If it were only this simple
February 1st, 2008 by Brian Withnell
This has got to be one of the funniest videos I’ve ever seen. It also seems that those of a liberal mindset think it could work. Check this out:
What I see as the real problem with gun control is that “good guys” don’t need to have their guns controlled, but “bad guys” do. What the video shows is that the supposed “bad guy” is going to abide by the signs.
We cannot stop illegal drugs like cocaine from entering the country, and people think we are going to stop illegal guns? Sometimes I think that people that want to implement gun control just don’t have a clue. The “bad guys” are out there. Even if every gun was gone from the planet, the “bad guys” would still be bad, but it would make the big bad guy the one that became the top dog.
Bad guys don’t need guns to be bad. They can use a baseball bat, an ax, their bare hands if they are big enough. If nobody has guns, the bad guys would use machetes or meat cleavers, or clubs, or whatever. The one thing you can depend upon is that bad guys are bad.
If you have 100 good guys with guns standing around, you aren’t going to have a bad guy trying to kill 20 people (or rob someone, or anything else). In Richmond a recent anti-gun protester was upset that some 400 people that were supporting second amendment rights. He yelled at a group: “It’s people like you that cause massacres like the one at Virginia Tech.” One of the people supporting the second amendment called back to him: “I’ll guarantee there won’t be any massacre here today!” I’d feel much safer with 100 people that have undergone a criminal background check carrying a gun than with no guns around (especially if it is known that the place I was visiting is a “gun free zone” — which you could also call a “safe for criminals zone”.
This entry was posted on Friday, February 1st, 2008 at 3:40 pm and is filed under 2nd Amendment. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 1st, 2008 at 7:02 pm
I’m sure the gun free zones work just as well as the “Nuke Free” zones would’ve worked if the Sovs had ever the dropped the big on us.
February 1st, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Oops. I of course meant “if the Sovs had ever dropped the big one on us”.
(Please give us a preview option!!)
February 1st, 2008 at 10:44 pm
I remember the ‘drug free’ zones in the NYC schools. Truth in advertising, you could get drugs for free.
Gun free zones is utter asinine. The law abiding will listen, but they are not the problem. It is the criminal who seeks to violate the law and commit murder we worry about.
You think some sign saying ‘gun free zone’ is going to stop him? Scenario: “I wanted to kill _X_, but that sign really worries me, guess I’ll go home and have a twinkie instead.” Uh huh. Yup. Thats reality. I have some beach front in North Dakota, anyone interested?
February 1st, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Jacob,
You’ll love the video on youtube that I put in the opening post. When I saw it, I nearly split my sides laughing.
Brian
February 2nd, 2008 at 2:51 pm
“God made Man and Woman — Samuel Colt made them equal.”
February 2nd, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Brian,
OK. Followed the link. LOL!! Great minds think alike.
February 3rd, 2008 at 9:19 am
That is funny! I don’t have cable; what is the 1/2 Hour News Hour on the Fox News Channel?
February 4th, 2008 at 8:49 am
Don’t agree with gun-free zones but I do believe in better gun regulation - especially in terms of mandating secure gun storage and licensing. Here’s what happens when guns are kept insecure and at the ready in the home. I’m sure this 15 y.o. was told by his father how dangerous the gun was and why it should NEVER be touched and ALWAYS respected…
“Browning was charged as an adult with four counts of first-degree murder in the slayings of his father, John Browning, 45; his mother Tamara, 44; and his brothers Gregory, 13, and Benjamin, 11.
The teen had not been getting along with his father, police said. On Friday night, he went into the house after other family members had gone to sleep and shot each of them. His father’s handgun had been in the house, police said.
After the slayings, he threw the handgun into bushes near the house, police said. The gun was recovered, Toohey said”
February 4th, 2008 at 11:12 am
“Don’t agree with gun-free zones but I do believe in better gun regulation - especially in terms of mandating secure gun storage and licensing.”
First of all owning a gun is a right, not to be infringed. You don’t need a license to open you mouth and speak, or write on this blog do you?
There are over 30M gun owners in the country. You find one anecdotal case and want to use it as a means to abridge the rights of others. What farce.
How about this, there was also a woman who managed to get a teenager to kill herself. Why don’t we force the licensing of internet usage? Why? Because speech is also an inalienable right.
Go read the constitution, go figure out what federalism means and what is a right, the source of the right and who is in charge. Then you might start making sense.
As for ’sensible’ gun laws… there are multiple thousands of gun related statutes on the books. The do very little good. Why? Because like drugs, when the criminal is intent on procurement, then the law means NOTHING. All you are doing is abridging the rights of the lawful.
February 4th, 2008 at 11:47 am
Some regulation of the internet WOULD be a good thing as well, Jacob. When a simple gun safe or trigger lock could have saved an entire family (as in this case) from one disturbed (again) youth, I find your defense of the right to be carefree with guns in your own home to be disturbing (dangerously so). I guess we are all just lucky that this youth decided NOT to go on a rampage this time.
Again, you do not have a right to unregulated gun ownership and we do have a right to ensure that you exercising your right does not infringe on my right to safety from you and your gun should you (or your child or wife) suddenly go off the deep end.
February 4th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Troll, have you forgotten the boys who killed their parents with baseball bats? Would you be calling for restrictions on baseball bats if the kid had taken his father’s Louisville Slugger and bashed out every-one’s brains?
If a rampaging teenager comes into my widowed mother’s house with a kitchen knife or a baseball bat, how is a securely stored gun going to help her?
February 4th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Compare, Jack, the number of rampages that ocur with knives, baseball bats, and ALL other implements COMBINED to the number which occur with guns. I think we all know what that stat would show. As you all have admitted, guns are very dangerous and should be handled and stored with that in mind. I agree - its time you stand behind your own rhetoric. If you want a gun be responsible for that gun. To not store guns securely is irresponsible - if EVERY gun owner can’t be trusted to be responsible on their own, the government needs to step in to make sure you are. This example simply shows that leaving your gun lying around unlocked and loaded (locked and loaded is how you Rambo-type like to say it - ironically) is not responsible gun management.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
If you will read the FBI reports, you will see that most robberies are committed without a firearm. Less than 22% of aggravated assaults are committed with firearms. Do the weak not have the right to defend themselves? How can one use a gun to defend oneself if it is locked up?
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_21.html
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_22.html
February 4th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
1/2 pint,
“When a simple gun safe or trigger lock could have saved an entire family (as in this case) from one disturbed (again) youth, I find your defense of the right to be carefree with guns in your own home to be disturbing”
What I find appalling is you are looking for the government to dictate how I keep my house. This is classic. In the name of safety, or order, or the good of the people many an atrocity has been committed.
You are blind it appears to the fact that living free means you have the right to act in a manner that appears dangerous or foolish to others, and it is not their damned business that you do so. All you seek to do is replace one set of problems with another set.
Crime occurs. It does not matter if the government dictates how you live or not. I said something to this effect in the last comment to you but you chose to ignore it.
I do not want the government telling me how to manage affairs inside my house. Not in the name of safety, or any other reason. Especially if it is an inalienable right. Legal precedent is a fact of life.
You are saying you want MORE government control on the net or with guns. How would you feel if what you say is declared dangerous and you re told to shut up or go to jail? This is the path you are on. You like the result of the first step, but it never stops there. Give it enough time the unimaginable comes to pass.
February 4th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Of course, Troll’s dream world is based on the assumption that the government knows what is best for us — better than we do ourselves. But if it is the PEOPLE electing the lawmakers, how can we expect the people to choose well? If the people are incapable of managing their own affairs, they are clearly incapable of electing the lawmakers.
February 4th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Jack,
Ssshhhhhh. That is the secret THE of the Democrat party. Our betters are chosen by the intellectual proletariat. So how can they really be better?
February 4th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
this is what people want to prevent through gun controls and “gun free zones”:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,328098,00.html
not the psycho killer or determined criminal, but the guy who pulls a gun and kills 3 people in the heat of an argument.
How can this kind of thing be stopped? I don’t want to take away gun rights, I also don’t want a population armed to the teeth drawing guns on each other any time there’s a dispute at a bar.
Let’s be reasonable, attempts at creating “gun free zones” don’t expose some underlying liberal plot to edge the country toward totalitarian. They’re honest attempts to prevent “spur of the moment” gun violence.
It seems like these deaths, and accidents, account for more deaths then anything. Jacob, you remember those ratios sanity posted a few weeks ago, right? So let’s assume that gun bans are off the table, what should we do about these issues guys?
February 4th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Be reasonable, Puffalump, he was already in a “Gun Free Zone” — Maryland. Maryland Criminal Law, Title 4, Subtitle 2, § 4-203, prohibits carrying a concealed handgun. Even if one has a permit to do so (yeah, right), he cannot do so under the influence of alcohol.
He already knew he was breaking the law, and you think a “Gun Free Zone” sign would have gotten him to leave it in the car?
February 4th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Pufster:
On this subject you are so out to lunch your ribs are showing. This is the same nonsense we heard prior to Virginia becoming a ’shall-issue ‘ state.
I remember the op-eds in every paper. Virginia was going to become the OK Corral. Fender Benders on the commonwealths roads were going to result in shoot outs. Arguments in parking lots were going to become a shooting gallery with carnage and blood everywhere. It never happened ! It never will.
