Gun control: Ignorance & deception

Terry Garlock's picture

The children are buried, the hoards of reporters and camera crews have moved on to the next story, but Newtown, Conn., will never be the same. The anguish of families that lost a child may subside but will never go away.

How can we make sure mass school murders never happen again? The adult answer is — we can’t.

Since Cain slew Abel in a fit of jealousy, people have been killing each other with sticks, rocks, blades, poisons, bombs, guns and a hundred other tools of choice. New laws won’t stop it.

Why in recent years have we seen mass killings by suicidal lunatics? The popular and false answer is to blame semi-automatic weapons, but those have been with us since the early 1900s. The adult answer, of course, is more complex.

Our culture is becoming coarse, inhibitions are evaporating, honor and pride are fading, shame has disappeared, restraint is a distant memory, thug behavior is glorified in rap (I refuse to call it music), self-indulgence is the new normal, instant gratification is the national lifestyle, boundaries are no longer visible, respect for others is passe, casual violence at movie theaters is our modern version of the Roman Colosseum and video games teach kids slaughter as a practiced skill.

Taking comfort in personal responsibility, self-reliance, integrity and accomplishment through hard work has taken a back seat to the counterfeit glitter of a brief flash of fame.

The mentally ill have so many rights we can do little even if they appear to be dangerous, but when someone carries out a perverse plan to end their existence in a blaze of murderous glory, knowing their foul deeds will be spread worldwide in hand-wringing hysterical hi-def technicolor by a media seeking to fill hundreds of channels around the clock, we blame the gun.

Adult complexities do not satisfy the liberal urge to make even more rules for us to live by. When the first unbelievable reports of the Newtown shooting of children emerged, anti-gun activists were already pouncing on this opportunity to sell their agenda, having been patiently waiting for the next mass shooting to exploit the raw feelings of an electorate softened up by a few days of semi-sobbing TV coverage.

What about you? Do you realize you are being played? Whether you like guns or not, do you recognize the propaganda being fed to you, slowly but surely turning guns into objects of fear, evil and loathing? Do you wonder at legislators fashioning new gun control laws with apparently little knowledge of guns and no regard for our Constitutional freedoms? Do you wonder whether the media is reporting honestly?

On Dec. 11, a whack-job gunman started shooting in a shopping mall in the Portland, Ore., area. Nick Meli, a young man licensed to carry a firearm, had ignored the mall’s “No Guns” posting and had his Glock semi-automatic pistol, with which he confronted the shooter. The shooter then killed himself, having been stopped after killing two innocents.

On Dec. 16 a deranged gunman tried to shoot up a theater crowd in San Antonio, Texas, but an armed off-duty police officer shot back and ultimately just two innocent people were wounded.

You didn’t see much of these stories on TV news, maybe because the media doesn’t want to push the narrative that armed, law-abiding citizens can stop crimes in process. You’re being played, not only by what you see on TV, but what you don’t see.

On the first day of this 113th Congress, 10 gun control bills were introduced with various new rules and restrictions. But realistically, what new laws would have prevented the Newtown shootings?

My guess is – none. Connecticut already has strict gun control laws, and the shooter violated a long list of laws.

The assault weapons ban being proposed is a prime example of ignorance and deception. “Assault Rifle” (AR) has become a pair of dirty words, spit out by anti-gunners with breathtaking ignorance.

An AR is nothing more than another semi-automatic rifle with a pistol grip that makes it look “mean.” About half of the TV talking heads get it wrong by confusing semi-automatic with automatic weapons.

An automatic weapon rapidly fires bullets continually as long as the trigger is depressed, a feature that has been illegal without a special permit for decades.

An AR is a semi-automatic weapon, meaning it fires one round with each trigger pull. Countless types of semi-automatic rifles and handguns have been owned and sold in America for a century.

Limiting magazines to 10 rounds may sound reasonable but will have little effect since replacing an empty magazine with a fresh load takes about two seconds.

Anti-gunners say we don’t need an AR to hunt. Well, pardon me for being a purist on Constitutional rights, but the Second Amendment doesn’t say a word about hunting, and I don’t need the government telling me which weapon I should use to hunt.

As it turns out, if I were to hunt deer, I would use my AR, a .223 caliber with a scope that I now use only at the range to punch target holes close together – at least I try – at 100 yards. But whether I hunt or not isn’t my government’s business.

Interestingly, the very popular .30-06 semi-automatic deer rifle is not affected by the proposed AR ban, but it fires just as fast as my AR with rounds twice as powerful.

You can even find that deer rifle with a more comfortable pistol grip and high capacity magazines, that is if you need proof positive the proposed AR ban accomplishes nothing. But it does appeal to the emotions of the ignorant.

If I wanted (and I do not!) to ban guns with the real effect of restriction to minimize rate of fire, I would have to ban all semi-automatic rifles and handguns, including shotguns used for skeet shooting and duck hunting.

I would have to also ban lever-action rifles like the well-made Henry line, leaving only revolver handguns and bolt action rifles.

But having slid down most of the slippery slope, I should probably also ban handgun revolvers, which, after all, still fire one round for each trigger pull until empty, and reloading can be quick with prepared speed-loads.

And of course, to be meaningful, I would have to confiscate existing weapons that are banned, leaving only single-shot and bolt action rifles.

That, my friends, is a preview of the anti-gun crowd’s real, long-term, radical agenda.

But there is ample evidence gun control laws have little effect on crime. States with very lax gun laws, like Maine and Vermont, have very low gun crime rates. Chicago, on the other hand, has very strict gun control laws but rampant crime.

The previous AR ban was in effect from 1994 to 2004 and had no appreciable effect on gun violence in the U.S. because the majority of gun crimes – including mass murder and school shootings – were carried out with handguns.

The 1999 Columbine school murders in Colorado occurred right in the middle of that AR ban, and as usual in every other case the perpetrators ignored all laws. But they didn’t use an AR.

Before the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 there were few shootings at schools, but since then there have been 22 notable incidents.

Some say criminals bent on self-destruction and seeking a dramatic final statement choose schools because they know there are no defensive weapons at the school to deter them.

My guess is the lunatics are attracted by the dramatic effect and TV fame for their last act.

I don’t know what new gun control laws will be enacted, but I do know this. When the next mass murder happens, and it will, the anti-gunners will again be ready to pounce, stretching for ever more restrictions, regulations and bans.

I imagine they will stand down when citizens are no longer allowed to bear arms.

Do you really want to make schools safer? Repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 and encourage every school to select a few willing teachers or staff to be trained and armed.

That is better than hiring guards to do nothing productive while waiting for an attack that for nearly every school will never come. And if an attack does come, there will be someone there with a good chance to stop the perp from going all the way.

Do you really want to reduce mass murder? Convince the news media to impose a TV news blackout. Take away the attraction of a famous death. Give up the voyeur circus on our TVs at the expense of the victims.

Sufficiently interested citizens could read all about it in newspapers. Do you think the TV media is more interested in reducing mass murder or their own ratings? Good luck with that one.

Meanwhile, ponder your child’s safety and the evils or virtues of citizens armed for defense, knowing when seconds count, law enforcement is just minutes away.

[Terry Garlock of Peachtree City occasionally contributes a column to The Citizen. His email is terry@garlock1.com.]

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
A gun question for everyone

something occoured to me today and I wanted to throw it out there. I went to the sandbox twice during the recent shenanigans and at first, we confiscated iraqi weapons when we found them in the early days of the war. But the IMMEDIATE result of this was that crime shot up. As soon as we went into a neighborhood and took their guns, (mostly pistols and AK's) they quickly started getting attacked and robbed by gangs at night. they werent radicals or republican guard or anything, just criminals that would follow us to see which houses we took guns from. Within days those houses would be robbed at night. We got so many complaints about it we changed the rule that they could have ONE rifle for every male that was over 18 that lived in the house. FOR SELF DEFENSE. Do you understand how serious this problem was if the commander decided to let iraqis keep some of their guns? They also could carry them openly so they would not get robbed on the way home from the market. And I'm not talking about any of this "semi-auto" only 'copy' of a military assault weapon, I mean full-auto rock 'n roll ak-47's and 74's. They didnt have to register, they didnt have to get a carry permit, they didnt have to pay a tax stamp, there was no waiting period. They also didnt have an asinine limit on 10 round magazines. the only rule was one per adult male and that was for OUR protection to make sure they werent stockpiling for the enemy. Now that we are gone Im sure that rule no longer exisits. Now I would like any of you to explain to me why iraqis deserve more firearm freedom in their country than we do in ours. And please dont give me some lame answer like "oh well over there they get attacked and robbed and have mass shootings and terrorist bombings" because we have all that stuff here too. please go a little deeper or dont waste our collective time. If you cant think of a good answer, perhaps you should consider that maybe, just maybe, Americans deserve, at the very least, as much firearms freedom as the iraqis currently enjoy. also, side question. does everyone else have to log in twice to post on here or is it just me? IE or chrome doesnt make a difference.

moelarrycurly
moelarrycurly's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/17/2010
Kasim Reeed uttered these words

live on CNN while in DC a few hours ago. Sitting outside with those 2 reporters, all freezing their butts off, with screaming morons behind them (for what reason, who knows). All there for the inauguration of Barry, and he was asked about gun control. One of his pearls of wisdom on national TV, he said, "No one needs more than 10 bullets". Now,that same guy is in charge of a city that has a man asking to put up a 2 billion dollar stadium within it's borders. I got chills running down my spine and had to go warm up with a hot toddy..or was it a hot teddy...Mattie Ice, please make us forget where we are tomorrow, okay buddy?

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
His Terms Are Always Hostile Ones

This "president" is paranoid and delusional. He wants to rule with an iron fist, but forgets often that he is nothing more than a public servant.

obama has been using the days and weeks leading up to his inauguration to show the depth of his disdain for the leaders of the other major party and, by inference, that party's voters, which is to say more or less half the country. He has been spending his time alienating instead of summoning. It has left the political air more sour and estranged.

His Terms Are Always Hostile Ones

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Same Gun.. one banned... one not....

In New York the strictest gun control ever has been enacted. The Governor has stated that with his actions he is going to curb gun violence.

What did they do... Remove the Pistol grip on a gun. Yep it's been the "Pistol Grip" all along that causes gun violence.. who knew?

So you can have a what was considered a "Assault" Weapon before the "BAN" just remove the stock eliminate the dreaded and oh so scary "Pistol Grip" and viola you are legal again..

The new Federal Law is said to mirror New York's.

This is what you get with Government.. Crap that doesn't make any sense.

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
I agree on many points

"The mentally ill have so many rights we can do little even if they appear to be dangerous, but when someone carries out a perverse plan to end their existence in a blaze of murderous glory, knowing their foul deeds will be spread worldwide in hand-wringing hysterical hi-def technicolor by a media seeking to fill hundreds of channels around the clock, we blame the gun."

The civil liberties groups have enabled the mentally ill to a degree and the news hypes everything.

I don't own a gun, but I see nothing wrong with owning one for protection. But so many seem to take it way too far.

The thought comes to my mind of the poor girl in India, attacked and raped with a metal pipe, she later died. Do we ban metal pipes?
We have way too many mental ill walking the streets. Armed with their "rights" and guns and many other weapons. I sometimes wonder, do the normal have any rights of their own left?

The thing I hate about owning a gun is that it is to kill in my eyes. If I owned one, and you attacked me, there would be no thought of maming you, or just stopping you. I would kill you. That would be my intent.

