundred’s of thousands of LIVES saved.” If you please, I will find it for you and post the actual footage, but I charge $250/hour.”

    What that looks like to me is an ambush.

    Sorry if I am making a mountain out of a molehill over this. It just looked really bad to me.

  96. #97 by Cliff Lyon on April 22, 2008 - 6:57 pm

    Please Hardin,

    Read all the other posts and comment. Korwin knows what he said, and he knows what I heard. Everything else is pathetic drivel.

  97. #98 by Blink Da! on April 22, 2008 - 6:58 pm

    Well Albert, I effectively took “god” out of the equation, and placed it squarely in atheistic terms.

    That a persons right to preserve his life in extreme is shrill to you speaks volumes. The disarmed are persecuted. Go look, anywhere there are unarmed people there is subjugation.

    Now Albert, if I wish to conduct myself in todays world, within my rights to carry, and not freak the hoplophobes out by wearing a sidearm with a holster, their is no other REASONABLE choice but to carry a handgun concealed.

    It is a matter of practicality, and to provide a means to defend myself, and respect the faint sensibilities of those who are afraid of guns.

    Legal concealed carry, what a concept.

  98. #99 by Blink Da! on April 22, 2008 - 6:59 pm

    Cliff, you aren’t helping yourself, that is about as lame as it gets, your reply to Hardin.

  99. #100 by Albert O. on April 22, 2008 - 7:12 pm

    Blink Da!,

    There is another who posts here regularly with almost the precise writing style (or lack thereof) that you exhibit – e.g., positing incredible statements followed by circular logic that, but for its circularity, would lead to nowhere.

    I wonder if that same person is you, just under the guise of a new name.

  100. #101 by Blink Da! on April 22, 2008 - 7:19 pm

    Look Cliff, Jim, I know it is you so you can stop playing merry go round, because this particular style is all you.

    Rather than call the writing a name, address the content, for if it falls to the commonality of name calling, you lose, and here on your home turf. This is when a person knows what they write is clear, understandable, and outside the boundary of the opposition to refute. Hence the name calling.

    Then again you brought yourself the onslaught, so if it makes you look like it does, there is no one but yourself to blame.

    Identify the incredible statements, then show the flaws in logic, as credentialed as you must be, it should be easier than thinking up names.

  101. #102 by Albert O. on April 22, 2008 - 7:23 pm

    Blink:

    I think you confuse “natural rights” with animal instinct. A prime example of the circularity of your argument.

  102. #103 by Blink Da! on April 22, 2008 - 7:43 pm

    That is silly. I could as well say you confuse animal instinct with natural law. Please look then if you cannot understand the terms to the concept of all living things having a inalienable right to preserve themselves by any means they can find at their disposal.

    As if you are an atheist you are most certainly an animal by any description, you know nothing of any animals’ motivation, anymore than you know mine or another person that you don’t know.

    If is as you incorrectly apply, animal instinct, do you then deny the human animal the biological imperative to preserve themselves?

    You are not doing a very good job Albert, I was hoping for a workout.

    Explain how this is circular to you.

  103. #104 by jdberger on April 22, 2008 - 7:48 pm

    Cliff, you’re delusional. The National Institute of Justice survey was authored by two men who clearly had a financial motive (grant from the Joyce Foundation).

    But, that’s what I expect you are trying to do here – wrangle yourself a fat grant from the Joyce folks, no? You’d be better off creating a Blog like Mark Karlin’s Gun Guys where folks can’t debunk your inane rantings, then.

    Best of luck.

  104. #105 by Bob S. on April 22, 2008 - 7:53 pm

    Cliff,

    Care to address the questions posed or do you just want to criticize and offer nothing constructive?

    You’ve called my argument pathetic and corrupt but you haven’t been able to counter it or even explain why.

    By the way, the number you claim is consistently over estimated is not the 400k, but the 2.5 MILLION DGU. Even granted that 2.5 Million is exaggerated, how is not hard to believe that 0.13% of the population uses a firearm defensively each year?
    (400,000 DGU divided by 303 Million USA population)

    Waiting patiently (okay, maybe not so patiently)

  105. #106 by Bob S. on April 22, 2008 - 8:02 pm

    Albert,

    How about we break it down in simple terms.
    An organism exists.
    An organism has a right to continue to exist.
    An organism has a right to defend its existence.
    An organism has a right to use a tool to defend its existence.
    Firearms are a tool.

    All natural laws and not a circular argument to be seen. Care to make a counter argument that uses reason.

    Call it natural, inherent or God Given, it’s still a fundamental right whether you regard it as such or not.

  106. #107 by Blink Da! on April 22, 2008 - 8:02 pm

    Bob, In high level chess, there is a time clock, and mulling over moves can only go on so long. There is no clock here, and anything that makes Cliff look, well, like he does, will not get a reply.

    However, at some point he cannot help himself, and when that happens, after the opposition has hogpiled logic upon him, an unreasoned ad hominem attack bursts forth, a sort of quasi intellectual Tourettes’ syndrome outburst.

    I might add that as in chess there is always an opening, in this case the letter to Alan. Then as moves add up, his game falls apart.

    I might add that Cliff is not so good at chess under duress, so maybe do not get anxious, as there may well be no answer.

  107. #108 by jdberger on April 22, 2008 - 8:07 pm

    Albert, you are probably familiar with these words:

    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.

    God may not have expressly given me the right to own a revolver, but it’s a tenet of American philosophy that I have the right to protect my life – correct? If that requires the use of a handgun, why should I be denied? Is the method I use to protect my life and the lives of my family members somehow suspect because it comes in the form of a handgun? Would the same apply to a shotgun? Rifle? Baseball bat? Knife? Sword? What’s so horrible about a handgun that makes it unsuitable to protect myself and my family?

  108. #109 by Bob S. on April 22, 2008 - 8:09 pm

    Blink,

    I understand the analogy and hope that Cliff will respond. I just want to make sure the questions do not get lost in the string of posts without being answered.

    I have found that if the author of a post is unable or unwilling to answer questions, others will step up or try to. That is my ultimate goal, to get those who normally don’t post to do the research for themselves. Most who research the issue comes around to a Pro firearm position.

    As an open post to those who have never fired a gun, I’m in the Dallas area. If you would like to learn the basic firearm safety and try shooting, I’ll treat to a trip to the range. If you aren’t in the area, please post or search for a gun blog in your area. Pro-gun advocates are some of the most generous folks around and would enjoy taking folks out to the range if you are receptive to the idea.

  109. #110 by Blink Da! on April 22, 2008 - 8:25 pm

    Yes Bob, people trained professionally in using guns take the responsibility very seriously. They give that knowledge freely as anyone that wishes to preserve what is good from the corrupted around us all.

    To this day, I still remember being taught to use them safely, In this order, rifle, shotgun, carbine, pistol. My friends ex air force Dad, did the instruction.

    Every lesson began with, “all guns are loaded, do not point your weapon at anything you do not wish to destroy”. The gravity of the act has stuck with me to this day. While there is pleasure in using firearms and achieving skill, the ultimate reason they are here, is never to be forgotten.

    Certainly no one has any use for armed yahoos.

    It is hard to impart this to anyone that isn’t trained so, or has political reasons for disliking guns. One wonders how such people would react when they, or their treasure is endangered by those without care or criminal intent.

    I am certain, just like we would, minus the means to change the outcome effectively should things go terribly wrong.

  110. #111 by jdberger on April 22, 2008 - 8:36 pm

    One wonders how such people would react when they, or their treasure is endangered by those without care or criminal intent.

    Why, they’d shoot them….

    Especially if they were in his swimming pool….

  111. #112 by jdberger on April 22, 2008 - 9:48 pm

    Cliff Lyon Says:

    April 22nd, 2008 at 6:08 pm
    Mr. Hardin,

    Yes, honest mistake. Thanks for pointing it out.

    Go back and read the original post and comments.

    I am challenging the “hundreds of thousands” number.

    The Kleck number is a bad one, and everyone knows it except the pro-gun propagandist.

    Cliff, you’re full of crap. Did you read Martin Wolfgang’s take on Kleck’s study?

    Do you know who Marvin Wolfgang is?

    I await your answer.

  112. #113 by Albert O. on April 22, 2008 - 10:10 pm

    The first page of Wolfgang’s article sounds almost identical to the BushCo logic for invading Iraq – the most ill-advised decision ever made by a US President.

    Wolfgang states – if I may summarize – there is nothing on the record to dispute Kleck’s findings so they must be correct.

    Yea, right. Pass me another Pinot Noir, preferably slightly warm and freshly opened!

  113. #114 by jdberger on April 22, 2008 - 10:24 pm

    Keep reading, Albert.

    Did you read anything about Mr. Wolfgang? Do you doubt his credentials?

    I prefer the Santa Barbara County Pinots, myself.

  114. #115 by Larry Bergan on April 23, 2008 - 12:06 am

    Did somebody hear something?

  115. #116 by jdberger on April 23, 2008 - 12:10 am

    Lay off the jenkem, Larry.

  116. #117 by Larry Bergan on April 23, 2008 - 1:17 am

    I knew I could get a response. How about this?

    Sorry. The discussion around here was so intense, I just had to add some comic relief . I mean, we were so close to saving our civil rights. Damn!

  117. #118 by Cliff Lyon on April 23, 2008 - 9:06 am

    “unalienable rights, that among these are life,” – I believe that one means you and the gov’t can’t take that right away.

    I has nothing to do with the right to own anything you think protects that right.