More crap from those of you thinking with some part of your body other than your head.
February 5th, 2008 at 1:40 am
nice potshot, but the problem remains. What is to be done? These deaths seem preventable. Do you have any ideas? or are you content with writing it off to a cruel, hostile world?
I’m not saying that “gun free zones” are THE solution, or even that they are in any way effective. What I’m saying is that they reflect a real concern that people have, and an effort to address that concern. I’m asking, what to we do about this problem? Just tell people to buck up, if you run into a hothead, just be sure you draw your piece before he draws his? I’m sure there’s a better solution
I don’t know what “More crap from those of you thinking with some part of your body other than your head.” really means, but it sounds like a dig, it sounds like you’re trying to shut the conversation down.
February 5th, 2008 at 2:31 am
Eric,
I teach my son what guns are for, and I teach him how to use them. He is nearly as fast as I am, and he is more accurate.
If you want to see what is happening in places where guns are not legal, and what affect it has on violent crime (and murder) look at England (the UK). They have had a total prohibition of guns since the late 90’s. In that atmosphere, the rate of gun violence has declined slightly, but the rate of violent crime has tripled, and murder has doubled. If you take away people’s ability to defend themselves, then you create a criminal safety zone (a place where criminals are safe to carry out their crimes). The Petit home invasion case shows that murders occur even if guns are not involved.
Puft:
You don’t do anything about the issues you raise other than see that justice is swift against those that perpetrate crime. “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” The right to keep and bear arms (that is have them, and carry them about) is an essential right — if you are thinking that it is ok to give up that right, you are falling into the group that deserves neither liberty or security.
The only real security anyone can have is to loose his cowardice and train himself for the battle he will face. It may be that there will be some small number of instances in which people will get hurt. That is a small price to pay for knowing that every individual has the right to defend themselves, and the means to do so with tools that level the field. I do not wish to be attacked by a six-and-half-foot 250 pound muscular 20-year-old, but if I am, and I am armed, then at least I have a better chance than I would otherwise. If someone breaks into my house, I would rather they meet a blast from a shotgun than I meet the end of a baseball bat. Bad guys are not going to stop killing people just because they don’t have guns. They will kill even more people if they know those people are defenseless.
You address the issue of someone murdering someone else by use of the courts, and to my way of thinking, the death penalty. The death penalty, properly carried out has a zero percent recidivism rate. Purge the evil among us, and you eventually reduce the problem.
February 5th, 2008 at 7:52 am
“These deaths seem preventable.”
They are — by having others similarly armed as a deterrence.
“What I’m saying is that they reflect a real concern that people have, and an effort to address that concern.”
Then let us address that concern by curing their ignorance, not by catering to it.
February 5th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Brian,
“I teach my son what guns are for, and I teach him how to use them. He is nearly as fast as I am, and he is more accurate.”
I’m sure Mr. Browning was equally proud (a deadly sin?) of his son’s prowess with weapons. Again, looks to me like we are collectively lucky that young Master Browning did not go on a shopping mall rampage. You see Mr. Browning (like many here apparently) voluntarily opted to take down society’s first line of defense against such actions - his own gun’s security. I’m sure he felt his widescreen TV was safer because of his decision.
Gee…I wonder just how many handguns ARE sitting around loaded in closets or under beds and how many disturbed youth (with no outward indication of their state of mind) know about them and have been trained in their efficient use.
Thanks for keeping us safe, guys, with friends like you…
February 5th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Brian,
I also think being intentionally misleading is a sin as well:
“If you want to see what is happening in places where guns are not legal, and what affect it has on violent crime (and murder) look at England (the UK).”
I said NOTHING about making guns illegal. I speak about mandating gun security and forcing people to be responsible for their own weapons. I speak about holding people liable for crimes committed with their weapons if it is found that they were careless with them.
February 5th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Eric, the stats don’t support your theory that the youth all over this country are using unloaded guns from under beds for school shootings. Drownings are far more prevalent in children, covering pools and putting locks on gates will save more children.
You are operating out of fear in every one of your responses to gun control, emotions are not facts. If you are scared I don’t know what anyone can say to you to make you feel better, but changing laws and restricting our freedoms further will not make you any safer, only FEEL better.
February 5th, 2008 at 11:28 am
And still, Troll, you cannot answer my question: “If a rampaging teenager comes into my widowed mother’s house with a kitchen knife or a baseball bat, how is a securely stored gun going to help her?”
February 5th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Cathy, ignorance is the coin of the realm for liberals.
February 5th, 2008 at 11:38 am
“Drownings are far more prevalent in children, covering pools and putting locks on gates will save more children”
Which is often mandated by our government. In this case, as with guns, the laws and regulations do indeed make us safer.
February 5th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Jack,
I am sure that your free market will answer that problem adequately - or don’t you believe in the power of the market?
February 5th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
If it is indeed free, yes. And so it is that my mother is free to buy an inexpensive handgun and keep it for self-protection. You, however, wish to take that option away from her, and then say the “free market,” which you eliminate in this instance, is supposed to fix the problem you have created by eliminating the free market.
No wonder you’re a liberal.
February 5th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Very nice, Jack but your evalutation doesn’t pass scrutiny. But the “free market” does not equate to a wholely unregulated market. Governmental safety standard mandates have coexisted with the free market for decades if not longer. Set a standard, the market will react with a product.
February 5th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Eric, You have to turn around to kiss your own behind to understand your logic.
Regardless of community or local laws on pools, there will still be drownings. Even if some do-gooder, a gov’t employee no less, was willing to go around and check every pool, every night - there would still be drownings. I assume you want a Police Officer at your door, school, church, and supermarket to shake down every citizen too keep you safe? Even then there would still be shootings, probably of defenseless unarmed citizens. That is called a nanny-state my friend, and it still won’t make you safe. See Jack’s reply on 27.
February 5th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Troll,
Back when I was a child we were taught how to behave. We were taught respect. We were taught to stand up for ourselves againest bullies (believe it or not kids got into FISTFIGHTS of all things to settle differences). This is growing up and being responsible. Government authorities have already taken steps to curtail “parent teaching” with things they feel inappropriate. As Jacob gave example, it starts with ONE seemingly harmless action and spreads like a virus. The issue i’m speaking of is child abuse. Look how out-of-control that has become. You can’t even grab your ranting child out of a store without getting busted for it.
We need to give the responsibility back to the parents and build good foundations for these children. This is a world that DOES have winners and losers and that is something that has to be understood. It is a driving force for competition and invention. If the child in question was KNOWN to be disturbed then something should have been done early on. If it truly was a sudden onset, well, ain’t nothing going to stop someone from going over the edge and using whatever is available. I’m sure I could have killed that whole family with, say, a good lamp. You teach right from wrong. You also teach that you don’t settle an argument by killing someone. War and defense of life, limb and property are what killing is about.
I’m not saying everyone has some but common sense is the dictate. Common sense tells me to have my gun far from an adventurous, curious child. Common sense tells me to educate children when they have the capacity to truly understand. Common sense tells me to allow use of that firearm under correct supervision so that “curiousity” doesn’t get there first.
February 5th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Puft,
It seems that the story continues and that on a different occassion those players in question had words. Old arguement culminating to the final solution. Landover? Appears to be what we have talked about so many times….culture and environment. Do you not think that this might be the case here?
February 5th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
PAKman,
“nice potshot, but the problem remains. What is to be done? These deaths seem preventable. Do you have any ideas? or are you content with writing it off to a cruel, hostile world? ”
The solution lies not in laws, or armed deterrence. The problem is in the human heart. Until you can find a way to legislate away hatred, insanity, criminality etc. Laws will only serve to limit the rights of those they seek to protect.
Gismo’s provided by the freemarket will also only go so far. The end result will eratic, which is the very situation we have now.
With either set of efforts, the details will change, maybe we can drive the percentages to change, though I would not want to guess in which direction. Either way, in the end if you try to legislate safety you will not get safety or justice, let alone Utopia.
February 5th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
PAKman,
One more thing. The murder rate in this country hovers around 3-5/100,000 if you are middle class. Now, if you look at this from a historic perspective, it IS very low. To drive it lower you would need to stop people from being people. To do that would likely involve abridging those right you said you are interested in preserving.
February 5th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
“Set a standard, the market will react with a product.”
Sure, Troll, but there is no guarantee that the market solution to get around the government interference will be cheap enough for the masses to afford. That’s puffalump’s idea — just tax the crap out of handguns so that people can’t afford them.
February 5th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Jack,
“They are — by having others similarly armed as a deterrence.” That’s great if you happen to be the fastest draw in town.
“just tax the crap out of handguns so that people can’t afford them.” that’s not true. I’ve said that a tax would reduce demand, and ultimately reduce the number of guns floating around, and that such a tax wouldn’t violate the 2nd amendment. I said the tax should reflect the cost society bears for people running around with guns, and I’ve said this specifically with regard to handguns. I’m willing to discuss this, but please be sure that you understand just what I’m saying and don’t put words in my mouth..
Jacob,
“The problem is in the human heart.” and “you would need to stop people from being people.” strike me as cop outs.
we don’t say, “sometimes something goes wrong and people get cancer. Oh well…” You identify a problem and you look for a solution. When we stop working toward a better world, THAT’s when we loose a part of our humanity.