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
Suggarfoot - shooting to kill

is the best idea in today's letigious society. There are so many stories of attackers being maimed or crippled by their intended victims, only for the criminals to sue and win, thus forcing the victims to pay their disability for life. Unfortunatley, you are better off just killing them. No one to sue you, and no one to offer a conflicting account of your version of events. You shoot in self defense, but then they say "I wasn't doin nuthin man. I was just walkin along and this dude up an shot me for no reason." Now its up to you to prove you were being attacked, to prove you were in fear for your life. otherwise the media paints you as being just another wannabe rambo gun nut out looking for trouble. Allow yourself to be a victim, or shoot to kill. But don't EVER shoot to maim or wound. You are not doing yourself any favors with that.

MYTMITE
MYTMITE's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/14/2008
Mr. Garlock, I agree with you on many points in your article. I

have often said that the media uses overkill. We become inured to the tragedies with the overexposure and also with the sensationalism.
I feel everyone should be able to own a firearm if they so choose. I own one. What I cannot understand is why people would choose to have assault weapons and/or automatic weapons. Do you need an assault or automatic weapon to protect your home or property? Do you need/use it for hunting? I would hope not--- Perhaps you could help me understand why people feel the need to own these weapons. I am not talking about it being our right as citizens, I am just in a quandry to understand the desire to own them.

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
Mytmite - why some need an assault rifle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJFcmv3xm-E
maybe because like the teenager in this video, they arent very good with regular guns. Maybe they are scared and cant shoot straight under the stress and need more than one bullet. Maybe because the city they lived in (like chicago or D.C.) had bans on handguns. Maybe because some people are uncomfortable with the kick of a 12 ga. shotgun and want something with a more mild recoil. I own several Ar's (built them myself thank you very much) and use them in shooting matches. Being able to shoot more with less reloading saves time and therefore lets me score higher. Please remeber that the number of fully automatic guns owned by civilians is miniscule, far less than 1% of gun owners have full auto guns, mostly becasue they are so monumentally expensive due to their rarity. An Ar type rifle can cost between $600-$1000. A fully auto m-16 ( of which the AR is a cosmetic copy) will easily set you back $25K, if you can find one at all. What you think of as "assault rifles" are not fully auto and in fact are actually hunting rifles with cosmetic features designed to mimic the look of a military weapon, but can't in reality duplicate the lethality of a military weapon. Think of it like a kit car. Sure they look the same as a ferrari, but the performance is not even close. Civilian assault rifles are completely mis-named. No actual Military or police force uses semi auto versions when for practically the same price (only for military and LEO) they could get a full auto gun instead. They are only called that out of habit because the military versions they are trying to mimic are called assault rifles. Some quick military terminology here. A submachine gun (smg) fires pistol caliber rounds. A battle rifle fires full sized hunting cartridges like .30-06 Rem and .308 Win. An "assault rifle" is a full auto gun that shoots a bullet that is somewhere in between the other two. It is absolutely legal to hunt with civilian "assault rifles" including ar-15's and ak-47's, with just one caveat. You may only use a magazine that can hold 5 bullets, no more. This is due purely to the existing hunting laws, not out of worry for the publics saftey. The ar-15 has become one of the most commonly purchased hunting rifles in America over the last 10 years. They come in many different calibers ( too many to list) and are good for almost any game in north America. People like them because they are fun to have. inexpensive to shoot and can be used for shooting matches, hunting or just plinking and target practice. Asking why "assault rifles" are good is like asking why rainbows are good. Or why trees are good. Or why posi-track is good. They just are!

tgarlock
tgarlock's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
MTM, it is want, not need, and the freedom to choose . . .

. . . is a big part of that want. And who can explain desire?

Some would look at the new Springfield XD-S .45 cal pistol with revulsion at its knockdown killing power. Others, like the crowds it drew at the Shot Show in Las Vegas this year I hear, are drawn by its slim single-stack design of 5+1 (5 rounds in the clip, 1 in the chamber if desired), small and slim size for a .45 meaning more conducive to concealed carry, lightweight polymer mtl, and surprisingly manageable kick and accuracy. I'll find out soon. Beauty and revulsion are in the eye of the beholder.

My M4 (assault rifle) is a modern version of the M-16s we used in Vietnam, so I have a little history with it, but as all ARs it is NOT automatic, but semi-automatic, just like the deer rifle I mentioned in the op-ed and just The AR is NOT an automatic as so often implied by TV talking heads, and what makes it different is the pistol grip that make it more comfy to shoot, but scary to look at to the uninformed.

To me it is a well-made piece of equipment, and my challenge is to test its accuracy at 100 yds, that is if I can do all the right things myself in executing the shot at the range.

Does a golfer "need" expensive Ping clubs, or does he want them to see if his skill as a player plus quality equipment deliver a better result? Not much different.

Neither the gun nor law-abiding people are the problem, but I'll throw out this red flag. Something that gets lost in the gun control debate noise is respectful restraint at the lines drawn in the Constitution. That is troublesome not so much on the 2nd Amendment, but in general, especially since Congress and the President have been trampling the Constitution for decades with Commerce Clause excesses and executive actions outside Constitutional authority. The lack of Constitutional restraint poses a grave danger to our Republic, or what is left of it.

Terry Garlock

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
Terry & M16s in Vietnam.

When I was flying, Pilots all had .38s--enlisted flyers had zip except we always threw a couple of M-16s in the back. I just happened to have my personal S&W .38 Police Special w/shoulder holster that I bought in the Rod & Gun Club at Ft Wolters and shipped over in my STRAC Box (along with some ammo). Never had parachutes as there was no way to get out if something happened--unless you inverted, popped the canopy and dropped out! We all knew we had to ride it down. Never forget, we had one Major former SF guy who also threw in a big coil of rope every time he flew! Oh, be ready for a fairly 'frisky' muzzle jump if you get that new XD-S.

SPQR
SPQR's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/15/2007
AHG

Navy enlisted aircrew (back in the 60's) carried 38's

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
SPQR & Aircrew

I flew in RVN from Dec 66 to Mar 68. Normal crew was 3: 2 rated pilots (commissioned or warrant) and 1 enlisted Technical Operator. Sometimes, for a variety of reasons, crew was 1 rated pilot, me in the Right Seat and the TO. I did the A/G comms, Navaids (Doppler) and manual plotting duties to chart line bearings we took in order to locate radios (read antennas) of bad guys. I would then call in the loc to an Army intel unit on the ground via secure voice and we would soon see Arty or an AF jock with unexpended ordnance dump on the loc.

SPQR
SPQR's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/15/2007
AHG

In 1961-1963 I was attached to an ASW squadron based on A WW2 carrier now in a museum. At the time I was not aircrew but did enjoy several near death experiences on the flight deck. All aircraft were prop. My squadron(VS-23)flew S2F's, two pilots and two enlisted crew. Everybody carried a 38. Not really for shooting bad guys but for being found if you had to ditch. They were loaded with tracer rounds. After I left that squadron I was attached to a Naval air station and was a radioman in P2v's and R5d's(C54's). I left out specifics so I can hopefully continue to make absurd comments with out being recognized. BTW. What's an RVN?

tgarlock
tgarlock's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Gym, we pilots were issued a .38 revolver . . .

. . . as a survival weapon in Vietnam, and we joked that all it was good for was killing ourselves if capture was imminent because the enemy had a record of torture-killing gunship pilots. It was routine for pilots to purchase a bootleg weapon that was off inventory. My first one was a grease gun. It made a lot of noise but it jumped around so much I couldn't hit a water buffalo from 20 yards. I traded it for a sawed off M-1. One enterprising sgt tried to sell me a .50 cal, as if I could squeeze that pig in a cobra cockpit, much less carry it if escaping and evading.

I have the .38 I used in VN, will tell you that story when I see you if I didn't already.

Terry Garlock

Mike King
Mike King's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/29/2006
Since You're Discussing Weapons....

...Guys like myself carried as much firepower as they could get into the bird as one could carry. There was that time when my Car-15, grease gun, machete, shotgun, and a few frags were deposited in a paddy leaving me with only the 38 caliber to fend off those wishing to do my crew chief and I harm.

The 38 worked remarkably well for six rounds, afterwards I'm told I threw it at the remaining threat.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
Terry & the new XD-S

Best take about 6 large with you!

MYTMITE
MYTMITE's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/14/2008
Mr. Garlock, thank you for your thoughtful reply. I, too, worry

about the assaults on our rights in this country. As I said previously, I do not object to gun ownership and I do feel we are guaranteed this right by our constitution. On the other hand I do not think our forefathers anticipated the type of weaponry we now can come by so easily. Since I am neither a gun nor golfing enthusiast I must admit the latest and best of either does not make my heart flutter. I do have two sons-inlaw who do appreciate the best in golfing equipment and who both own several guns. I can see where you are going with that comparison but there are those who would say it would be almost impossible to take out a group of citizens with a nine iron. Sad to say, there are many children who are dead today because of carelessness by their parents or by the over inquisitiveness of those children. Could we as individual citizens have avoided these tragic incidents? No, but making it so easy for gun ownership perpetuates this situation in my estimation. Do I have answers? No, but maybe making it necessary to be trained in the proper usage and storage of weapons may be a start. We have to pass a test to drive a car--why not to own a weapon? Many of the weapons that end up in the hands of 'the bad guys' end up there due to carelessness of law abiding citizens.

There are those that say if someone was armed in the theater there would not have been that massacre, just as they say if teachers were armed the school massacre could have been prevented. Who can say--would there have been more carnage in that theater if people carrying started shooting?--just because someone is carrying does not mean they are a marksman or they would not have starting firing indiscriminately. Who knows? There are as many arguments for as there are against.

For myself, the fact that a weapon feels good in someone's hand, that they admire its capabilities, etc, does not mean they should own something that can wreak such havoc. There are those who love speed, love the power they feel behind the wheel, yet if you were driving 200 miles an hour on the road, you would be stopped-because you are presenting a danger to others.

There are as many interpretations of the Second Amendment as there are people, I would suppose. At least for the present, we live in a country where we can have these different opinions and voice them. For myself, I feel we should be able to protect ourself, our family and our property: I just feel we do not need automatic or assault type weapons to do it. Thank you again for your reply to my question.

tgarlock
tgarlock's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
MTM, one more time . . .

. . . in not one single case in recent memory has an automatic weapon been used. Automatic weapons have been illegal for decades. And it doesn't matter one little bit whether a gun used to kill someone had a pistol grip or not. It is not "military style" or "assault weapons" that are a problem.

If you said something like, "We're up to our necks in guns in the US and need to come up with a more sensible policy, considering the limits of the Constitution," then I would say you might have a really good point.

Terry Garlock

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Mr. Garlock
Quote:

. . . in not one single case in recent memory has an automatic weapon been used. Automatic weapons have been illegal for decades.

Too many have limited or different experiences in this 'gun issue'. Of the over one thousand children killed by guns in 2010 that were homicides, in urban areas, in too many instances, automatic weapons were used. Now my ignorance of correct terminology regarding weapons is admitted. I have heard the rapid shots fired and seen what bullets do to a child's body. I feel that no homeowner who is trained needs a weapon that rapidly fires more than ten bullets. The occurrence of these atrocities in urban areas are not widely publicized - for this gives the perpetrators 'sick' glory. What is a weapon called that rapidly fires more than ten bullets? Someone shared a long list of 'military' guns. From that list, I would have been carrying an illegal weapon in Los Angeles for years. ( I learned to shoot using my father's .38. ) In talking with the men in my family, some hunters- some law-enforcement - they all felt that a gun that accommodated a magazine with more than ten bullets was unnecessary for a person who wanted it for protection. I have been taught not to pull/use my gun unless I was willing to take a life. This is a huge responsibility. I was trained to aim for body mass - I am not a sharpshooter good enough to 'maim' while shooting under stress. My relatives stated that the reason we don't have more fatalities in urban areas is because the perpetrators are poor shots or can't handle the gun. Some clarification please. Not all communities are the same as the communities in Fayette County. There are communities that are experiencing gunfire from automatic weapons - and losing children and/or loved ones on a daily basis. I read somewhere that there is consideration of a 'grandfather clause' for those hunters/collectors to be able to keep their legally purchased guns - if some guns were 'banned'. A prominent 'rapper' was jailed for trafficking guns, He was caught with 'machine guns' in the trunk of his car. Our country has a problem that affects citizens differently - yet what happened in Newtown could happen in Peachtree City. How do we follow our Constitution, and deal with the realities of life in Fayetteville and Los Angeles and the proliferation of guns ?

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
DM- some further clarification on what automatic means

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJFcmv3xm-E
some people might need more than 10 rounds in a magazine because as you stated, under stress, you might not be a particularly good shot. Or, maybe because like the teenager in this video, they arent very good with regular guns. Maybe they are scared and cant shoot straight under the stress and need more than one bullet. Maybe because the city they lived in (like chicago or D.C.) had bans on handguns. Maybe because some people are uncomfortable with the kick of a 12 ga. shotgun and want something with a more mild recoil. I own several Ar's (built them myself thank you very much) and use them in shooting matches. Being able to shoot more with less reloading saves time and therefore lets me score higher. Please remember that the number of fully automatic guns owned by civilians is minuscule, far less than 1% of gun owners have full auto guns, mostly because they are so monumentally expensive due to their rarity. An Ar type rifle can cost between $600-$1000. A fully auto m-16 ( of which the AR is a cosmetic copy) will easily set you back $25K, if you can find one at all. What you think of as "assault rifles" are not fully auto and in fact are actually hunting rifles with cosmetic features designed to mimic the look of a military weapon, but can't in reality duplicate the lethality of a military weapon. Think of it like a kit car. Sure they look the same as a ferrari, but the performance is not even close. Civilian assault rifles are completely mis-named. No actual Military or police force uses semi auto versions when for practically the same price (only for military and LEO) they could get a full auto gun instead. They are only called that out of habit because the military versions they are trying to mimic are called assault rifles. Some quick military terminology here. A submachine gun (smg) fires pistol caliber rounds. A battle rifle fires full sized hunting cartridges like .30-06 Rem and .308 Win. An "assault rifle" is a full auto gun that shoots a bullet that is somewhere in between the other two. It is absolutely legal to hunt with civilian so called "assault rifles" including ar-15's and ak-47's, with just one caveat. You may only use a magazine that can hold 5 bullets, no more. This is due purely to the existing hunting laws, not out of worry for the publics saftey. The ar-15 has become one of the most commonly purchased hunting rifles in America over the last 10 years. They come in many different calibers ( too many to list) and are good for almost any game in north America. People like them because they are fun to have. inexpensive to shoot and can be used for shooting matches, hunting or just plinking and target practice. the number of bullets a magazine can hold has nothing to do with whether it can shoot fully automatic or not.

tgarlock
tgarlock's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
DM, automatic weapons are the real "military" weapons . . .

. . . in this debate and have been illegal for decades, don't remember the year the law was recognized as necessary. The use of automatic weapons by criminals in urban areas (read that "gangs" and "thugs") is illegal, and any notion new laws would have an impact is wishful and naive.

Here I may surprise you. I can purchase an automatic weapon - very expensive - so long as I purchase a special permit that registers the weapon with the federal govt. If you asked why anyone needs an automatic weapon, I would say now you're getting to really meaningful questions, and while some would disagree, I would draw the line and make automatic weapons illegal completely regardless of permits.

In FBI crime statistics less than 5% of gun crimes are committed with rifles, and "assault rifles" (ARs) are just a subset of that. But an AR is only a military "style" weapon, meaning the similarities are cosmetic, like the pistol grip, but unlike the ARs I can buy a military weapon MUST have automatic fire to be adequately lethal in combat.

An AR is no more lethal than a deer rifle or a handgun, and an AR is equally as useful hunting deer no matter what the anti-gunners say.

If you do your homework you will find the gun control study commissioned by Jimmy Carter found that gun control laws have no effect on crime, that the AR ban from 1994 to 2004 had no effect on crime, and that the dramatic reduction in crime in New York City accomplished by Mayor Guliani had nothing to do with new gun control laws and everything to do with enforcement of existing laws and zealous prosecution of crooks.

This whole gun control debate is one more power-grab by the feds, using the emotional aftermath of a tragedy, adding artificial fear of ARs, all pumped my a media in which journalism is dead and buried, replaced by propaganda. Be careful of the koolaid.

Terry Garlock

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
MR. GARLOCK

Thanks for taking the time for the clarification.

Quote:

Jimmy Carter found that gun control laws have no effect on crime, that the AR ban from 1994 to 2004 had no effect on crime, and that the dramatic reduction in crime in New York City accomplished by Mayor Guliani had nothing to do with new gun control laws and everything to do with enforcement of existing laws and zealous prosecution of crooks

This makes perfect sense to me. I cringed when the 'rapper' who was convicted of trafficking guns is now on the streets - 'rehabilitated'; making money; and is viewed as a 'hero' in some communities. For the reason quoted above, I see no need for a change in the interpretation of our Second Amendment. . .but better enforcement of existing law. Correct me if I misunderstand - but it is difficult to obtain AUTOMATIC WEAPONS legally; military weapons MUST HAVE automatic fire. If I understand, then what I am against is the proliferation of AUTOMATIC WEAPONS in certain neighborhoods - right? I also am disgusted with the lack of factual reporting by some members of the 'FOURTH ESTATE'. I do differ with you in the power grab issue. Not withstanding Congresswoman Pelosi - I see the fear of 'banning' all weapons as definitely assisting gun sales in our country.

Quote:

I would draw the line and make automatic weapons illegal completely regardless of permits

Now that I have an understanding of the correct terminology - I agree wholeheartedly with the above. I'm sure there are others who have a misunderstanding of 'military' weapons and automatic weapons and the AR rifle. In this discussion, it appears there are areas where agreement can be reached and still protect the Second Amendment. Question: Is a gun that requires a magazine considered an 'automatic weapon'?

Thanks.

tgarlock
tgarlock's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
DM: answer on automatic guns

You asked, "Is a gun that requires a magazine considered an 'automatic weapon'?"

Absolutely NOT. There are hundreds of types of semi-automatic handguns and rifles, and they fire once per trigger pull, and they have magazines or clips that hold the stacked ammo. They are NOT automatic.

Automatic weapons also use magazines, but have a very lethal high rate of fire that continues so long as the trigger remains pulled until out of ammo.

The President and his minions and the media have - either out of ignorance or intentional deception or both - failed to make this distinction and instill irrational fear of ARs in order to achieve their goal, which I believe is one more ratchet turn on gun control.

I know you disagree on motive, but make yourself a note. After this round of gun control wrestling is over, and we have another mass shooting, let's see if they try to turn the ratchet a little tighter.

Terry Garlock

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
MR. GARLOCK
Quote:

After this round of gun control wrestling is over, and we have another mass shooting, let's see if they try to turn the ratchet a little tighter.

Thanks for that clarification. I think that 'focus' is at the bottom of points of view. My concern about gun violence will not be rekindled after another 'mass shooting'. I have former students who are DAILY dealing with the affects of 'drive-bys', gang initiations that involve 'shooting', turf warfare, and sadly, losing innocents to random shooting in some neighborhoods. The violence in Los Angeles and Pasadena has diminished in the last 10 or so years; Atlanta had only 85 murders in the last year; Chicago had over 400 (gang related homicide) - but if one has a family member that is a victim, statistics aren't relevant. If your facts are accurate, and I have no reason to believe they aren't - why hasn't the NRA clarified these facts to the public? The NRA hasn't depended on the President or the liberal media to get their word out in the past. This clarification would help us (those who have little knowledge of guns) to understand the terminology that gun enthusiasts are familiar with. If persons understood this difference - and agreed that AUTOMATIC WEAPONS do not belong in the hands of a person who is not trained for assault activity - where is the threat to gun ownership? My position at this point is enforcement of current gun laws; universal background check; ban on private ownership of automatic weapons. I also would be in favor of a 'grandfather' clause for those weapons purchased before the implementation of the ban on automatic weapons AFTER A MEANINGFUL BACKGROUND CHECK ON THE OWNERS. My focus is on 'gun violence' - not 'gun control'. Criminals and the mentally disturbed should not be in possession of guns. The constant referral to our President as wanting to disarm Americans is not supported by facts. . .and keeps this issue in the political arena rather than in the problem solving arena IMO.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Terry well said...

Many here think this is about Guns..it is and it isn't.

It is for me and many like me about Government usurpation of the Constitution and the oversteps taken by these very same people.

After this assault on the 2nd.. what's next? Will speech that is considered "subversive" by the Government be next? How about if the Government decides for the "Good of the Public" Habeas Corpus needs to be suspended?

I mean it is not like the Government has EVER done anything like that...Right?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
SL - A question
Quote:

It is for me and many like me about Government usurpation of the Constitution and the oversteps taken by these very same people

How do you explain the NRA's suggestion of armed guards at every school - usurping the local districts governance of the local school district? How will those armed guards - demanded by 'federal legislation' - be paid for?

I noticed that you have conveniently ignored the FACT that more children were killed on American streets one month than in Afghanistan. Assault weapons are in the hands of 'gangs' - due to weapon trafficking in the US - and killing/injuring innocents in 'drive-by' shootings. The president said today that law-abiding citizens who have guns in their home for protection; hunting; target practice; collection, etc. are LAW ABIDING. - and protected by the Second Amendment. The NRA is protecting their INCOME - and using 'fear', 'ignorance', and 'deception as their ace card. From the input of over 200 organizations in the US - a number of actions have been agreed upon that would begin the changing of the NEGATIVE gun-culture in this country. It is too bad that 'politicians' and an organization that has used false advertising (NRA - THE PRESIDENT'S CHILDREN) to keep 'sales' up is using a political party and politics to help this country overcome a negative issue regarding criminals and mental illness that is the cause of too many deaths. (LOCAL PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS HAVE HAD RESOURCE OFFICERS/ARMED GUARDS ON SCHOOL GROUNDS FOR OVER 20 YEARS!)

Those who are aware of this farce - are going to the American people - and the 2014 election. Continue to put those tasteless lies in the ads regarding the President - and you will again see what a waste of money it is - when AMERICANS ignore that feeble attempt to sway by lies - and vote!!

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
DM- Ad is true even if classless
Quote:

It is too bad that 'politicians' and an organization that has used false advertising (NRA - THE PRESIDENT'S CHILDREN) to keep 'sales' up is using a political party and politics to help this country overcome a negative issue regarding criminals and mental illness that is the cause of too many deaths.

The ad may be classless, but it's not false. The Sidwell school does employ armed guards. As to your second point who is going to pay for them? Well that is why I support allowing teachers that are willing to undergo formal training to carry at school. As far as the rest of the POTUS plan for gun control I have to say that I'm mostly disappointed. I'm good with background checks but the rest, (Assault weapon ban, magazine capacity) will do little. Columbine happened during a time when this country was under an assault weapons ban. And even now rifles account for about 3.5% of gun violence. Assault weapons are only a portion of that. Switzerland is one of the safest countries in the world and most homes there have an assault weapon in them. And still no mention of addressing the mental health issue. This is for the most part just politicians doing something to appease the peasants. Oh and BTW, some people cite early news releases where it was reported that the rifle was not used and a lack of any security video being released showing Adam using it as indications that the rifle really was not used.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
G35

True: the Sidwell School does employ armed guards. False: Obama does not want the same for other children's security.

Quote:

Executive Action: Give communities the opportunity to hire up to 1000 School Resource Officers and Counselors. (Resource Officers are armed).

High schools in the Atlanta area have had armed personnel on campus. Many cities have had armed personnel on K-12 public schools for over 20 years. Gun - free zones referred to students, other staff , and visitors not allowed to bring guns on campus.

Some communities do not want a federal agency to force adults on their campus carrying guns as the NRA appears to be suggesting. False advertising through ignorance and deception, IMO by the NRA.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
DM your factless emotional response not withstanding...

...I am 100% correct in this.

DM wrote:

I noticed that you have conveniently ignored the FACT that more children were killed on American streets one month than in Afghanistan.

What is your point... There are more children killed by careless drivers then was killed in Afghanistan.. There were more kids killed by unsafe toys then in Afghanistan.. I mean we can continue to play that game all day long.

Taking a "Pistol" grip off a Rifle does not make it safe.. but that is what they did.. Do you think criminals are not going to get 30 round mags? You do realize that there is a blackmarket for such items now and the Government just created it.

Oh na dbtw- If armed guards is good enough for the President Children why are they not good enough for our kids...in fact every Congress member's kids go to a school secured by armed guards.. why are their children better then ours?

Sounds very elitist to me. Like I have said before.. Socialism is for the "Little" People...not the Socialist.

btw-DM noticed you said very little about the 2500 Assault Weapons sent across the border to Mexico by our Government that were used to kill their Children and our Border Agents.
But you were OK with that because it was Obama's Administration that did it right?

One final fact for you DM... Those "Scary" so-called assault weapons are used LESS THEN 3% of the time in all gun homicides. But don't let facts get in the way of a good scary story.

Here is a few more "Fun" facts..

Cars kill more people then Guns...

Alcohol..kill more people then guns...

Cigarettes...kill more people then guns...

Hammers....kill more people then guns...

Fist and Feet...kill more people then guns...

Abortion Doctors have killed more Children then Guns..

So DM if it will save just one life lets ban Cars, Alcohol, Cigarettes, Hammers and Feet and Fist.

Onama wrote:

If gun control saves one child, it’s worth it

After all if Gun Control will save just one life we have to do everything we can right?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
SL
Quote:

One final fact for you DM... Those "Scary" so-called assault weapons are used LESS THEN 3% of the time in all gun homicides. But don't let facts get in the way of a good scary story.

Here is a few more "Fun" facts..

Cars kill more people then Guns...

Alcohol..kill more people then guns...

Cigarettes...kill more people then guns...

Hammers....kill more people then guns...

Cars: By law, driver must be licensed/ car must be registered

Alcohol: considered a disease and there are medical facilities for healing.

Cigarettes: by law, warning must be placed on product. Medicine available to overcome addiction

Hammers: (statistics please). Other than YouTube and anonymous source

Fact: it is easier to buy a gun than to get help for mental disease in the US

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
DM

Cars require a License.. Right that is called States Right part of the 10th Amendment.. The State can require restrictions.. but unlike Gun ownership it is not a RIGHT.. so once again you are wrong.

Alcohol if it is a disease why don't we spend Billions trying to eradicate it.. heck why don't we ban it?.. btw- tried once how did that work out.. For the Kennedy's pretty darned well I would say...Still wrong.

Cigarettes.. just like Alcohol ban them since they kill so many... yep wrong again..

Hammers..Try FBI crime states.. So called Assault Rifles are below Hammers, Fist and Feet as the weapon used in Homicides.

"FBI: Hammers, Clubs Kill More People Than Rifles, Shotguns"
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-...

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/01/03/fbi-hammers-clubs-kill-more-pe...

A Strawman's argument Dm. You see DM I can back up my facts.. How about you?

DM wrote:

Fact: it is easier to buy a gun than to get help for mental disease in the US

How is that the fault of the NRA or that scary pistol grip?

Maybe instead of blaming the tool they should blame the carpenter for the house poorly built.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
SL

You are incapable of dealing with the individual statements made by an individual. No need to repeat your 'talking points'. Enjoy the sunshine.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Not arguing

. . .just sharing my opinion based on my experience. We live in a country with a vast diversity of citizens. In order to live peacefully together, we need to hear others opinions. We do not need to argue for arguments sake. I may not agree with ones opinion, but I need to understand why one has a different point of view.. I thank those who share their points of view for clarification without denigrating others. The high school students in Fayette County have some excellent debate teachers who are guiding them in developing the skill of a secure debater. Again, have a nice day.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
...and you have no arguments..

..that I can't break.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Gun control technique proven to save lives at mass shootings

Wow! Really? Wonder what that is. Sure would be a good thing to save lives - especially the children. Let's get on the bandwagon to promote that technique.

So, what it is, is that somebody did a study of 100 mass shootings and ran some stats on the loss of life. There were 2 categories that showed a huge difference in lives lost. One type of mass shooting that didn't use this gun control technique had 14 fatalities per shooting. The other shootings that did use this gun control technique had only 2 fatalities per shooting. These are of course averages.

The shootings that averaged 14 fatalities were stopped by the police. The police had to be called and sent to the shooting site from wherever they were. 10-15 minute response times are pretty typical. The shootings that averaged only 2 fatalities were stopped by that popular new gun control technique known as an armed civilian (meaning non-police) who was already at or nearby the shooting site. So logical, so sensible and scientifically proven.

All we need to do is convince the President and his blind followers that Gun Control includes having armed civilians in schools, churches (yes, one mass shooting was in a church - ended by an armed female guard with minimal loss of life) , shopping centers, office buildings, post offices, etc.

That's not saving just one life, it is saving 12 lives.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
FACTS:

In 2010: ,2694 young people were killed by gunfire. 1773 were victims of homicide; 67 were elementary school age children

Source of information:Children's Defense Fund; CDC'S National Center for Health Statistics;FBI Uniform Crime Reports for 2010.

Local school districts and local school communities have had armed protection for some of their school sites for over 20 years. Check the statistics. Then hope that your child does not become a statistic. (Nothing emotional about this) . A problem cannot be solved without recognizaing and dealing with the cause of the problem. It appears that some want a solution, as long as it doesn't stop gun sales.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
No, no, no, Moms. Not "armed protection"

You are totally missing the point. Armed protection in the form of a security guard or school resource officer visibly armed an in uniform is not the same thing as an armed civilian with a concealed weapon. A potential mass shooter will either kill the armed guard first or distance himself from that guard or simply go to a school that doesn't have one. But in doing all that, he can't avoid the possibility of an armed civilian with a concealed weapon being next to him when he starts shooting. That's the whole point - you don't know where a concealed weapon is because it is - duh, concealed. I don't think that solution has anything to do with gun sales, nor do I care about gun sales. There are plenty of guns - just get them deployed properly so than when the next illegally or legally armed nutjob comes along - he gets taken down before he uses up his 10 round magazine.

And I'm as sorry as I can be about the 2694 dead young people. 1773 homicide - I guess the rest were gun accidents. NRA can help with gun safety classes for all who will attend, The homicides and drive-bys, not sure anything can stop that. Even the legally concealed weapon crowd avoids those neighborhoods so we won't be much help with a completely different kind of gun problem than mass shootings in schools. Although maybe we could take all the guns confiscated from drug dealers and gang members and repurpose them by issuing them to teachers and the undercover drug officers the police use in schools to catch dealers.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
RWM

. . .and each local school district can determine what protection they need without a federally mandatd armed guard in every school. I agree that the NRA can play a positive role in this problem. Some communities that have the drive by problem are taking steps to curb this violence. It is difficult, since many gangs are tied to the drug business, and that criminal activity has been difficult to stop - no matter the social- economic status of the community. There is more agreement on possible solutions than disagreements. I believe that the Second Amendment is safe - our children are not. Local communities can act/ are acting at taking steps - over half of the citizens in this country agree with the suggested background check. The trafficking of illegal weapons to gangs and criminals is a big problem in urban areas. To make this an anti-Obama; anti- NRA issue is IMO a smoke screen for political posturing.

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
The thug, rap, gang culture

Rangel: Southern States “Have Cultures That We Have To Overcome”

Right, charlie. The southern states have to overcome the thug, rap, gang culture born out of a 70% out of wedlock birth rate. The cowards in this 'culture' prey on the innocent and can be found on the evening news and on the shows "COPS" and "Bait Car" just about every night.

Rangel: Southern States “Have Cultures That We Have To Overcome”

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Now Robert..stop confusing these misguided folks with facts..

...I mean they have their talking points and that is really all they know.. One wants to talk about the 2nd and thinks that will get it changed.. Another thinks we should only have muskets.. and the rest just want "something" done even if it has proven over and over and over it has never worked but it will however make them feel better.

Now the NRA is a "hate" group.. really. Wow. well you know how it is disagree with the President and your a Racist..disagree with a progressive and your a hater.

Awww my wittle feeling are hurt.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Glad the President is picking this fight - because he can't win

Not only will there be absolutely nothing resembling gun control passed by Congress, the mere discussion is going unseat some Dems in the House and Senate in 2014. Prezbo has probably been told this and asked to tone it down, but he is so full of himself he can't - or won't.

So, as I said before - waiting for Congress and the President to do something - even to begin discussing the actual problem instead of the straw man of guns, well I for one am not waiting. Not only is my gun control proposal ahem, bulletproof, it is logical, sensible and best of all something I can implement myself without a single politician or regulator getting in the way.

I will "control" my gun(s) by having at least one with me at all times whether I am at home, driving my car or in a public setting. Flying is a problem, but I don't need to. I urge others to do the same, provided you have the proper paperwork to carry concealed and above all have been trained and practice regularly.

In fact that's something useful the NRA could do instead of arguing with these pinheads about gun control. Instead get out there and help train people about gun safety and how to use them. That would actually help. In fact, start training teachers so that when some states allow concealed carry on campus (as some certainly will) the teachers will be ready to go on day one.

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
Carter Tactics Recycled to Determine “Gun control laws do not re

I thought Obama's order to “Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.” was familiar!
www.wnd.com/2013/01/how-obamas-gun-order-will-backfire/ GP

bladderq
bladderq's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/02/2005
Gun Control

We are now officially in an arms race w/ ourselves. I received a catalog today that had a 50 shot drum for a Glock pistol. The genie is out of the bottle in this country.
I can't cite the reference but I believe I read that 85% of all childrens death caused by gunshot in the entire World, occur in the good ol' U.S.of A. We own 85% of all the privately held guns in the world? Are we safer from tyranny than the rest of the industrialized world?

Your paranoid fantasies about fighting a rebellion against a theoretical future fascist government takeover does not trump my rights to demand appropriate and reasonable public health policies to stop gun violence.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

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.[8]

So where in this debate on gun control is there "A well regulated militia"? Shouldn't this require some national or local database? How do the heads of this militia know who to call upon or what weapons they can bring to bear to provide security?

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
Bladderq - just because youre paranoid......

doesnt mean no ones out to get you.

bladderq wrote:

We own 85% of all the privately held guns in the world? Are we safer from tyranny than the rest of the industrialized world?

considering the number of tyrannical dictatorships that started with registration and confiscation of guns in the last 200 odd years, I would say undeniably yes. Lets not forget the Japanese generals who warned against invading mainland America, he said there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass, refering to the number of privately owned firearms here. There were over 600,000 hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin. Allow me to restate that number differently. Over the last several months, Wisconsin's hunters became the eighth largest army in the world. More men under arms than in Iran. More than in France and Germany combined. These men deployed to the woods of a single American state to hunt with firearms, and no one was killed. That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and Michigan 's 700,000 hunters . . . all of whom have now returned home. Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia, and it literally establishes the fact that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world. The point? America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower. Privately owned firearms -- it's not just a way to fill the freezer, it's a matter of national security. That's why all enemies, foreign and domestic, want to see us disarmed.

tgarlock
tgarlock's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
bladderq, you are implying that . . .

. . . a debate over the meaning of the 2nd Amendment language could lead to changing it. That's what I mean about too little respect for the limits of the Constitution.

There are very specific, and intentionally onerous, steps to be undertaken to achieve either an amendment to the Constitution, or to convene a Constitutional Convention. Absent that, interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is up to the Supreme Court, not you and me, and they have already ruled on it. Whether either of us agree with their ruling or not is not the issue.

If you said we as a country should go through the prescribed steps to amend the Constitution to get rid of the militia rationale, and include some kind of limitation on the individual right to purchase, own and sell guns, I might not agree with you but at least you would have the virtue of going about it the right way.

Terry Garlock

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
bladderq-Statistics must be understood to be useful
Quote:

I can't cite the reference but I believe I read that 85% of all childrens death caused by gunshot in the entire World, occur in the good ol' U.S.of A. We own 85% of all the privately held guns in the world? Are we safer from tyranny than the rest of the industrialized world?

Be careful with statistics. In a debate with Piers Morgan he (Morgan) says that 80 people a day die because of gun violence. Ted Nugent says yeah but 78 of those deaths are caused by criminals that have served time for violent crime before and have been released back into society. Repeat offenders that should not have been released.

I just watched a you tube video that breaks down gun violence using the FBI's data. It's very interesting where this gun violence takes place. And where it doesn't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Ooa98FHuaU0

You notice that he says rifles are responsible for 3.5% of gun crime. Assault weapons are a subset of that. So how much will a ban on them affect crime? You think a lot? Well, one of the safest countries in the world is Switzerland. And in 2001 about 420,000 homes there had assault rifles in them. Put there by the Swiss government. You see there every able bodied male serves a year of active duty and then is considered to be in something like our reserves until the age of 34. They keep all of their equipment at home. That is around 1.2 to 3 million guns and 420,000 assault rifles. And their rate of homicide by any means is 0.7 per 100,000. Homicide by guns is 0.52 per 100K.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
I am so tired of the idiotic argument.. Militias have nothing...

...to do with today's Army, National Guard or anything else...

The 2nd only codified our Natural Right of Self-Defense and it stated that Government SHALL NOT INFRINGE on that Right. There is a process blad of changing the 2nd if you want.. it is called the Amendment process. This is the ONLY Constitutional correct way of changing a "Right".

What part of Shall not be infringed upon don't you get?

Don't you realize that this is not over guns but yours and my Rights.. IF Government can restrict (infringe) upon a Natural Right what can't they do.

Blad/Lion this in NOT about Guns, how many we have, rather they are Military Styled or not.. this IS however about what Government can and should not be able to do.

If Government can alter the Constitutional Rights of you and I then they can begin to curtail, hinder or outright remove those "Rights" that they might in some Future Government disagree with.

Can't happen.. Look at the Japanese Internment Camps. Our Government complete ignored the Constitution and took American Citizens of Japanese decent and locked them away. Can I see a future where that may occur again.. Sure.

All it would take would be some sort of Catastrophic event, say blamed on the Teaparty Movement and Government could for reasons of Public Safety could easily curtail their Rights of Free Speech.

We see it in the Patriot Act, Drones flying overhead, Fairness Doctrine, Kill List and Citizens deemed a threat ordered killed without any type of due process.

Why do we allow it to happen?

Well supposedly Alexander Fraser Tytler, a European historian said this about Democracies.
We all go the same way...

From bondage to spiritual faith,
From spiritual faith to great courage,
From courage to liberty,
From liberty to abundance,
From abundance to selfishness,
From selfishness to complacency,
From complacency to apathy,
From apathy to dependency,
From dependency back again to bondage."

I believe we are at stage 7 Apathy moving to Stage 8 Dependency.
We saw that in the last election... Everyone wanted something for their vote and it was promised.. Every group and every sub-group was promised something from the common Treasury..

So Blad/Lion this not really about Guns at all.. It is about how far you are willing to let Government go. Today it is the 2nd but what's next?
Free Speech? How about that Right to a Trial or that Freedom from unlawful seizures and searches?

Will you be OK with that?

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Militia history from a Cracker Jack box.
S. Lindsey wrote:

I am so tired of the idiotic argument.. Militias have nothing...to do with today's Army, National Guard or anything else...

Say What? Seriously?

This is no idiotic argument at all, it's American history. Cite the whole Amendment:

"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. "

When the Amendment was written it was to insure that the Congress would not infringe on the States right to have a militia.

Militia Act of 1792, Second Congress, Session I. Chapter XXVIII. Passed May 2, 1792, providing for the authority of the President to call out the Militia wrote:

Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders for that purpose, to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper; and in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the legislature of such state, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, or as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection.

Militia Act of 1792

The second part of the law set up the militias with uniformed standards.

Militia Act of 1792, Second Congress, Session I. Chapter XXVIII. Passed May 2, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia. wrote:

IV. And be it further enacted, That out of the militia enrolled as is herein directed, there shall be formed for each battalion, as least one company of grenadiers, light infantry or riflemen; and that each division there shall be, at least, one company of artillery, and one troop of horse: There shall be to each company of artillery, one captain, two lieutenants, four serjeants, four corporals, six gunners, six bombardiers, one drummer, and one fifer. The officers to be armed with a sword or hanger, a fusee, bayonet and belt, with a cartridge box to contain twelve cartridges; and each private of matoss shall furnish themselves with good horses of at least fourteen hands and an half high, and to be armed with a sword and pair of pistols, the holsters of which to be covered with bearskin caps. Each dragoon to furnish himself with a serviceable horse, at least fourteen hands and an half high, a good saddle, bridle, mail-pillion and valise, holster, and a best plate and crupper, a pair of boots and spurs; a pair of pistols, a sabre, and a cartouchbox to contain twelve cartridges for pistols. That each company of artillery and troop of house shall be formed of volunteers from the brigade, at the discretion of the Commander in Chief of the State, not exceeding one company of each to a regiment, nor more in number than one eleventh part of the infantry, and shall be uniformly clothed in raiments, to be furnished at their expense, the colour and fashion to be determined by the Brigadier commanding the brigade to which they belong.

The Second Amendment was not written so that any idiot with the money could have an assault weapon in 2013. It was written to standardize "well regulated" State militias and George Washington and the first Congress implemented these laws to enact it. These State militias are now the National Guard.

Is Nancy Lanza the "well regulated militia" the 2nd Amendment was addressing or was it the laws establishing the Militias written by Washington and the first Congress under the 2nd Amendment that are a more accurate description of the reality of what the Founding Fathers were doing do by codifying and standardizing the State Militias to support the newly established government.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Jeff.. Rhetoric from the Nose bleed section...

I am not going to rehash the argument already made. YOU are wrong if you believe the "Militia" in the 2nd pertains only to the Military.

The 2nd did not confer a Right to directly to the People, We already had a Natural Right of Self-Defense. We are a sovereign entity in our own right and do not need a document to confer Rights it was the States that gave the Federal Government power and the right not the other way around, however that being said the 2nd codified those rights and made sure that Government could not interfere with it.

The Constitution is either incorporated or it is not... If not then and only then you may have an argument, however then we start getting into why the Federal Government is operating outside the 18 specific powers granted to them, if it is then the Government owes me a gun of the same caliber and type given to the Military.

But then that pesky comma, and follow on Sentence just won't go away will it.

P.A. MADISON wrote:

The Second Amendment acknowledges the ancient principal that says a free people can only remain free when people are able to collectively provide for their own defense instead of professional armies that could become a tool of despotic rulers. The “right of the people” in the federal Constitution is used only in a collective recognition sense due to the fact the federal Bill of Rights had no force of law upon individuals themselves within their own sovereign States.

You should read these Jeff..

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa00.htm

You do seem to have "issues" getting facts about the Constitution straight...

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Federalist Papers on Militias

I suggest that you might actually read Federalist Paper No. 29 "Concerning the Militia". It addresses exactly the issues that Washington and the first Congress enacted into law just like I said; regulating the militia.

"THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy."

"It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress."

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
See that's the problem...

...with you Jeff you love to pick and choose what fits with your points..

You might try Federalist #8

Hamilton wrote:

spoke of the need for a permanent Army. He also noted however that Nations with a standing Army also tends to oppress it's citizens and the only defense is an armed populace.

...or

Paine wrote:

on the 2nd during the Convention to Ratify the Constitution..
The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.

...or

Ferderalist #28

Hamilton wrote:

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State....The people by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress.

...or

Federalist #29

Hamilton wrote:

" To attempt a
thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so
considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made,
could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can
reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped;"

...or

Maybe Madison in Federalist #46

Madison wrote:

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

...or

Since you love Court cases and their opinions...

St.George Tucker a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia officer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District Court judge (appointed by James Madison in 1813), wrote of the Second Amendment:

St. George Tucker wrote:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.
In the appendix to the Commentaries, Tucker elaborates further:
This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty... The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.

...or how about this one.

"Another jurist contemporaneous to the Founders, William Rawle, authored "A View of the Constitution of the United States of America" (1829). His work was adopted as a constitutional law textbook at West Point and other institutions. In Chapter 10 he describes the scope of the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms:"

William Rawle wrote:

The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.

...or

"Justice Story (appointed to the Supreme Court as an Associate Justice by James Madison in 1811), wrote a constitutional commentary in 1833 ("Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States"). Regarding the Second Amendment, he wrote (source):"

Justice Story wrote:

The next amendment is: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

...or

Supreme Court wrote:

"The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our Constitution, and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. . . . "

--- The U.S. Supreme Court in Cohens v. Virginia (1821)

...or

(U.S. v. Emerson, 46 F.Supp.2d 598 (N.D.Tex. 1999

US District Court wrote:

"Collective rights theorists argue that addition of the subordinate clause qualifies the rest of the amendment by placing a limitation on the people's right to bear arms. However, if the amendment truly meant what collective rights advocates propose, then the text would read "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the States to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." However, that is not what the framers of the amendment drafted. The plain language of the amendment, without attenuate inferences therefrom, shows that the function of the subordinate clause was not to qualify the right, but instead to show why it must be protected. The right exists independent of the existence of the militia. If this right were not protected, the existence of the militia, and consequently the security of the state, would be jeopardized."

Really Jeff I could do this all night... It is very clear that the Framers and Founders did NOT intend Militias to be only those recognized by the State but they intended that all people to be armed and that they could be called up in the protection of the State and their own Natural Right of Self-Defense or in the inverse to protect their individual Freedom from a Government that has turned to tyranny.

You see Jeff the Founders and Framers where in themselves historians. Many traveled extensively and saw Governments that oppressed their people and the people had no recourse against their Government. They KNEW the only FUTURE defense against a Government abuse of their power was an armed populace.

There are NO Country's in the World Jeff that have oppressive Governments where their population is armed. However there are no end to the examples of the reverse.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Online
Joined: 12/17/2007
Constitution vs. Supreme Court

The SC has defined what the 2nd Amendment means in practice, which is why there is no absolute right to own firearms, convicted felons cannot legally buy firearms, states are allowed to regulate them stringently, deny concealed weapons, deny open carry, etc.

I think you're making a constitutional argument and unless someone knows how to time travel and ask the founders what they truly meant or didn't, the SC basically sets the law of the land in interpreting the Constitution and intent.

We can argue all day of whether that is right or not, but it's the reality.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Nuk I hear you...

...but we are all that stand between allowing men to corrupt what has stood for 240+ years and made America what it is today.

If we allow our emotions and yes even our spineless devotion to Government to win this one..then what is next? Do you think they will be done?

We can know what their (Founders) intent is. Through their writings both before and after they wrote and then ratified the Constitution we can know their thoughts and why they wrote into the Constitution the things they did.

All we have to do is stop listening to the pundits that have agenda's of their own and read something..not opinions but their actual writings.

Personally this "ban" on this or that will not affect me in the least..even if it goes as far as confiscation. Still won't affect me now.. I have already taken measures to protect my Rights..

So for me this is not about Guns. It is however about Governmental oversteps and abuse of power.

How much further into the Constitution do we want Government to insinuate itself into? How much further are we going to allow them to abuse their Authority?

And what are we going to do about it?

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
The Liar in Chief

I, for one, will not listen to the nacissist, liar-in-chief obama. While he is at his pulpit preaching his version of morality, he had the audacity to send assault weapons across the border to Mexico and allowed them to fall into the hands of criminals. He then denied having any knowledge of it.

obama the liar has blood on his hands. When he says that he believes in an individual's right to bear arms, you can't believe him because he lies on a continual basis.

This is the same man that stated (when he was campaigning) this about NASA: "We cannot cede our leadership in space. That's why I will help close the gap and ensure that our space program doesn't suffer when the Shuttle goes out of service by working with Senator Bill Nelson to add at least one additional Space Shuttle flight beyond 2010; by supporting continued funding for NASA; by speeding the development of the Shuttle's successor; and by making sure that all those who work in the space industry in Florida do not lose their jobs when the Shuttle is retired - because we cannot afford to lose their expertise. Under my watch, NASA will inspire the world, make America stronger, and help grow the economy here in Florida."

obama then proceeded to cut funding to Nasa and shove the money towards his masters at the teacher's unions. The cuts dessimated the people in Titusville, Florida. obama lied to their faces when he was campaigning.

He lied to them, he lies to us on a daily basis. obama is a liar that cannot be trusted. So when he states that he believes in the second ammendment, think again. This man is a pathological liar who will say one thing and then do the opposite. He can't be trusted.

MajorMike
MajorMike's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/20/2005
NUK_1 - No time machine needed

The founders of our Constitution, the Father of our Country, and various other historical Americans of note have all been very explicit in their desire that Americans retain the right to bear arms.

http://www.preventtyranny.com/quotes_guns.htm

The Supreme HAS ruled on our right to bear arms! Even so, the SC is made up of men(& women) and all men have feet of clay and can be corrupted. Our current POTUS seems hell bent on corrupting as many American Institutions as possible. I am not alone in seeing a great similarity between Barrack Obama and Adolph Hitler just starting with his desire to disarm the populace.

The REAL reality is wheather or not there are enough Patriotic, rational, and sane arms bearing citizens to tell that piece of human garbage in the White house that he can take his "nineteen ways to bypass Congress" and stick em where the sun don't shine.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/15/ore-sheriff-says-wont-enforce...

I suspect there are.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Online
Joined: 12/17/2007
Major: I'm withholding comment until I see

what Obama has planned. Guess it's about to be announced today. I don't think confiscation will be on the list but I'm VERY interested in what "19 executive orders" King Barack wants to unleash on upon the American public and what the response from our elected reps and the general public will be once they are made public.

I have really low expectations of that list making a dent in violent crime at all.

rolling stone
rolling stone's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2012
S. Lindsey: you can take your own advice
Quote:

There is a process blad of changing the 2nd if you want.. it is called the Amendment process. This is the ONLY Constitutional correct way of changing a "Right".

I suggest that you work to change the 2nd amendment to remove that pesky text about well regulated militias since its existence is causing you so much angst.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Don't need to Stone...

... I am not trying to misinterpret the Constitution. That's you and others. I already know what the Founders/Writers meant.. It is made clear in the Federalist Papers.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1318670/posts

rolling stone
rolling stone's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2012
S. Lindsey: what is clear in your link

is that it is an interpretation of an explanation. What you present as postulates are anything but.

One could describe your process as motivated reasoning.

The case for motivated reasoning.
Kunda Z.
Source
Department of Psychology, Princeton University, New Jersey 08544-1010.
Abstract
It is proposed that motivation may affect reasoning through reliance on a biased set of cognitive processes--that is, strategies for accessing, constructing, and evaluating beliefs. The motivation to be accurate enhances use of those beliefs and strategies that are considered most appropriate, whereas the motivation to arrive at particular conclusions enhances use of those that are considered most likely to yield the desired conclusion. There is considerable evidence that people are more likely to arrive at conclusions that they want to arrive at, but their ability to do so is constrained by their ability to construct seemingly reasonable justifications for these conclusions.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Stone just because you can't understand something so simple...

... is not my problem.

Suffice it to say I am right you are wrong and that's the end of the story.

Maybe you yourself should re-read your post.. could it not also apply to you...I think so...

bladderq
bladderq's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/02/2005
Scarry Place

You live in a very scary place in your head. Have you been to a municipal court? Routinely are many of your Bills of Right trashed. The Founding Fathers in the 18th century had no clue that I would need a license to drive my horseless carriage. That that extension of my home & castle could be unreasonably searched. Is the 4th Amendment no less sacred? or the 5th? or the 14th because you will see little due process.

Your right to bear arms is already "infringed" in that you can't own a Tommy gun, a BAR or an RPG. I call on you to become "A well regulated Militia"

The Founding Fathers had little knowledge of modern social order since a "police" force was little known and we were more or less on our own to fend off robbers (before large banks)& highwaymen. The first city police services were established in Philadelphia in 1751,[21] Richmond, Virginia in 1807,[22] Boston in 1838,[23] and New York in 1845.

Sorry the past 2 elections haven't turned out to your liking but since you mentioned the Patriot Act, I guess the prior 2 also,

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
I think I have plenty of experience in Court Blad...
bladderq wrote:

You live in a very scary place in your head. Have you been to a municipal court? Routinely are many of your Bills of Right trashed.

There are Natural Rights and then there are Societal Rights. Let me put it this way.. You are a virulent atheist you go to a Church and with intent disrupt the services.

Now do you have the Right of Free Speech.. Yes you do.

Do you have the Right of Free Speech in a Public Venue.. Yes you do.

Do you have the Right to disrupt and curtail the Rights of others.. NOPE.

So Societal rules can curb our Freedoms... In other words your Rights end at the abridgment of my Rights.

bladderq wrote:

Founders in the 18th century had no clue that I would need a license to drive my horseless carriage. That that extension of my home & castle could be unreasonably searched. Is the 4th Amendment no less sacred? or the 5th? or the 14th because you will see little due process.

They incorporated in the Constitution a process by with the Constitution may be changed... The 10th gives States the Right to Regulate Privileges like driving for the Public Safety.. The Federal Government has no authority in it... As for violations of the 4th, 5th and 14th have and will be violated... we allow it. Just like this argument on the 2nd... You seem to like and want the "other" Amendments but not so much the 2nd...but yet you are willing to subvert it to get what you want. So what you are "fussing" about is no different then what you are willing to do yourself... Infringe on the Rights of others.

bladderq wrote:

Your right to bear arms is already "infringed" in that you can't own a Tommy gun, a BAR or an RPG. I call on you to become "A well regulated Militia"

The Founding Fathers had little knowledge of modern social order since a "police" force was little known and we were more or less on our own to fend off robbers (before large banks)& highwaymen. The first city police services were established in Philadelphia in 1751,[21] Richmond, Virginia in 1807,[22] Boston in 1838,[23] and New York in 1845.

Sorry the past 2 elections haven't turned out to your liking but since you mentioned the Patriot Act, I guess the prior 2 also,

The Founding Fathers could not envision the Internet either Blad.. So does the 1st apply or not? Just because the "Founders" could not "envision" something it does not make it any less a "Right".
The Constitution may be changed.. they allowed an Amendment process.

Blad your arguments are both ludicrous and puerile.

Just because YOU think we don't "NEED" something does not remove the fact that the "Right" to do so exist. We as a "PEOPLE" can agree to a impingement of our Rights...the Automatic Gun restriction is one such agreement. You don't see many people fighting for a M60 or a Ma Deuce.

But we are going to draw the line somewhere. For most this is it.

In the mean time Blad I would suggest you actually read the Constitution and then the Federalist Papers to get a better understanding of what our Founders did to make us a FREE Country.

Your way erodes our Freedoms...My way preserves them. I prefer my way.

lion
lion's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/16/2005
Garlock,and Guns

You set up a straw man--the "anti-gunners" and then attack this opposition with a bunch of NRA nonsense.

Those of us--the adults and the majority of Americans-- do not see guns as the objects of reverence and love the way you seem to.

I am not opposed to a person owning a gun for self-protection in his or her home. I would question the wisdom of this since such guns result in more suicides, domestic dispute deaths, or accidental shootings by children than shootings of someone threatening people in that home. But if you decide to have a gun in your home, you can do so.

I am not opposed to a person owning a rifle or shotgun for hunting. No one has suggested otherwise.

If you want to fire a military style weapon for fun, I would suggest that gun ranges rent you those weapons for the experience.

I do not want private citizens to own military style weapons. I cannot believe that this is a controversial idea.

The problem is that the NRA and others have allied themselves to the extreme right wing of the Republican Party. They use fear to get innocent and naive citizens to buy more and more dangerous weapons. Militia groups grew and gun sales soared after the election of our first African-American President and the first northern Democrat in 50 years. Gun sales soared again upon the re-election of our first African-American President.

America cannot let the paranoid in our political system dictate our gun and public safety policies. And the NRA and others who think Americans need to arm themselves against a tyrannical Federal government are living in a world of dangerous paranoia.

Yes, let us have the adults in America determine our gun policy but the NRA and its adherents are not acting like adults.

tgarlock
tgarlock's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Lion, you are the poster child of my point on ignorance . . .

. . . about guns. Rather than repeat it all I'll just recommend you re-read my column again, maybe a little slower this time, to note that so-called ARs are just a small part of the population of semi-automatic rifles, and the politics of banning this segment of the gun population is all smoke and mirrors to fool guys like you. If you want to argue we should ban ALL semi-automatic or pump or lever action rifles and handguns, maybe even revolvers, I will oppose your argument but at least you would then have the virtue of arguing something real instead of your current argument, which is imagined.

Terry Garlock

Mike King
Mike King's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/29/2006
lion

The paranoid are not the gun owners, nor are they the NRA zealots who wish to relive their fantasies. The paranoid are the groupies perhaps like yourself who wish to dictate to folk exactly what weapon they are entitled to own in spite laws to the contrary.

You can not show one example where gun restrictions have prevented crime, nor can you show one example where the banning of guns has eliminated them from the landscape.

You are correct, however, in that America can not allow the paranoid to dictate our gun and public safety policy realizing, of course, that is is those like yourself that are paranoid.

bladderq
bladderq's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/02/2005
What weapons?

Just to be clear. I guess I can't show 1 example of where gun restrictions on owning a BAR or a Tommy gun or even a RPG or 155mm has prevented a crime but I guess they have. Can't ever prove a negative.

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
Mr Garlock- Are you a little biased?

Mr Garlock after reading your column I have to say that I agree with most of it. However when I came to this part I had to chuckle.

Quote:

Do you really want to reduce mass murder? Convince the news media to impose a TV news blackout. Take away the attraction of a famous death. Give up the voyeur circus on our TVs at the expense of the victims.

Sufficiently interested citizens could read all about it in newspapers. Do you think the TV media is more interested in reducing mass murder or their own ratings? Good luck with that one.

So it's ok for the print media to report details that the TV media shouldn't? Would you like to have a discussion on how many criminals through out history have been glamorized almost solely by the print media? I think a better suggestion would be for the entire media to focus on the victims and hero's instead of the shooter. Quit making the shooter the victim. Make him what he is. An evil monster. Or even better deny him any coverage by name. Just say something like a 25 year old gunman broke into a school today and shot x number of people before being shot by police officer Bob Johnson a 10 veteran of the local police department.

But then we must remember this suggestion to limit coverage by one branch of media but not the other was made by a member of the print media. LOL

tgarlock
tgarlock's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
G35, it may be a distinction without a difference . . .

. . . to you, but important to me to point out I'm not a media type, I'm a regular Joe like you. I write and send in a column now and then when the mood moves me, and they print it if they wish.

I've never been a reporter, just write op-eds. I see your point on the appearance of bias, but I don't think so though we all carry our own buckets of bias wherever we go.

For example, I've always felt that war reporting would better serve us all if it were print only. That's not to favor one segment of the media, my point is it better serves our national purpose to keep videos and emotions out of it, let the troops get the ugly, nasty job done, and let those sufficiently serious read all they wish about the war. That would keep the noise way down and minimize the politics as well.

Same with taking the fame away from mass killers. If you think it's a bad idea on its merits, fine, but don't get carried away about my bias, which I believe to be a nit. It;s all academic anyway, will never happen.

Terry Garlock

RKS
RKS's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/23/2009
NRA used to support gun control

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/14/the_nra_once_supported_gun_control/

"For nearly a century after, its founding in 1871, the National Rifle Association was among America’s foremost pro-gun control organizations. It was not until 1977 when the NRA that Americans know today emerged, after libertarians who equated owning a gun with the epitome of freedom and fomented widespread distrust against government—if not armed insurrection—emerged after staging a hostile leadership coup."

Moses in PTC
Moses in PTC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/06/2012
The Great Society

Senator Chambliss:

I understand gun control legislation will be introduced in this New Year by Senator Feinstein. I am writing to voice my opinion on this proposed legislation and all gun control. There are four points I wish to make:

1. I am vehemently opposed to further gun control legislation as presented by Senator Feinstein. I am further opposed to gun control as advocated by the Brady Center and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

2. Mental Health issues must become a part of the instant firearms background check at point of purchase

3. Existing gun control laws must be enforced

4. Violence in the media must be addressed

Full Disclosure
I am a member of the NRA, an avid firearms competitor, hunter, and a member of multiple other shooting and firearms related organizations.
Background

I am 46 years old. The first school shooting in The United States of America occurred four months before I was born, at the University of Texas at Austin on August 1, 1966. Every subsequent school shooting has happened in my lifetime. This is without exception or qualification.

Eleven months after my birth month, on October 23, 1967, there was a workplace shooting in Lock Haven, PA in which a gunman extinguished six souls. Workplace shootings in the United States occurring prior to October 23, 1967 took place on August 22, 1928 and December 16, 1935. From this point forward the United States experienced an explosion of workplace killings, next on May 15, 1969 in Twinsburg, OH, and then sky rocketing through the 1970’s (four shooting claiming 25 lives), the early 1980’s (three shootings claiming 21 lives). Coinage of the term “going postal” began on August 20, 1986 in Edmond Oklahoma when 14 lives were taken in a Post Office. There have been at least 10 workplace shootings since 1986, claiming at least 76 lives. I find it absolutely stunning that all but two workplace shootings in the history of this country have occurred in my lifetime.

There have been two major Federal gun control measures enacted in US history, the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), and the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA). The NFA is also referred to as Title II of the Federal firearms laws. There are and have been innumerable state, local, and temporary Federal gun control measures. The NFA addresses, in the main, machine guns, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, and sound suppressors (often called, quite incorrectly, silencers). Such devices are highly restricted and controlled by the ATF. The GCA primarily focuses on regulating interstate commerce in firearms by generally prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers and importers. It also restricts who may purchase or possess a firearm.

Per the GCA, as quoted from Section 922 Section D Bowleg 1-9:
(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person - …(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;

My Stance
Something went horribly wrong at, or just prior to, the time we began experiencing school and workplace shootings en masse. It was only after law abiding citizens were no longer able to purchase firearms through the mail from the catalogs of Sears, Montgomery Ward, and Western Auto and have them delivered to our front doors, or easily obtain belt fed machine guns, anti-tank weapons, grenades, bombs, explosive missiles, poison gas weapons and field artillery, that we experienced these crimes.

I am not drawing a cause –effect relationship between increased gun control and gun violence, but the correlation of the rise of both is quite close to 100%. That is to say, keeping certain firearms out of the hands of the public does not seem to have on effect on the will of some to kill. Anecdotally, it seems that the prevalence of guns does not incite gun violence, or any sort of violence. To wit, given no small amount of experience, I have never witnessed a shooting, much less an altercation of any kind, at a gun show, gun club, or hunting camp.

To purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer each of us must fill out an FFL form and answer a series of questions, as mandated by the GCA. The questions include criminal and mental histories. The criminal histories are verified almost instantly through the FBI instant background check system. The mental history is anyone’s best guess as no such meaningful database exists. I hope that we might take mental dis-abilities and firearms a bit more seriously in the future. I understand the privacy issues, but the names of those gunned down are anything but private.

The effects of the Hollywood gore machine on our youth are far too well documented for me to chronicle here. Is the impasse in addressing the media issue one of first amendment concern or is it profiteering? I suggest the latter. It is an outrage that Harvey Weinstein, Jamie Foxx, Quentin Tarantino, Martin Scorsese, Reese Witherspoon, Cameron Diaz, Jon Hamm, et al, should direct shame and anger over school shootings in any direction other than towards the nearest mirror. At the very best these individuals provide instructional guidance to inspired and glorified violence, at worst… I fear we have not yet seen the worst. Please address this by introducing legislation to curb such instructional violence as is so vociferously and endlessly advocated by these individuals.

Further media effects include the celebrity like status afforded to perpetrators of mass killings, which often results in copy cat crimes. Never held in any regard are the numerous citizens who legally use a firearm to defend themselves or others. In fact they are quite often denigrated. Is this the impression we wish to leave on so many of our children?

In light of the vast disconnect between gun control legislation and curbing gun violence I must ask, what is the point? Is this gun control only for the sake of gun control? Why didn’t we see this sort of violence when weapons of mass destruction were easily obtainable? And why do we not address the root cause? I believe the answer is both sinister and cowardly. Let’s take action now.

Sincerely,
Moses In PTC

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Moses

God bless you!! A voice heard - and understood.

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
Thou Hypocrite

Obama Signs Bill Giving Him Armed Protection For Life

Despite launching a gun control agenda that threatens to disarm the American people, President Obama has signed a bill that would afford him armed Secret Service protection for life.

Personal protection is not good enough for the peasants that obama wants to rule over with an iron fist.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Joe Kawfi
Quote:

All current former presidents are entitled to lifetime Secret Service protection. However, as a result of legislation enacted in 1997, President George W. Bush will be the first president to have his protection limited to 10 years after he leaves office.

http://www.secretservice.gov/protection_works.shtml

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
Still a hypocrite

The legislation doesn't make Obama any less of a hypocrite. If anything, it makes him more of a hypocrite. If armed protection is good enough for him, it should be good enough for those he works for. He's just an overpaid public SERVANT, after all.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Joe
Quote:

He's just a public SERVANT, after all.

TRUE!! And for the next four years he will serve us as President of the United States. a prestigious and powerful world position - and you will remain - Joe Kawfi, embittered citizen of these United States. I know, I know, - sort of hard to take. LOL! At least SL has his ideology to defend - you just have your 'hate'.

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
Obama Opposed Gun Ban Exception to Defend One’s Home

Obama’s vote would have maintained the status quo, which made it a violation of municipal gun ban law to use a firearm to save your own life in your own home. But the bill was passed anyway without his support.

Obama Opposed Gun Ban Exception to Defend One’s Home

obama has no solutions and refuses to negotiate with opposing parties. He is a wanna-be fascist dictator.

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
Deterrent to theft

Newspapers should be publishing the names and addresses of those that receive food stamps and welfare checks. These do-nothing moochers do more harm to the country with their votes for the curren fascist polices of obama than any law abiding gun owner will ever do.

These miscreants are stealing from working Americans. We should demand that the government stop this theft NOW!

conditon55
conditon55's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/12/2010
Counter Point

I went to the FBI website. They publish stats on murder. In 2011 12664 peolpe were murdered in the USA. (Murders known to the FBI) Of that number, 8583 were killed with guns. The means if you were murdered in 2011, there is a 7 in 10 chance you were killed by a gun. That is an epedemic of gun violence in the USA.

Since Dec, over 20 school kids were gunned down, executed in their school in connecticut.
2 firemen in new york state responding to a call, prepared to put their lives on the line for the poeple unsure what they would find, were gunned down and assasinated in a thrill killing.
In Aurora Co. a lone gunman went the the movies intent on executing the patrons and succeed for 6 wounding 20 more. After that you mention that you illegally took your revolver to the movies, "just in case'. Just is case of what ?
A lone gunman went to a shopping center and tried his best to assasinate Rep Giffords. He came damn close to succeeding. 6 people died including a child.

Is any of this sounding sick to you ? I agree our society is saturated with the glorifaction of gun violence.

The story that bothered me was the one where a guy gunned down his teen aged son dressed in a nija suit goofing around in the back yard at night. I can't imagine how that guy felt when he figured he 'got one" and then figured out who he got.

The NRA and you argue to put armed folks into the schools to protect us from hwo ? Ourselves ? What is to stop the guard from going rouge and turing on their school? Which schools get them ? What about movies thaaters? What about churches ? What about shopping centers? Government buildings ? Star Mill protection soceity ? Macintosh Militia Corps ? Oaks Grove Elementary Guardians Society ? How does it play out ? Fatyette county Armed military camp ? Really ?

The gun laws fail not because tey are too strict, it is because the most strict are too laxed. Far too laxed and too many loopholes.

The US government in the 2nd amendment calls out the 'rights to bear arms'. Are you willing to regsiter your weapons with the government ? No ? Why not ? It is the government gave you the right to have them. Don't trust the government, then what good is the right that they gave you ? Can't have it both ways. If you are not willing to shoulder the responsiblity ( and being a good conservative, who knows better about personal responsiblity), why do you think you have the right ?

So the situation is almost hopeless because of the number of guns in society. But there is no absolute right inthe USA or anywhere.

In a nation that talks about gun right like a bunch of 3rd world gansters, is it time to change the second amendment to remove the passage 'right to bear arms'.

In society where 4 US citizens get gunned down in Libya and ther is a unparralleled political storm, and then 20 kids are gunned down at home, in our house and the same folks who want heads to roll in the government turn around and advocate for local guns rights, I'd say we've gone off the tracks in the wrong direction.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
C55

Tragedies happen. That's a sad fact of life.

No laws will change that fact either. You see C55 after this the next event will occur and yes there will be "someone" calling to ban this or that.

That is what we are fighting.

Our Freedoms are sacrosanct and no Government may interfere with that. Now that being said we all have our Freedoms restricted when they interfere with the Freedoms of others... but that interference is limited.
When we allow Government to slowly nudge us away from defending the Constitution for the "greater" good or to save "just one life" then we are slowly abdicating our Freedoms to that Government.

One must remember Hitler was elected too.

Germany had private ownership of guns as well.

How did that turn out?

C55 I understand what you are feeling...but you must remember this. What if the next big tragic event involves speech in some way are you willing to curb your opinions so maybe "one" life will be saved..

John Mrosek
John Mrosek's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/07/2011
Garlock: "Attraction of a Famous Death"

The mention of the "Attraction of a Famous Death" caught my eye and reminded me of the Olympic Park bombing in 1996.

The day after the bombing, my wife and I attended the cycling event, which is a predominantly European event. Several of the attendees suggested that this kind of thing happens more often in America because we give the wrongdoer so much more attention. Interesting. Still, I oppose (as does our First Amendment) any restraint on the press.

Your premise is right--- murderous instincts are innate in humans. We will always find a way. Only an armed civilian on site can essentially stop a shooting. The police have to travel to the site. Statistics bear this out.

Connecticut, with the most stringent gun laws in the country, could not stop this massacre. You are right, Terry, humans find a way to kill.

rolling stone
rolling stone's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2012
From a much better writer than myself:

From "The Sandbox", Doonesbury's Milblog at www.doonesbury.slate.com

PARANOIA AND LOGIC | JANUARY 07, 2013
Name: MAJ Ben Tupper
Returned from: Afghanistan
Hometown: Syracuse, NY

What seems to be forgotten in the current debate over reforming our gun laws is the introduction to the 2nd Amendment: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state”. When I read these words, which were carefully crafted by our founding fathers, what jumps out is the word “militia." This word symbolizes an organized force, much like the men and women whom I currently serve with in today’s National Guard. Both the historical militia that fought on Bunker Hill, and today’s National Guard which fights natural disasters at home and enemies abroad, have one primary mission: to support and defend the nation and its Constitution.
But the reference to a militia seems to be lost on groups like the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America, who, in the name of unfettered gun access, ignore the opening clause of the 2nd Amendment, and focus instead solely on its conclusion, which states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Taken in its totality, the 2nd Amendment is clearly designed for the rapid deployment of an armed militia force in defense of the government and nation. Ironically, today’s gun lobby’s talking points are more about taking up arms and fighting against our government, which does not seem to fit the language nor intent of the 2nd Amendment.
Gun Owners of America spokesman Larry Pratt is regularly on national media outlets advocating for private arsenals as the only means to keep our democratically elected government from morphing into a fantastical tyrannical monster. To people like Mr. Pratt, what makes America a special place isn't the morals or values of its people, nor the character of those we elect to lead us. Instead, the only thing that keeps our nation dedicated to democracy is unregulated, privately held weapons arsenals.
I take personal offense to attitudes like this, because it basically says that people like myself, who serve in uniform in the United States military or in law enforcement, have no conviction to the Constitution, nor to laws of the land, nor to the values of their community. Instead we are only waiting for the chance to enslave an unarmed American nation. When people like Pratt say “guns are necessary to control the government” (Hardball, Dec. 17, 2012), and paint images of black helicopters and jack-booted thugs taking over America, they are talking about me and my fellow brothers and sisters in arms, who in their paranoid fantasy would be those tasked with establishing this tyranny. I can assure Mr. Pratt that we in uniform have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, and to refuse orders that are illegal or immoral, and would do so if our civilian leaders faltered and attempted to overthrow the Constitution.
A large number of gun owners have served in the military and law enforcement. We don’t fear our government, we love it, which is why we choose careers to serve and protect our nation. Many of us have risked our lives for our democratic way of life, and as a result have extensive experience with the weapons of war. Personally, I am a gun enthusiast and arms collector and own assault-style weapons myself. But I also love my kids, and peaceful streets, and support taking steps to reduce threats to these things we cherish.
Because of this, I fully support efforts being put forth to close gun show purchasing loop holes, and banning the future purchase of assault weapons, as well as other common sense efforts to limit the lethality of firearms in America. I do so because I know that these efforts in no way threaten gun ownership nor deny people the right to bear arms. No one in elected office, from the President on down, is suggesting or proposing legislation that would make gun ownership illegal. Every weapon that is legally owned today should be grandfathered in and legal after the reforms are put in place.
Similar limitations in gun ownership have been enacted in our country’s history with no resulting usurping of the Constitution. In 1934, the National Firearms Act severely limited Americans' rights to own fully automatic machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department. There was no ensuing government tyranny. In 1994, the passage of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban reduced access to and capacity of assault weapons, and again, no government tyranny ensued.
Let’s move gun reform down this sensible path.The measures being proposed are tempered. They will not solve all gun violence, but they will reduce the ability of the disturbed and disgruntled to sew as much mayhem. That is all we can ask of public policy, to reduce harm and make a safer environment. Many gun rights groups say these gun control efforts are pointless, because if we ban assault weapons, then the crazies will use other types of weapons to kill. I suggest they ask any police officer or infantryman if, given the choice, they would rather face an adversary with an assault rifle or a lesser capacity weapon such as a knife, revolver, or bolt action hunting rifle, and you will see the logic of reforming our current laws.

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
Rolling stone - why your "militia" argument is rediculous

The argument that the 2nd amendment applies only to "militias" is an inherently flawed concept for several reasons. Foremost of which is that a standing army already existed. People forget that the constitution wasnt ratifed in 1776 like most people think, it was ratified in 1787 and dint go into effect until 1789. The history of the U.S. military dates to 1775, even before the Declaration of Independence marked the establishment of the United States. The Continental Army, Continental Navy, and Continental Marines were created in close succession by the Second Continental Congress in order to defend the new nation against the British Empire in the American Revolutionary War. These forces demobilized in 1784 after the Treaty of Paris ended the War for Independence. The Congress of the Confederation created the United States Army on 3 June 1784, although the Army's founding is celebrated as occurring on 14 June 1775. The 1787 adoption of the Constitution gave the Congress the power to "raise and support armies," "provide and maintain a navy," and to "make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces," as well as the power to declare war and gave the President of the United States the responsibility of being the military's commander-in-chief. It therefore makes no sense that in the very same document that establishes a standing army and navy for the countries defense, they would feel the need to include an amendment at the same time that provided for a militia to protect the country. The US army and navy are established in the constitution under article 1 section8, powers of congress, NOT the second amendment. also, looking at the historical context, the bill of rights was larely based on the English Bill of Rights from 1689, which allowed protestants to bear arms for their defense, NOT for the creation of a "militia." In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court, remarked that the English right at the time of the passing of the English Bill of Rights was "clearly an individual right, having nothing whatsoever to do with service in the militia" and that it was a right not to be disarmed by the crown and was not the granting of a new right to have arms. The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 asserted that, "the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state. The earliest published commentary on the Second Amendment by a major constitutional theorist was by St. George Tucker in 1803. In footnotes 40 and 41 of the Commentaries, Tucker stated that the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment was not subject to the restrictions that were part of English law: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government" and "whoever examines the forest, and game laws in the British code, will readily perceive that the right of keeping arms is effectually taken away from the people of England." Blackstone himself also commented on English game laws, Vol. II, p. 412, "that the prevention of popular insurrections and resistance to government by disarming the bulk of the people, is a reason oftener meant than avowed by the makers of the forest and game laws." Blackstone discussed the right of self-defense in a separate section of his treatise on the common law of crimes. Tucker's annotations for that latter section did not mention the Second Amendment but cited the standard works of English jurists such as Hawkins. Further, Tucker criticized the English Bill of Rights for limiting gun ownership to the very wealthy, leaving the populace effectively disarmed, and expressed the hope that Americans "never cease to regard the right of keeping and bearing arms as the surest pledge of their liberty." Clearly, even viewed from the historical lense of the 17 an 1800's, the right to bear arms was intended as an INDIVIDUAL right, not one meant only to establish the national guard. Doonsbury needs to read a little history.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
renault314 - Excellent

post their pal and all true too....unlike most of the opponents' arguments against our Constitutional protection to bear arms. In fact the enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights almost didn't happen at all. As the debate over ratification raged, more than a few disagreed with enumerating rights. The rationale is more than a little prophetic, that is that by enumerating rights it suggested that the government had the authority to "grant" rights, therefore they had the option to take them away. Our God given rights to life, liberty and property cannot be grant by or taken by any government. It is ironic indeed that a government constructed to protect these rights is now a democracy that seizes every opportunity to deprive our rights.

A government totally corrupted from its original purpose to protect Life, Liberty and Property, spinning out of fiscal control is a doomed government.

God's Natural Law cannot be changed and time will prove this. We are proving ourselves unworthy of the gift of this nation.

"A Republic if we can keep it madam." - B. Franklin

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
PTCO summed up in one sentence...

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788 "

rolling stone
rolling stone's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2012
renault315, PTC Observer and S. Lindsey

That was then, this is now. Way-back machine visions are fine however we are dealing with the present and the future. I have no problem with gun ownership but it is delusional to think that guns are any sort of talisman and that restrictions based on common sense take away "god given" rights. Both sides of this debate need to be better informed. Are you more or less likely to be a victim of gun violence if you have a gun? Data that I have read suggests that possessing a gun does put you at a higher risk by a significant factor. Does the constant risk of having a loaded gun around increase or decrease one's quality of life? Guns being stolen during home and car robberies, accidental shootings by children and cases of mistaken identity suggest one is not as free as one would hope for. What guns are used in most crimes? Again, data that I have read suggests that these guns are newly acquired either through legal or illegal means. There is an app for dealing with violence, it is called civilization.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
News Flash Rolling

Truth, is not time dependent. Rights are not time dependent.

rolling stone
rolling stone's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2012
PTC Observer

Truth and Rights are independent of time. Peoples' interpretations of the 2nd amendment are independent of the Truth and subjective regarding Rights.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Rolling - you

You have been reading too much propaganda, truth does not change with time and it is not subjective.

It is your flawed definition of truth and rights that has caused you to be willing to give up your freedom to a mindless enity called government. It is blind acceptance and belief that a benevolent government can somehow protect you and your family that is so disturbing. On this you are not alone, you have millions of sheepel to join with you to infringe your fellow citizens' rights. You are all wrongheaded in your beliefs, government will not protect you it will only enslave you. Read history it is there where you will find the truth about your belief in government "protection".

I choose individual freedom Rolling, you go trust the government but don't force me to give up any of my freedoms for your blind beliefs.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
I never got past.. "That was then, this is now" Stone

I am never more amazed at people then when I hear the Constitution is an old outdated document and does not have relevance today argument.

The amazing ignorance of that argument is compounded by the lack of understanding that if you take away the very document that codified our Natural Rights, then you place all of the power into the hands of Government to protect those very rights.

What Government gives it can also take away.

Stone there is no easy way to say this.. You are simply the most gullible person on this blog or you are an idiot... Heck you choose.

rolling stone
rolling stone's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2012
S. Lindsey
Quote:

I am never more amazed at people then when I hear the Constitution is an old outdated document and does not have relevance today argument.

I did not say or infer that. My references are to the interpretations.

Quote:

Stone there is no easy way to say this.. You are simply the most gullible person on this blog or you are an idiot... Heck you choose.

I had to think about that one and I must admit that at one point in my life both were true, but then I quit taking wooden nickels as payment from the tooth fairy.