  118. #119 by Anonymous on April 23, 2008 - 10:13 am

    Cliff,

    Right to own firearm
    Utah State Constitution with right to own firearm for defense

    If it means the government can not take away my life, it follows than that I must be allowed a means to defend that life, right?

    It’s a little ridiculous to imply – You can defend yourself, but you can’t defend yourself with any tools, only the government is allowed tools. How else am I to enforce my right to life against those that might seek to take it away?

    Bob S. (forgot to sign in)

  119. #120 by Blink Da! on April 23, 2008 - 10:44 am

    Read the 2nd amendment, and the intent of the founders, and the historical context of arms in America.

    No matter what is legislated to attempt to remove that right, it will become irrelevant, once a need for defense is required the means and tools to do so appear, irrespective of any attempt to legislate otherwise. As it has ever been.

    Government does not own the individual, or their cause to action. This control approach is statist, and the bearer of all horrors of man upon man that the world has ever known.

    I am well secure in the knowledge that no matter the drive to form this kind of world, the right of individuals to be free and secure in their person by whatever means they see fit, will surely prevail over it.

  120. #121 by jdberger on April 23, 2008 - 10:51 am

    Cliff Lyon Says:

    April 23rd, 2008 at 9:06 am
    “unalienable rights, that among these are life,” – I believe that one means you and the gov’t can’t take that right away.

    I has nothing to do with the right to own anything you think protects that right.

    Almost, Cliff – but not quite.

    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.

    How should those rights be protected? What mechanism protects your right to life? Government? Government at best is a reactionary force.

  121. #122 by Bob S. on April 23, 2008 - 10:56 am

    Jd,

    Thanks for the quote.

    “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

    Cliff, as JD has quoted the government has powers based on the consent of the governed? If the governed, or People, to use another term do not have the rights to use tools in self defense how can the government have more power than the people?

  122. #123 by Albert O. on April 23, 2008 - 12:20 pm

    Hmmmm.

    So, with all these God given rights to own a firearm for protection, is it likely that God did or will carve out an exception for illegal aliens while in this country? In other words, did God put conditions on the right He bestowed upon us? Is it a God-given right to keep and bear arms so long as you are not Mexican and visiting America illegally?

    Also, I’d like to know just when God gave us this right to keep and bear arms. Was it 100 years ago? 200? 500? 5,000? 10,000? Oops! 10,000 years ago cannot be correct because the Bible says we have only been around for 6,000 years. So was it 6,000 years ago?

    See how ridiculous your God-given right argument is?

  123. #124 by Blink Da! on April 23, 2008 - 1:19 pm

    Are you kidding?

    There are illegal aliens all over our country wandering around with illegally obtained guns. In order to legally buy a gun as a matter of law today, you have to produce a legal ID. Most illegals IDs and background checks cannot bear up to this Federal scrutiny. As it is, crossing the US border without the benefit of customs, is a federal felony, so see, felons can’t legally have guns.

    The day has come where the phony ID, and fake ID numbers are not going to work. What manner of law do intend to pass to restrict an illegal aliens right to have a pistol?

    Once you brilliantly answer that, you can then understand why law abiding citizens with legal guns have absolutely no interest in giving theirs up.

    Your argument is a straw man, and it doesn’t have wheels. I imagine you have difficulty pushing it.

    What’s more 30% of the people in Federal prison right now are illegal aliens, and not for immigration violations, but for honest to goodness crime. If you are willing to violate Federal immigration law, what’s a few more in order to get your feet under you in your desire to establish a better life?

    What does God have to do with it Albert? You said yourself you don’t believe in a god given right, ok. So what exactly is your point?

  124. #125 by jdberger on April 23, 2008 - 1:26 pm

    Albert, you’re quibbling about the “God” thing. It doesn’t have to be “God” or Creator or anything – just a basic human right. If one person wants to ascribe it to “God” and another to Lepus the Giant Purple Jellyfish in the Sky – what does it matter? – unless you are uncomfortable with the conversation because you realize that the “right to survive” argument has merit.

    With regards to the “mexican” theme you propose, you’ve already seen that Bob S. and I don’t oppose that other classic liberal shibboleth, abortion. What makes you think that we’d do the same in regards to Mexicans? Canadians, maybe….

    In any event, legal immigrants (Green Card) are allowed to purchase firearms under Federal law. Illegal immigrants, in accordance with the Gun Control Act of 1968 are expressly prohibited from purchasing firearms (I don’t know if they are similarly prohibited from owning or possessing firearms).

    If you disagree with these laws, I’d suggest that you work to change them.

  125. #126 by Bob S. on April 23, 2008 - 1:31 pm

    Albert,

    Feeble attempt, really I expected better out of you. Call it God given, natural law or whatever you like, you don’t deny there is a right to defend your life do you?
    The right to keep and bear arm is an expression of that right to defense.
    The 2nd amendment was written to protect the rights of American citizens.

    There are natural laws (right to self defense) and man made laws (consequences for violating those rights). All man made laws derive from natural law.

    Your juvenile attempt at ridicule is an obvious ploy to distract from the issues.

    Are you saying that if someone goes to another country, they don’t have to obey that countries laws?

  126. #127 by Albert O. on April 23, 2008 - 2:57 pm

    First off, I am not the one who injected God into the conversation; that was done by several of you in the comments above. But as the conversation has progressed, I see God, natural law and inalienable right being pushed to the fore in defense of or as an equal to gun rights. And if you are going to push that logic, then you ought to be in a position to tell me where such derives.

    Secondly, your assertion that the right to keep and bear arms is a right on equal par with the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness simply is nuts! Any right to keep and bear arms flows through the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – it is not a right unto itself. It is a privilege that has been afforded you through the government, and one which the government, for the good of society, may regulate as it sees fit.

    PS. Bla Dink!, I don’t even know where to start responding to your comment! But, I suppose I might just jump on the train of circular reasoning and take a ride.

  127. #128 by jdberger on April 23, 2008 - 3:49 pm

    Secondly, your assertion that the right to keep and bear arms is a right on equal par with the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness simply is nuts! Any right to keep and bear arms flows through the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – it is not a right unto itself. It is a privilege that has been afforded you through the government, and one which the government, for the good of society, may regulate as it sees fit.

    Really?

    Does this apply to the First Amendment as well?

    I could be incorrect, but my understanding of Rights, especially the ones in the Bill of Rights is that the are Rights reserved by the People and not granted by Government.

    Asserting that Rights are granted by Government assumes that Government can withdraw them at whim.

    Albert, are you asserting that the Government can trash the Bill of Rights when it wants? After all, if they can give it, they can take it away. Yes?

    Justice Hugo Black seems to disagree with you (as do most folks, I think)

    It is my belief that there are “absolutes” in our Bill of Rights, and that they were put then on purpose by men who knew what words meant, and meant their prohibitions to be “absolutes.” The whole history and background of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, as I understand it, belies the assumption or conclusion that our ultimate constitutional freedoms are no more than our English ancestors had when they came to this new land to get new freedoms. The historical and practical purposes of a Bill of Rights, the very use of a written constitution, indigenous to America, the language the Framers used, the kind of three-department government they took pains to set up, all point to the creation of a government which was denied all power to do some things under any and all circumstances, and all power to do other things except precisely in the manner prescribed.

  128. #129 by jdberger on April 23, 2008 - 3:53 pm

    As for your first assertion,

    A natural right is the concept of a universal right inherent in the nature of living beings, one that is not contingent upon laws or beliefs.

    The theory of natural law, a law whose content is set by nature and therefore has validity everywhere, is derived from natural rights. During the Enlightenment, natural law opposed the divine right of kings, and became the basis of classical liberalism.

    I’m starting to think that you’re not all that Liberal at all, Albert (despite your affection for difficult to cultivate varietals).

  129. #130 by Albert O. on April 23, 2008 - 4:14 pm

    jd:

    I don’t dispute your quote re natural rights; indeed, the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness flow in essence from the theory of natural law you provide. My point is, however, that it is an enormous jump in logic to bootstrap the right to keep and bear arms into the well-established and recognized natural rights. The right (as you say) or the privilege (I say) to keep and bear arms may arguably be referred to as a means of preveserving a natural right – e.g., life – but is not a natural right in and of itself. Moreover, when viewed in the context above, the answer to your question is no, I am in no way suggesting that the government may withdraw my 1st Amend. rights; albeit, I might add, as is the case with firearms, the government may restrict such right when the good of the people require it – e.g., the 1st Amend. right does not extend to enticement to riot.

  130. #131 by Albert O. on April 23, 2008 - 5:13 pm

    jd:

    I read the transcript of the speech you cite to Justice Hugo Black, and bring the following to your attention:

    Amendment Two provides that:

    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.

    Although the Supreme Court has held this Amendment to include only arms necessary to a well-regulated militia, as so construed, its prohibition is absolute.

    Black speech (italics added).

    Black thus states that the amendment applies only to “arms necessary to a well-regulated militia.” I think a strong argument can be made that these days handguns are hardly necessary to a well-regulated militia and, therefore, are not protected under the 2nd Amend. even assuming, arguendo, that your interpretation of the import of the amendment applies.

  131. #132 by Bob S. on April 23, 2008 - 5:20 pm

    Albert,

    What are you are trying to describe is the difference between fundamental rights, right to life and derivative rights right to keep and bear arms, right? Since it seems that there is not fundamental right to protect your life, is that the assumption?

    I disagree with your conclusion….if I have a right to life then it is a concurrent right that I be able to protect myself. Otherwise any could be born, but there would be no right to keep on living. Does that sound logical?

    If the claim is that firearms in themselves are not part of the right to defend life, then does it matter if they are derivative or fundamental? The source is still the same, the right to life.