I also don’t think it’s problematic to only look at murder rates for the middle class. We ought to look at the entire population. Keeping with the same example, you wouldn’t say, “Why should we bother paying for cancer research when the cancer rate among 20-35 year-olds is so low?”
February 5th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
I mean I do think it’s problematic…
February 5th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
No, puffalump, I try to put facts in your brain, but it is a vain effort. Handguns PREVENT over a million crimes a year. Where’s that in your calculation? It is those who refuse to carry them who should be taxed.
February 5th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
K-PAC,
“The problem is in the human heart.” and “you would need to stop people from being people.” strike me as cop outs.
we don’t say, “sometimes something goes wrong and people get cancer. Oh well…” You identify a problem and you look for a solution.”
Cancer is an illness. Murder is a behavior. One is a disease. The other is thankfully, a social aberration.
You taking two problems (murder and cancer) and are telling me we must seek a cure for both. Cancer is not innate. We are not born with it. I am all for treating those with any disease. We also should find a cure.
We are born selfish. It’s a survival trait. However, selfish desire taking to its extreme is what leads to people killing over wealth, prestige, power and sex. There is no blanket cure that man can institute for internal desire for more of X. What ever X may be. There is no way to legislate the lessoning of an appetite.
You cannot legislate the human condition away. Taking away guns will not solve the problem. If I recall my history many a murder were committed with out the use of firearms.
Considering that we have far fewer murders per capita now in our society than say 150+ or 1050+ years ago, the presence of firearms does not appear to be an aggravating factor in the main. It is simply one of the tools available for the taking of a life.
You appear to be implying that we must find the perfect balance between the infringement of our freedoms as men, and the need for common safety. I pointed out that the middle class is reasonably safe. You pointed out, rightly, that other segments of society are not as safe. Correct, but you missed my point.
The culture, not the wealth, of the middle class is what makes it safe. Culture is what stamps its ethos upon a mans character. The ethics of a man will impact his behavior as strongly if not more so than the legislation under which he lives.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:41 am
Eric,
Either you are being naive or misleading. I tend to think you are being naive. Stating that guns have to be so secure that they are of no defensive use is the first step in getting them made illegal. Look at what England did. If you neglect the lessons of history, you will repeat them. YOU may not see this as a first step, but those that are pushing these regulations do. YOU may not have said it, but that doesn’t mean it would not be the outcome of what your stated desire would necessarily have as a consequence. And I do believe it would be a consequence — show me one country that has put your desired policy in place without eventually restricting guns even more.
The idea that your right to be free from violence should restrict my right to bear arms is anathema to the constitution. Those that do wrong should be punished. Your desire to be free from the possibility of violence is not a right, nor should it be. It is a dream-world utopia that does not exist, nor can it in this age. The “bad guys” will not let it happen.
As to the son who used a gun, look at the same things happening in England. They have MORE crime now with guns not even available. The more regulation you have, the more crime you get. There may be a few cases where a 16 year old gets hold of a gun (which at least used to be the age at which we allowed a young man to join the army with parental permission — and then the government put the gun in his hands). It may be that might be a bad thing at least part of the time instead of a good thing (if my son got hold of a gun in order to stop a home invasion, and the lives of my family were saved because of it, I would not complain). The fact is that guns are used more often to stop crime than to commit crime (http://www.rense.com/general76/univ.htm). Guns save lives.
As to keeping you safe, YOU are the one responsible for that task. YOU are the only one that will *always* be around when *your* safety is threatened. The police won’t be there every time (though they may be called after it is over to collect evidence, and clean up the mess). The state’s attorney won’t be there. Nobody will be always there except you (by definition, if you are being threatened, you are there). If you want to be secure, stop thinking that just because something could happen that you have to prevent it, but start thinking that because something could happen, you must learn to be able to deal with it.
Cowardice is not being afraid. Only a fool would not be afraid when his family or life is threatened. Cowardice is not being willing to act to defend the innocent (including yourself when you are innocent) when evil threatens.
“Blessed be the Lord who trains my hands for battle and my fingers for war.” (psalm 144) David was thankful that God did not make him a sissy. “Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, ACT LIKE MEN, be strong.” (1 Cor. 16:13)
For too long the zeitgeist has been that of a coward. Don’t get involved, don’t act or you may get hurt. Before 9/11, the advice for a hijacking was to just go along with the swine that hijacked the plane so the “professionals” could set things right. How morally bankrupt?! The world has become a world of cowards.
Context for next paragraph:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316322,00.html
When the murderer at the church in Colorado attacked, it appears he did so with the intent of killing himself, and taking with him as many innocent as he could. When he was shot by the security team member, he did not want to have his suicide stopped, and killed himself. In other words, he would have killed lots of people, had it not been for an armed citizen resisting his rampage. You will *never* get rid of guns totally — stop illegal drugs from entering the country first, then I might think you have half a chance at stopping guns. So the only real solution is to have a well defended populous. Mass killings do not occur at places where guns are allowed (like at the Colorado church, the killer will be stopped short). They occur in gun free zones.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:54 am
puft:
“These deaths seem preventable.”
They are not. What’s more, the state should not be in the position of trying to disarm the people because the prevention of “these deaths” is more likely when people are armed, than when people are not armed. Patrick Henry stated clearly: “Give me liberty or give me death.” The point is clear, liberty is worth dying to protect. You would want our liberty to be restricted in order to gain security. That would have been called cowardice at the time of the American Revolution. Do not continue in the spirit of this age, but break free. Take responsibility for your own security instead of trusting that the police are there to protect you (they are not, and I certainly wouldn’t want them to be — I don’t want a police state!)
The person that kills another should be punished for their crime — that is the deterrent that is legitimate for the state — the state has the power of the sword to carry out justice, not to defend every individual in every place.
February 6th, 2008 at 11:54 am
“Sure, Troll, but there is no guarantee that the market solution to get around the government interference will be cheap enough for the masses to afford.”
Jack,
I missed the part about the right to bear “CHEAP” arms. Are you advocating that gun stamps for those people on welfare?
Cathymac, I am sorry you see on use in any safety standards since not ALL accidents can be avoided. If you can’t understand the logic behind safety standards, I have no hope of you understanding my argument for further gun regulation.
ACT, sorry I think I’ll pass on the corporal punishment issue for now - too much of a tangent.
Finally, Brian, why do you continue to be dishonest in your arguments? You wrote:
“What’s more, the state should not be in the position of trying to disarm the people…”
No one is discussing the state disarming people - no one but you of course. Regulating safe and secure gun ownership and reponsibility is not about disarming people.
Finally in all your “give me liberty…” bravado, I am reminded of the clause “he who lives by the sword…” I’m sure you know the rest.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Troll,
The essence was of good parenting and common sense-not “corporal punishment”. Sorry you missed the core of it.
“Finally in all your “give me liberty…” bravado, I am reminded of the clause “he who lives by the sword…” I’m sure you know the rest.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe you are mixing defensive actions with those of oppression. If I live by the sword to put you in fear and harms way, yes, it applies. If I save my sword to smote the unjust then I am within my right. Remember, disciples carried swords also.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Troll: You are preaching logic? Sounds like fear to me. Come on out to the sunlight from your shell, it will do you good. Facts are stubborn things. That you ignore them so blantantly, from everyone, shows that you are indeed the turtle I thought you were.
PS. There are no safety standards for knives, pens and paper clips. Just to stay safe, please stay away from these potential deadly weapons.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Troll fails to realize that guns are the most widely regulated consumer product out there. They are also among the most reliable, and safest. You disengage the safety and pull the trigger, it goes boom, you don’t and it doesn’t. Pretty simple concept..
Staypuft says we should tax guns heavily to reduce the number of guns in circulation. Does this mean under his plan, criminals can write this off as a business expense, or better yet, be exempted by providing a tax number at the time of purchase ?
There is no understanding of any argument for more gun regulation as there is no demonstrable validity to any of these arguments to understand.
February 6th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
“Are you advocating that gun stamps for those people on welfare?”
Not a bad idea. After all, Giuliani said that women who could not afford abortions should have them paid for by the government, because having an abortion is a “right.” Providing a handgun and training to the law-abiding citizens in the inner cities might really cut down the crime there.
You STILL haven’t answered the question about how a poor widow is supposed to defend herself.
February 6th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
CathyMac,
I am not the one hiding behind ad hominem attacks nor am I trying to cloud the issue by trying to compare apples with oranges. Stick with swimming pools, at least the statistics were on your side with that one.
February 6th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
“Providing a handgun and training to the law-abiding citizens in the inner cities might really cut down the crime there.”
No, you can’t force training on them - they have the right to use a gun in an unsafe manner - its God given - plus statistics show that MOST of them will be very careful with their weapons without training. What’s a couple extra deaths here and there - think of them as giving their lives to defend the constitution. Let’s all hear a rousing “give me liberty…” refrain now!!
“You STILL haven’t answered the question about how a poor widow is supposed to defend herself.”
I think I have. The market will supply her with her needs. If you would like to contend otherwise please put forward your facts and figures.
ACT, I am sure Browning did his share of “good parenting” - nudge, nudge … wink, wink.
And ACT I believe when the phrase was uttered the unjust were threatening the ultimate innocent victim - and an ear (at least) had been smote in his defense.
February 6th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Eric, you love the term ad hominem, I see you use it everywhere (say it three times fast, betca can’t). It is a standard retort when there is little else. When you use emotion rather than reason and people point it out, don’t go cryin’ home to mama. The ‘turn around and kiss your own ass’ reply was to illustration the absurdity of your own logic (or lack there of).
As for stats, you are plain wrong. What stats do you have to back up your claims? They don’t exist. The facts are on my side. I am sorry you are worried and scared about a problem that does not exist, perhaps some counseling will help.
Face it, in your world the poor widow is dead. Please answer Jack’s question.
February 6th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Wait, I saw the answer. The poor widow apparently has to wait for the “market to supply her with her needs.”
She’s dead Jack.
February 6th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
“I think I have. The market will supply her with her needs.”
Oh, wait, he means the GOVERNMENT will supply her with her needs, as it sees fit..
Yes, she is dead.. But Puft and Troll feel less insecure..
February 6th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
“No, you can’t force training on them - they have the right to use a gun in an unsafe manner - its God given - plus statistics show that MOST of them will be very careful with their weapons without training.” — Troll
Perhaps you should learn to read, Troll. I said, “Provide a handgun and training….” There is nothing in there about FORCING anything. YOU, however, want to force people to keep their guns where they cannot be accessed at need.
“The market will supply her with her needs.”
And then you will make whatever she has bought, at greater expense because of the government regulations, illegal.
February 6th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Eric,
I’m not the one being dishonest here. There is NO valid reason for instituting gun controls beyond what is already in place, and there are valid reasons for lifting some of the ones already enacted. The *only* reason for increases in gun control is the eventual disarming of the public. History shows that all too clearly. The regulation doesn’t happen without the eventual disarming. So who is being dishonest? You aren’t stupid Eric. You might even think that more regulation is not a slow process in the anti-gun groups fight to remove our liberties — though I hope you are not that blind. It isn’t dishonest. It is full well knowing that regardless of what you say, if you repeat the same actions over and over, you get the same outcome. Open your eyes.
Either than or start using your brain to examine the long term statements of those that are now espousing “gun safety” (euphemism for gun control). These are the people that have said there is no need in today’s society for handguns. There is no need for self-defense. There is no need for people to own guns. Look past there present rhetoric (changing tactics, but keeping the same goal). Switch your point of view to the other side and tell me that you don’t see Bloomberg’s lawsuits, the “American’s for Gun Safety” statement “Americans for Gun Safety claims to respect the rights of gun owners but secretly lists the “passage of licensing and/or registration in the next Congress” is its “top national priority.” (Americans for Gun Safety Partners Meeting, Oakland, Calif., Sept. 25-26, 2000)” as a footstep to removal of guns.
Open your eyes. Like I said, I’m not the one being dishonest. If you don’t agree, I’m going to start thinking you are not being honest. I’ve said that regardless of what the words are, we’ve seen history (the UK, Austrailia, etc.) I’ve seen in *this* country guns taken from law abiding citizens (New Orleans — the police seized guns without giving receipts, without legal authority, and have blocked getting them back to people).
Open your eyes. If you continue pushing this, it isn’t me that is coming across as dishonest, it reflects back to you — you aren’t hearing what I’ve said — gun control *is* about disarming people regardless of what you say. You cannot (that is, it is not possible) to separate the issues.
February 6th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Puft,
Suppose the “tax” was $50,000. Does that mean that those that cannot afford $50,000 extra are being treated equally under the law? How about a poll tax as well — just because you tax something doesn’t mean that you are restricting the rights of the people (by your logic). If the right to vote was restricted by it being taxes, then so is the right to keep and bear arms restricted by being taxed.
The fee for obtaining a concealed handgun permit (CHP) is already a tax on carrying concealed. The only reason that it should not be repealed is that it is perfectly legal in Virginia to carry a handgun out in the open (like the police carry — in a visible holster).
February 7th, 2008 at 12:50 am
Eric,
In addition to what Activist stated, I’d want to add, that I would rather have a little less security, and die “by the sword” wielded by the unjust — die a true victim, and perhaps die taking out the one who attacked me — than die a coward that out of fear of “something bad might happen” when someone breaks into my home and starts bashing in heads.
I’m not the most physically fit — and I’m well over my peak in terms of age. If I am to have a chance at protecting my family from home invasion, I would have to be armed with something that will level the field.
I would certainly rather die by the sword than live as a coward that deserves neither liberty or security. I would rather my sons loose their father and be able to look up to him as being brave in the face of fear. I would rather have my daughters safe being defended by arms than have them feel safe when they are not. Without both keep and bear, those that are physically fit, big, and bullies will prey upon those that are weak and small. That has been happening since the dawn of creation. In France (prior to the French revolution) it was illegal for a commoner to carry a sword, the weapon of the day, because it would make them capable of defending themselves against the nobility. Remove guns, the weapon of this day, and we become modern day serfs.
Being brave is acting right even in the face of fear. Being a coward is not fighting for any reason. A more complete coward attempts to cover over their cowardice by making it seem wrong to even be able to defend oneself. The swine that crashed the jets into the World Trade Center were the worst kind of cowards. Those that killed the swine on the airplane over Pennsylvania acted bravely. They weren’t going to let those pigs slam the plane into who knows what target, they were going to make sure that did not happen, even if it cost those brave passengers their lives.
February 7th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Cathy,
“Eric, you love the term ad hominem, I see you use it everywhere…”
Hmm…Cathy…I did a search of this page. It was used twice in these 50+ posts. Once by me and once by you. More hyberbole on your part?
ps: I like that term, too, when its apt (which it often is with the posters on this blog).
As to stats, I have posted many both here and elsewhere to support my position. I have yet to see one stat that says that knives and baseball bats (or pools for that matter) kill more people than guns.
Finally, I am really surprised that the posters here have so little faith in the market. Very disappointing for so-called conservatives.
February 7th, 2008 at 9:01 am
“Provide a handgun and training….” There is nothing in there about FORCING anything. YOU, however, want to force people to keep their guns where they cannot be accessed at need.”
You mean you would say here is a handgun for free (no argument there) and if youw ant we will train you in its proper use? But we the government have no problem if you are not trained in its proper use or if you are unsafe in its proper use and storage? Sure sounds like the argument you are now making is that your right to bear arms is now a right to bear arms in an unsafe manner if you so wish. Do you claim that right?
February 7th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Jack wrote:
“And then you will make whatever she has bought, at greater expense because of the government regulations, illegal.”
I certainly won’t and such a move would not pass constitutional examination.
Again, I have no problem with you or your granny arming yourselves. I just want to make sure that you do not endanger me more in the process through your irresponsible gun management. I am sorry but I don’t buy the old “trust me” argument anymore.
February 7th, 2008 at 9:09 am
Brian wrote:
“I’m not the one being dishonest here.”
Then writes:
“The *only* reason for increases in gun control is the eventual disarming of the public.”
When I have already posted many valid reasons. Furthermore, even if Brian does not accept my reasons, he KNOWS that “disarming of the public” would be found blatantly unconstitutional.
QED
February 7th, 2008 at 9:09 am
Eric, Look on the CDC website for knives, cork screws and plastic bag death stats, I think the link has been provided. This same conversation took place on another website, almost to the T and towards the end “ad hominem” was delivered as your reason to leave the conversation because you had been beat. Same goes here.
You can’t win so you cry foul.
I can’t keep going round and round, it makes me dizzy and is a waste of my time.
February 7th, 2008 at 9:20 am
Brian,
I hear much more fear in your post than in anything I have written. You are afraid of the government (and don’t trust your own constitution to protect you), you are afraid of the local axe murderer (talk about stats being exaggerated), you are afraid of the evil socialist liberal with his agenda and slippery slope, etc. All to the point that you feel justified in denying me the right to BE safe as you exercise YOUR right to bear arms. Again, if you wish to die by the sword, that is your right and I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with you arming yourself (even walking around like a gunslinger with a holster. Just as long as in the process my safety is ensured to the extent possible without eliminating your right to bear arms.
You see the difference in our approaches, I acknowledge your right and provide for them, you ignore my right in your zeal (dare I say GREED - another one of those pesky deadly sins) to exercise yours.
February 7th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Cathy,
Went to your CDC site. In 2005, for example, fire-arm related deaths were more than 10 per 100,000 while all other related deaths (including knives, baseball bats, etc.) combined were 7.25 per 100,000.
Yeah, good site.
February 7th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Also, Cathy, I don’t know which OTHER site you are referring to but I don’t recall any time when I had been “beat”. Do you have the official score somewhere? If you think this is some kind of game then I’d like to inform you that I am not playing.
February 7th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Troll,
I have no problem with requiring training as a condition of being GIVEN a gun. I do have a problem with requiring training before one can BUY a gun oneself. If the government requires such training, the government can find out who has had that training, and confiscate their guns. (BTW, gun confiscation has occurred in both NY and CA after registration.)
I DO fear the government, especially as we move further down the path to socialism. Socialist governments have killed millions of people in the last century. New Orleans confiscated people’s gun after Katrina. Many people have still not gotten their guns back. What good was the Constitution to them? Their government did not abide by it.
Meanwhile, you go on about the “free market,” but refuse to allow the market to be free. How is a gun supposed to be used for protection when it is locked up?
So, you want to ensure your safety “to the extent possible without eliminating your right to bear arms.” The problem is, the constitutional requirement is that such regulations do not INFRINGE on our right to bear arms.
February 7th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Eric: What age group? Up till 19 includes gang related deaths, it is a false statistic. Pull stats in young children to get a clearer picture. Did you pull just 2005 because it favored your arguement?
The other site is Too Conservative (maybe Dec or early Jan?), there is an Eric the 1/2 troll on there that had this exact same arguement. I had a good time reading it, you took your football and went home after uttering “AD HOMINEM!!” Troll: zero.
February 7th, 2008 at 10:45 am
“All to the point that you feel justified in denying me the right to BE safe as you exercise YOUR right to bear arms.”
Your arguments are not about being safe. The root of your argument is simply this : Your insecurities cannot handle a law abiding citizen, whom you may never meet, owning a firearm. The thought of someone somewhere, going out into his/her south forty on Sunday afternoon to pop off a few rounds gives you the willies.
You guys talk about “training inner city residents” with firearms usage, but tell me, which inner city gives their citizens the right of self defense with a firearm compare to those that do not ? You tell us that if the guns went away, all would be ok. Go tell that to the residents of Rwanda and Sudan. You talk about firearms accidents with kids, but tell me that “kids” include gang bangers between the ages of 18-21. You tell us that guns should be heavily taxed, but overlook that this remains infringement, pure and simple. Should we also tax the right of free speech or freedom of religion, or the right to vote ? Duh, we tried that once with a toll tax, but it was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
There is one simple truth that you should accept ; every freedom that you enjoy was provided to you, and is maintained for you, with guns. Fortunately, we have many with the stones to realize and accept this basic truth so we may continue to enjoy these liberties.
February 7th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Dan, it is FEAR. The troll operates out of emotion. You can not reasonably argue with someone that will not deal with facts.
February 7th, 2008 at 11:42 am
Troll has stated that he doesn’t want to ban guns or ownership (basically). His biggest beef is that he wants to feel that there is some sort of “safety” measure in place to calm his fear. This is based on his growth indoctrination and his logic as it was presented to him by others. He has that right and I will give him validation in his beliefs. I just don’t concur. And I don’t see any “simple” or other solution that would squelch his fears that would not be a direct infringement on our GOD given freedoms and Second Amendment rights. If there was a legal and JUST way around it, well, it would have been thought of by now. Again, Troll, we all don’t get what we want and you will just have to manage your fears internally. That is what normal people have to do.
February 7th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Well said ACTivist, Troll will have to buck it up.
Romney is suspending his campgaign, now on FoxNews, keeping his delegates.
February 7th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
hmmm, Cathymac, my last post to you (loudoun Lady) on that thread stated:
“Nonetheless, (and I reiterate here) your rights are regularly limited and regulated by the government for many reasons (public safety being one of them). There is nothing unconstitutional in this regulation. Once you accept this to be true (which is clearly is), much of the rhetoric is taken out of the debate. Cooler heads can discuss what is justified or reasonable regulation of any right and (in this instance) the right to own a gun.
I DO have ideas on what I think is reasonable regulation of that particular right. I have no doubt that others have other opinions on the matter. Perhaps I’ll show you mine if you show me yours.”
Sure doesn’t look to me like I took any football anywhere. Perhaps you would like to respond here??
February 7th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
“Your insecurities cannot handle a law abiding citizen, whom you may never meet, owning a firearm. The thought of someone somewhere, going out into his/her south forty on Sunday afternoon to pop off a few rounds gives you the willies.”
Nope, Dan, that is not my worry about firearms. The fact that I often allow and encourage law abiding citizens to go to MY back forty to pop off a few rounds (hopefully at a few deer) belies your contention.
February 7th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
“Dan, it is FEAR. The troll operates out of emotion. You can not reasonably argue with someone that will not deal with facts.”
That’s not a football I see in your hands is it, Loudoun Lady?
February 7th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Act wrote:
“I just don’t concur. And I don’t see any “simple” or other solution that would squelch his fears that would not be a direct infringement on our GOD given freedoms and Second Amendment rights.”
Two things, first I don’t disagree. The demand by some to the right to be unsafe with their guns is difficult to overcome in the current political environment. Second, however, the only constant is change.
I’ll continue to tilt at windmills. See you all when the next wacko picks up his Dad’s gun and blows away a few people.
February 7th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Suffice it to say Troll, your ideas on reasonable regulation on firearms or our rights do not interest me, as they already exist ad nauseum. I am not trying to regulate firearms or my rights further - that is the mission of the extremists. Less regulation seems good to me, but not to you, as I see it you are saying “bring it on because I feel scared.” I knew where you were going with this and you proved my point, regulation is GOOD.
Firearms are the most regulated product on the market, another regulation will make you FEEL good, but it will not make you safer. How many times must this be repeated?
Your fear is irrational, you should not be driving as you are more likely to be in a fatal car accident then shot by a firearm. Muggings are frequent too, stay inside. How do you regulate a mugger? Or a bad driver? A criminal of any kind? That is what you should be worried about.
Stop mixing emotions with regulations, accidents with safety and feelings with truths.
February 7th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Troll:
“I’ll continue to tilt at windmills. See you all when the next wacko picks up his Dad’s gun and blows away a few people.”
The use of tragedy to regulate is the epitome of fear and emotion. Disgusting as well.
February 7th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
“regulation is GOOD”
Indeed, given the mindset of many gun owners, in this case it is.
“Firearms are the most regulated product on the market”
Oh puleeease. Where do you come up with this stuff? You have never heard of the FDA? You think car safety is not regulated, airline travel? Have you given one iota of thought as to how many regulations are involved in every single gallon of gas you use? How about how many regulations are involved with every watt of energy you burn? Just consider the number of regulations and government involvement that ensured that dangerous sewer vapors do not back up into your house at night and kill you. This is the problem with just accepting the rhetoric without giving it any critical thought. The NRA said its true - it must be!!
“Your fear is irrational.”
The fact that the Browning incident occurred proves that the fear is not irrational. It is futher proven by the number of people who do not practice gun safety and security even on this very blog. If you want to discuss irrational fears, we could start with Brian’s contention that there is some vast conspiracy to take away your constitutional right to bear arms. I’m sorry the argument that “its not paranoia if they are actually out to get you” isn’t REALLY an argument rational people accept.
February 7th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
“The use of tragedy to regulate is the epitome of fear and emotion.”
Why do you feel this way? Has not the tragedy of 9/11 been used over and over and over again by the right for much less seemly ends - the re-election of a President, for example?
February 7th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
“The fact that the Browning incident occurred proves that the fear is not irrational.”
Bollocks. Rational fears are based on statistics, not anecdotes. The murder rate for Whites in the United States is on par with Canada, which has far fewer firearms. They just get murdered by other means. However, the result of their near ban on handguns is that their violent crime rate is twice that in the United States. In Canada, the rate of occupied home break-ins is FOUR times the rate in the United States. The perps don’t fear getting shot in Canada.
BTW, 9/11 was not a TRAJEDY, is was an ATTACK.
February 7th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Jack, I find it hard to believe that the murder rate for Whites in the USA is on a par with that in Canada. Can you verify the statement somehow, or did you pick it out of thin air? And where do you find that violent crime rate is twice that in the US? “occupied home break-ins is FOUR times the rate in the US”. Where do to get your information, pray tell?
When you talk about rate, do mean actual numbers or crimes per capita? If the latter, I might believe your info since Canada has a smaller population than the US.
February 7th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Troll, I don’t “feel” anything about your nutty analysis. A comparison between 9/11 and a nutjob kid with a gun is very telling of your view of life. Fear. Plenty of people were scared on 9/11, our country was attacked after all, that is very rational. Few are still cowering in their houses afraid of a terrorist attack.
I seem to recall the Pres trying to calm fear, not incite it. You are trying to incite fear, but people are just not buying it, because it it irrational.
Your twisted logic knows no bounds.
February 7th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Wait, Troll brought our the big line “The NRA said it, it must be true.”
Ta-da, it only took 5 days.
clap, clap, clap
February 7th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
“Oh puleeease. Where do you come up with this stuff? Just consider the number of regulations and government involvement that ensured that dangerous sewer vapors do not back up into your house at night and kill you. This is the problem with just accepting the rhetoric without giving it any critical thought. The NRA said its true - it must be!!”
Troll, I strongly suggest you at a very minimum, read the GCA of 1968, and the NFA, then compare that to the skimpy paragraph in the Uniform Build Code which discusses your example.. Every municipality has firearms ordinances, yet they leave your other examples to the state and federal levels. Don’t believe me ? Look at Loudoun and Fairfax. Do they have ordinances covering airplanes, pharmaceuticals and P traps ? No, they do not, but they do have regulations on firearms!
Actually I joined the NRA long after I educated myself on this subject. You see, I am not a liberal, I do not swallow rhetoric purely because it sounds warm and fuzzy, or accept it as the truth simply because it was rammed down my throat in school.
It is obvious that you need some literacy on this topic, it would be advantageous for you to do a little homework outside of a few quick google searches. Don’t be afraid that your bubble might burst, go for it!!
February 7th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Rate is always PER CAPITA, Lovisa. I have detailed all of the analysis in earlier posts. I will try to find it in the archives, but that may have been before the switch to the new server.
The data come from the FBI and Statistics Canada.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/index.html
http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/legal04a.htm
As you can see, Canada’s violent crime rate in 2004 was 951.2/100,000, while ours was 465.5.
Taking the FBI stats, we see that the Black homicide rate is 18/100k. Estimates from states that break out the Hispanic murder rate put it at about 9/100k. Factoring that out to get the non-Hispanic White rate yields <2/100k.
Canada’s rate is 1.9/100k.
February 7th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Thanks for the info, Jack, but I don’t understand why you’re only talking about murder rate for Whites. Hispanics and Blacks are just as dead, aren’t they?
February 7th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
“Plenty of people were scared on 9/11, our country was attacked after all, that is very rational.”
Not if we use your definition of rational and irrational. Look at the statistics. How many deaths per capita in the US have resulted from terrorist attacks? Talk about an irrational fear that was INDEED promoed by Bush - anyone else remember the “mushroom cloud over New York” rhetoric?
February 7th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
The point is that it is not the GUNS, Lovisa, but the CULTURE.
February 7th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
“Every municipality has firearms ordinances, yet they leave your other examples to the state and federal levels. Don’t believe me ? Look at Loudoun and Fairfax. Do they have ordinances covering airplanes, pharmaceuticals and P traps ? No, they do not, but they do have regulations on firearms!”
What is your point? The fact that much of the regulation is state and federal does not mean it is a less regualted industry. And I suggest you look at local building inspection process before you blow off the County’s arm when it comes to the plumbing in your house (and electric, and AC/heating, and so on, and so on…) No guns are indeed not the most regulated product on the market today - that much is clear.
February 7th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
That was MY definition of rational, Troll. And yes, they were threatening us. If a thug threatens you, I suggest you take measures to protect yourself.
February 7th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Actually it is the CULTURE of GUNS…sorry couldn’t help myself…
February 7th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
So Jack, a fear is irrational if the statistics don’t support it - unless YOU perceive it to be real? OR are you saying it doesn’t matter what the statistics say as long as the threat to your safety actually exists in some REAL sense - like it did to the Brownings?
February 7th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
“Factoring that out to get the non-Hispanic White rate yields <2/100k.
Canada’s rate is 1.9/100k.”
And everybody knows there are no blacks or hispanics in Canada. Nice try, Jack.
February 7th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Troll, You are harboring on the absurd.
Getting into a discussion on what is rational and irrational fear with someone that has irrational fears is bizarre, to say the least. I can’t compare guns and terrorism, except to say that killing terrorists with guns is a good thing.
You keep up the good work. With people like you working for additional gun legislation (or just annoying bloggers and scaring ignorant citizens), I am fairly confident it will go nowhere.
February 7th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
on guns
Huckabee
Supports the NRA Agenda 100%
Mccain Gets a C from the NRA
sponsored a bill to regulate gun shows out of existence
February 7th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Less than 2% of the population in Canada is Black, and less than 2% is Hispanic. Assuming the murder rates in Canada are the same as in the United States, (18, 9, and 2) per 100,000, the murder rate in Canada would climb to 2.4 per 100,000. Significant, but nothing compared to the 5.5 per 100,000 that we have.
Looked at another way, accounting for the ethnic makeup of Canada and the United States, Canada’s murder rate is about 80% of the United States’ rate.
However, their rates of other violent crimes are much higher.
Guns aren’t the problem.
February 8th, 2008 at 7:57 am
Eric,
You have said what you think are valid reasons. None of them are. They don’t hold water. It is not okay to regulate gun safety, only to regulate the consequences of bad gun safety. It is not okay to try to prevent bad actions on the part of people, it is only okay to, after the fact of someone being shot and possibly killed through negligence, have someone prosecuted for criminal negligence.
The principle is that you don’t give up liberty for security.
Your so called proof is proved wrong.
February 8th, 2008 at 8:01 am
Oh, one more thing. you stated:
“Furthermore, even if Brian does not accept my reasons, he KNOWS that “disarming of the public” would be found blatantly unconstitutional.”
Only now, after 30 years, is the District’s law that disarms the people being challenged before the court. At this point, we don’t know the result of that case — or how broadly it will be held. I’m sorry, facts prove you wrong again. The people of DC have not been able to be armed for 30 years.
February 8th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
“It is not okay to regulate gun safety, only to regulate the consequences of bad gun safety.”
Ok, I could probably live with that. If you are found to be careless (negligent) in securing your gun and someone steals it and kills someone, let’s see you face negligent homocide charges for it. I can live with that - I would rather a before-the-fact safety measure (along the lines of other product safety regulations) but if you can’t handle that, at least let’s hold you responsible for your negligent gun safety.
February 8th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
“Only now, after 30 years, is the District’s law that disarms the people being challenged before the court. At this point, we don’t know the result of that case — or how broadly it will be held. I’m sorry, facts prove you wrong again. The people of DC have not been able to be armed for 30 year”
IF the ban is unconstitutional, it will be found so by the SC. Man, why don’t you people who spout off so much about the founding fathers not believe in the very checks and balances they put into place? Guess it has to do with how they are all out to get you, huh?
February 8th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
“Man, why don’t you people who spout off so much about the founding fathers not believe in the very checks and balances they put into place?”
Hmmm. it is the pro-gun supporters that took this to the appeals court, and the anti-gun lobby that fought that. Exactly WHO does not believe in checks and balances here ?
Leftists are only FOR something when it suits their socialist agenda.
In the words of Mel Gibson as William Wallace,
FREEDOM!
February 8th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Dan given that our justice system is set up as plaintiff and defendent, why does it surpirse you that the defendent wants the lawsuit thrown out. Again, the system is doing its job. I personally won’t lament if the ban is overturned in court as it DOES seem to be an unconstitutional overreach to me but I am not a SC justice and do not have the expertise to second guess the outcome. I will respect the result - as should you (even though I doubt most here would if it is found to be constitutional).
And quoting Mel Gibson certainly adds to the “rational” argument - lol.
February 8th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
“Ok, I could probably live with that. If you are found to be careless (negligent) in securing your gun and someone steals it and kills someone, let’s see you face negligent homocide charges for it.”
Eric you are either being stupid on purpose, or you just don’t want to get it — the person that stole the gun is the one who did wrong, not the person from whom it was stolen. The one from whom it was stolen is the victim of crime, not the perp. You aren’t that stupid, so grow up.
February 8th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Troll, Here you go again..
“Dan given that our justice system is set up as plaintiff and defendent, why does it surpirse you that the defendent wants the lawsuit thrown out.”
You missed by point, of course the defendant wants it thrown out. But it is not “D.C. & Brady Campaign & VPC & Senator Kennedy et al v. Heller”, it is simply “D.C. v. Heller” . It was not only DC that worked very hard to get the appeals court to not take this.
Brian said to Troll :”You aren’t that stupid,”
Very rash assumption Brian.. you might want to reread his posts. I understand that is very likely your nature to give someone the benefit of the doubt. In this case, you may wish to reconsider..
February 8th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Eric,
30 years later? If a gun ban were put in place now, and weren’t lifted for thirty years I could very well be dead by that time. An entire generation that has to put up with guns banned? You may want that possibility, I do not. I’m not willing to experiment on it either. There is no sufficient reason to limit liberty for security. It just doesn’t exist.
You say *if* the SC lifts that ban — well, your right I don’t trust the government. How many people do? No one that has any sense. “Nobody’s life, liberty or property is safe while congress is in session.” Twain was a blazing liberal and came up with it, conservatives feel the same way.
One of the purposes of the 2nd amendment was the possibility of the militia (controlled by the state) rebelling against an over reaching federal government. The militia being the whole of all the able bodied men in the state. If a person trusts the government, they are a lot more dense than the founding fathers.
February 8th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
OMG - another gun control thread. can’t. take. troll. stop. madness.
February 9th, 2008 at 8:49 am
I have always wondered about the sanity of the 60’s “liberals,” who railed against the government, and so distrusted the government, now want the government to dictate how much CEO’s can make, want the government to have the only legal firearms, want the government to control their access to health care, and want the government in control of their retirement.
What the hell is wrong with these people — too much “LDS”?
February 9th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Jack, I don’t think the Mormons have anything to do with it. They are somewhat conservative, if slightly crazy.
February 10th, 2008 at 12:25 am
It was a joke — from Star Trek, The Voyage Home. Kirk said that Spock took too much “LDS” at Berkley.
February 10th, 2008 at 1:42 am
I was figuring that is were it came from. But hey, with Romney in the race, the LDS was just to comical to resist.
February 10th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
So it’s OK for you, Brian, to claim that Mormons are “slightly crazy” but if someone said that evangelical Christians are “slightly crazy” then that would be bigotry?
February 10th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
“… but if someone said that evangelical Christians are “slightly crazy” then that would be bigotry?”
No, they would be speaking from their world view. Originally, Christians were called atheists because they did not worship all the Roman gods. From their world view, Christians were atheists.
I tend to think of a person that believes he/she can become a god as slightly off. But that doesn’t mean that my view of Jesus as being eternal God, one with the Father and Spirit, creator of all that exists is anything but off to someone that believes Jesus was Lucifer’s brother, that both are not eternal beings and that “god” became god after living, dying, and being raised on another world (Kolob).
Sure, I am crazy to someone with that world view. Both of us are probably crazy to someone that believes in a purely mechanical universe.
All three would have the right to believe, without repression or suppression, the things to which we subscribe. But let me tell you a secret: at most one of them can be valid. Not all believes are equally valid unless all believes are totally wrong.
February 10th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Spock went to Berkley? Who knew?
February 11th, 2008 at 9:44 am
“30 years later? If a gun ban were put in place now, and weren’t lifted for thirty years I could very well be dead by that time.”
And you know, brian, it does not take 30 years for a court case to navigate to the SC. Apparently you gun-rights types were a little slow on the uptake on this one (that is if your 30 year figure is even accurate).
And, Brian, if your son picks up an unlocked gun of yours in your house and goes on a shooting spree, YOU should indeed be held responsible. If you sell your gun to a person with a known criminal background but just can’t be bothered to check out the database, imo, you should be held responsible.
There are other examples.
February 11th, 2008 at 10:32 am
So if my son steals my car keys and kills someone while drinking and driving, should I also be held responsible?
If I sell my car to a known criminal without checking his background and he uses that car in a crime, should I be held responsible?
Cars kill far more people in this country than guns do.
February 11th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Medical mistakes kill almost 100k people every year, and more than (150k+) that die every year from an infection picked up during a hospital stay.So, if I refer someone to a doctor or hospital, and that person ends up dying, am I liable ? Where does it end ?
All of these samo-samo anti-gun arguments, it is all simple paranoia.
February 11th, 2008 at 11:24 am
LindaB.,
Just for his final thesis to get his doctorate. All other schooling was at UCV (University of California-Vulcan). And, yes, he did do LDS. They used the chemicals that were available on Vulcan.
February 11th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Troll,
I submit to you that if you need a cause to back that would really raise fear in the mass majority, get behind the illegal driving cause. Too many people on the road are being hurt, killed and incurring property damage due to those individuals that are driving without or suspended liscenses and no insurance. Now that is an every-day reality you can embrace. Agree?
February 11th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Jack,
If your son has a drinking problem and you leave your keys out for him to take whenever he wants…yep.
February 11th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Yes, ACT, that sounds like an important issue. Start a thread and I’ll join you on it.
February 11th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
I will second a worthy cause for the Troll. There are plenty out there and he seems to have lots of time and energy.
February 11th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/339/12/813
February 11th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
So, Troll, if one’s child does not have a criminal record or other problems, then having a gun out and available is OK?
February 12th, 2008 at 1:32 am
Troll,
You know what I see as my biggest problem with your point of view? That you need to assign blame to people that are not immediately involved in doing what is patently wrong.
I’m sorry, but 150 years ago, a 15 year old probably went hunting either by himself or with his dad nearly all the time. You see the possibility of something bad happening, and you want to prevent that possibility — you want security at the cost of liberty. You don’t want my son to be able to defend the house if I’m not there, even if he were able if he had access to a gun. You want to suppress his liberty in order to protect your security.
You are afraid of something bad happening, so you want to prevent that possibility. Even if it means restricting someone else’s liberties. You want to restrict liberty for security. Examine closely your own motives — I am seriously asking you if what you have is a “moral cowardice” — that is, you have set up a “moral high ground” for your position, when it would be totally superfluous if you were willing and able to defend yourself.
The “red herring” of deflecting this to drunk driving is of a similar nature. I can see someone saying (a lot more reasonably) that drinking away from home requires either a designated driver, taxi, or other means of egress to one’s home — or driving with elevated blood alcohol levels. That isn’t just a hypothetical someone could take your gun and use it illegally, but it isn’t possible to use the gun legally (carrying a gun while drunk).
I would have to presume you’d want to ban serving individual drinks in bars (or at least test) as much as anything dealing with guns. Is that correct?
February 12th, 2008 at 2:39 am
Eric, saw this link in your prior post:
“http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/339/12/813″
Just started wading through the actual questions. If a student in a high school statistics course did not identify the question related bias which is a source of bias in polls, they would fail.
The poll is childishly poor design. It is obvious what they wanted as an answer for each question as it was asked, and the way they asked it, it was designed to slant the answers.
For example, they included the following:
“After an ammunition clip or magazine is removed from a pistol, one bullet may remain in the handgun which can still be fired. A magazine safety is a device in some pistols that prevents that bullet from being fired after the magazine or clip is removed. People favoring magazine safeties see them as a way to prevent accidental deaths; others find these devices expensive and unreliable. How strongly would you favor or oppose legislation requiring that new pistols come equipped with a magazine safety?”
The bias is obvious. “People favoring magazine safeties see them as a way to prevent accidental deaths” the opposition is stated as they are unreliable and expensive. The main reason I’ve seen for not favoring magazine safeties is because a person in the middle of a situation where they need to use the gun, and have to reload the gun will have a gun that cannot shoot while changing magazines. A proper defensive handgun course will tell you if you are fighting several assailants and you have used most of your magazine, and have a full reserve, it would be better to reload with the gun “hot” from cover then continue to shoot rather than shoot to “slide lock” and then reload. If you shoot to slide lock, the gun cannot fire until you get another magazine in — even if you are behind cover, a hostile could overrun the cover and you would be defenseless. If the gun will fire with a round in the chamber even with the magazine out, then you have at least a single round available, and you can shoot even if you have not completed the magazine change.
NOT having a magazine safety is a safety issue, but it is the opposite reason. Having a safety is *less* safe in a gun fight than having a safety.
If a person is responsible with handling a firearm, having a magazine safety is a non-issue. The *only* way a discharge can occur in a modern firearm is if someone is pulling the trigger. The only way for a negligent death to occur would be if the firearm was pointed at a person. That violates the rule of *never* point a gun at something you are not willing to kill or distroy–and I certainly would want to have the person holding that gun prosecuted for negligent homicide at the least.
There are simple rules that I drill into my head, and into my 15 year-old son’s head that prevent such negligent discharges:
1) ALWAYS treat every gun as a loaded gun; ALWAYS.
2) *NEVER* point a gun at something that you are not willing to kill or destroy.
3) NEVER put your finger on the trigger until your sights are on the target.
4) Be sure of your target, and what is beyond your target.
No negligent deaths occur unless one of these rules is broken. It generally would take two of them to be broken in order to have a negligent discharge (with a functional weapon) but it would *require* at least one to be broke in order to have a negligent death.
Most of the questions did not have the any pretext of unbiased, well designed questions. The paper itself shows heavy bias on the part of the writer, and it showed up in the wording of the questions that were published. I would find it hard to believe that the wording of other questions would have been any less biased.
The writer receives an “F” in survey design and control.
February 12th, 2008 at 9:16 am
Brian, in the beginning of your dissertation, you wrote:
“That you need to assign blame to people that are not immediately involved in doing what is patently wrong.”
And I contend that storing a gun in a haphazard manner and being irresponsible with gun safety is patently wrong.
February 12th, 2008 at 9:40 am
“If a person is responsible with handling a firearm, having a magazine safety is a non-issue.”
And IF they are not….
Please don’t patronize, Brian, I have been through gun safety courses and have been trained in how to handle a gun by my own father. The issue is that many gun owners feel it is perfectly alright to leave loaded guns lying around their house unlocked and loaded. This is an anthesis to what I was taught about safe gun storage and provides easy access to both the disturbed youth (I have no way of assessing your son’s status in this regard) and the criminal element. You all are fostering this paranoia about a gun fight with criminals when in your home (you should go back and reread your hypothetical - you seriously think that you will be pinned down by a gang in your home and will need to reload on the fly - too many movies I think) when in actuality, it is MUCH MORE likely that your home will be broken into when you are NOT there and your guns will be stolen. In fact, I would hypothesize that simply by having unsecured guns in your house, you are increasing the likelihood of a break in not decreasing it. If you can reasonably [sic] expect a armed confrontation with criminal gangs breaking into your house, then you can MORE reasonably expect your guns to be stolen when you are not there (and subsequently be used to commit other crimes). Ergo, if you do not take steps to secure these guns, you are by extension putting the rest of society at risk due to your demand to own and handle guns in an unsafe manner.
How about this…you must lock up your guns (all of them) when you THE OWNER are not physically in control of them. Every night when you go to bed, instead of trusting God to keep you safe, you can put your gun next to you in the unlocked and loaded mode. When you go out into the wild, wild, west of the world, you can carry your concealed weapon (properly permitted of course). I could live with that sort of management IF it had some teeth. If your gun were tracked and if you were found to be not following the rules, you were held responsible for the eventual circumstances. The final step I woudl like to see is some sort of universal mandatory training on safe gun storage and handling. That I could live with - predictably, you can’t.
February 12th, 2008 at 9:43 am
“So, Troll, if one’s child does not have a criminal record or other problems, then having a gun out and available is OK?”
Do you think it is OK, Jack? I don’t. But trying to make the case of reasonable expectation and negligent contribution would be harder in this case. That does not mean that you would have no shared moral responsiblity for the act - just not likely any legal responsibility.
February 12th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Yes, I do. When I am not home, I want my daughter to be able to protect herself. Why do you have a problem with that?
February 12th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Classic. For 1/2 pint, the problem is not the people, but the guns themselves. Which is totally backwards. Hammers, knives, axes are also lethal when turned on the unarmed. Yet we don’t need to lock them up. Only guns.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Jacob,
It is the way PEOPLE are mismanaging the guns that is the problem - not the guns themselves.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
“Why do you have a problem with that?”
In a way, Jack, I don’t - see my proposed compromise for Brian above. I would prefer your daughter to have HER OWN gun so she can be held responsible for that weapon - rather than you transferring responsiblilty for YOUR weapon to her. If she were to be required to undergo manditory gun management education in the process of acquiring this weapon, then we would know what she is being told about adequate gun safety measures and would not have to rely upon your knowledge on the matter (which is a HUGE unknown when applied to the general population).
I seem to remember that I HAD to undergo a Pennsylvania hunter safety course in order to get a hunting license if I was under 16 (or something similar to that) - so such a requirement is not unheard of - and it taught me a great deal at a young age in the process.
February 12th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
“I would prefer your daughter to have HER OWN gun….”
Ah, Troll, you are now advocating that minors should be allowed to own handguns?
“If she were to be required to undergo mandatory gun management education…”
So how do you propose that such training be verified? Will the government keep or have access to record on who has had such training? If so, we are essentially back to registration, which, given the examples of Kalifornia and New York, result in confiscation.
February 13th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Eric,
I have been trained to safely store guns that are not on my person. If I were out of my house (and every other well trained individual were out of the house as well) then the guns are in a locked safe. They may be loaded in a safe, but they are locked. (Quick access to a loaded gun when the alarm goes off because of break-in would be critical.) I am not so sure I approve of the idea of some law that would require a gun in a gun safe to be unloaded (if someone has access to the gun, they would have access to the ammunition as well). So that part of what you are saying seem totally unreasonable (i.e., that guns should not be loaded if they are securely locked).
For your information, it is already illegal to leave a loaded firearm where children under 14 would be endangered.
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-56.2
And it is already illegal to recklessly handle firearms:
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-56.1
You misunderstood my objection to magazine safeties. I doubt it would be a problem in my own home. There I would have a tactical advantage, and the intruders would likely be in a very bad way very quickly. What I was talking about is an individual might be out and about, and be set upon by a gang. In that case, I could see someone rapidly firing 6 or 7 shots from a compact .40, and knowing they only have a couple of rounds left, do a tactical change from cover (perhaps behind a car) and wanting to make sure they do not ever have a “cold” weapon. I know individuals that rather than carry a full tactical pistol (full size, with 16 or 17 rounds per magazine) carry a compact pistol with only 10 or 11 rounds. If 6 or 7 individual attempt to attack that individual, it would be very easy to envision shooting 2 rounds at the first 3 or 4 while moving to cover, have only a couple of rounds left, and doing a tactical reload at that time, but wanting to assure the gun does not go cold during magazine change.
Add to that, a reasonably safe armed citizen *never* trusts the safety (magazine or otherwise) then negligent shootings will not happen.
Given that research has shown that guns are used more than 2 million times per year to prevent crime, I would think making them more available would be better than making them less available.
February 13th, 2008 at 12:08 am
Eric,
From above “In a way, Jack, I don’t - see my proposed compromise for Brian above.”
Compromise generally is a two way street — both side give up something in order to get agreement.
Right now, I see the gun laws as being a restriction on liberty in order to have a false sense of security (false, because there will always be “bad guys” out there that could kill me if I’m left without defense). You want to introduce more restrictions in some areas, what areas are you proposing to return to “what part of ’shall not be infringed’ do you not understand”? I see you wanting to introduce more regulation, but compromise says you are willing to give up as well — where?
February 13th, 2008 at 2:08 am
Compromising with gun banners is like the Israelis compromising with the Islamists. In the case of the gun banners, they want to ban all gun, but will compromise by just banning half of all that are still legal. When they have done that, they will insist on another compromise for half of what’s left, and so on.
Similarly, the Islamists will be content, for now, with just killing half of the Jews. Of course, when they are done with that, they will want another compromise to kill half of those left, etc.
No deal.
February 13th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
“So that part of what you are saying seem totally unreasonable (i.e., that guns should not be loaded if they are securely locked).”
If they are locked up securely, they could very well be loaded, imo.
The laws you cite are good but they leave an awful lot of loopholes.
I wonder if Jack’s minor daughter is under 12 seeing as how he wants her to use his gun when he is out of the house if need be…probably not.
Brian, if you can make suggestions I am all ears. But there is another aspect of compromise in that neither party is happy with the outcome. Each feels like they have moved to the center from their position. I would like to have more and better regulation of guns (like proficiency testing for instance, mandatory safety standards - including trigger locks, personalized gun standards, etc) I have moved off my goals, you move off yours - that is the essence of compromise.
That being said, I may be able to be convinced that some current regulation should be relaxed as it may be ineffective or counterproductive. Make your offer.
February 13th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
“Compromising with gun banners is like the Israelis compromising with the Islamists.”
Which might be true - if somewhat hyperbolic. I, however, am not a “gun banner.” Jack, the world is not black and white.
February 14th, 2008 at 1:50 am
“I wonder if Jack’s minor daughter is under 12 seeing as how he wants her to use his gun when he is out of the house if need be…probably not.”
What the Hell are you talking about? One cannot leave children under twelve alone in a house.
The “pro-gun” lobby HAS compromised, repeatedly. The gun banners keep wanting more. The Second Amendment IS black-and-white, what part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you understand?
February 14th, 2008 at 8:39 am
Jack,
All I know is you say you have a daughter you want to use your gun when YOU are not there. If you leave guns lying around your house unlocked and loaded, for all I know you would leave a 12 y.o. at home with them unattended.
And the SC (the highest court in the land) has so far ensured that your Second Amendment right has not been infringed by regulation. The issue is clearly not a black and white one else ALL attempts to regulate would be deemed unconstitutional.
February 14th, 2008 at 10:36 am
I would leave MY 12-year-old with a loaded, accessible gun. You said UNDER 12, which one cannot do.
And yes, I DO deem all attempts at regulation unconstitutional.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Jack, Brian,
troll is wanting more of the same. guns already are the most heavily regulated item in our society. he is spacious in his argument, he just wants more, there is no pacifying him. he keeps ignoring the points you make and ignoring the refutation of the links he posts.
this became a fools argument about 40 to 50 comments ago.
February 14th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
“guns already are the most heavily regulated item in our society”
Absolutely untrue. Watch that timber in your eye, Jacob.
February 14th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Frankly, Jack, looks to me like you are violating the intent of this law.
“It shall be unlawful for any person to recklessly leave a loaded, unsecured firearm in such a manner as to endanger the life or limb of any child under the age of fourteen.”
I suspect an after the fact “but I TOLD her she shouldn’t touch it!” just won’t fly. This is why I will not let my kid go play at a person’s house who I know has a gun until I dicuss how it is stored with them. If it is not in a secure gun safe…no play date.
February 14th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
“And yes, I DO deem all attempts at regulation unconstitutional.”
The SC (and therefore the Constitution itself) says you are wrong.
February 14th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Troll, if the child under 14 has been trained in the use of the firearm, it is not reckless.
The SC also gave us Dred Scott. The SC also said Social Security was constitutional (and their reasoning is hilarious — you should read it for the entertainment value). The SC also said restrictions on political ads do not violate the 1st Amendment.
The SC has been wrong on many occasions. In particular, the 1936 Miller ruling that upheld the prohibition on sawed-off shotguns ruled that way because they were not military weapons, when in fact they had been issued as such for WWI trench warfare.
February 14th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Damnit Jack, I’m the P.A.K. stop acting like you know more than the SC!
according to the constitution, the SC can’t be wrong about the constitution, because It gives Them the power to interpret It. See how that works?
What you need is a constitutional amendment proclaiming the fallibility of the SC.
February 14th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Then how can the SC overturn a previous ruling? Either the SC was wrong in the original interpretation, or it was wrong in the overturning of the original interpretation.
See how that works?
February 15th, 2008 at 2:01 am
Jack,
You are attempting to use logic. Eric doesn’t want logic. He wants to be able to say the SCOTUS is the definition of what is constitutional and what is not. He doesn’t want to hear that the SCOTUS is made of fallible humans that can make mistakes. He even wants to ignore that a split decision means the SCOTUS disagrees with itself on what the constitution means.
If you ask me, he wants the constitution to be a wax nose that you can shape any way you want to fit the situation you are in at the moment. That is tyranny rather than the rule of law.
The constitution has a fixed meaning, it also has a method for change built in: the amendment process. Too many people (on both side of the liberal/conservative coin) want to ignore what it plainly says, expand on it in some places, and ignore it in others. Abortion is based on an “implied” right to privacy that is nowhere stated. Gun regulations fly in the face of the plain meaning (within the context of late 1700’s — when it was written) of “shall not be infringed”.
February 15th, 2008 at 9:29 am
Eric the 1/2 wit,
OK, there are thousands of laws on the books regarding guns. Care to tell me how this makes them not “the most heavily regulated item in our society””
I am not aware of thousands of laws for