Posts Tagged self-defense
I’m sick and tired of the “guns don’t kill people; people do” mantra. Its too stupid for words.
If it ain’t a hunting rifle, it was designed for a singular purpose, to give a human being the ability to kill another human being. The same cannot be said about spoons, knives, cars, hammers or hamburgers.
Thom Hartmann explains to Larry the caller why the 2nd Amendment was written to allow citizens to defend their country, not defend AGAINST tyranny.
What would it take for you to stand out in front of your house with weapons and defend yourself against the federal government?
Second Amendment Primer: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,…”
Obama should exercise his presidential authority to effect sensible gun control nationally for two reasons:
1. It bring a badly needed Supreme Court challenge that will likely involve the “Militia” part of the second amendment.
2. It will turn up the volume for historians and constitutional experts in a broad national debate in which second-amendment-extremist will learn a more reasonable interpretation of the second amendment; one that is supported by fact and history instead of the version Justice Scalia smeared like skid marks into our national undies.
We are finally beginning to have an honest discussion about the true meaning of the Second Amendment. Until Sandy Hook, gun rights extremist managed to dominate the conversation. They were allowed to ignore the “A well regulated Militia, being necessary” part.
Here is a PERFECT EXAMPLE from an interview by Nashville’s WSMV-TV on Friday.
It is a fact that the average James Yeager and other Second Amendment Advocates cannot actually recite the whole sentence:
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.
Obama should use his executive power if it will mean Wayne LaPierre, the average 2nd amendment “advocate” and crooked snake oil salesmen like David Hardy will be FORCED to read and memorize THE WHOLE SENTENCE and address the HISTORICAL FACTS surrounding the writing of the Bill of Rights.
The National Rifle Association countered with “arm the teachers.” Gun clubs claim hundreds of teachers are applying for free weapons training. Two hundred people showed up for a class in West Valley City, Utah, outside Salt Lake City, on December 27, 2012, for example. Not all of the people who took the course were teachers. But some were, including Carolyn Cain, who teaches special education kids in kindergarten to the 6th grade in Utah County, Utah.
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:
The word ‘militia’ appears 5 times in the constitution.
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.
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.
“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.”
Can you say
The 58-39 vote Wednesday defeated a measure giving people with concealed weapons permits the right to carry their firearms into other states that have similar gun laws. Sixty votes were needed to approve the provision, an amendment to a defense spending bill. Read all about it!
The winds of change are in the air. National Rifle Association (NRA) candidates got trounced in the 2008 elections.
The NRA spent over thirty-one times more money against Obama than it spent in its negative efforts in 2000 against Al Gore.
This virtually unreported fact (with the exception of OneUtah) is nevertheless, the strongest indicator of the trending sentiment of the American people.
In head-to-head races between candidates endorsed or “A” rated by the NRA and candidates endorsed by the Brady Campaign, Brady candidates won more than 80 percent (including eight of eight U.S. Senate races).
If you look beyond the noise of the few and vocal gun-freaks, you will find an America who while still holding on to the rather fanciful, historical but wrong interpretation of 2a, have grown weary of the spineless machismo of the NRA. Their strongest advocates are best described as armed ‘Birthers.’
…and we all know what kind of Americans they are.
So this Gun Freak named Nightmare sends his nine-year-old son to school wearing this T-Shirt. School makes the kid turn it inside out for the rest of the day. Gun-Freak Dad spends 6 straight days blogging about it.
What is this extreme obsession with guns? I weep for the poor little kid. He’s not even old enough to use a gun and his Dad is using him to promote guns and scaring a lot of other little kids in the process.
Link: I was informed that he was removed from the classroom and taken to a Counsellor who convinced him to remove the shirt and turn it inside out. That spurs questions in my “investigative mind”…
He was then returned to the classroom. He was made to wear his clothing in an inappropriate manner in front of the other students.
Nevermind that his education was disrupted and he was singled out by the teacher.
Nevermind that the t-shirt contained no obscenities, doesn’t suggest or promote anti-social behavior, doesn’t advertise alcohol, tobbaco or the occult, violence, vulgarity, profanity or sexual references.
Nevermind that the school has a home contact and other emergency contact numbers for reaching us.
Nevermind that they didn’t call to bring the matter up.
I think the guy actually typed out the school’s handbook including dress code which forbids clothing that:
“advertises any product or service not permitted to minors by law.
…suggests or promotes anti-social behavior, violence,…”
Is an NRA t-shirt with 4 hand guns designed to shoot at people on it promoting violence? I would be hard to imagine a more violent t-shirt. I suppose depicting and actual murder might be worse.
Does an NRA t-shirt with 4 hand guns designed to shoot at people promote anti-social behavior? Next time you are in a nice social situation like school, church or family picnic, try pulling out a hand gun then take a poll.
Is it speech protected by the First Amendment? Yes, except in responsible schools with thoughtful policies designed to protect innocent children from the vagaries of their parents.
Despite claims to the contrary, Alan Korwin did make a public statement that is untrue (a lie), and given the opportunity to apologize or correct his statement, has chosen to defend this untruth.
On April 9th 2008, Alan Korwin appeared on C-Span. In that speech, in reference to gun ownership in America, Alan Korwin claimed “hundreds of thousands of lives are saved each year” [by the defensive use of guns]. His defense is a 1995 poll by Kleck.
But that poll never won peer review, and the 1997 National Institute of Justice Research Brief, “Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms” concludes, NSPOF (National Survey of Private Ownership of Firearms) based estimate of millions of DGUs each year greatly exaggerates the true number.
So Alan’s claim is not only laughable and absurd but also, demonstrably false and therefore irresponsible.
Just in the last 3 pages of this analysis (pg 9-12) finds the following phrases to describe the Kleck and Gertz poll:
“…surprising figure, estimates are far too high.”
“It does not make sense”
“…results are almost as absurd”
“If those percentages were close to accurate”
“That number also appears completely out of line”
“Evidence of bias in the DGU estimates is even stronger…”
“…many DGU reports are exaggerated or falsified..”
“…greatly exaggerates the true number…”
“…the DGU estimates are not informative…”
Please find below, the full excerpts from which the above phrases are taken for your convenience.
It is quite clear that integrity and honesty are not qualities that reside in the same personage as many gun-advocates, and most certainly, not ones possessed by Alan Korwin.
Alan Korwin certainly has the ability to verify the accuracy of his claims, as do his interlocutors, many of whom have come to his defense on this blog.
I repeat. THIS is the beauty of the Internet.
Page 11 Conclusion:
The NSPOF does not provide much evidence on whether consumers who buy guns for protection against crime get their money’s worth. The NSPOF based estimate of millions of DGUs each year greatly exaggerates the true number, as do other estimates based on similar surveys. Much debated is whether the widespread ownership of firearms deters crime or makes it more deadlyâ€”or perhaps bothâ€”but the DGU estimates are not informative in this regard.