    As far as the government abridging our rights, I think this is a fundamental (pardon the reference) error that many people make. The laws, passed by government, do not prevent the actions but describe the punishment for mis-using the rights. The classic example is yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, most think the 1st amendment does not extend to this freedom of speech but it does. Can you yell fire in a theater if there is a fire? Yes. Can you do it if there isn’t a fire, yes but you face the consequences of that action.
    Compare that to the handgun ban in Chicago and Washington D.C.; it is not the misuse of the right to keep and bear arms that is punished. The right itself is proscribed by law. An example applied to the 1st amendment would be that before going into a theater, everyone would be gagged to prevent them from yelling fire. Much less anything else. Are you willing to give the government the right to silence your voice before hand?
    With your example of the right to entice to riot, again you aren’t gagged just forced to face the consequence of your actions.

  132. #133 by Bob S. on April 23, 2008 - 5:25 pm

    Albert,

    Black thus states that the amendment applies only to “arms necessary to a well-regulated militia.” I think a strong argument can be made that these days handguns are hardly necessary to a well-regulated militia and, therefore, are not protected under the 2nd Amend

    Please don’t let the military know handguns are hardly necessary to the militia. Officers in the ground forces, armored personnel (tanks, half tracks), pilots from all branches carry handguns; even ground forces carry handguns for back up.
    Current primary firearm for the military is the M9 Beretta, a 9-millimeter semi-automatic.

    edited for clarity

  133. #134 by Albert O. on April 23, 2008 - 5:35 pm

    Thanks, Bob, for pointing out that handguns are carried for backup.

    You made my point better than I could! Backup hardly equates with necessary!

  134. #135 by Bob S. on April 23, 2008 - 5:40 pm

    Albert,

    I said that the infantry carries handguns for back up, not that everyone uses them for back up. Even if it is just back up that does not mean unnecessary.

  135. #136 by jdberger on April 23, 2008 - 6:07 pm

    Albert,

    When I was in the military, a handgun was my PRIMARY personal arm.

    Black thus states that the amendment applies only to “arms necessary to a well-regulated militia.” I think a strong argument can be made that these days handguns are hardly necessary to a well-regulated militia and, therefore, are not protected under the 2nd Amend. even assuming, arguendo, that your interpretation of the import of the amendment applies.

    But – since we’re going the arguendo route and working from Black’s interpretation of Miller, wouldn’t the militia (small “m”) be required to bear arms in common use by individuals in the military? This would include an M16/M4, 40mm grenade launcher, handgrenades, certain shotguns?

    Arguably, Miller allows military arms yet subjects sporting arms to regulation (the Socond Amendment doesn’t mention Skeet, target shooting or hunting).

    BTW – I agree with Black’s interpretation of Miller. In fact, it’s the interpretation of Miller that I’ve propounded since the very first blog entry.

  136. #137 by Blink Da! on April 23, 2008 - 6:40 pm

    I know you don’t know where to start Albert, it is pretty obvious. We can tell. How about rather than naming it, you describe what it is you find circular
    about the argument, and pick it apart?

    Back up isn’t necessary?

    Lets’ get rid of redundant hydraulic systems on aircraft, your emergency brake in your vehicle, fire extinguishers, anything that ensures safety, there is no need for ski brakes, dog leashes, safety locks on skill saws, extra strength condoms, (trampoline strength), birth control, baby proofing your house in that eventuality, runaway truck ramps, fail safes on nuclear power plants…and so on.

    If your primary arm is a pistol, then your back up might be another pistol, it’s why many people carry two. Or a knife.

    My fave backup is the Beretta Bobcat .22 well made reasonable, and fits anywhere. You could use it as a primary defensive weapon. It is an automatic.

  137. #138 by Albert O. on April 23, 2008 - 7:16 pm

    Whether necessary or not, it’s all irrelevant because the militia (i.e., the national guards) supply the necessary arms. Remember, this is not about individuals vs. the federal government but, rather, the states vs. the federal government.

  138. #139 by Bob S. on April 23, 2008 - 7:58 pm

    Sorry again Albert,

    From Cornell Law School’s website

    TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311
    Militia: composition and classes
    How Current is This?
    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
    (b) The classes of the militia are—
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

    Sorry, but every person is a member of the militia. They are either part of the Organized Militia or the unorganized. The National Guard was not created until approximately 150 years after the Constitution.
    The Constitution states the powers of the Federal Government (Legislative and Executive) in arming and controlling the militia in certain circumstances. Perhaps we should require the federal government to provide arms to all eligible people.

    By the way, later amendments (e.g. equal rights etc) would expand the definition of the militia.
    Perhaps a little time spent researching the subject would be helpful

  139. #140 by jdberger on April 23, 2008 - 8:15 pm

    Whether necessary or not, it’s all irrelevant because the militia (i.e., the national guards) supply the necessary arms. Remember, this is not about individuals vs. the federal government but, rather, the states vs. the federal government.

    First of all, it was an exercise in arguendo – so the question is not irrelevant. Please don’t dodge it.

    Second, let’s assume, arguendo that the Milita really is the current National Guard. If so, then how does that square with the Federal Government’s power to Nationalize the National Guard?

    Under the current system, National Guard officers have dual status: They are members of both the State Guard and the federal armed forces. They are armed, paid, and trained by the federal government. They can be called out at will by the federal government, and such call-outs cannot be resisted, in any meaningful fashion, by their states. They are subject to federal military discipline on the same basis as members of the National government’s armed forces, and they are required to swear an oath of loyalty to the United States government, as well as to their states.

    This de facto federal control sure makes it difficult to argue that the National Guard is capable of carrying out the militia’s role, central to the states’ right interpretation (and as you’ve suggested above), of serving as a counterweight to the power of the federal standing army.

    If the Second Amendment applies only to States doesn’t the Amendment give the States the power to invalidate Federal gun laws? Couldn’t the State of Nevada decide that the NFA was null and void? Couldn’t it start importing machine guns and tanks and airplanes and PT boats to aid in it’s defense against the Federal Government? Doesn’t it render the National Guard unconstitutional as currently constituted?

    Albert, your suggestion that the States are the benefactors of the Second Amendment doesn’t stand up to any sort of serious scrutiny.

    Just sitting here enjoying a nice Rose’ after my meal of Bun bo hue…

  140. #141 by Albert O. on April 23, 2008 - 8:18 pm

    Wrong, Bob, again.

    Every person is not a member of the militia. As your statute points out, those between 17 and 45 are members of the militia. So, if you are going to hang your argument on this statute, and are north of age 45, then, well … I think you get the picture.

  141. #142 by Blink Da! on April 24, 2008 - 12:29 am

    Bob, Jd, I love you guys, you provide all the cogent facts, links and sources, that give me license. To use a phrase of my own that would fit in, all this hoohah.

    It’s a regular Turkey shoot.

    I would recommend not arguing the details, the fact is that ANYONE of ANY age, creed, sex or persuasion is allowed the personal right to arms under the 2nd.

    No point in arguing nonsense in between, it only serves to embolden those that cannot wrap their heads around the RIGHTS THAT WE ARE GRANTED INALIENABLE!!

  142. #143 by Bob S. on April 24, 2008 - 5:19 am

    Albert,

    I stand corrected.

  143. #144 by Cliff Lyon on April 24, 2008 - 9:03 am

    It appears Albert O has this debate well under control.

    I’d like to offer an analogous example. I lived in Israel for one year in what was then “occupied” territory.

    Israeli law requires very man and woman over the age of 15 to be certified to disassemble, clean, reassemble, carry and fire an ozzie and M-16.

    So THAT, IN CASE of attack, the army can hand out weapons without having to worry about “credentials”. Otherwise, however, there are clear laws about who, when, and where guns can be carried.

    Is it not the modus operandi throughout history that the military provides the weapons as required? Of course it is.

    So why the second amendment? Think about it.

  144. #145 by Anonymous on April 24, 2008 - 9:30 am

    I’m pretty familiar with military weaponry but I’ve never heard of an “ozzie.” I guess you were referring to an Uzi submachine gun.

  145. #146 by Bob S. on April 24, 2008 - 9:32 am

    Cliff,

    In many cases throughout history the ruling class or government provided as many arms as possible, but everyone was expected to fight. In many cases that meant the militia was only armed with the tools they could provide, some cases only farming tools (Sickles, Axes, etc)

    In the American revolution, the military did not start providing arms until well after the war had started.
    The minute men and militias were expected to and did provide their own arms. I haven read past the first couple of paragraphs, but it seems to explain the situation.

    As far as how other countries work, that is the reason for the second amendment. Britain controlled the arms and the Founding Fathers did not want to place the citizenry at such a disadvantage again. From Guncite.com

    We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
    —Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

    From Guncite again

    Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
    —Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

    Do you want to depend on the government to decide when and where a person can be armed. Law abiding citizens defended their homes and businesses in times of disaster such as Katrina. There the government did not provide arms for protection but actually unlawfully confiscated arms. In the riots after the Rodney King beating, the law enforcement officials withdraw from areas and left businesses and citizens unprotected. Should we then depend on the government for protection in similar situations?

    I am unfamiliar with Israel, are arms not issued to those in the military and the veterans are allowed to keep them at home? I know in at least one Scandinavian country that is done.
    I would back a requirement like the one you mention. For those who do not want to use firearms, they wouldn’t have to, but the option would be able. Israel is a good example, compare the results of their school shootings (scroll down about half the page on the second link) and ours.
    Do they still happen, yes; but the number of fatalities is usually considerably less and often it is the shooters that are only killed.
    Ultimately, it boils down to who is responsible for my safety. I choose to put myself at the top of that list and the government after that.

  146. #147 by Cliff Lyon on April 24, 2008 - 9:42 am

    Bob,

    Of course conditions have changed since the revolutionary war and the second amendment cames decades later.

    But I think you missed my point.

    The second amendment was designed to prevent the Federal gov’t from having the upper hand over non-compliant states.

    So it IS a states rights issue. That is why the second amendment is not a constitutional right of citizens but rather a constitutional right of States.

    Pretty simple in my mind.

  147. #148 by Bob S. on April 24, 2008 - 10:09 am

    Cliff,

    I can agree with part of your statement about the second amendment. It was, in part, designed to prevent the federal government from having the upper hand over the states. But it was also designed to prevent the government, state and federal, from having the upper hand over the PEOPLE. The Bill of Rights talks about the rights of the People, not the state. Governments don’t have rights, they have powers.

    Article 1 Section 8 provides Congress the power of “organizing, arming, and disciplining (regulating/training) the Militia”. If the 2nd is a states rights issue, why does the Federal government have power over the Militia? That would be like putting a fox to guard the hen house.
    Congress also has the power (same section) to use the militia to “to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.” So if it is a state right, then the state has all the arms, controls who can be in the militia and the federal government can decide when to use it. Doesn’t gibe with how the founding fathers fought the British government very well, does it?
    The colonists were in insurrection against the lawful government, wouldn’t it make sense they wanted to provide their descendants with the same opportunity should it arise again?

    Again, even if the Second Amendment is not addressing the right to keep and bear arms on an individual basis then the 10th amendment does.
    “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.”
    Since self defense is not delegated to the Federal government, it falls to the states and people. Most states protect the right to keep and bear arms for self defense.

  148. #149 by caveat, quizling (real name) on April 24, 2008 - 10:15 am

    Military speak: This is my rifle / Uzi… this is my gun /…

    On a more serious note, and regarding Bob S’s taking responsibility for protecting his own as opposed to entrusting that protection to the vicisitudes of our polling place and the results thereof. I do not think it is fair or sensible for those of us who are against the use of firearms (because we don’t think criminals should have them) to off-load thier responsibility onto the likes of Bob S. and those who are similarly prepared for what action might be necessary at any given time.

    It is the ‘Bobs’, with thier respect and know-how, who keep the notion of martial law on only the hind-most burners, but it is not thier responsibility alone. If Pacifistic sorts are interested in maintaining our freedoms, they’d best be practicing thier skills whenever possible so’s to keep the guns aholstered. Again, Guns are tools, one option among many. It needn’t come down to the definition of militia, if everyone is on board with guiding our country in the direction we feel we need to be headed. Guns do have thier place and I believe Bob would argue that there is lots that need to be done before they are hauled out.

    I wonder if the attitudes shared here by the gun supporters are common to the majority of those they’ve come into contact with among other gun advocates. If so I, for one, am somewhat comforted.

  149. #150 by jdberger on April 24, 2008 - 10:54 am

    Cliff,

    Assuming your argument re the 2nd Amendment is a State right is true, how do you respond to the following?

    Let’s assume, arguendo that the Milita really is the current National Guard. If so, then how does that square with the Federal Government’s power to Nationalize the National Guard?

    Under the current system, National Guard officers have dual status: They are members of both the State Guard and the federal armed forces. They are armed, paid, and trained by the federal government. They can be called out at will by the federal government, and such call-outs cannot be resisted, in any meaningful fashion, by their states. They are subject to federal military discipline on the same basis as members of the National government’s armed forces, and they are required to swear an oath of loyalty to the United States government, as well as to their states.

    This de facto federal control sure makes it difficult to argue that the National Guard is capable of carrying out the militia’s role, central to the states’ right interpretation (and as you’ve suggested above), of serving as a counterweight to the power of the federal standing army.

    If the Second Amendment applies only to States doesn’t the Amendment give the States the power to invalidate Federal gun laws? Couldn’t the State of Nevada decide that the NFA was null and void? Couldn’t it start importing machine guns and tanks and airplanes and PT boats to aid in it’s defense against the Federal Government? Doesn’t it render the National Guard unconstitutional as currently constituted?

    Albert, your suggestion that the States are the benefactors of the Second Amendment doesn’t stand up to any sort of serious scrutiny.

  150. #151 by jdberger on April 24, 2008 - 1:32 pm

    ….crickets……

  151. #152 by Larry Bergan on April 24, 2008 - 1:51 pm

    ….Blackwater crickets….

  152. #153 by rmwarnick on April 24, 2008 - 2:08 pm

    Of course, when the Constitution was ratified there was no federal standing army. National defense was in the hands of state militias.

  153. #154 by jdberger on April 24, 2008 - 2:13 pm

    Of course, when the Constitution was ratified there was no federal standing army. National defense was in the hands of state militias.

    What’s your point, Richard?

  154. #155 by Bob S. on April 24, 2008 - 2:19 pm

    Larry,

    Sorry for the slow response but have had major fun with family and weather. Storms in Dallas area knocked out power last night.

    Most of the stories and reports I’ve been able to locate about Blackwater and Katrina indicate the were hired by businesses and individuals.

    This report is by By Jeremy Scahill, The Nation is the only source that I’ve seen for the federal angle

    When asked what authority they were operating under, one guy said, “We’re on contract with the Department of Homeland Security.” Then, pointing to one of his comrades, he said, “He was even deputized by the governor of the state of Louisiana. We can make arrests and use lethal force if we deem it necessary.” The man then held up the gold Louisiana law enforcement badge he wore around his neck. Blackwater spokesperson Anne Duke also said the company has a letter from Louisiana officials authorizing its forces to carry loaded weapons.

    Please note the Blackwater spokesperson states it a contract or authorization from the State, not federal, government.
    Frankly, I’m not finding anything other than 2 or 4 employees claiming to have police powers and been hired by the government. I do not find any arrest reports, law suits filed for false arrest, etc.

    What other proof do you offer? I’ll try to check out the video tonight, but my dad is in the hospital so it may not happen.

  155. #156 by Albert O. on April 24, 2008 - 2:57 pm

    Best wishes to your dad, Bob.

  156. #157 by Blink Da! on April 24, 2008 - 3:00 pm

    The end of the Revolutionary is dated as Sept. 1783 Cliff.

    The Constitution was ratified in 1787, the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, so how does this constitute “decades”?

    The 2nd amendment is in the Bill of Rights.

    Your unwillingness to read the right as personal, devoid of the context of the historical times, and the fact that even most of Americas’ commissioned military came to battle in the revolution with their own arms early on, is pretty telling. It is simply fantastic that the interpretation as such continues. It is clearly a grasp politically.

    Daniel Morgans men came to battle all over the field in the Revolution with their rifled muskets, which for the times were the deadliest personal arm available anywhere. Superior in range and accuracy, the tyrannical british officers hated them. Lots were sniped with them. In fact the Brits stole some, took them home and reproduced them, so good were they for the times. The “machine gun” of its day some could argue. Really though, a sniper weapon.

    When the war was over, Morgans’ men went home with their rifles in hand. There is no right to personal arms?

    Ridiculous. Pretty simple in my mind. Things have changed far less than you imagine.

    You would have made an admirable tory in the day. They also saw no place for the rifled musket in battle, in fact british soldiers were trained NOT to aim at a particular person, but at the largest concentrations of enemy, not individuals. Americans rewrote that idiocy.

  157. #158 by jdberger on April 24, 2008 - 3:15 pm

    Yes, Bob – best wishes to your Dad.

    Albert? Cliff? Either of you going to answer my question?

    Doesn’t the assertion that the Second Amendment is a State Right render the National Guard unconstitutional as presently constituted?

    Please see above for background…..

  158. #159 by jdberger on April 24, 2008 - 6:28 pm

    Wow! Gentlemen, that appears to have been a clean sweep.

    Cliff couldn’t support his assertions that Korwin’s numbers were wrong.
    Albert and Cliff couldn’t support their assertions that the 2A was a State right.
    Richard was spanked on his interpretation of Miller.
    and Larry, poor Larry who doesn’t get any traffic on his Blog so he had to come and pollute Cliff’s couldn’t prove that Blackwater was under Federal control.

    That’s a fabulous record.

    Gosh, Cliff. I really hope you get that #1 Google listing…

  159. #160 by jdberger on April 24, 2008 - 6:42 pm

    Oh my goodness! I just realized that I’ve been combining Larry and Richard. I thought that they were the same guy.

    So, to clarify – Larry is the guy who’s obsessed with Eric Prince.
    Richard is the guy without Blog traffic.

    Phew…

  160. #161 by Bob S. on April 24, 2008 - 6:43 pm

    JD,

    Awesome job guy and you too Blink. Fantastic research and presentation.

    My question is for the folks like Cathy, Albert, Utah Mom and others, has the information presented changed your opinions or views?

    Thanks for the thoughts and prayers for my Dad, they are much appreciated. It’s a mild case of pneumonia but with his age and emphysema it is something that needs to be watched carefully.

    I also want to thank all the posters for the civility and courtesy displayed on this blog, it’s refreshing and appreciated.

  161. #162 by Larry Bergan on April 24, 2008 - 6:59 pm

    Bob S:

    Thanks for replying. I may have put some people here off by referring to them as “gun nuts”, but I have never been able to understand why the pro-gun people always say ALL liberals want to take their rights away, when it’s obvious by now the conservatives are the ones taking our rights. All of them, including gun ownership.

    My arguments here are serious ones and jdberger says I’m sniffing poop. I think HE must be sniffing the poop Ted Nugent had in his shorts when he successfully avoided the draft. The Democrats had control of all three branches of government before the Republicans stole those branches and didn’t take everybody’s gun away. Maybe they wanted to, but just weren’t as lawless as the Republicans are now.

    Anyway, the article you say is the only one you could find, is from two years before the article I linked to. Jeremy Scahill was armed with government documents when he went on the Moyers program. Here is some of the conversation which you should find disturbing:

    JEREMY SCAHILL: And– well, this is an interesting story. Erik Prince sent them in there with no contract initially. About 180 Blackwater guys were sent into the Gulf. They got there before FEMA. I don’t even know if FEMA’s there yet. But they got there before FEMA, before there was any kind of a serious operation in the city at all.

    BILL MOYERS: On Prince’s own decision?

    JEREMY SCAHILL:Well, so Prince sends them in. Within a week, Blackwater was given a contract from the Department of Homeland Security Federal Protective Service to engage in security operations inside of New Orleans. At one point, Blackwater had six hundred men deployed down there stretching from Mississippi through– from Texas through Mississippi and the Gulf. They were pulling in $240,000 a day. Some of these guys though had just been in Iraq two weeks earlier guarding the US ambassador. Now, they’re in New Orleans. They say, oh, we do this sort of as a vacation. One was complaining to me that there wasn’t enough action down here. And when I talked to them, they told me they were getting paid 350 dollars a day, plus a per diem.

    BILL MOYERS: By homeland security?

    JEREMY SCAHILL:Well, they were being paid by Blackwater. When I got Blackwater’s contract with the Department of Homeland Security, it turns out that Blackwater billed US taxpayers 950 dollars per man per day in the hurricane zone.

    BILL MOYERS: A profit margin of 600 dollars.

    JEREMY SCAHILL:Well, I mean, the math on this stuff is always complicated. And Erik Prince and his men are very good at drawing up charts and sort of, you know, just saying, well, there’s this detail and this detail. The Department of Homeland Security then did an internal review and they determined that it was the best value to the taxpayer, at a time when the poor residents of New Orleans were being chastised for how they used their two thousand dollar debit cards that often didn’t work, the ones provided by FEMA. But what was even scarier than seeing the Blackwater operatives on the streets of New Orleans was, I encountered two Israeli commandos who had been brought in by a wealthy businessman in New Orleans and set up an armed checkpoint outside of his gated community. And they were from a company called Instinctive Shooting International. ISI, which is an Israeli company. I mean, and I went up and I talked to them. And they tapped on their automatic weapons and said, you know, over in our country, when the Palestinians see this, they’re not so afraid because they’re used to it. But you people, you see it, and you’re very afraid. They were almost proud of the fact that I was sort of in awe seeing Israeli commandos patrolling a US street, operating in fact an armed check point.

    BILL MOYERS: I mean, once upon a time, companies and others hired Pinkerton guards, private guards. But never on this scale, right?

    JEREMY SCAHILL:No. I mean, you know, it was like Baghdad on the bayou down there in New Orleans. And– I mean, this is the point I’m making. The poor drowned. They are left without food. They’re called looters when they take perishable goods out of a store when they’ve been systematically neglected. The rich bring in their mercenaries to guard their properties or their businesses or their hotel chains. And I think it’s a window into what happens in a national emergency. And in this country, the poor are left to suffer and die and the rich bring in their mercenaries.

    (emphasis mine)

    Thanks again. Sorry about your dad.

  162. #163 by jdberger on April 24, 2008 - 7:02 pm

    You too Bob & Blink and the rest. Facts will out emotional rhetoric every day.

    Though I share some of the concerns of Cliff and Cathy, I’ve seen the effect of the emotional response and I’ve also seen others take advantage of it to demonize a large segment of the population that simply enjoy something they don’t understand. Unfortunately, they are often willing to promote their views with lies and distortions.

    Then, to boot, they call us liars.

    Truth to power – right Cliff? Well, for more than 80 years, the hoplophobes have held the power, incrementally depriving good people of the right to protect themselves. Now, we’re speaking truth to the degenerate power of Sarah Brady, the Joyce Foundation and Messrs. Sugarman and Diaz at the Violence Policy Center.

    And we’re winning.

    *raises glass*

    Here’s to Dick Heller and the United States Supreme Court.

  163. #164 by jdberger on April 24, 2008 - 7:07 pm

    Larry, you may be nuts, but you do make me laugh. (and yes, Republicans steal our gun rights too – but it’s not part of their party platform).

    One day, you’ll have to explain how they stole all 3 branches of government.

    In the meantime – I’m going to have a fresh Sierra Nevada ESB and wallow in victory.

  164. #165 by Bob S. on April 24, 2008 - 7:09 pm

    Larry,

    I can only find Jeremy Scahill as the initial source for all of the information about this. I’ll keep an open mind about the issue, but you are right about losing our rights. Democrat, Republican, Liberal or Conservative; it doesn’t matter – government is trying to chip away at our rights. Each political party has its agenda but all of them try to take away from the power and rights of the citizens.

    I think that is why so many “gunnies” are vocal and active about the 2nd amendment. Most are also involved and active on other issues, just not as vocal.

    I’ve decided that I am going to start e-mailing my state and federal representatives with a simple message “What laws or regulations are you working to REPEAL?”

    Thanks for the thinking of my father.

  165. #166 by Larry Bergan on April 24, 2008 - 7:14 pm

    jdberger said:

    One day, you’ll have to explain how they stole all 3 branches of government.

    Election theft. Watch the new DVD “Uncounted” or HBO’s “Hacking Democracy”

  166. #167 by Larry Bergan on April 24, 2008 - 7:18 pm

    I’m only angry at liars like Ted Nugent and it still astounds me the NRA hired him. Do you guys really want to be represented by this kind of obvious shill for the Republicans? I haven’t seen any of you distance yourselves from him.

  167. #168 by Bob S. on April 24, 2008 - 7:29 pm

    Larry,

    Actually yes, I want to be represented by someone like Ted. As wild and outrageous as he is, it is what we need at this time.

    Since 1934 with the NFA, the right to keep and bear arms has been whittled away. Can you imagine someone applying the same restrictions to other fundamental rights? Needing a permit to write a newspaper article, giving fingerprints prior to joining a new church, etc.
    It is time for those who value their civil rights to stand up and say no more. Ted Nugent represents that view point quite well.
    Let’s not go with liars, I’ll avoid listing the recent or obvious lies of those I disagree with (too easy and not enough room) to focus on the issues.

  168. #169 by jdberger on April 24, 2008 - 7:51 pm

    Ted Nugent is an elected board member of the NRA. He wasn’t hired by the NRA.

    And since I agree with Ted and have supported him in some charity work, I won’t disavow him.

    I don’t always agree with him, but the only person I agree with 100% of the time is me.

  169. #170 by Larry Bergan on April 24, 2008 - 7:53 pm

    Ted Nugent doesn’t recognize my right as a liberal to LIVE. He is a blatant liar and should be an embarrassment to any American who believes in the truth. He is a great guitar player, but was in a band that had a song called “Journey To The Center Of Your Mind” that had marijuana pipes all over the cover. Ted said he didn’t have any idea the other band members were using drugs.

    Enough with the civilized conversation. You guys ARE Gun Nuts and probably a bunch of conservative liars too. How could you look past somebody with that little integrity?

  170. #171 by Larry Bergan on April 24, 2008 - 7:56 pm

    That’s even worse jd! He was elected?

    Charity is sometimes the last refuge of a scoundrel.

  171. #172 by Larry Bergan on April 24, 2008 - 8:04 pm

    Yeah, Ted Nugent is going to stand up for my rights. The right to shut up or he’ll blow my fucking head off.

    Right guys?

  172. #173 by Bob S. on April 24, 2008 - 8:13 pm

    Larry

    Do you think that the democrats or liberals are squeaky clean and no liars on that side of the fence?

    Do you agree with everything that every liberal says? We don’t either, but as JD says I won’t disavow him. I didn’t hire Ted, I don’t pay his salary (NRA board of directors aren’t paid to the best of my knowledge).

    But there comes a time when what is being said needs to be said.
    I’m sorry that you feel it’s necessary to discontinue the civil conservation and start calling names.

    Let me ask you, has your opinion of the 2nd amendment changed based on the debate so far?

  173. #174 by jdberger on April 24, 2008 - 8:22 pm

    Patriotism (actually false patriotism) is the last refuge of a scoundrel, Larry. Get the quote right.

    I’m sorry that you don’t like Ted. It hurts my feelings. I’m sure he’s all broken up about it, too.

    Enough with the civilized conversation. You guys ARE Gun Nuts and probably a bunch of conservative liars too. How could you look past somebody with that little integrity?

    So, let me see, in the last two national elections, you gave money to a guy who wanted to start a war with Russia (in Serbia) and a guy who claims to see UFOs and “felt a connection to [his] heart and heard directions in [his] mind”.

    And you’re complaining about Nugent?

    Yes, Larry, I guess that it hasn’t been terribly obvious until now, but I am a “gun nut”. That’s quite deductive of you? Did you get new glasses?

  174. #175 by Larry Bergan on April 24, 2008 - 8:25 pm

    Bob S:

    Do you think that the democrats or liberals are squeaky clean and no liars on that side of the fence?

    Hell no! I’ve written long tirades against them that are all over the web, but EVERY modern day Republican should be ashamed they went with Ronald Reagan’s 11th commandment and won’t criticize another Republican even when they’re hurting the country.

    Let me ask you, has your opinion of the 2nd amendment changed based on the debate so far?

    I think people should be able to own a gun as protection against those more powerful then they are, but I don’t think they are appropriate in grade school. I am sympathetic to police officers who don’t want to face automatic weapons, but these are tough questions.

    Ted Nugent is a lying shit head who wants to scare everybody into shuting up. That is un-American.

  175. #176 by Albert O. on April 24, 2008 - 8:33 pm

    Can you imagine someone applying the same restrictions to other fundamental rights? Needing a permit to write a newspaper article, giving fingerprints prior to joining a new church, etc.

    Ah, er, oh, ah … Earth to Bob, last I knew newspaper articles and joining a church were not considered inherently dangerous activities, at least not where I live.

  176. #177 by Larry Bergan on April 24, 2008 - 8:37 pm

    jdberger:

    I’m not a Wesley Clark expert, but he’s a better American then all of Bush’s generals put together, (that is the multitudes who haven’t quit.)

    I’m proud of the fact that I gave Kucinich $500.00 and Howard Dean $700.00 dollars in the 2004 election even though I am a poor man. John Kerry can go to hell for not fighting for us when they stole his election.

    Kucinich has more guts in his fingernails then Ted Nugent has in his entire body. So does Cynthia McKinney!

  177. #178 by Nephi on April 24, 2008 - 9:05 pm

    Holy cat’s meow!!! Scanning through the above is mind boggling.

    My dog is staying out of this fight, but one thing is for certain: having Ted N. as a spokesperson for the NRA (or what ever position he holds) would be akin to having George Bush as a spokesperson for the ACLU. Not on my watch!

    Keep up the good fight, folks.

    BTW, I have lots of guns, but am not a hard-right believer in the 2nd Amendment. Reasonable regulation is the best course of action. Let’s just hope the Supremes have the balls to rule reasonably!

  178. #179 by jdberger on April 24, 2008 - 9:27 pm

    Nephi – the Second Amendment isn’t a “hard right” issue.

    If I remember correctly, the Black Panthers thought the world of the Second Amendment.

  179. #180 by Blink Da! on April 24, 2008 - 10:27 pm

    So you don’t like Terrible Ted, well Wango de Tango, and to be sure we got us a Free for All.

    He is perfect for the job. His attitude is not one of compromise, it is of being Sentinel of the 2nd, and the inalienable right to own and bear personal arms.

    I can still remember him swinging out over the stage from a rope (vine) dressed only in a loincloth, and jumping off short 6 ft up, and landing on his knees, and sliding halfway across the stage. Then the concert began.

    He is the PERFECT man for the job to keep the gun grabbers on the defensive.

    Nephi the Supreme Court will be compelled by the history,precedence, and clarity of the 2nd amendment, and as such will do their job to uphold the personal right under Constitution to own and bear arms.

  180. #181 by Larry Bergan on April 24, 2008 - 10:36 pm

    I’ll give Ted one thing.

    He has a name. Unlike all of the cowards around here. That doesn’t take away from the fact that he shit his pants for a week to get out of serving his country while sending everybody else’s kid to die fighting in an unjust war for profit. My God!

    Well glenn, you’ve finally got all your friends around you. Just don’t be the first to run out on the battle field, if you know what I mean.

  181. #182 by Blink Da! on April 24, 2008 - 10:46 pm

    What are you complaining about? A certain dipshit invited them to come on over and play. This wasn’t started by those supporting legal gun ownership rights. It began with certain dipshit calling people liars and all.

    The name thing really stuffs you doesn’t it Larry? Just stick with the issues. If they are more meritorious than your own, at least that way you need not be pawned by someone that could take the credit.

    Waaa, Larry. Hang on, let me go get you your manky, uh blanky.

    You must know from the milblog fiasco that Cliff himself wanders all over the web using phony personas.

  182. #183 by Larry Bergan on April 25, 2008 - 12:37 am

    But glenn, I thought you were just like the forefathers, fighting for our great country’s freedom against all those politicians on both sides. The man who doesn’t need any of that silly hero worship.

    Unless, of course, it’s Teddy, get your guns, Nugent.

    Man! Somebody gave me some bad acid!

  183. #184 by Bob S. on April 25, 2008 - 9:14 am

    Albert,

    Guess what, owning a firearm is not an inherently dangerous activity either, but it along with the others are Constitutionally protected.

    I’ve owned firearms for a while now; they sit in a drawer locked away until I take them out. The firearms have never gone off by themselves, haven’t pointed themselves at others, definitely haven’t shot anything except some paper targets.

    My point on the post was why do we allow the government to impose limits on this right and not the other. Freedom of speech can, and has been mis-used, but no one would a permit themselves to walk around gagged (similar to hand gun ban) just because others could not restrain their speech, right?

    As far as joining a church as a dangerous activity, ask the Branch Davidians what they think, how about the FLDS in Eldorado Texas. Their compound was raided by SWAT teams, using an armored personnel carried. Is the freedom of religion more or less of a right than bearing arms?

    What reasonable regulations would anyone allow on the freedom of speech? Note this is not referring to things like news stations or newspapers running businesses, but every day freedom of speech like this blog, conversations at home, etc.
    Texas is luckier than most states but in order to purchase a firearm, I have to submit to a background check. Magazines, news papers, reading blogs let to people breaking the law, should everyone have to submit to a background check before reading Mr. Lyon’s blog?
    In order to carry a firearm in public, concealed; in Texas it is required to submit to another background check, submit fingerprints, take an 8 to 12 hour course, demonstrate competency with a handgun, and pay a $140 fee. Care to do the same for the right to join a talk on the street corner about Christianity or the local football team?
    There are approximately 20,000 laws on the books covering firearms, name any other Constitutionally protected right that is so regulated.

  184. #185 by caveat on April 25, 2008 - 10:04 am

    2 quick bits:

    Not all liberals are ‘gunshy’, nor are all conservatives ‘guncrazy’. too much of a generalization.

    Respectful ownership and use can be a whole lots of fun! (Though it’s getting more costly all the time).

  185. #186 by Albert O. on April 25, 2008 - 10:12 am

    There are approximately 20,000 laws on the books covering firearms, name any other Constitutionally protected right that is so regulated.

    As I said, firearms are inherently dangerous, and it is irresponsible to suggest otherwise!

  186. #187 by Utah Mom on April 25, 2008 - 10:21 am

    Bob S – I appreciate reading all of your posts and yes, I am more educated than I would have ever hoped or wanted to be regarding guns – But, NO, it doesn’t change my mind. I will continue to say no to guns until you can control the wack jobs.

  187. #188 by Bob S. on April 25, 2008 - 10:38 am

    Utah Mom,

    I would propose until more people own and use firearms safely, we will never be able to control the wack jobs.

  188. #189 by Cliff Lyon on April 25, 2008 - 11:29 am

    Bob, Your persistence is admirable though, I believe unrealistic.

    Of course guns ARE inherently dangerous. Hand guns and dangerous are synonymous.

    And this comment is so laden with hypocrisy, it does not merit a response.

    I would propose until more people own and use firearms safely, we will never be able to control the wack jobs.

    Hand guns serve one purpose and one purpose only; to kill people. A bullet fired from a hand gun is so powerful, it overrides any consideration of merit, fairness, notice, justice, safety, responsibility and sanity.

    What of my right to liberty and happiness if any schlock can pull out a gun and kill me? How can justice prevail if I am dead?

    Hand guns destroy the level playing field that serves the social contract of reasonable expectation of merit based reward.

    “Individual accountability” (the great republican canard) don’t mean shit if you shoot me dead.

    Here is the one argument that destroys your logic.

    There are many ways to defend yourself and your family without a hand gun. This is a fact. Right?

    What you are REALLY trying to argue is that you have the right to choose HOW you defend yourself.

    Unfortunately, THAT is not a right you have. The second amendment says NOTHING about right to defend your life any way you choose. You may not like that FACT, nonetheless, it is true.

    See, there is this thing called the social contract or the common good. These considerations are the ones that trump in constitutional interpretation.

    I suggest you accept, as so many hand gun owners do, that owning a gun is a privilege that can be taken way. You know it, I know it.

    Get used to it.

  189. #190 by Utah Dad on April 25, 2008 - 11:32 am

    How do we know Bob S. is not the wackjob? Who decides?

  190. #191 by Bob S. on April 25, 2008 - 11:33 am

    Albert,

    Sorry to disagree again, but it seems the courts also disagree. In Kansas the possesion of a firearm was not considered “inherently dangerous”

    The possession of the firearm when viewed in the abstract is not inherently dangerous to human life. This is true because it seems unlikely that mere possession, which has been defined as dominion and control over an object, and not its use, could be undertaken in so dangerous a manner that the prohibited possession would result in murder in the first degree.

    So where did the idea to label firearms as inherently
    Title: CEASE FIRE: A COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY TO REDUCE FIREARMS VIOLENCE
    Author(s): J Sugarmann ; K Rand
    Sale: Violence Policy Ctr
    Note: Violence Policy Center study
    Annotation: This study contains a comprehensive strategy to reduce firearms violence.
    “… It is the basic premise of this study that the first step in any such plan is to recognize firearms as inherently dangerous consumer products which should be subject to comprehensive regulation similar to that which exists for virtually all other such products…”

    So even the VPC an anti-gun organization sees that firearms are not considered inherently dangerous currently and is working to get them declared that way.

    This is all avoiding the issue I was trying to address.
    Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech or Press, Right to Peaceably assemble, Petition government for redress of grievance, No quartering of Troops without consent, Search and Seizure, No Warrants without probable cause, Grand Jury, Double Jeopardy, Due Process, Eminent Domain, Jury Trial, Speedy Trial, Right to confront accuser, Right of Counsel,Excess Bail, Cruel and Unusual punishment. Okay all of those we won’t stand for the government missing with, but it’s okay to impose 20,000 plus laws and regulations on a Right that states “…shall not be infringed”.

    So care to answer the question, would you put up with the same reasonable restrictions on any of those rights as what is imposed on the right to keep and bear arms?
    Want to have right to counsel, pay a $140 fee! Want to assemble at a friends house to watch a game…3 day waiting period and background check on the friend!
    Freedom of Speech – sorry not in a court house, public school or hundreds of other places.
    If handguns are inherently dangerous, PROVE IT. Cite court cases, laws, stating that firearms are inherently dangerous. Don’t just say they are because you say there are, PROVE IT.

  191. #192 by jdberger on April 25, 2008 - 11:43 am

    Albert? Can you please define “inherently dangerous”?

  192. #193 by jdberger on April 25, 2008 - 11:45 am

    Hand guns serve one purpose and one purpose only; to kill people.

    Mine must be defective, then…..

    Cliff, that’s your most asinine statement yet.

  193. #194 by Bob S. on April 25, 2008 - 11:55 am

    Cliff and all,
    Get ready this is going to take a while

    Of course guns ARE inherently dangerous. Hand guns and dangerous are synonymous.

    As I stated earlier, PROVE it. Show me where there is evidence.

    And this comment is so laden with hypocrisy, it does not merit a response.

    I would propose until more people own and use firearms safely, we will never be able to control the wack jobs.

    And yet you respond, again without evidence.

    Hand guns serve one purpose and one purpose only; to kill people. A bullet fired from a hand gun is so powerful, it overrides any consideration of merit, fairness, notice, justice, safety, responsibility and sanity.

    Handguns only serve one purpose…guess all of us target shooters have been doing it wrong. People also hunt game with handguns, better call them up and tell them they have the wrong targets.
    Overrides any consideration of merit, notice justice safety responsibility and sanity? I’m not sure what that means. Is it a measure of power? Expressed as what, foot pounds of pressure, if that is the case ban automobiles. They have more power than any bullet fired.

    What of my right to liberty and happiness if any schlock can pull out a gun and kill me? How can justice prevail if I am dead?

    Right to happiness — even the Declaration of Independence recognizes only the right to the pursuit of happiness. Are you saying that the world OWES you happiness?

    Any schlock can kill you with or without a firearm. I’ve stated repeatedly that someone’s rights end and the end of my nose. The criminal has no right to kill, but here is the big question, What can you do about it IF a criminal decides to take your life? Hope that the criminal will stop and consider your rights and go away, not going to happen and you know it.

    Hand guns destroy the level playing field that serves the social contract of reasonable expectation of merit based reward.

    Handguns far from destroying the level playing field re-inforces it. It equalizes the physical differences between people. Many people have said it “A handgun makes a 100 pound female the equal of a 200 pound rapist” Should we exist solely in a world of physical might?

    I’m not sure what the world you are saying with “reasonable expectation of merit based reward”. Care to explain?

    “Individual accountability” (the great republican canard) don’t mean shit if you shoot me dead.
    It means everything…to you – have you taken steps to protect yourself before your death, to the criminal it means that he will have to answer for his crime.
    Do you expect the police to be everywhere to keep you safe or should you step up and be responsible for your own safety.
    If I shoot you dead it would be ONLY because you were a criminal threatening me and/or my family. My individual accountability is to use my firearms responsibly.

    Here is the one argument that destroys your logic.

    There are many ways to defend yourself and your family without a hand gun. This is a fact. Right?

    What you are REALLY trying to argue is that you have the right to choose HOW you defend yourself.

    Unfortunately, THAT is not a right you have. The second amendment says NOTHING about right to defend your life any way you choose. You may not like that FACT, nonetheless, it is true.

    Okay, thought we’ve covered this one before, but I’ll do it again for the slow or disbelievers. The 2nd amendment does not say that I have a right to defend myself, it says my right to defend myself with firearms should not be infringed.
    My right to defend myself any way I choose exists prior to the Constitution; it is a natural right. If the social contract we operate under does not agree with my choice, then I can be punished.
    Again, where is your evidence or support for this argument besides your own feelings?

    See, there is this thing called the social contract or the common good. These considerations are the ones that trump in constitutional interpretation.

    I suggest you accept, as so many hand gun owners do, that owning a gun is a privilege that can be taken way. You know it, I know it.

    Get used to it.

    Sorry, my ownership of firearms is not a privilege and I strongly suggest that you never try to take it away. Get used to that.

  194. #195 by Utah Mom on April 25, 2008 - 11:56 am

    JD – come on- what’s the purpose of a hand gun then? Big game hunting?

  195. #196 by Cliff on April 25, 2008 - 12:15 pm

    Please Bob S,

    You would like me to prove hand guns are inherently dangerous? Under one condition. Disclose yourself and you credentials. I do not have time to play games with an amateur.

    Step up to plate with your real name, degrees profession and any other backbone related items at you disposal, otherwise, its just gun play.

  196. #197 by Bob S. on April 25, 2008 - 12:24 pm

    Cliff

    What difference does my background or credentials make?
    Prove or show that what I’ve posted is false or inaccurate.

    You don’t have time to play games with an amateur? But unless you are a Constitutional legal expert, aren’t you an amateur yourself?

    I and others have provided citation and documentation for our claims, you state things but do not back them up with evidence or support.

    I see this as another attempt to avoid the subjects. Why can’t you provide the citation or support?

  197. #198 by jdberger on April 25, 2008 - 12:29 pm

    Utah Dad Says:

    April 25th, 2008 at 11:32 am
    How do we know Bob S. is not the wackjob? Who decides?

    Utah Dad,

    Are you familiar with the concept of prior restraint?

  198. #199 by jdberger on April 25, 2008 - 12:40 pm

    Utah Mom Says:

    April 25th, 2008 at 11:56 am
    JD – come on- what’s the purpose of a hand gun then? Big game hunting?

    Actually, I compete in a number of disciplines with a handgun. In addition, I’ve hunted deer and javelina with a revolver, squirrels and rabbit with a semi-auto .22.

    Hunting with a handgun is more challenging than with a rifle.

  199. #200 by Utah Mom on April 25, 2008 - 12:50 pm

    JD – what is the original purchase of hand guns – not what they have “evolved” into?

  200. #201 by Bob S. on April 25, 2008 - 1:01 pm

    Utah Mom,

    the Original purpose of handguns was to defend oneself.
    Let’s move the goal posts again, eh? The original comment was “Hand guns serve one purpose and one purpose only; to kill people.” Now it’s what is the original purpose.

    Question is does it matter what the original or current purpose is? No, an knife was used to gut and clean game, dig plants, should we never use itto cut rope?

    Let me ask you what you would rather have in your hand IF (please note scenario) there was someone at your door trying to break it down, yelling he will rape every man woman and child in the house, a phone to call the police or a firearm?
    Most firearms are not used for crimes, doesn’t it make sense to punish the criminal than to ban the tool used?

  201. #202 by Blink Da! on April 25, 2008 - 1:14 pm

    Bob S., by now the appeal to sense is clearly pointless, you are dealing with a pathology.

    “You would like me to prove hand guns are inherently dangerous? Under one condition. Disclose yourself and you credentials. I do not have time to play games with an amateur”.

    You are a Schlemiel Cliff. Amateur? You define it. What purpose does it serve to know who defends their points better than you can attack? Uh, what are your credentials?

    We don’t care anyway, it is OK that you are not a particularly credentialed person.

    A handgun is like a camp stove, as a hatchet is to an axe, a tent is to a house, it will do, and is a minimumized version of the real thing.

    My friend uses his 8 3/8ths inch long barreled .357 magnum to hunt deer, and has killed them with it. Great for backup in bear country, and fun, takes another measure of skill to stalk and and kill with a pistol. All the while it is concealable, and more than enough to dispose of criminals with.

    Guns are made to kill things, the uses for hunting and personal defense evolved simultaneously. It is what they are for and that right to keep them is in the Bill of Rights. A pistol is just a less powerful gun.

    Yes, they are dangerous, they are meant to be, what is the point? We understand you don’t like them. I can’t stand SUVs, but they are everywhere and often in their own error the owners kill those in smaller vehicles. In far greater numbers than pistols.

  202. #203 by Blink Da! on April 25, 2008 - 1:23 pm

    Think about this Cliff, you live in a State that was made on the ideas of a man that had no credentials at all.

    Must drive you crazy to be living in what his untrained mind made.

  203. #204 by Ban the Tool. on April 25, 2008 - 1:43 pm

    How do we feel when we are around a policeman? Do you feel more secure, or are you fearful and have some measure of revulsion? If the latter, it is due to the fact that as a person having someone around that can consequence any of your actions does not appeal.

  204. #205 by Bob S. on April 25, 2008 - 1:43 pm

    Cliff,

    Recognize these words

    This is the beauty of the internet. Unsupportable public comments and the people who make them can be taken to task and a permanent record established.”

    You should….Now let’s see you support your public statements.

  205. #206 by jdberger on April 25, 2008 - 1:50 pm

    I dunno, Bob…

    I sure hope that you’re credentialed as a librarian or an archivist – otherwise your post is pretty suspect….

  206. #207 by Larry Bergan on April 25, 2008 - 1:52 pm

    Real hunters have a respect for life. Anybody who hunts deer with a handgun is an asshole. I’d have a fake name too if I ever admitted that.

  207. #208 by Bob S. on April 25, 2008 - 2:02 pm

    Larry,

    Could be really petty here and say “let’s see your credentials” but I won’t. There are a wide variety of handguns, some considerably more power than some rifle loads. Doing the research before making statements like that might help.

    I do my research and fact finding with nothing more than an internet search engine. How is it someone like me can find citations, legal standings and supporting evidence for the pro-gun side, but very few of the anti-gun side seem to be able to provide the same?
    And as far as a fake name, sorry Larry wrong again.

  208. #209 by Larry Bergan on April 25, 2008 - 2:11 pm

    Your last name is S?

    You’d have to be pretty darned close to the deer to get a good kill wouldn’t you, or would you care if you just wounded the entity.

    As for my credentials. I have no real credentials other then the fact my brother in law used to write for “Field and Stream” and wouldn’t have ever hunted deer with a handgun.

  209. #210 by Albert O. on April 25, 2008 - 2:19 pm

    Bob:

    Your statement that the “anti-gun” side is unable to provide citations, legal standings and supporting evidence is, to say it politely, quite laughable. Indeed, a cursory review of the amici briefs filed on behalf of the “anti-gun” position in the case now pending before the Supreme Court provides all that and more.

  210. #211 by Bob S. on April 25, 2008 - 2:26 pm

    Albert,

    I am sorry if I didn’t make it clear, but I was referring to this blog and thread

    Tell me who on the anti-gun side on this blog has provide anything close to the documentation or support for their side that the pro-gun side has.

    Larry, I was attempting a joke; like most of mine it was feeble. The point is, I don’t ask for credentials because they don’t matter. Statements like anyone hunting deer with a handgun is an asshole is derogatory, inflammatory and unsupported.

  211. #212 by Larry Bergan on April 25, 2008 - 2:30 pm

    caveat said:

    Not all liberals are ‘gunshy’, nor are all conservatives ‘guncrazy’. too much of a generalization.

    That may be true, but it IS against the rules to criticize a fellow Republican and the “gunshy” Republican is best to keep it a secret.

    Oh, and speaking of Republicans not EVER criticizing other republicans or even lying scum like Ted Nugent, lets see if Bob S. will criticize the Homeland Securtiy Chief, Micheal Chertoff for this recent gem:

    a fingerprint is hardly personal data because you leave it on glasses and silverware and articles all over the world, they’re like footprints. They’re not particularly private.

    After all, on this very thread Bob S. said this:

    Since 1934 with the NFA, the right to keep and bear arms has been whittled away. Can you imagine someone applying the same restrictions to other fundamental rights? Needing a permit to write a newspaper article, giving fingerprints prior to joining a new church, etc.

    Now be careful Bob, this is a pretty powerful guy who doesn’t even need to know your real name to determine who you are.

    Bob?
    Anybody?

  212. #213 by Bob S. on April 25, 2008 - 2:38 pm

    Larry,

    I will say it very clear, it’s bullsh*t. Unless I am suspected in a crime, my body and what I leave behind is my property, invading that privacy should require a warrant.

    Care to answer some of the questions posed, what other rights would it be acceptable to have the same restrictions firearms have?

    By the way Larry, supporting a person is not the same as never criticizing them for one, I’ve never claimed to be a republican for two – there is a difference between republican and conservative, much like the difference between democrat and liberal.
    Repeatedly, I’ve tried to address the issues, not the people.

  213. #214 by Larry Bergan on April 25, 2008 - 2:42 pm

    Bush determines every right you have. What difference does it make?

    Stop being so civil. Just say it. It’s bullshit and so is this entire administration, (the ones who haven’t bailed.)

  214. #215 by jdberger on April 25, 2008 - 2:43 pm

    You’d have to be pretty darned close to the deer to get a good kill wouldn’t you, or would you care if you just wounded the entity.

    Yes, Larry. You have to get pretty close.

    You may now return to your jenkum.

  215. #216 by Larry Bergan on April 25, 2008 - 2:45 pm

    Go get high on Nugent’s smelly shorts, jd whoever.

  216. #217 by Ban the Tool. on April 25, 2008 - 3:37 pm

    With the long barreled magnum, the shot was at 15o feet, and the animal was down and dead within seconds.

    People I know in Vermont hunted deer with a .22 rifle successfully, often shooting the animal dead without a break. It isn’t for people who are bad shots though.

    Larry there are people I know that have killed brown bears at close range in self defense with a .357, but that is about as small as a gun as is likely advised.

    People hunt with bow and arrow, which often does not kill instantly, the animal is bled to death by the razor arrow wound, and tracked as it flees. Do you think that is hunting? Real boar hunters in sport use spears, and the range is very close for that. Pistol hunting is a much more even match for the beast, than a hunter with a HP rifle.

    Larry, what gives, no one here would support chertoffs’ crazy tactics. He won’t attempt guns yet as that would bring their whole anti- constitutional agenda to a crashing halt. I knew you supported gun rights deep down. Thanks for the chertoff reference, it helps the cause in convincing people the gov’t has no place opposing the Bill of Rights.

  217. #218 by caveat, quizling (real name) on April 25, 2008 - 4:02 pm

    “Bush determines every right you have”!

    Larry, I respectfully differ. Bush is, at the very least a scum-sucking-lame-duck-liar and war criminal whose real impact on anyone with a brain is nil (except for the dead, injured, poisoned, and of course the RICH). He should never have been appoiinted, should have been impeached, and hopefully will face some accountability in the near future.

    In the mean time larry, take a deep breath…Let it out slowly through your nose…Repeat.

    I don’t recall any thread on 1Ut having this many comments. Have we broken a record here? Does anyone keep score?

  218. #219 by Ban Tools, vote out Congress on April 25, 2008 - 7:35 pm

    Gives you just a little idea where the mainstream attitudes lie. That it is a bit of a drubbing is excused by the question;

    Who started it?

  219. #220 by Bob S. on April 25, 2008 - 8:06 pm

    Cliff,

    See you have a new post up but can’t bother to address the issues here. Is that a little elitism showing in your demand for my qualifications? Or is it simply avoidance?

    Unless you ban me, I will continue to post and to call you to task for your unsupported statements.

    Isn’t the internet great?

  220. #221 by Bob S. on April 25, 2008 - 8:09 pm

    Utah Mom and Dad,

    Since you seem to be unaware of the uses of handguns, please consider taking me up on an offer. I’ll find someone in your area to take you both out to the range for some target shooting. Most gunnies would be overjoyed to take you to the range and teach basic gun safety and marksmanship.

    I don’t know what area you are in, but I’m confident we can find someone. Or if you are in the Dallas Fort Worth area, I’ll be happy to spring for a no cost trip to the range.

  221. #222 by Larry Bergan on April 26, 2008 - 12:12 am

    I don’t know caveat. Have you read about presidential directive 51?
    Here’s an article from Slate which has a couple of interesting paragraphs, but read the whole thing, (if you dare):

    Scenario for 2008: Sometime in middle to late summer, perhaps early fall, a “terrorist attack,” or a natural disaster occurs, allowing Bush to suspend the elections in the name of “national security,” and take the control of the government via the “National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51″ and “Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20,” released by the WH May 9th of this year. He could remain in control as long as he wanted. Now, wouldn’t THAT be an interesting nightmare?

    And.

    I wish I did, but I see nothing in the document to prevent even a “localized” forest fire or hurricane from giving the president the right to throw long-established constitutional government out the window, institute a number of unspecified continuity policies, and run the country with the guidance of the “National Continuity Coordinator” and with the “Continuity Policy Coordination Committee” for as long as the president sees fit.

    Bush has been known to ignore laws he didn’t find convenient and then later admit he broke them, not seeming to be worried. This one, he won’t even really need to break.

    George W. Bush
    President Of The United States 2001-

  222. #223 by caveat, quizling (real name) on April 26, 2008 - 5:42 am

    Ah yes, the stroke of His Master’s Mighty Pen! Gw sucks, the law is what it is, (the higher and the lower), he is only protoplasm and will be readily reabsorbed. This will likely cause some gagging – that’s just a natural reflex. He’s only a dick-tater in his own small mind.

    As for possible triggers, Limbaugh would also include the rioting in Denver by the Obama folks when Hil finally becomes the nominee (He finds this ‘Dreamy’). I say, they’ve been living in thier own little paranoid delusion far too long, but…they have the media to help thier story line along. I guess anything can happen.

    I’m presuming we’ll be raptured up, up, and away.

  223. #224 by Larry Bergan on April 26, 2008 - 2:08 pm

    Limbaugh incites riots at the Democratic National Convention and Cheney becomes the permanent “National Continuity Coordinator.”

    Delicious!

  224. #225 by caveat, quizling (real name) on April 26, 2008 - 3:25 pm

    Permanent til somebody stomps his mechanical ‘heart’ (and they’re taking bids on e-bay for that very gleeful act as I write).

  225. #226 by jdberger on June 4, 2008 - 9:57 am

    Geez – Cliff? Trying to boost your Google rankings?

    Do you have any evidence that we “trolls” are being paid by the gun lobby?

  226. #227 by fire on April 16, 2013 - 1:53 am

    a nice rebuttal

    I find this very amusing:*It should be noted that Gary Kleck has refused to defend his study ever since it was published.

    Note to readers: OneUtah is a leading publisher of accurate, trustworthy, legal and scientific information about gun rights, guns, violence, gun violence and the psychology of CCP holders

    seems someone likes to post Inaccurate info and push their agenda with half truths…read the published rebuttal that exposed the debunkers

    http://www.saf.org/journal/11/kleckfinal.htm

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: