The Second Amendment IS NOT An Individual Right And Has Nothing to Do with Gun Ownership

Since OneUtah enjoys an audience of the most vocal proponents of arming American to the teeth ( I call you Bubbas), it seems appropriate to provide this EXCELLENT legal, historical analysis of the Second Amendment for ongoing reference.

Cheat Sheet for Bubbas:

  1. The word ‘militia’ appears 5 times in the constitution.

  2. Nineteenth Century state courts construed “bear arms” as having a purely military function

If you are semi-conscious today, you probably think your Second Amendment rights all but require every citizen carry a grenade launcher to defend himself, family, property, dog and pretty much anyone who happens to be within range of his choice of ammunition. And you probably think the ‘right to bear arms’ was intended as an individual right and has always been interpreted as such.

AND, you would be wrong…DEAD WRONG.

The Gun Lobby’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.  The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies – the militia – would be maintained for the defense of the state.  The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires. – Chief Justice Warren Burger, “The Right to Bear Arms,” Parade Magazine, January 14, 1990

Ever notice self-proclaimed Second Amendment experts (Bubbas) VIRTUALLY IGNORE the word “MILITIA?”  Of course you have.  No self-respecting NRA member, nor the average, spineless gun toting coward would DARE read the actual text of the Second Amendment even if they could.

NRA Enabler of death

NRA Enabler of death

So, it is up to the rest of us to get real clear on the Original Intent of the Second Amendment.  A slow, careful read of the the article (below) is sufficient to arm yourself to the gills to pound any gun freak into the ground.

The Second Amendment Has Nothing to Do with Gun Ownership.

Sample Excerpt:

“Six of the original 13 states, when ratifying the Constitution, proposed amendments which would become the Bill of Rights.  Four of these six ratifying conventions – those of New York, Virginia, Rhode Island and North Carolina – proposed amendments whose language closely mirrored what would become the Second Amendment.  But the debates at the ratifying conventions in these four states make it clear that the delegates wanted to guarantee the right of the states to have militias, despite the constitutional empowerment to the Congress to arm the militias.”

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  1. #1 by Mike Murphy on December 27, 2012 - 12:48 pm

    More ‘cut and paste’ garbage from Cliff as expected. He continues to lie, call names, deceive and misrepresent the issue in an attempt to forward a communist agenda in his absurd and juvenile prose.

    Since Cliff is unable to comprehend, much less provide an intelligent response to prior comments I’ve made within this forum I’ll provide said text once again in an effort to educate and enlighten those confused by the communist/modern liberal rhetoric and propaganda. I don’t expect to change Cliff’s distorted view on this or any other subject. He is of a ‘liberal’ mind and has lost all objectivity.

    Let’s take a look at the Second Amendment in its entirety:
    “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.”

    This single sentence can be interpreted however one chooses, and like much of the bible, has been. I don’t see how this one sentence can be interpreted to state that ONLY the Militia is allowed to keep and bear Arms. The amendment clearly states “the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms” not strictly the Militia. Even if we stretch the amendment to give the right to keep and bear arms ONLY to the militia that still gives those rights to every civilian. Let’s define “Militia”:
    “A military force of civilians to supplement a regular army in an emergency.”

    As one should clearly see, even if we stretch the amendment the right to keep and bear arms extends to each and every citizen. I agree basic requirements should be in place prior to being allowed to purchase and carry a firearm (e.g. background check for past convictions and mental health) but enforcement of the current laws is sufficient. Further bans on weapon types and capacities are ill conceived and will never yield a decrease in violent crime; they never have and never will. It’s suicidal to hand over our rights to the government when we see the corruption and usurpation of authority within all levels of government increasing every day. Why should I trust a federal government filled with corruption and seeking to erode our Constitutional rights and confiscate more and more of my personal property? That’s not only insane but naïve and foolish.

    It’s comical for Bill Moyers to characterize the NRA as “weak-kneed and delusional” when he and others who share his opinion feel that further bans on firearms and reliance on the police will bring security. Anyone who has worked in or with law enforcement knows that police rarely do more than provide a clean-up detail following violent crimes. Response times prevent police from arriving in time to save lives and prevent crime. People scoff at proposals to have teachers or school staff carry firearms or keep one locked up on site for emergencies; how ignorant. Instead, they propose hiring an armed guard at each school. Who would bear the cost of this $100k+ annual expense? The schools can’t even afford paper, the states are broke and the federal government bankrupt. Even so, an armed guard is a liability. They would be the first target of an assailant. Look at banks; armed guards in those institutions are the first target to be neutralized and banks continue to be robbed.

    It’s too bad so many people these days expect government to do everything for them. You want an example of the ‘entitlement class’ Cliff? That’s it: a group of people who are willing to sell their rights to the federal government in hopes of security. It is outside the federal government’s authority to provide personal security. Security from foreign nations only is the express purpose. Security within our states, towns and communities is an individual responsibility guaranteed by responsible citizens and mutual respect. What happened to personal responsibility, accountability and a can-do attitude so manifest in our forefathers? The American way is not passing off to government that which we can do for ourselves.

  2. #2 by cav on December 27, 2012 - 4:00 pm

    Boy, Mike, That first sentence so articulates your position that there’s really not much reason to go on reading. If Cliff posted it, mark 180 degrees counterpoint, including the honesty, morality and good sense so obviously lacking in Cliff’s writing – all of it dipped in ‘Pink’, so to speak, and there you have Mike Murphy. Oh. But you were egged on, therefore quite justified in coming out so ‘sensibly’. Well. I didn’t, and likely won’t, read past that. Too bad, one sensed a brain in there somewhere. Perhaps I project too much.

  3. #4 by Mike Murphy on December 27, 2012 - 4:47 pm

    cav :
    Boy, Mike, That first sentence so articulates your position that there’s really not much reason to go on reading. …

    Anyone possessing the least bit of reading comprehension and having read a few of our posts should well understand Cliff and I differ on most everything. His appear to be an ideology of central control of every aspect of our lives, a ‘nanny state’ mentality where individuals must rely on big brother to provide the necessities of life and tell them what to think and grant them little in the way of rights, expecting everyone to “just get along” and play nice. How very naive. My ideology is one which preserves individual rights, responsibility and accountability; one preserving traditional conservative values which accounted for the founding of this great country.

    cav: I’ve already written you off as one exhibiting ADD and incapable of forming a point or comprehending information and performing an analysis. Funny that when I call a spade a spade you question my “sensibility”. Am I being un-Christian when I criticize another so harshly? How dare I? Yet, when a modern liberal seeks to mislead, misinform, call gun owners “bubbas” and attempt to reinterpret the Constitution it’s expected and normal.

    Insurance for gun owners? It’s covered under homeowners insurance in the event my property is damaged. If a gun owner goes crazy and commits murder there is legal recourse and civil suits available. How would insurance compensate for the loss of a loved one? Will a monetary settlement take away the pain, sorrow and misery of those families who’ve suffered such a terrible loss? No way.

    I have yet to hear of any recommendation from the Left which would in any way mitigate, much less prevent future mass killings. Obama appointing Biden to head some committee to look into this problem is a joke. Biden is so misinformed he cannot even pay attention to his daily intel briefings much less form a rational thought in his stuffy head.

  4. #5 by Richard Warnick on December 27, 2012 - 5:24 pm

    Mike, your defense of the Second Amendment might be more credible if you did not heartily approve of government actions that violate the rest of the Bill of Rights, and the right of habeas corpus.

    USA PATRIOT Act
    FISA Amendments
    Section 1021 of the NDAA

    Rights and freedoms affected:

    Freedom from unreasonable searches
    Right to a speedy and public trial
    Freedom of association
    Right to legal representation
    Freedom of speech
    Right to liberty

  5. #6 by Mike Murphy on December 27, 2012 - 5:29 pm

    Richard: Please explain how you feel those rights you’ve noted are impinged by the Patriot Act? Was it not you who needed an education regarding the role of the NSA? Your conspiracy theories hold no water.

    How many Dem’s voted for the initial implementation and reinstatement of the Patriot Act? Hundreds, to include the endorsement of Obama.

  6. #7 by Larry Bergan on December 27, 2012 - 7:09 pm

    Most democrats are well aware that Obama could be doing a lot more to turn back the abuses of the constitution that went into overdrive under Bush II, but the only time the right criticizes those abuses at all, is to say ‘well your guy’s doing it too’.

    All the rest of the time they’re talking about birth certificates and other nonsense that doesn’t matter.

  7. #8 by Larry Bergan on December 27, 2012 - 7:14 pm

    What has come over WordPress lately?

  8. #9 by Cliff Lyon on December 28, 2012 - 7:39 am

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/21/1172692/-Fighting-the-NRA-leadership-means-knowing-who-is-in-it

    “One only has to look to the NRA’s Board of Directors to discover that the organization is operated by a group of individuals who promote racism, misogyny, homophobia, anti-immigrant animus, religious bigotry, anti-environmentalism, and insurrectionism. Some active board members have even had close relationships with brutal dictators in outside nations. Put simply, members of the NRA leadership no longer make for polite company”

    The whole list:

    Joe Allbaugh (Board Member)
    Graham Hill (Board Member)
    Scott Bach (Board Member)
    Steve Hornady (Board Member)
    Buster Bachhuber (Board Member)
    Roy Innis (Board Member)
    Carol Bambery (Board Member)
    Joaquin Jackson (Board Member)
    Bob Barr (Board Member)
    David Keene (Board Member)
    Ronnie Barrett (Board Member)
    Tom King (Board Member)
    Clel Baudler (Board Member)
    Herbert Lanford (Board Member)
    Ken Blackwell (Board Member)
    Wayne LaPierre (Executive Vice President and CEO)
    Matt Blunt (Board Member)
    Karl Malone (Board Member)
    John Bolton (Chairman of International Affairs Subcommittee)
    John Milius (Board Member)
    Rep. Dan Boren (Board Member)
    Buz Mills (Board Member)
    Bob Brown (Board Member)
    Cleta Mitchell (Board Member)
    Pete Brownell (Board Member)
    Grover Norquist (Board Member)
    John Burtt (Board Member)
    Chuck Norris (Celebrity Spokesperson)
    Dave Butz (Board Member)
    Oliver North (Board Member)
    Harlon Carter (Former NRA Executive Vice President)
    Ted Nugent (Board Member)
    Richard Childress (Board Member)
    Johnny Nugent (Board Member)
    Jim Porter (First Vice President)
    Chris Cox (Executive Director)
    Jay Printz (Board Member)
    David Coy (Board Member)
    Todd Rathner (Board Member)
    Larry Craig (Board Member)
    Kayne Robinson (Executive Director of NRA General Operations Division)
    Wayne Anthony Ross (Board Member)
    R. Lee Ermey (Board Member)
    Ron Schmeits (Board Member)
    Manny Fernandez (Board Member)
    Tom Selleck (Board Member)
    Sandy Froman (Board Member)
    John Sigler (Board Member)
    Jim Gilmore (Board Member)
    Linda Walker (Board Member)
    Marion Hammer (Board Member)
    Maria Heil (Board Member)
    Rep. Don Young (Board Member)

    “Getting to know these individuals and making their views and interests widely known to Americans is essential in our fight to reduce the chances of another Aurora or Newtown massacre.”

  9. #10 by Lyman Hall on December 28, 2012 - 8:54 am

    Karl Malone is a racist?

    Maria Heil is a misogynist?

    Who knew?

  10. #11 by Mike Murphy on December 28, 2012 - 10:09 am

    “Getting to know these individuals and making their views and interests widely known to Americans is essential in our fight to reduce the chances of another Aurora or Newtown massacre.” -Timothy Lange(?)

    And how is it exactly that reading a modern-liberal rant regarding the slanderous ‘backgrounds’ of NRA leadership will reduce the chances of mass killings?

    Lange’s rap sheet (below) is quite enlightening:

    “Real Name: Timothy Lange

    DOB: 1946

    Gender: Male

    Location: Los Angeles, CA, United States

    Groups: DK GreenRoots, Daily Kos Elections, Daily Kos, Income Inequality Kos, Climate Change News Roundup, Team DFH, Rape and Domestic Violence, Pro Choice, Progressive Policy Zone, EcoJustice, SFKossacks, Native American Netroots, Daily Kos Photo Cooperative, In Support of Labor and Unions, California politics, ClassWarfare Newsletter: WallStreet VS Working Class Global Occupy movement, Kosowatt, Daily Kos Labor, Discussing Race At Daily Kos, Barriers and Bridges, Occupy Wall Street, New Diarists, NAN FNN&V Diary Staging , Okiciyap (we help), * NEW DAY * Team, Climate Change SOS, Daily Kos Economics” -Dailykos contributor profile for Meteor Blades

    GreenRoots, income equality, pro-choice, progressive policy, ecojustice, labor and unions, occupy movements…

    All catch words from the Communist Party USA.

  11. #12 by cav on December 28, 2012 - 10:17 am

    No links? Nothing about his Dad’s involvement in LIBOR?

    That list should enable any pretend psychologist to come up with some kind of diagnosis. Give it a stab Maestro..

  12. #13 by cav on December 28, 2012 - 10:22 am

    NRA / Fox bumper-sticker:

    “guns don’t kill people, gun-free school zones kill people”

  13. #14 by Lyman Hall on December 28, 2012 - 11:03 am

    The word “privacy” does not appear in the Constitution at all. Neither does the word “abortion”. Neither does the Constitution guaranty equality of outcomes nor to protected groups and classes. Nevertheless, the professional Left obsesses and lies on group rights, group entitlement of outcomes, the right to abort a baby based on mythical Constitutional privacy. Clifford the Big Red Dog pretends he knows something about the Constitution with his cut and paste “analysis”. But it is merely a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.

  14. #15 by Richard Warnick on December 28, 2012 - 11:27 am

    Mike–

    You were wrong about the NSA. They illegally monitor all electronic communications without warrants.

    The foundations of this surveillance apparatus were laid soon after 9/11, when President George W. Bush authorized the N.S.A. to monitor the communications records of Americans who analysts suspected had a “nexus to terrorism.” Acting on dubious legal authority, and without warrants, the N.S.A. began intercepting huge amounts of information.

    But the N.S.A. came up with more dead ends than viable leads and put a premium on collecting information rather than making sense of it. The N.S.A. created what one senior Bush administration official later described as a “mirror” of AT&T’s databases, which allowed ready access to the personal communications moving over much of the country’s telecom infrastructure. The N.S.A. fed its bounty into software that created a dizzying social-network diagram of interconnected points and lines. The agency’s software geeks called it “the BAG,” which stood for “big ass graph.”

    Today, this global surveillance system continues to grow. It now collects so much digital detritus — e-mails, calls, text messages, cellphone location data and a catalog of computer viruses — that the N.S.A. is building a 1-million-square-foot facility in the Utah desert to store and process it.

    You can’t support the widespread warrantless surveillance of Americans, in blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment, and also claim to support the Bill of Rights.

  15. #16 by Lyman Hall on December 28, 2012 - 11:35 am

    Progressives have no interest in the Constitutional at all. They have no regard for at all the phrases “equal protection” “public use” or the 9th or the 10th Amendments in their entirety. So Progressives have no standing at all in any Constitutional discussion.

  16. #17 by Mike Murphy on December 28, 2012 - 12:32 pm

    Richard: You haven’t stated or pasted anything that could not be found in the various books written about the NSA. I worked at a national lab on the very programs described by your paste. The problem is one of providing national security by detection vs. providing clean-up and prosecution following incidents of terror. It’s not enough to catch the perps AFTER thousands have been killed. The mission is detection and apprehension PRIOR to such an incident and more importantly a denial of capability. Non-proliferation is another of our missions.

    I’ll gladly allow the government to preemptively monitor communications if the net result is over a decade without a major domestic terror incident and hundreds of thwarted attempts. I don’t like the compromise of privacy but this is a nasty world we live in and security and privacy/convenience tend to be mutually exclusive. Also, being intimately familiar with the shortfalls of the system makes me more and more aware of the need for personal responsibility rather than reliance on the government. They already have their hands full at the national/regional level.

  17. #18 by cav on December 28, 2012 - 2:26 pm

    And Lyman, you know the interests of the Progressives just how, exactly?

    Is it your contention that you, and those who believe as you do gift standing in Constitutional or any other such discussion?

    News-Flash: extract your head from Uranus. It’s needed on the home-front.

  18. #19 by Lyman Hall on December 28, 2012 - 2:42 pm

    Because I read what they say and that is what they say.

  19. #20 by Ronald D. Hunt on December 28, 2012 - 5:12 pm

    cav,

    Its a no means yes situation, like date rape in the 1980′s. The conservatives have so distorted the meanings of words, that opposites are their means for describing sameness, and sameness is their means for describing opposites.

  20. #21 by cav on December 28, 2012 - 5:53 pm

    I guess my most pressing question is: How is it that one side only seems to think they are the rightful key-holder in discussions of ANY kind?

    Despite whatever projected stance your reading of the material may have produced.

    I know I’m off topic, but this rankles me almost as much as the struggle for ‘correct’ framing.

    It’s a test, and if my memory of history is at all correct, YOU LOST the recent election. Perhaps just a little introspection about just why that may have occurred is in order. A clue…it wasn’t so much the money.

  21. #22 by RudiZink on December 28, 2012 - 6:01 pm

    Robust 1998 David Harmer article from the Brigham Young University Law Review, whilst we debate the founders’ purposes in eventually “crafting” the Second Amendment:

    SECURING A FREE STATE: WHY THE SECOND AMENDMENT MATTERS

    While I have no particular ax to grind on this topic, I do believe it’s pertinent to the instant discussion.

  22. #23 by Larry Bergan on December 28, 2012 - 7:48 pm

    RudiZink:

    Wow! That’s longer then the whole constitution isn’t it.

    Simplify, Simplify, Simplify.

  23. #24 by cav on December 28, 2012 - 7:57 pm

    Larry, I’m glad you picked up on that.

  24. #25 by Lyman Hall on December 28, 2012 - 8:00 pm

    cav, based on Cliff’s insulting and sarcastic post I’d say that he thinks he is the rightful key-holder in this any every other discussion.

    It’s a test, and if my memory of history is at all correct, WE LIVE in a system of checks and balances, therefore the one guy who leads 1/3rd of the government does not get to ram whatever he thinks down the throats of everyone just because he won 51% of the popular vote. Please read the Constitution and get back to me when you understand the concept of co-equal branches of government. You did take junior high civics didn’t you?

    I know I’m off topic, but this rankles me almost as much as the struggle for ‘correct’ framing.

  25. #26 by Larry Bergan on December 28, 2012 - 8:02 pm

    Now if we can just get Mike Murphy to condense some of his stuff.

    Wordiness is not wisdom, it’s wordiness.

    Well, OK, decades of mind garbage has to be carefully disseminated. Sorry if that was rude, but some of this stuff is REALLY old and boring.

  26. #27 by Larry Bergan on December 28, 2012 - 8:17 pm

    Lyman:

    Stop it!

    George W. Bush’s executive cabal shoved everything they wanted to down our throats for 8 years and they stole BOTH presidential elections.

  27. #28 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on December 29, 2012 - 12:51 am

    Cliff–

    If it is not an individual right, it should be. Self-defense is a human right, not a civil one, and it extends so far as is necessary to properly defend oneself without subjecting others to superior risk than that which the extension of the right is meant to manage. The Pennsylvania minority opposition to ratification of the Constitution raised this very concern–that people have a right to bear arms (including guns) for their own self-defense. There are proper limits to this ownership, of course (as I have already suggested), but it is a human right nevertheless.

  28. #29 by Lyman Hall on December 29, 2012 - 6:50 am

    Bush didn’t have a Democratic House. Obama has a Republican House. Bush did not shove everything he wanted. There was lots he wanted to do and couldn’t get passed. Please try to remain factual and not hysterical.

  29. #30 by cav on December 29, 2012 - 8:20 am

    Dwight! Good to see you.

  30. #31 by cav on December 29, 2012 - 9:04 am

    Anyone else wondering why Peace and cooperation can’ get traction in the land of guns and oligarchy?

    Iran…Benghazi!!!!

  31. #32 by cav on December 29, 2012 - 2:42 pm

    by Michael Medved

    “Our government has been hijacked by a party obsessed with a higher power. But I’m not talking about the GOP. I’m talking about the left and their worship of government.

    The same dynamic characterizes most of today’s foreign-policy and defense debates. Right-wingers passionately proclaim the ideal of “peace through strength,” arguing that a powerful, self-confident America with dominant military resources remains the only guarantee of national security. Progressives, on the other hand, dream of multilateral consensus, comprehensive treaties, disarmament, grand peace deals, and vastly enhanced authority for the United Nations. Once again, liberals place a touching and naive faith in the ideal of a higher power—potential world government—while conservatives insist that the United States, like any nation, must ultimately rely only on itself.

    Regarding the great tax-and-spend battles presently pushing the nation ever closer toward the dreaded fiscal cliff, the right argues that the economy will perform better if money is controlled by those who earn it while the left wants to government to make better, more generous decisions on how to invest that money. Despite abundant evidence to the contrary from the failed welfare states of Western Europe, liberals maintain unwavering devotion to the notion that taking funds out of the private sector will miraculously generate more private-sector economic growth.”

  32. #33 by Larry Bergan on December 29, 2012 - 3:55 pm

    Is Michael Medved looking to be the ultimate poster boy for insanity?: Making the same mistakes over and over and wondering why he’s getting the same result.

    All he’s doing is reciting the winger line for the last 40 years, word for word. Does he consider himself to be somebody who earns his money? Try to do what I do everyday, pal and stop being a lazy scribe.

    Does anybody really listen to this guy anymore?

  33. #34 by cav on December 29, 2012 - 4:39 pm

    That’s part of the point I’d like to make for Lyman. Everybody’s reading everybody not making sense, then passing it all back and forth unwittingly promoting the divisiveness that keeps the greed-heads on top. He can say, after listening to Rachel that he senses what the left is thinking, and, of course Medved says it’s BAD – and we can say after reading Medved, we know what the right (wrong) is thinking, and Ed Shults helps us understand just how BAD it is. And the sponsor lists have such incredible overlap, you just have to wonder where the truth – if there is any, lies. I’m beginning to think little if any of it is really of much value.

    Though I still like shooting my mouf off on the blogz. It’s entertaining. But I’m winding down. Maybe someone will write their ‘Representatives’ and be the straw that swung the deal the peoples way. Ya gotta hope.

  34. #35 by Lyman Hall on December 29, 2012 - 5:45 pm

    There is no Left and Right.

    There is just the Elites and everyone else.

    Mika Brzezinski makes $2 million per year to be the lesser host on a show named after someone else. And she says “America has lost its soul” since it isn’t fair.

    Indeed it has.

  35. #36 by Richard Warnick on December 29, 2012 - 5:57 pm

    Mike wrote, in reference to massive government violations of the Fourth Amendment: “this is a nasty world we live in and security and privacy/convenience tend to be mutually exclusive.” But no one in authority said that the government had to ignore the Constitution during World War II or the Cold War.

    Indeed, no government officials have tried to publicly defend what they are doing now. Congress just quietly re-authorized wholesale domestic surveillance of Americans. The Obama administration urged Congress to reject modest amendments designed to allow for oversight of surveillance activities. Without any oversight, there is no available evidence that warrantless spying on Americans has accomplished anything – let alone the results Mike claims.

    What if I said, “Forget the Second Amendment because it’s a nasty world and I don’t want evil people to have firearms?” Isn’t that the logical equivalent? For the record, I want to emphasize I would never say that, because I believe in the rule of law. In fact, the gun lobby won’t even let the government prohibit people on the terrorism watch list from buying weapons!

  36. #37 by cav on December 29, 2012 - 6:30 pm

    I’m not trying to defend Gitmo, but if the entire DC press corps / corporate media was interred there for a few years I think a case could be made that Gitmo is not completely evil. Just a thought.

  37. #38 by Larry Bergan on December 29, 2012 - 6:50 pm

    Pundits need to be elected every two years on hand-marked, hand-counted ballots.

  38. #39 by Larry Bergan on December 29, 2012 - 7:07 pm

    New years resolution for fake conservatives:

    Country first; money second.

  39. #40 by cav on December 30, 2012 - 9:04 am

    When the only thing people see are lies promulagated by their owners they start to believe the lies.

    “The corporate grip on opinion in the United States is one of the wonders of the Western world. No First World country has ever managed to eliminate so entirely from its media all objectivity-much less dissent. ”

    - Gore Vidal

    And of course, we’re all addicted.

  40. #41 by Larry Bergan on December 30, 2012 - 1:15 pm

    RSP

    Gore Vidal and others.

    Farnsworth’s screen is getting thinner.

  41. #42 by Ken on January 3, 2013 - 9:11 am

    Many want to ban guns but what they are really saying is they want to impose a new prohibition on the legal manufacturing and sale of guns and transfer the gun industry to the black market and criminal gun and drug lords that will quickly fill the void the legal gun market leaves for them.

  42. #43 by Richard Warnick on January 3, 2013 - 9:56 am

    Who wants to “ban guns”?

  43. #44 by Mike Murphy on January 3, 2013 - 10:27 am

    Richard Warnick :
    Who wants to “ban guns”?

    Is this yet another instance of the extremely short memories of yet another ‘Liberal’ suffering selective amnesia? How very coy. Try going back and reading the title of this article and Cliff Lyon’s lame defense of an equally lame article contending “the Second Amendment has nothing to do with gun ownership”.

  44. #45 by Richard Warnick on January 3, 2013 - 11:19 am

    I think progressives would like the Supreme Court to reverse itself on the Heller decision, which was a mistake. That’s not the same as wanting to “ban guns.”

    There is no constitutional right to own an automobile. But nobody wants to ban them.

  45. #46 by Mike Murphy on January 3, 2013 - 11:24 am

    Richard Warnick :
    I think progressives would like the Supreme Court to reverse itself on Heller, which was a mistake.

    And why do you feel the Supreme Courts ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller was a mistake?

  46. #47 by Richard Warnick on January 3, 2013 - 11:29 am

    Because the Second Amendment governs the formation of state militias. The intent of the Amendment was to avoid having a standing army.

    The Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago. Its purpose is long past. As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.

  47. #48 by Mike Murphy on January 3, 2013 - 11:43 am

    That is a stunning insight. However, you’re going to have a difficult time proving “the intent of the Amendment” with little more than a link to an article written by someone lacking any experience in the subject much less a single citation aside from their own ‘super-psychology’ nonsense.

    From the link: “The unspeakable purpose of the Second Amendment was to support slavery and genocide. We’ve outlawed slavery and genocide. Now it’s time to rethink the Second Amendment.” What? To think that to outlaw a thing is the equivalent to eradicating it from existence stems from the same flawed thinking that gave us the assault weapons ban.

    Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
    You won’t see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
    Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

    A more sensible article: http://www.policymic.com/articles/21816/assault-weapons-ban-why-it-probably-won-t-work-and-why-that-s-a-good-thing

  48. #49 by Mike Murphy on January 3, 2013 - 11:49 am

    Nice ninja-edits Richard. What? You didn’t like your link once you took the time to actually read it? Good for you.

    Shame on John Paul Stevens and thank goodness he’s retired.

  49. #50 by cav on January 3, 2013 - 11:54 am

    Another stunning insight might come when the gun nuts stop glossing over ‘regulated’ when it comes up in the 2nd Amendment – as they always do.

  50. #51 by Richard Warnick on January 3, 2013 - 6:20 pm

    Found a better link that I agree with more. It’s a fact that when the Second Amendment was adopted, having militias was regarded as an alternative to a standing army. And that’s what the Amendment was about.

  51. #52 by brewski on January 3, 2013 - 7:11 pm

    “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every
    Kingdom of Europe. The Supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the
    sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to
    any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.”

    NOAH WEBSTER, AN EXAMINATION INTO THE LEADING PRINCIPLES OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION PROPOSED BY THE
    LATE CONVENTION HELD AT PHILADELPHIA 43 (Philadelphia 1787), reprinted in PAMPHLETS ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
    STATES PUBLISHED DURING ITS DISCUSSION BY THE PEOPLE: 1787-1788, at 5 (Paul L. Ford ed., 1888).

    “Besides
    the advantage of being armed, which Americans possess over the people of almost every
    other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are
    (pg.1027) attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the
    enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any
    form can admit of.”

    THE FEDERALIST No. 46, at 310, 311 (James Madison) (Modern Library ed., 1937).

    ‘In summary, both Federalists and Antifederalists believed that the main danger to the
    republic was tyrannical government and the ultimate check on tyrannical government was an armed population.”

    THE HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT
    DAVID E. VANDERCOY
    Professor of Law, Valparaiso University School of Law

  52. #53 by Bob S. on January 4, 2013 - 3:39 pm

    Let’s just suppose that Cliff is right (Stop laughing, it could happen and the 2nd Amendment does not protect a right to keep and bear arms.

    That still leaves to a small problem; the 9th Amendment

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Richard,

    For you to deny that people, many people, want to ban firearms is either complete ignorance of the ‘conversation’ going on in the country or a flat out lie.

    And since you seem like a well-informed individual……

    Cav,

    Anyone else wondering why Peace and cooperation can’ get traction in the land of guns and oligarchy?

    Strange to see that crime and violence are still trending lower

    Preliminary figures released today indicate that the number of violent crimes and property crimes reported by law enforcement across the nation during 2011 decreased when compared to 2010 figures.

    Specifically, according to our Preliminary Annual Uniform Crime Report, January-December 2011, violent crimes fell 4.0 percent, and property crimes dropped 0.8 percent. Arson—also a property crime even though its data is considered separately because of various levels of participation by reporting agencies—was down 5.0 percent overall.

    Per the F.B.I.

    And as far as the ‘regulated’ can you show the meaning of it as used then and how it doesn’t fit now?

    We have more people participating in shooting sports with fewer injuries and deaths. We have more people shooting and carrying firearms. So how are the people not well trained in the use of their weapons?

  53. #54 by Richard Warnick on January 4, 2013 - 5:49 pm

    Bob S.–

    I would be surprised if a day went by without you or brewski calling me a liar – it’s your term for anyone who uses facts.

    If “many people” are calling for a firearms ban, logically there must be many links you can point to. There aren’t. What you are calling a “firearms ban” is simply a set of common-sense gun regulations that even NRA members favor.

  54. #55 by brewski on January 4, 2013 - 10:18 pm

    Richard,
    I have caught you in scores of intentional false statements. You have no idea what a fact is anymore. You call an actual fact which gets in the way of your twisted world view to be merely an anecdote, even if it applies to millions of people. Or you just ignore it all together and change the subject. You are about the worst debater on any subject since….well since Cliff, Glenden and Shane. They at least have the sense to know when they have lost and simply censor me.

  55. #56 by Shane on January 5, 2013 - 10:04 am

    Richard, I am curious, every time you mention gun regulations, a group shows up here to inform us all that no regulations can ever be passed for guns. It is against the constitution after all. Perhaps the problem is the word itself. Do they also feel there can bento regulations on speech? Shall we all go forth and yell ” fire!” in crowded theaters? Do they fight as hard to protect occupy wall street when they are not allowed to assemble peaceably? We already have read that a select few support warrantless wiretaps, so we have a taste of hypocrisy, but what about all the other rights they allow to be trampled while screaming that “liberals hate the constitution”?

    Gitmo clearly represents a right to a speedy and public trial. What president brought us that again? Certainly it also protects the idea of imposing no cruel or unusual punishments. And before they start bitching about technicalities, it has been used against both citizens and non, yes, but can we actually refer to them as “rights” and also claim that they do not belong to all people?

    Speaking of rights not enumerated alla the IXth, I assume all these gun advocates are “up in arms” if you will pardone the phrase, for marriage rights. The LGBT community will be glad to hear it.

    I assume brewski is also defending the non-enumerated right to sovereignty over your own body by defending a woman’s right to choose with his gun collection. Yes?

    We could go on.

    The problem, which any reasonable person could see (and thus the gun nuts can’t) is that not only is the right to wander around town with a hidden semiautomatic weapon not an actual right, but even if it where that does mean that it cannot be regulated.

  56. #57 by Richard Warnick on January 5, 2013 - 10:26 am

    brewski–

    I have never made an “intentional false statement” on this blog. On rare occasions when I said something mistaken, I corrected myself.

    You know this.

    Shane–

    Like you, I find it curious that gun fetishists and right-wingers generally make a VERY selective reading of the Constitution. Bob S. has simultaneously defended and rejected the Bill of Rights with regard to guns and warrantless surveillance.

  57. #58 by Shane on January 5, 2013 - 10:48 am

    Well Richard, if you have not knowingly lied on this blog, that makes one of you.

    Unlike the gun restriction bills that aren’t actually out there, here is a bill that goes against the bill of rights and is actually being submitted. I assume all the conservative constitution supporters here are on their way!

    http://thinkprogress.org.feedsportal.com/c/34726/f/638927/s/27323230/l/0Lthinkprogress0Borg0Cjustice0C20A130C0A10C0A40C13976510Cindiana0Elawmaker0Ewants0Eto0Egive0Eschools0Ethe0Epower0Eto0Emandate0Eprayer0Ein0Eclassrooms0C/story01.htm

  58. #59 by brewski on January 5, 2013 - 11:46 am

    I have caught you many times making intentional false statements. You’ve been busted numerous times. You know this.

  59. #60 by cav on January 5, 2013 - 1:35 pm

    For example: Up ain’t really down. I lied.

  60. #61 by Shane on January 5, 2013 - 2:31 pm

    Meanwhile, in the reality based world, gun ownership keeps going up, mass shootings along with it, and the number of crimes prevented remains negligible and the dictatorships over thrown remains steady at none.

  61. #62 by Shane on January 5, 2013 - 3:04 pm

    Hey look, another great chance for these blowhard defenders of the constitution to put their money where their mouths are. Go to it! Attack the republicans!

    “It’s the first week of the 113th Congress, and one House member is already trying to stop children born in the United States to undocumented parents — whom he calls “anchor babies” — from gaining citizenship.

    Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), an outspoken hardliner on immigration, introduced a bill on Thursday that would “clarify those classes of individuals born in the United States who are nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.” The Supreme Court has consistently held that anyone born in the United States, regardless of their parents’ immigration status, should receive citizenship under the 14th Amendment.

    King disagrees, as do 13 co-sponsors on the bill, including Reps. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) and Mo Brooks (R-Ala.).”

  62. #63 by Larry Bergan on January 5, 2013 - 5:49 pm

    It’s nice to know that the gun nuts are, at least, not sure how to go about putting on gun shows in Connecticut. There are ads trying to get people out to shows, but a strong voice that is saying it’s much to early and insensitive to jump back into this right now.

    It must be excruciatingly painful for the gun sellers to be in this position at the exact time gun sales are soaring.

    Very sad, indeed.

  63. #64 by Shane on January 5, 2013 - 7:50 pm

    But now is when they need a gun show! Arm those teachers!

  64. #65 by Larry Bergan on January 5, 2013 - 9:33 pm

    Give the teachers weapons and badges paid for with taxpayer money.

    The market DOES work!

  65. #66 by rmwarnick on January 5, 2013 - 10:31 pm

    Watched the TV news tonight. The gun show in Sandy ran out of caliber .223 (assault rifle) ammo before noon today.

  66. #67 by Larry Bergan on January 5, 2013 - 11:08 pm

    Richard:

    This must have been what you were talking about:

    I never knew why they were building this huge venue, which, as far as I know only sells guns and boats. I’ve never gone there because I didn’t need or want either one, so I don’t know what else they sell.

    What would Jesus say?

  67. #68 by Larry Bergan on January 5, 2013 - 11:26 pm

    For that matter:

    What would the prophet of the church of jesus christ say?

    Hard questions.

  68. #69 by Shane on January 6, 2013 - 9:17 am

    Not really. Jesus supports killing people. More people have been killed in his name than any other…

  69. #70 by cav on January 6, 2013 - 10:09 am

    I would suggest Jesus has become the historical figure who perennially takes the rap for present day bad behavior. And, thanks to him, our sins will all be washed away.

    I do believe!

  70. #71 by Larry Bergan on January 6, 2013 - 11:04 am

    I have a cut on my finger.

    Oww!

    But, luckily; I haven’t procured more a catastrophic catastrophe, which would cause the richest among us to pay-up.

    I relent.

  71. #72 by Shane on January 6, 2013 - 1:01 pm

    Well cav, I mostly agree, but first he would have to be an historical figure, and there just isn’t a lot to back that up.

    Sure, given the time and place setting yourself forward as a messiah was a popular gig, so odds are there was not one, but several Yesuahs so to speak.

    None of that matters though, because people are more interested in the myth than the man (existent or not) and if you hear a small voice that excuses how you already want to behave… Well, why not let that voice be Jesus.

    Amazing, aren’t we?

  72. #73 by Lyman Hall on January 7, 2013 - 8:12 am

  73. #74 by Shane on January 8, 2013 - 9:01 am

    Yeah, I have read it. Pretty pathetic. If your “evidence” for an historical Jesus is a guy who accepts rather a lot of the miracles as actually happening despite literally zero reliable proof, what exactly does it take to prove existence? That he heard about the guy once therefore he must be? Laughable. As evidence you present someone who starts from the assumption that Jesus was a speciffic identifiable person and then proceeds to rework the gospel from there? It would be funny if it werent that you probably believe such tripe.

    Yet more proof of brewskis “fact based” understanding of the world, where by “fact” he means anything he really thinks is true….

    Bring me something that would stand up in court you nameless coward.

  74. #75 by Lyman Hall on January 8, 2013 - 9:27 am

    “Bring me something that would stand up in court you nameless coward.”

    OK, you are an illiterate uneducated sniveling loser dickhead. I have all of the evidence I need on that. That would stand up in court.

    You don’t like my name?

  75. #76 by Shane on January 8, 2013 - 9:54 am

    See, you provide the punch line every time.

    …and Dave, I know you’re reading this, one post, I win the pool.

  76. #77 by Mike Murphy on January 8, 2013 - 10:21 am

    It’s disappointing this ‘debate’ has digressed once again to name calling and more misinformation. Yet again we see outright disrespect of deity and calls for “facts”. From what I’ve seen, no matter how many ‘facts’, links or citations one brings to the table these forums are not the venue in which anyone will change their opinions, much less belief process or ideology.

    As to the historical existence of Jesus Christ: there is just as tangible proof of his existence (or more) than there is of any other figure of that period. We could go into the argument of proving a negative (that he didn’t exist) but that’s a never ending circle of debate. If one chooses not to believe they won’t believe, but that doesn’t prove anything and certainly doesn’t make Jesus Christ any less real. I’d like to make the point that because people may act in the name of Christ certainly does not give his consent. “What would Jesus do?” How can one know a master one has not served?

    Back to the topic: The contention the Second Amendment is not an individual right. Might this not also imply the other amendments are not individual rights? Was free speech intended for only print media and not digital? Certainly the Framers didn’t intend to cover the internet since it hadn’t been conceived at the time. Why would they need to include an amendment granting government the right to bear arms? As if lacking such amendment the government would not assume this right as all other governments previously had. The argument advocating a government-only right to bear arms falls apart upon any reasonable scrutiny, much less study of events of the time an personal memoirs of the Founding Fathers.

  77. #78 by Shane on January 8, 2013 - 11:07 am

    (I may have to post something about the Jesus thing…. I am considering it.)

    Does the claim that the Second Amendment is not an individual right imply other amendments are similar?

    Well, how many of the other amendments include an opening phrase that implies the amendment is aimed at a particular use? Does the first say “The States, having a need to redress grievenses toward…” or maybe “A corperations right to influence legislation….” No. It states only that there shall be no law abridging freedom of speech. The second however clearly opens with “A well regulated Militia.” That seems to imply control, supervision, rules and *cough* regulations. It also implies a military force made up of the civil population.

    Notice that this is not a “government-only” right, whatever that means, but a government regulated right. From this you could argue that you must be a member of a State or government group, or that everyone who owns arms can be called to service, or that some right to bear arms must be protected. Any of those are reasonable, possible arguments.

    What is clearly not in the amendment is what many gun advocates support, a totally free and unsupervised and unregulated ownership of weapons that our founding fathers couldn’t have dreamed of. Nothing in the amedment states that you have a right to a high capacity magazine, armor piercing rounds, grenade launchers….

    What we need to be talking about is not “can the gov’ment take ma guns? When they pry it from my cold dead hands!” but rather the fact that we regulate rights based on their potential uses and threats. You do have a right to free speech. You do not have a right to yell fire in a crowded theater. You do have a right to own a gun. You do not get the right without measures of protection. If society deems it reasonable to state that people with mental issues give up that right, then they have lost it. If society deems it reasonable to restrict automatic weapons, then they should be.

    The majority (even amoung NRA members) feel that the restrictions we can have on gun ownership include many common sense measures we are not taking up. We should. Rather than wasting our time on the bad arguments that gun nuts throw out in an effort to block all rules, we should be ignoring them and passing reasonable laws.

    Sadly, as long as many congress critters (mostly, but not all, republican) are owned lock stock and barrel by the gun manufacturers that won’t happen.

  78. #79 by Mike Murphy on January 8, 2013 - 11:36 am

    Shane: You’ve made some good points and have helped to make mine; that the Constitutional amendments are individual rights. The fact that the Second Amendment makes mention of “A well regulated Militia,…” does not imply the remaining text ONLY applies to a “military force made up of the civil population”, whatever that is. A military force could be a group of ten private citizens out on the range shooting trap. Next in the amendment “the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms,…”. Notice how it does NOT state the right of the militia, or the government but the PEOPLE to keep (own) and bear (carry) Arms. I don’t see any specifics as to magazine capacity, auto or semi automatic, bore size, grenade vs. flare launcher; just Arms otherwise known as weapons. And the final part “shall not be infringed.”

    Let’s look up Webster’s definition of ‘infringe’: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

    This would seem to imply that our right to keep and bear Arms; no matter the type, quantity, place, etc…; is not to be encroached upon and the regulation is to be upon the organization of the militia, not the type etc. of Arms which may be borne. This is why talk of banning firearms by type is an example of asking the wrong question which always results in doing nothing to address the underlying issue: how to prevent violent crime.

    I’m a firm believer in the Second Amendment and I exercise that right every day. However, with freedom comes responsibility and I realize that although I may be responsible to exercise this right without harming others this is unfortunately not the case with some. This requires that I must submit myself to background checks and pay fees for such services. I also must pay for and attend courses to allow legal exercise of my Constitutional rights. I don’t have a problem with that and neither do most others. The problem I have is with politicians whose knee-jerk reaction to violent crime is to add further regulations which would do little more than cause myself and other law-abiding citizens to pay more fees and jump through more hoops without addressing the underlying cause of the violent crime.

    It’s ironic that the same groups and individuals who cry for more firearms regulation are the same groups who cry foul when requirements for voter identification are proposed. Keeping and bearing arms is a great responsibility, as is the democratic process of one voter, one vote. If the expectation is that gun owners/bearers such as myself be required to carry government issued photo ID for which I paid to attend training and passed background checks and submitted ourselves to testing in order to obtain, why not expect the same of those individuals who think to elect our representatives in Washington? Think about it, those representatives have the potential of causing much more harm than an individual citizen. Our current president makes this point explicitly.

  79. #80 by Shane on January 8, 2013 - 12:30 pm

    Mike, I still, despite Cliffs post (I disagree with many here about gun ownership) agree that gun rights are individual. However the phrasing of the second amendment can be interpreted by a reasonable person to by a matter primarily for a militia rather than an individual. I disagree, but it can be read that way and a reasonable argument made. There are arguments so bad as to not be worth considering but I feel this one is fairly good, simply wrong.

    I do not excercise the rights in the second amendment. I find it silly and pointless. Not for everyone, but for me. I am more able to defend myself without a gun than with, and I have done so in the past. If other wish to own guns, that is fine.

    I agree with you that such a right has to be regulated, and also that some would have knee-jerk reactions that do no good in addressing the underlying issue. See for example the blame placed on video games. There is a simple measure we can use to debunk this. The games are available in many places that do not have our gun violence problems. What is not available in most of those is unfettered access to guns. Since the first bill introduced after the most recent publicly discussed shooting was about video games, I would say the knee jerk reactions tend to be about issues other than fees and hoops for gun owners.

    The issue over gun regulation and voter regulation is pretty simple: gun regulations might delay purchase of a new gun for legitimate owners but (at least for the vast majority of regulations proposed) almost never stops legitimate purchase. Voter ID laws stop hundreds of thousands of legimate voters but prevent only a handful of illigetimate votes.

    Personally, I support the idea of passing a basic citizenship class in order to vote. That however is profoundly unconstitutional. I also support the idea that voting should be done on a manditory day off, with any other measures we can think of to encourage voting not discourage it. Thus one of the reasons I cannot support the current republican party and their “suppress the vote” strategy.

    Lastly, if you want to end with a dig at the current president as doing so much harm, you are going to have to back that up. I am not a huge fan of many of his policies, but he is orders of magnitude better than the last president or the other two options on the ballot at the time of his election. One of the great problems with his administration is that rather than being forced to address the real issues he is doing poorly on (say drone strikes or warrentless wire taps) he can simply avoid the issue since the other party has been reduced to birthers and muslim conspiracy theorists, and his own party won’t critisize him while they have such great cover fire. And unlike the last president, he was elected. That alone counts for something.

    On topic, the end result however is that all of the possible legitimate inturpretations of the second allow for regulation of the right, and the majority of Americans support regulations which have been shown in other countries to reduce gun deaths. Lets enact those regulations. Afterwords, if you want to go out shooting, I prefer pistols, I was never any good with a rifle.

  80. #81 by Mike Murphy on January 8, 2013 - 1:23 pm

    A militia, which I provided the definition for previously on this thread, is made up of private citizens. Therefore, even constraining the right to a militia retains an individual right to ownership and carry.

    It’s completely understandable some feel it’s pointless to own or carry firearms. There are many things I feel are pointless to own and carry and may be equally harmful. However, I have no right to decide what another may own or carry. Similarly, the government also does not have that right, only the right to regulate. How would you propose further regulating firearms in a meaningful way? Meaningful being a way in which violent crime is reduced yet law-abiding citizens retain their rights. “Lets enact those regulations.” For example? …

    How have voter ID laws stopped “hundreds of thousands of legimate[sic] voters”? It can be argued that if one lacks the means to obtain a government issues photo ID they lack to ability to make a rational choice on the ballot. It’s safe to assume the vast majority of these “hundreds of thousands” are not only low-information voters but also extremely poor, minorities or recent immigrants (probably illegal) and on some form of public assistance. Dems seek to protect the voting rights of such people because these constitute a vast proportion of their voting base, thus more public assistance programs (e.g. bribes). Many of us put our lives on the line, some gave their lives, to protect the democratic process. I cannot stand to see this right given away.

    You want to discuss Obama’s failed record? Which standard of measure would cause any informed voter to re-elect one who has failed so miserably? Why bring up Bush? I don’t believe he ran in 2008 or 2012. In 2008 Obama was an unvetted unknown who had a shady past tinged by communist and terrorist mentors and having done NOTHING politically. In 2012 he continued to pass the buck and complain that the job was more difficult than he’d been led to believe and the uninformed continued to blame Bush for the economy despite trillion dollar budget deficits and an economy already over the cliff but deceptively buoyed by the manipulations of the Fed. More informed Dems began seeing early on that Obama was just another politician but remain on the bandwagon. Sites such as UtahOne do a good job of cherry-picking news articles bemoaning and mocking the idiocy of the Republicans. However, the dysfunction extends throughout both parties near equally.

  81. #82 by Shane on January 8, 2013 - 2:33 pm

    A government is also made of individuals, as are countries and cultures. I do not have the right to levy taxes. I have no idea what your first paragraph is meant to prove.

    For example? Large capacity clips should be outlawed. Gunshow loopholes closed, internet sales shut down. There are several more.

    Speaking of assumptions, (as per your other comments in the purity thread) I am not going to get into your boarderline racist and uneducated comments about Voter ID laws except to point out that if you want to make the argument that they weed out “low-information voters” we could say much the same about any similar gun regulation. You can’t afford the $4000 license fee? Likely an uneducated redneck gun buyer.

    Yes those are great assumptions about voters. Do you also believe the “Obama gave me a free cell phone!” story line? Amazing.

    I do like your bribes comment. It didn’t take long to get to the racist heart of the Fox News type BS peddling did it? Communist and terrorist Obama mentors! Oh Noes! Next we will blame the economy on the president who actually did the most to…

    Yep, there it is! “continue to blame Bush for the economy…” Imagine that some people have the nerve to blame the man who proposed the tax cuts and started the wars that are the two largest reasons the defict ballooned and the economy sank for *gasp* the deficit and economy!

    This is why I so often start out supporting gun rights and end up thinking I was wrong. People who make uneducated boarderline (or outright) racist brain washed rightwing comments are almost always the ones who support gun rights. And the arguments are always the same. “Obama was an unknown!” Yeah I guess serving in government and spending several months having the entire republican party dig through your entire life just leave you a complete mystery, huh? Is that really how good the opposition research is on the right? Really?

    And I notice you didn’t actually point to any, you know, failure on Obamas part. Just typical rightwing bitching about fairy tales by the rightwing media. I can name actual problematic policies. I already did in fact.

    Alright, you exposed yourself. Just another little rightwing nutter. But atleast you made it like, I don’t know, four posts before you resorted to standard rightwing lies/talking points?

    Great to have met you. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

  82. #83 by cav on January 8, 2013 - 3:11 pm

    I think Glenden’s use of the forgotten broad middle ground is helpful in areas other than where he plopped it down. It certainly exists between the Kenyan Muslim Social(mac)ist, and the Magic Negro Prince. IOW he’s a guy who had the balls and the support to make the run and perhaps the not so good fortune to actually win it. Hell, it could have been Madam Palin.

    It is disconcerting to see the Republicans, and here I don’t necessarily refer to the base voters, though they need to be better informed, repeatedly blow up the economy – followed by Democratic attempts to restore it thereafter, only to cycle through that same ridiculous scenario over and over again.

    Anyway, back to the broad unconsidered middle-ground – this is, of course where most of us reside, the vast majority hover near the somewhat sensible middle. Despite the jargon, I sense most of the _____nuts are not wholly irredeemable. In fact in many ways, they too should shun the real extremist that work so hard to propagate the big lies that have us going at each other. (See neocons).

    Why should any of us be forced into these wacked debates, where the framing is bought and paid for. Money and skill don’t always equate.

  83. #84 by Mike Murphy on January 8, 2013 - 3:30 pm

    “I have no idea what your first paragraph is meant to prove.”

    Start with the Tenth Amendment and see where that takes you.

    Acknowledging facts, not “assumptions” surrounding the topic of the poor and low-information voters does not make one a “racist”. Rather, voting for someone BECAUSE of race is racist. Obama remains an unknown to most of his supporters. To feel otherwise would be to acknowledge his supporters are themselves communists. Obama is on record repeatedly espousing socialist/communist ideals. Redistribution of wealth and demagoguery of capitalism and corporations being the hallmarks of such an ideology. Your decision to relegate these facts to a whimsical racist conspiracy theory is typical of modern-liberals when their ‘messiah’ is taken to task for his shady background. The facts have been uncovered for all to see but most people don’t want to know and simply don’t care.

    Which of my statements do you deem “racist”? Let the truth cut where it may.

    In your mind Bush “started the wars that are the two largest reasons the defict ballooned and the economy sank”. Both are outright LIES and you should know it, else I’ve given you credit for more intelligence than you actually possess. Saddam: invasion of Kuwait, twelve years of ignoring UN decrees and perpetration of mass genocide, Taliban/Al Qaeda: atrocities against women, mass genocide, plotting and attempted killing of millions of Americans. Both seem rather ripe for ousting given circumstances they created. Certainly Bush didn’t create these circumstances, though he may have taken some personal satisfaction in the case of Saddam. However much these wars cost our country how has Obama done in keeping his campaign promise to cut the deficit in half? It was a ridiculous and naive claim to say the least but rather than cut it in half he has ADDED what $6 TRILLION? Don’t think to blame congress for that and his many other failures:

    -Unemployment over 8 percent.
    -The United States debt is $16 trillion.
    -No budget has been passed during his term.
    -A new entitlement passed that is now forecast to cost more than $1.7 trillion during the next 10 years.
    -46 million people are receiving food stamps.
    -A decrease in the net worth of almost all Americans.
    -No plan submitted to save Social Security or Medicare.
    -14 million people are projected to lose their employer-sponsored health care.
    -No immigration reform even proposed.
    -College tuition is up over 8 percent in 2011.
    -Foreign policy of weakness and appeasement that has created a Middle East crisis and puts the United States at risk.
    -$26 billion IOU to taxpayers from General Motors, that will likely never be paid (more pandering for big labor votes).
    -Watching a US ambassador be dragged from the Benghazi consulate and murdered rather than risk an incident which may have hurt aspirations of re-election, then have others tell ridiculous lies in an attempt to reflect blame and cover it up.

    Those aren’t “fairy-tales” you get from the Huffington Post, they’re a few sad highlights from a failed Obama presidency that the ‘racists’ who re-elected him fail to acknowledge. I say “racists” because certainly it was his race that caused them to vote for him, it couldn’t have been his record. Could 50+ million voter be deaf, dumb and blind? If they were informed by network news sources they may as well have been.

    You think to pigeon-hole me as “Just another little rightwing nutter.” How convenient for you. Rather than contend with my points you can simply dismiss them as crazy without further comment. Tell me, where did you get your ‘facts’ and talking points? Are you not just another modern-liberal with communistic ideals but would rather think of yourself as ‘progressive’? I find nothing unique about your arguments that would indicate much more than a passing understanding of a handful of issues.

    Aside from regretting the time I’ve wasted attempting to reason with people such as yourself (which I believe is the goal of UtahOne), what makes you think I’m leaving?

  84. #85 by Richard Warnick on January 8, 2013 - 5:43 pm

    I never watch Piers Morgan, so I missed the spectacular meltdown by 9/11 conspiracy theorist Alex Jones last night. Unfortunately, Jones is not the only one deluded enough to think he needs guns to fight the U.S. government.

  85. #86 by Larry Bergan on January 8, 2013 - 5:50 pm

    Mike Murphy says:

    Many of us put our lives on the line, some gave their lives, to protect the democratic process. I cannot stand to see this right given away.

    The “democratic process” fails if people can’t vote and know their votes are being counted. It would be idiotic for an illegal, (as you call them), to attempt to vote. It just doesn’t happen and is a proven fact that it doesn’t happen.

    I am white, I was born here, and tend to vote for Democrats. I have no idea if my vote is being counted on the machines which have Republican ties.

    I HATE being repetitive, because it makes me boring, but the F’n machines have Republican ties.

  86. #87 by Larry Bergan on January 8, 2013 - 6:54 pm

    Case in point:

    I’m sorry, but as many times as people can call me a theorist, i can try to get the truth out.

    I have no ties with Alex Jones, but I have grave questions about 911.

  87. #88 by Shane on January 8, 2013 - 8:32 pm

    Richard, I guess I have ever been smart enough to figure it out on my own, but assuming you have a gun, any gun at all, any ammo, any cartridge. Do you really think that is going to help hold off a drone strike? Why do some of these people think the second amendment is going to help them fight off an actual military force? Despite an organized resistance and the fact that the countries in question are other countries, having a gun around has never been all that useful against jet fighters when we start bombing places like Iraq. Do these survivalist types really think that they are going to hold off the military of the country they are actually in?

    The other day I heard a radio program caller claim the second amedment meant he had a right to fight back against the government. The delusions of some people…

  88. #89 by cav on January 8, 2013 - 8:47 pm

    The delusions…

  89. #90 by Richard Warnick on January 8, 2013 - 11:46 pm

    Everybody in Fallujah had an AK-47. We know how that turned out.

  90. #91 by cav on January 9, 2013 - 9:15 am

    Well, on ‘our’ side anyway. But, they had yellow-cake, and hung the contractors from the bridge!

    Again, it’s the muskets versus drones asymmetry.

  91. #92 by jdberger on January 9, 2013 - 1:41 pm

    Of course, you assume that the folks flying the drones, running the tanks, flying the jet fighters will desire to kill their fellow citizens on mass.

    Consider also these insurgent movements.

    Angola
    Algeria
    Vietnam v.1 and v.2
    Afghanistan (1980s version)
    Palestine (still ongoing)
    Syria (still ongoing)

    All were victorious over a much more technologically advanced opponent.

    Underestimate the potential of a motivated insugency at your peril.

  92. #93 by cav on January 9, 2013 - 1:46 pm

    Yes, that assumption needs to be made, but other, preposterous assumptions occur to our ‘case-load’ regularly.

    A communications professor from Florida Atlantic University isn’t backing down from his theory that the mass killing of 20 children in Newtown, Connecticut may have never happened.

    Writing on his Memory Hole blog last month, Professor James Tracy asserted that it was “not unreasonable to suggest the Obama administration [had] complicity or direct oversight of an incident that has in very short order sparked a national debate” on gun control.

    “While it sounds like an outrageous claim, one is left to inquire whether the Sandy Hook shooting ever took place—at least in the way law enforcement authorities and the nation’s news media have described,” he declared, noting that no surveillance video of photos of bodies had been released by authorities.

    “Moreover, to suggest that [President Barack] Obama is not
    capable of deploying such techniques to achieve political ends is to similarly place ones faith in image and interpretation above substance and established fact, the exact inclination that in sum has brought America to such an impasse.”

    http://s.tt/1yc7L)

  93. #94 by Bob S. on January 9, 2013 - 2:18 pm

    Cav,

    A communications professor from Florida Atlantic University isn’t backing down from his theory that the mass killing of 20 children in Newtown, Connecticut may have never happened.

    Claiming it may not have happened (like you are doing ) isn’t being truthful.

    What he is claiming ( preposterously by the way), is it may not have happened as it was reported.

    Big difference and the quote you selected says that

    “While it sounds like an outrageous claim, one is left to inquire whether the Sandy Hook shooting ever took place—at least in the way law enforcement authorities and the nation’s news media have described,”,/b>

    We have enough to debate on the issue without grossly distorting an already outrageous claim.

  94. #95 by Richard Warnick on January 9, 2013 - 2:49 pm

    jd–

    I’d like to see your definition of “victorious.” Also, the fighters you reference had access to a wide range of military weaponry. For example in Afghanistan they had surface-to-air missiles, and in Syria both sides are using tanks.

    But seriously, don’t you wonder about the sanity of Americans such as Alex Jones who say they must have guns to fight the U.S. government?

  95. #96 by cav on January 9, 2013 - 2:51 pm

    Hi BobS. jdberger.

    That we do, and I apologize if my comments are diverting. I did not think sharing this article would be construed as promoting its truthfulness. I read it as you did. Honest. And as further reflection on the pathetic.

    On a personal note, if I may, Are you two associated beyond your commenting here? And, since you are both so well versed in these issues, are either of you slated to share your positions before the government committee work that’s about to begin?

    I’d be comforted by your rationality – were that the case.

  96. #97 by Bob S. on January 9, 2013 - 3:38 pm

    Cav,

    I am not associated with JD beyond commenting here. I came to the issue of armed self defense rather late in my life and given my nature conducted what I considered to be some thorough research on the issue. Thanks for the compliment sir.

    I am not slated to share my positions before anyone other then the court of public opinion here and else where.

    I’m comforted by your rationality but concerned by the lack of it displayed by so many others on this site.

    The hysterical over reaction — and worse blatant opportunistic use of any atrocity — to push an agenda is saddening.
    Reports indicate that Diane Feinstein had her assault weapon ban bill ready for over a year. So why didn’t she introduce it before the election?
    Or after the Colorado shooting…or before any shooting and let the people debate the merits of it?

  97. #98 by Richard Warnick on January 9, 2013 - 3:59 pm

    Bob S.–

    You accuse unnamed others of “blatant opportunistic use of any atrocity.” The flip side of that is gun rights fanatics who say it’s never the right time to debate sensible regulations during the short intervals between massacres.

    Since the expiration of the assault weapons ban, America has had to cope with a marked increase in mass shootings. Newtown was the fourth time President Obama went to comfort the victims of yet another such tragedy.

    Nobody is getting hysterical. We’re just fed up.

  98. #99 by Bob S. on January 9, 2013 - 6:52 pm

    Richard,

    The assault weapons ban expired in 2004 – surely we’ve had time to debate the issue since then.
    The blood dancing you and others engage in is using an atrocity like Sandy Hook to push your agenda — “It’s for the CHILDREN THIS TIME. We have to do SOMETHING”. instead of engaging in reasonable debate.

    Look at the ‘conversation’ here so far as an example. We ask forc changes that will benefit us and your reply is NOTHING of the sort. Some conversation….all the while you are breathlessly panting “Children died, we have to act NOW”.

    And the chart you reference doesn’t show an increase in the number of shootings, just more victims. How about linking to something that actually says what you claim?

    While you are less hysterical then most, you are still dancing in the blood with the majority of them.

    So, let’s talk — you want people to give up their rights; the right to keep and bear arms, to their privacy, to protect their family using legal means — what are you willing to give up?

    Let’s say we agree with Diane Feinstein’s proposal and outlaw private sales of firearms; do we get national reciprocity?
    If we register firearms, do we remove the restriction on fully automatic firearms manufactured since 1986?

    How about campus carry for colleges, 18 year olds being able to purchase firearms commercially — hey if they can vote or serve in the military surely they should be able to buy a firearm, right?

    Can you present any evidence – actual factual supported evidence (not just your repeated statements over and over again) that any of the laws we might implement will reduce violence?

    Myth 3: Incidents of mass murder are increasing

    When a mass murder occurs, it receives instant and pervasive news coverage. Unfortunately, we are prone to overestimate the frequency of an event by its prominence in our minds, and mass murder is no exception. This is a very rare phenomenon and is neither increasing nor decreasing in the US. Since 1976 there have been about 20 mass murders a year. 2003 was the most violent year for mass murder, with 30 incidents and 135 victims. Virginia Tech, Fort Hood, Edmund Oklahoma, and San Ysidro still resonate in the public consciousness, however, reminding us that these events do happen. A positive counterpoint is that rates of all violent crime have significantly decreased over this same time period, from 48 victims per 1000 persons in 1976 to 15 victims in 2010. The most lethal school mass murder in US history was in Bath, Michigan, in 1927, a bombing that resulted in 45 deaths, mostly children in the second to sixth grades.

    Myth 4: Banning assault weapons will lower the frequency of mass murder

    The most popular weapon chosen by mass murderers in the US is a 9 mm pistol, often a Glock. Usually they bring two or three firearms to the scene, and assault weapons such as the AR 15 or AK 47 are generally not utilized. Therefore it should come as no surprise that between 1994 and 2004, when the federal assault weapons ban was in effect, there was no decrease in the average number of mass murders per year in the US. However, guns do kill people. As a gun owner myself, and a believer in the Second Amendment, I find it appalling that virtually anyone can purchase a firearm with little effort, money, or time in the US. I believe that firearms ownership is a right that should have requirements: demonstrable competency in its use and mental stability.

    http://blog.oup.com/2012/09/seven-myths-of-mass-murder/

  99. #100 by Mike Murphy on January 9, 2013 - 9:18 pm

    Bob S. presents an excellent analysis and asked a similar question to my own. I have yet to hear an answer to this or Bob’s question: How would an ‘assault weapons’ or any other flavor of weapons ban prevent future incidents such as Sandy Hook or Aurora?
    Further, banning high-capacity magazines is equally ridiculous. Do you know how long it takes to change magazines? 3-5 seconds. If response time is 20 minutes, as it was at Sandy Hook, a few seconds added every ten rounds vs. 30 rounds is insignificant. Even if the response time is cut to 5 minutes it would have been more than enough time to perpetrate a similar crime. The responding officers in most cases lack the training and equipment to stop the incident and would only have set up a perimeter while they called in reinforcements. So how would a restriction on magazine capacity have helped those kids? It wouldn’t have made a bit of difference and anyone with the least bit of intelligence can see these types of laws are useless but for the purpose of annoying law abiding citizens and advancing an agenda that has nothing to do with saving lives.

    Shane: Where do you get your information regarding “drones”? Cartoon Network? Your use of the word “drone” betrays your ignorance in the subject. You sound like Alex Jones describing “hold[ing] off a drone strike”.

    Richard: The Battle of Fallujah was fought by US Marines vs. Iranian trained insurgents. As a Marine I can assure US citizens they are safe from a similar siege vs. US citizens exercising their Constitutional rights. An order to attack citizens exercising such rights is unlawful and as an officer I would not be obligated to obey such an order.

    A LITTLE GUN HISTORY:
    -In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. >From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million ‘dissidents’, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated

    -In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
    -Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

    -China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated

    -Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    -Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    -Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
    Is this not adequate reason for personal firearm ownership? Additionally, the majority of law enforcement and military would be on the side of the free men since they are private firearm owners themselves. In the US there is a significant number of heavy weapons in the hands of private citizens. Last year while training with my sons in the west desert we noticed a Sheridan tank drive by. A bunch of Boy Scouts were riding on top. The tank was privately owned and the scouts were enjoying a field trip firing the automatic .30 and .50 caliber machine guns. I posted a video on FB of the event. People thought we’d shot the footage during a tour in Afghanistan. Good times.

    With regard to Richard’s Mother Jones article: “In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun.” That’s must be because they cherry-picked 62 incidents in which the victims didn’t HAVE a gun. Remember Portland? The perp in the mall was stopped by a civilian with a gun. Or perhaps it’s because the ‘study’ only looked at incidents where lives were lost and not incidents where lives were saved such as: http://www.gloucestercitynews.net/clearysnotebook/2012/07/video-63-year-old-man-stops-armed-robbery.html
    If the data doesn’t fit the agenda then discount it, right?

  100. #101 by Jdberger on January 9, 2013 - 9:21 pm

    Cav-

    BobS and I met here (at OneUtah) some time ago. When we first started commenting here, Heller hadn’t been heard by the Supreme Court (it was still Parker).

    I won’t be at the White House. Appearances by gun-rights folks aren’t going to matter much, anyway. This President and this Administration doesn’t have much respect for Civil Rights anyway. If they can’t pass restrictive laws through Congress, they’ll simply impose them through Regal Fiat (Executive Order). They’re taking advice from Mike Bloomberg who, shockingly, got on national television the other day and asserted that there needs to be more regulation on machine-guns (conflating “assault weapons” with guns that have been banned since 1934.

    Mike Bloomberg.

    The pre-eminent gun control advocate in the US doesn’t understand the subject matter at all.

  101. #102 by Richard Warnick on January 9, 2013 - 11:41 pm

    OK, I think that we’ve demonstrated that rational debate with gun worshipers is impossible. They are completely out of touch with the majority of Americans. I certainly hope that VP Biden meant what he said today.

    “The president and I are determined to take action. This is not an exercise in photo opportunities.”

    So far, the record of the Obama administration when it comes to sensible gun safety regulations has been abysmal. Any change is bound to be an improvement.

  102. #103 by cav on January 10, 2013 - 12:03 am

    Well, I don’t think a determination to ‘take away our guns’ in the fearful manner that Alex Jones suggests is going to come out of the White House. Nor do I think gun-rights folks are going to be ignored – except in their extremity (I’d disown Alex – he brings the nut to gun-nut. Him and the psycho-shooters-of-the-innocent. A better argument for radical weapon suppression action could not be made). We’ll see, of course. And certainly, your, and BobS and Mike Murphy’s commentary, all help to inform the rest of us, just as WE attempt to help inform from a different ideal – so, for that, and your kind considerations, thank you.

  103. #104 by Bob S. on January 10, 2013 - 4:33 am

    Richard,

    You claim rational debate is impossible and you are right but you can’t blame it on anyone other then yourself.

    I asked about compromise and your response is to totally ignore the question.

    I call you out on your blatant lies (no right to purchase a firearm) and you ignore it, not admitting you are wrong.

    —————–

    Cav,

    I don’t think the White House will propose a ban and confiscation, but Obama would certainly sign Feinstein’s bill if it made it to him, wouldn’t you agree?

    Alex Jones is an entertainer, much like John Stewart. While I don’t approve of his methods, much of what he said regarding gun control is true.

    Is England less murderous then America, absolutely Piers Morgan is right about that. But it always has been. It is also more violent then America, even with the under-reporting of crime that happens in both countries. The UK is notorious for under-reporting to an incredible extent.
    So when people argue “Gun Control will reduce violent crime” we point out the failure there and other places.
    Joan Peterson, of the Brady Campaign, said on her blog she is willing to accept more rapes, more robberies, more assaults if it reduces ‘gun violence’; would you agree with that?

    Time after time, I’ve provided links, citations and evidence showing that gun control laws do not work Let’s not forget that Washington D.C. was known as the Murder Capital for a reason, right? Care to guess what has happened to their crime rate since the Heller Decision?

    And once again, if you are concerned about psycho shooters, why not focus on the person and not the object?

    When was the last time you saw a proposal from the gun ban crowd that addressed mental health? Improved screening, better drug control for SSRIs, better funding for hospitals, changes in laws concerning involuntary commitment?

  104. #105 by Richard Warnick on January 10, 2013 - 10:33 am

    Bob S.–

    Your idea of “compromise” is to expand access to guns. That is not how the majority of Americans want to go.

    You accuse those who favor sensible gun laws of hysteria, but all the hysteria is coming from the NRA, Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones etc.

    I’m not wrong. There is not a constitutional right to purchase a firearm any more than there is to purchase a toaster.

  105. #106 by Bob S. on January 10, 2013 - 10:37 am

    Richard,

    Please stop your use of the logical fallacy called proof by vigorous assertion. Show your work. You provided one link from a Circuit Court decision prior to incorporation.

    When the Supreme Court incorporated the 2nd Amendment under the McDonald decision that opinion was rendered moot.

    Yes, my idea is to expand access to guns. Yours is to restrict them. You want to ‘compromise’ then that means you get something that you want and I get something that I want.

    But you really don’t want to compromise do you Sir?

    Nope. You want to further restrict our rights.

    Despite the fact that as gun ownership has increased, as more and more people are carrying firearms in public, as more and more people are getting involved in the shooting sports; death, injuries and firearm related crime has decreased.

    So yes, if you want to ‘compromise’ you are going to have to give up something.

  106. #107 by Richard Warnick on January 10, 2013 - 10:50 am

    Gun ownership has decreased.

    The number of households owning guns has declined from almost 50% in 1973 to just over 32% in 2010, according to a 2011 study produced by The University of Chicago’s National Opinion Research Center. The number of gun owners has gone down almost 10% over the same period, the report found.

  107. #108 by Bob S. on January 10, 2013 - 10:56 am

    I can cite surveys also

    PRINCETON, NJ — Forty-seven percent of American adults currently report that they have a gun in their home or elsewhere on their property. This is up from 41% a year ago and is the highest Gallup has recorded since 1993, albeit marginally above the 44% and 45% highs seen during that period.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/Self-Reported-Gun-Ownership-Highest-1993.aspx

    Just wish I could embed the graph.

    And that is one of three parts I listed — can’t deny increasing number of firearms or increasing number of people carrying.

    Nor can you deny that violent crime has been decreasing.

    So again, are you willing to compromise or just demand we give you anything and everything you want?

  108. #109 by Richard Warnick on January 10, 2013 - 11:27 am

    As far as I can tell, the gun lobby has gotten everything they wanted for years, by intimidating our politicians. President Obama even signed a law allowing people to carry loaded guns in our national parks, something that the Bush administration never did.

    We may have now reached a turning point. The majority of Americans want to be heard. Obama has no more elections to win. We know which policies are needed – in many cases, such as the assault weapons ban, they are the same policies that the gun lobby rolled back before they had a chance to work.

  109. #110 by Richard Warnick on January 10, 2013 - 11:29 am

    The murder rate is at an all-time low, right? Well, sort of. More like emergency medical treatment efficacy is at an all-time high.

    Some Uncomfortable Numbers About Guns in America

    Lethality

    47 percent increase: The change in the number of people wounded seriously enough by gunshots to require a hospital stay from 2001 to 2011. In 2001, 20,844 people suffered gunshot wounds that serious. In 2011, it was 30,759, The Wall Street Journal reports. But the murder rate is going down? Why is that? Because hospitals have gotten better at treating traumatic wounds.

    13.96 percent: Share of gunshot wound victims who died in 2010.

    2 percentage point decrease: The change in the share of gunshot wound victims who died in 2010 compared to just three years earlier. Data from previous years was measured differently, so is impossible to compare, the Journal says.

    62: Number of mass murders in America since 1982.

    Three-quarters: Portion of guns involved in mass murders that were obtained legally, Mother Jones reports. Semi-automatic handguns were by far the weapon of choice, followed by assault rifles.

  110. #111 by Bob S. on January 10, 2013 - 12:26 pm

    Richard,

    I don’t have the ability to post here or embed graphics or I would do this myself.

    http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

    That link provides the crime numbers going back to 1960.

    If you chart the data as homicides per 100,000 person, then you’ll find what I’m saying is true. The high point on the chart will be 1980 with 10.24 per 100K and 2011 is 4.69.

    This trend is repeated in just about every violent crime category, so your claim of medical efficacy is only partly true.

  111. #112 by cav on January 10, 2013 - 12:29 pm

    You want to compromise, you’re going to have to give up something? Let’s as the survivors, friends, family of the victims? What more are you willing to sacrifice?

    Yes, our emotional component must very much be regarded. Stats’ll only get you so far.

    That writ, I’m still skeered of My government (especially congress – and, of course, the shadow layer informing so much of the rest).

  112. #113 by Bob S. on January 10, 2013 - 12:56 pm

    Cav,

    Let’s ask the mom in Dallas Texas who shot an intruder 6 times, striking him 5 times in the neck and chest if she wants restrictions on firearms?

    Let’s ask the people who have saved their lives and property if they want restrictions?

    The families and friends of mass shootings aren’t the only people out there involved in the subject emotionally.

    Ask this lady http://www.agirlandhergun.org/the-story/ what should be done.

    Nor is it necessary to be a crime victim to have an emotional stake in the issue.

    Several of the firearms I own, ones subject to banning and confiscation, were inherited from my father.

    He passed away 4 years ago and left almost nothing but those firearms. They are a legacy, a connection to my past, my love, my heritage that I will not give up.

  113. #114 by cav on January 10, 2013 - 1:10 pm

    Bob,

    The woman who’s brother blew his own brains out.

    I hope her daughter never has that bad of day – and knows where the key to the gun locker is stashed.

    But, Yes, bad stuff happens.

    I’ve got to get some work done. Out.

  114. #115 by Richard Warnick on January 10, 2013 - 1:22 pm

    Again, no one except the gun lobby and those who buy their propaganda is talking about confiscation.

  115. #116 by Bob S. on January 10, 2013 - 1:28 pm

    Richard,

    Quit lying. I’ve linked or provided quotes to several people that are talking confiscation.

    You ask me to not to call you a liar but when you blatantly lie, I feel compelled to call you out on it.

    Obama should follow up by launching a Government buy-back for all existing assault weapons in circulation (as worked successfully in Los Angeles last week). I would go further, confiscating the rest and enforcing tough prison sentences on those who still insist on keeping one.

    Either you ban these assault weapons completely, and really mean it, or you don’t.

    National news person Piers Morgan said it. Confiscating assault weapons

    Andrew Cuomo saying it is an option

    In the interview, Mr. Cuomo did not offer specifics about the measures he might propose, but, while discussing assault weapons, he said: “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”

    Please stop lying.

  116. #117 by jdberger on January 10, 2013 - 1:38 pm

    Richard Warnick :Again, no one except the gun lobby and those who buy their propaganda is talking about confiscation.

    Well, and Andrew Cuomo.
    http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/09/16431491-gov-cuomo-proposes-nations-toughest-ban-on-assault-weapons?lite

    “ter Cuomo told a radio interviewer in December that “confiscation could be an option,” gun rights activists posted a petition to the White House’s web site calling any legislation restricting the sale and ownership of semi-automatic firearms “a clear violation of our rights as a free people.” The petition had 7,973 signatures as of late Wednesday morning.”

  117. #118 by Richard Warnick on January 10, 2013 - 2:06 pm

    Bob S.–

    Here’s the link to Piers Morgan’s opinion piece: Deport me? If America won’t change its crazy gun laws… I may deport myself says PIERS MORGAN

    Each year, on average, 100,000 Americans are shot with a gun. Of these, over 31,000 are fatalities, 11,000 of them murders and 18,000 suicides. More than a million people have been killed with guns in America since 1968 when Dr Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy were assassinated.

    The US firearm murder rate is 19.5 times higher than the 22 next most populous, high-income countries in the world. And a staggering 80 per cent of firearm deaths in the combined 23 countries occur in America.

    …The AR-15 looks and behaves like a military weapon and should be confined to the military and police force. No member of the public has any need for a death machine that can fire up to six rounds a second when modified and can clear a 100-bullet magazine (as used in Aurora) within a minute.

    The only apparent reason anyone seems to offer up is that using such weapons is ‘fun’. One gun-rights guy I interviewed last week even said admiringly that the AR-15 was ‘the Ferrari of guns’.

    Well, I’m sorry, but ‘fun’ is just not a good enough excuse any more. Not when children are being killed by gunfire all over America.

    jd–

    From your link:

    “This is not about taking away peoples’ guns,” said Cuomo, adding that he’s gone hunting and owns a shotgun. “It is about ending the unnecessary risk of high-capacity assault rifles.”

    You’re right. One British commentator and one U.S. politician, justifiably irritated by the extreme positions of the Gun Lobby, said we ought to consider confiscating assault weapons. Then the right-wing media seized on these two statements to fuel their conspiracy theories.

  118. #119 by Bob S. on January 10, 2013 - 2:36 pm

    Richard,

    Search for the information yourself. You don’t believe the evidence I provide.

    Thousands of people are talking about confiscating firearms but you have your head stuck so far in the sand or other cavity, you don’t see the truth.

    But let’s suppose you are saying there is no call for confiscation – that means we keep millions of currently legal semi-automatic weapons in circulation. Just like we did in 1994 but with even more firearms.

    Are you okay with that?

    If not what do you plan to do about it?

    Next, again what are you willing to compromise on? I’ve said i would consider outlawing private sales but want something in exchange.

    And how does any law you want to enact actually reduce violence. Provide a clear cut explanation of the mechanism.

    Let’s take background checks for an example. I’ll show you how they will not reduce crime.

    Currently felons, drug abusers, etc are prohibited person. You want to keep these people from buying them from individuals, right?

    So you pass a law requiring every transaction (even those between parents and children, siblings, law enforcement officers selling to co-workers) to go through a FFL for an N.I.C.S. check.

    So what happens when Johnny Thug wants a gun?

    Same thing that happens now; he will recruit someone who can purchase a firearm legally to buy it and then either simply take possession of it after the sale or buy it from the purchaser.

    If a person is willing to commit a felony by acting as a straw purchaser nothing will stop them from committing another crime by not conducting the background check.

    The only time this will come to light is when the police recover a firearm used in a crime.

    But note that carefully, it won’t stop the crime. Only provide the police with another person to charge.

  119. #120 by Richard Warnick on January 10, 2013 - 3:05 pm

    Bob S.–

    You’re right. Thousands of people are talking about confiscating guns, but 90 percent of them are gun fanatics talking to each other. It’s not going to happen, so relax.

    Oh, wait. You think I secretly want to confiscate assault weapons? That’s not true. Despite massive loopholes in the law carved out by the Gun Lobby (for example, it did not stop importation), the federal assault weapons ban in effect from 1994 to 2004 worked without resort to confiscation.

    The Gun Lobby always argues that any gun regulation that is not 100 percent effective is worthless. That’s not a reality-based position.

  120. #121 by Richard Warnick on January 10, 2013 - 3:14 pm

    How about a gun buyback plan? Could the US learn from Australia’s gun-control laws?

    Almost two weeks after a shooting spree stunned Australia in 1996, leaving 35 people dead at the Port Arthur tourist spot in Tasmania, the government issued sweeping reforms of the country’s gun laws. There hasn’t been a mass shooting since.

    …[T]hen-Prime Minister John Howard – a conservative who had just been elected with the help of gun owners – pushed through not only new gun control laws, but also the most ambitious gun buyback program Australia had ever seen. Some 650,000 automatic and semi-automatic rifles were handed in and destroyed under the program. Though gun-related deaths did not suddenly end in Australia, gun-related homicides dropped 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. Suicides by gun plummeted by 65 percent, and robberies at gunpoint also dropped significantly. Many said there was a close correlation between the sharp declines and the buyback program.

  121. #122 by VegasJessie on January 11, 2013 - 9:44 am

    I love u! I’m writing currently about his the proliferation of NRA’s Congressional power is largely the fault of one Orrin Hatch. I may reference your work.

  122. #123 by cav on January 11, 2013 - 9:47 am

    The feeling’s mutual, I am sure (panting heavily).

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: