The Case for Gun Control - more facts about the Second Amendment

[samsingh]

From:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2121660,00.html?hpt=hp_t3


Adam Winkler, a professor of constitutional law at UCLA, documents the actual history in Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America. Guns were regulated in the U.S. from the earliest years of the Republic. Laws that banned the carrying of concealed weapons were passed in Kentucky and Louisiana in 1813. Other states soon followed: Indiana in 1820, Tennessee and Virginia in 1838, Alabama in 1839 and Ohio in 1859. Similar laws were passed in Texas, Florida and Oklahoma. As the governor of Texas (Texas!) explained in 1893, the "mission of the concealed deadly weapon is murder. To check it is the duty of every self-respecting, law-abiding man."

(See photos of the Batman movie theater shooting.)

Congress passed the first set of federal laws regulating, licensing and taxing guns in 1934. The act was challenged and went to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1939. Franklin Delano Roosevelt's solicitor general, Robert H. Jackson, said the Second Amendment grants people a right that "is not one which may be utilized for private purposes but only one which exists where the arms are borne in the militia or some other military organization provided for by law and intended for the protection of the state." The court agreed unanimously.

Things started to change in the 1970s as various right-wing groups coalesced to challenge gun control, overturning laws in state legislatures, Congress and the courts. But Chief Justice Warren Burger, a conservative appointed by Richard Nixon, described the new interpretation of the Second Amendment in an interview after his tenure as "one of the greatest pieces of fraud--I repeat the word fraud--on the American public by special-interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."

So when people throw up their hands and say we can't do anything about guns, tell them they're being un-American--and unintelligent.



Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2121660,00.html#ixzz235PTbRhN

[COLGATE4]

1. Speaks to the intellectual dishonesty of this Court

Sad.

[samsingh]

3. and the crap from Charlton Heston holding up his rifle

and saying he believes in the Constitution. He never did. He only believed in the special interests who have twisted wording to suit their immoral drive for profits and other goals. I especially appreciate the wording around the purpose of conceiled handguns and what could be their only purpose. Imagine what the founders would think about assault rifles.

btw - shouldn't everyone be in a militia and follow militia rules as per the second amendment?

[Equate]

18. You do realize that Charlton Heston was big civil rights supporter?

He marched with Martin Luther King Jr., he fought hard for civil rights, including the 2A.

[samsingh]

20. yeah like a 100 years ago. he changed badly.

[Equate]

28. You couldn't be more wrong

he was a huge civil rights supporter right up to the end.
And how do you explain Lawrence Tribe, who is a devoted liberal, who says the 2A is an individual right not connected to militia service, not a collective right.
And just who is the militia? The people are.

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

[samsingh]

31. only if they are well regulated.....

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,...."

[Equate]

41. Sorry

but the SC has put that to bed.
And how about Larry Tribe?

[GreenStormCloud]

42. Please learn English grammar.

A dependent clause does not limit an independent clause. It says, "...the right of the people...", not the right of the state, or the right of the militia.

[samsingh]

54. the writing is clear - 'a well regulated militia .....'

in fact, speaking of understanding English, this filters all the words that follow.

[Equate]

64. You left out this part

The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed. Who are the people, you and me are the people which the militia consists of, the people.

[samsingh]

96. we need to be regulated though.

[gejohnston]

100. there are gun regulations

on the federal and state level. What regulation do you have in mind? Most of the time your side says "reasonable" it means DC, Chicago, NYC, USVI, Jamaica, or UK. My idea of reasonable is current federal law and closer to Vermont's.

[samsingh]

104. something is clearly not working. i think some real openness on this issue is needed.

If there is real evidence that arming everyone would eliminate gun violence (maybe a combination of kevlar clothing, gun training), then i would support that.

[oneshooter]

110. You were asked a question, one that I would also like to hear the answer to.

" What regulation do you have in mind?"

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

111. I'd like to hear that answer as well. n/t

[samsingh]

116. what part of: something is clearly not working. i think some real openness on this issue is needed.

is not clear?

i asked there questions earlier.

there are already so many guns, and if they are the answer, why are there so many gun deaths?
has anyone here ever been denied the right to purchase a firearm?

i would also like an answer.

[gejohnston]

128. depends

why only concentrate on gun deaths? Most are suicides. After that are mostly gang hits.
Not me, but then I don't fit under the "prohibited person" category under Federal Firearms Act of 1938 and Gun Control Act of 1968. However, I happened to be in line behind a guy that was. In the winter, Ontario plates almost out number Florida plate around here. A snowbird was refused service because he was a "non immigrant alien" (term ATF 4473 used). He even showed the clerk his PAL (Possession and Acquisition License, something all Canadian gun owners are supposed to have), and it didn't help his cause at all. I'm guessing he wanted to have a gun or two for his winter stay rather than go through the hassle of bringing his own guns down.

[gejohnston]

120. nothing will eliminate it.

certainly not strict laws to include bans. One only needs to look at our cities and territories that have strict gun laws, stricter than most of Europe, to see that. Come to think of it, just look at any country that has a higher murder rate than the US. The UK doesn't have a lower murder rate because of their strict laws, they had about the same rate when they (and the rest of Europe) had unregulated concealed carry. It was not customary, but legal. Most of our murders are gang related, concentrated in a few parts in a few cities. We have a gang problem. Mexico and Jamaica have gang problems (with gun laws stricter than UK and murder rates that make us look like Japan and Palau).

If gun laws mattered, why does El Paso have a murder rate of 0.8 while Chicago is well.......... Chicago or neighboring Cuidad Juarez. Come to think of it, El Paso is safer than many Canadian cities such as Vancouver, Toronto, and of course their murder Capitol, Thunder Bay. As much as "antis" like to use Canada as an example, let's use Canada some more. Alberta's murder rate is about same as Wyoming's and Montana's. Minnesota's is slightly lower than Saskatchewan's. If Flint and Detroit were to secede from Michigan, the state's murder rate would be the same as Manitoba's. Of course, that is all murders regardless of weapon. Over half of our murders include firearms, only one third of Canada's is.

Me being armed or not in Florida or Wyoming does not affect DC's or Chicago's problem. Like I said, it is a gang problem. Those cities and territories have a number of complex and deep rooted problems that their politicians either can't or don't want to deal with. Some of it is larger than the local area and requires federal assistance, like infrastructure. In Chicago's case, the politicians are in bed with the drug gangs just like they were with the booze gangs, so it is easier for some DINO to rant about "rednecks in Montana and the NRA" while busting public sector unions and laying off cops.

[samsingh]

121. why does the US have more gun violence than other industrialized countries?

[gejohnston]

134. I find the "industrialized" kind of cherry picking

because it conveniently excludes countries with higher murder rates. Because we have a greater gang problem and a greater drug problem that arms the gangs and fuels the violence. The reasons are complex historical and cultural reasons, and concentrated if few areas. In those areas you have the remaining legacy of slavery, racism, and globalization with a little anti intellectualism on the side. We also glorify violence. Look at a US cop/PI show compared to a Brit or Canadian cop show, even Flashpoint. Dating back to the late 1960s, the show always ends in a shoot out, even if the bad guy was an accountant who was caught cooking the books or the cop shows up just in the nick of time and shoots it out. That is not a cause of course, but simply an illustration.

[samsingh]

131. my question is basic: "why does the US have more gun related deaths than any other industrialized

country in the world?"

[gejohnston]

136. basic question with no simple answer

and certainly no easy solution.

[samsingh]

149. we agree on that

[rDigital]

175. Regulated meant trained, not restricted back then. nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

179. to regulate as in to make regular would still have the same meaning now as it did then --

reg·u·late  
verb (used with object), reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing.

1.
to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.: to regulate household expenses.

2.
to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.: to regulate the temperature.

3.
to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation: to regulate a watch.

4.
to put in good order: to regulate the digestion.

I really do not understand how anti2Aers use that phrase to mean anything other than what it means. Even with the #1 definition it can easily be argued that guns are already being controlled and directed by principled people using rules and methods. It is the unprincipled portion of the population that needs to be regulated....

[GreenStormCloud]

81. A dependent clause explains but does not filter the independent clause. Please learn English. N/T

[samsingh]

97. i know English very well.

the house is large, the rooms are spacious.

[samsingh]

99. you're trying to tell me that clause a does not impact clause b?

why is there not a period if there is no relationship.

give me a fing break.

[GreenStormCloud]

113. English grammar lesson:

A dependent clause provides additional information but does not modify the independent clause.

No breaks. Gun-banners don't give us any breaks.

[samsingh]

124. but the dependent clause is not the independent clause

[samsingh]

150. english grammar lesson CONTINUED

"Being in a car accident, you are entitled to a payout on your insurance policy, and this must be done in 60 days from the time of the accident."


If there is no accident, then the other clauses do not get implemented.

[GreenStormCloud]

152. Same lesson continued:

Being in a car accident This establishes that an accident has already happened and the reason why the person is entitled.

you are entitled to a payout on your insurance policy, and this must be done in 60 days from the time of the accident." This sentence can stand alone without the dependent clause. The person is entitled. The first clause merely says why they are entitled.

I suspect that you meant something different that would have the word "if" in it, possibly a conditional clause.

[samsingh]

153. there can be no insurance payout without the accident. That's the point i'm trying to make.

if you're saying that it can, i'm sure insurance companies wouldn't be in business very long.

[GreenStormCloud]

162. But your sentence didn't say that.

Your sentence began with "Being" which establishes that the accident has already happened and therefore explains why the insured is owed money. The dependent clause gave addition information but did not modify the independent clause.

Try this:

Well stocked libraries, being necessary for an informed public, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.

Would you interpret that to mean that you could not have private books but that only authorized libraries could have them?

[PavePusher]

88. Please diagram the sentence...

then explain to us how the dependent clause is a limiting condition on the independent/operative clause.

Just because it A precedes B, doesn't mean that A controls B.

[samsingh]

98. the sentence refers to a well-regulated militia. this cannot be separated from what follows

[gejohnston]

102. but it means well equipped

there was also a law that forced you go buy your own gun and ammo for this militia. But the clause does not limit the main clause.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

106. In his dissent in Heller...

...Justice Stevens states, "The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia." No where do I find that the purpose for the 2A defines all possible purposes of the RKBA.

The 2A was adopted for the purpose Justice Stevens wrote in his opinion. Please find me compelling argument that the purpose therein explained is the only purpose for the RKBA.

[samsingh]

107. There should have been a period and two distinct sentences

why have the wording for well-regulated militia if it is optional?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

109. It's not optional.

The reason for the 2A was to provide protection against government interference with the RKBA because the RKBA (among other things) ensures that the government will not/can not enslave the people. The 2A does not define the RKBA, it merely protects it.

[samsingh]

115. sounds revisionist to me.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

117. Ever use you right...

...to free speech to post on the internet? What we're doing is "speech" is it?

Consider: Please find me compelling argument that the purpose therein (within the 2A) explained is the only purpose for the RKBA.

[samsingh]

123. why did you introduce the free speech on the internet into the discussion?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

126. To provide an example of a right...

...retained by people and not enumerated within the BoR.

[samsingh]

127. in the free speech example

you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre.

you can't threaten people.

you can't spread hate speech.

you couldn't swear on television.

there are clearly sensible boundaries and changes over time.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

132. yes there are sensible boundaries

Some distinctions need to made here. You can indeed yell fire in a crowded theater and, assuming there actually isn't a fire, you may eventually be caught, charged, tried and sentenced for your actions. Just as those who use guns to assault people are. We do have laws already about using guns for crime.

What we do not have is prior restraint.

So what sensible laws pertaining to guns would you like see passed?

[samsingh]

133. okay

1. smaller gun magazines
2. flags on when someone purchases large volumes of ammunition or firearms (e.g. you can't carry over $10,000 in cash internationally without reporting it)
3. giving law enforcement the power to investigate and be empowered to deal with troubled individuals (like the movie shooter)
4. rules for where guns are stored in a home
5. get rid of 'stand your ground' laws. Self-defence is a right, but must be proven that reasonable force was used
6. time limited permits

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

135. thanks for the well considered reply

I'll be getting dinner shortly but I'll respond after that.

[Jenoch]

140. Has there been a single

shooting in the United States where it mattered whether or not the shooter bought 500 rounds of ammunition or 6,000 rounds of ammunition?

[samsingh]

146. no, but it would be a red flag and provide an opportunity for prevention

[Jenoch]

182. To prevent what,

target shooting? Most of the large ammunition purchases are for target shooting. If the purchase of say, 300 rounds of ammunition is a 'red flag' then the ATF or whatever government agency is going to monitor the purchases will not be able to do anything other than investigating the purchases of relatively small amounts of ammunition on the off chance that something nefarious is going to be done with said ammunition.

[samsingh]

183. you know reduce events like massacres, innocent people getting killed

the things that some of us are hoping to accomplish.

instead of saying 'no' to anything that could inconvenience gun owners. Notice, i said 'inconvenience' - not take their guns away. And by the way, i don't care how many guns you have. Some idiot coming into a theatre shooting two assault rifles is going to kill people regardless of the guns they have.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

142. my replies

1. smaller mags - Mags of all sizes already exist. Mags were capped at 10 rounds during the AWB with no effect on crime. Harris and Klebold had them. Just impractical.

2. volume flags - Many places have 1 gun a month laws. Doesn't seem to help. How many rounds is too many?

3. LEOs and mental cases - What would help here? AFAIK they do already.

4. Storage laws - What kind of laws? Why?

5. Drop SYG - Not really a gun law but then what? Return to duty to retreat?

6. Time limited permits - AFAIK permits already have time limits.

[samsingh]

147. thanks for your reasonable answers.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

159. I have an issue...

...with some states that seldom or never report those adjudicated for mental conditions.

See the Fatal Gaps report by MAIG. http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/maig_mimeo_revb.pdf

Check page 12.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

178. would you have...

Any thoughts on the questions I asked?

[GreenStormCloud]

151. Some answers:

smaller gun magazines Accomplishes nothing. The VT killer and the Luby's killer used standard magazines, as did many other killers. They reloaded in about one second. With practice a reload can be done in about 1/2 second. High capacity magazine have a tendency to jam, as did the Batman killer's 100 round magazine, and as did Lougner's mag. The demand for smaller magazine is merely and emotional demand by people who know little about how guns actually work.

flags on when someone purchases large volumes of ammunition or firearms That would accomplish nothing. Please show me case in which a mass killer used over 100 rounds of ammo. A purchase of several guns at once is not a big deal either.

giving law enforcement the power to investigate and be empowered to deal with troubled individuals (like the movie shooter) Sounds like you want a Department of Pre-crime. Until someone actually breaks a law they are INNOCENT, even if they are doing thing that you don't like.

rules for where guns are stored in a home My home and I will store them where I want to and in what condition I want to. We have already seen DC require that guns be stored disassembled and not be assembled, even if they were needed for self-defense. We already know the direction and distance that gun-prohibitions will attempt to travel because we have seen it.

get rid of 'stand your ground' laws. Self-defence is a right, but must be proven that reasonable force was used You are ill-informed of SYG laws. In a self-defense shooting the shooter must still prove that the use of deadly force was reasonable. All SYG does is remove a "duty to retreat".

time limited permits If you are talking about a CC or OC permit, they are already time-limited. If you are talking about a permit to own then I oppose those completely. Owning a gun is a right.

[GreenStormCloud]

139. Actually, you can spread hate speech, but you can't incite to violence. N/T

[samsingh]

154. and rightly so. but there is a limit.

[GreenStormCloud]

163. Where is that limit?

I believe that the line is drawn at inciting to violence.

[pipoman]

176. There is no ambiguity in the wording,

you are arguing that there is. If it was meant to say, 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.', that is what it would have said. It doesn't say that. It says something completely different.

[TPaine7]

177. Very good question. I've addressed this before.

32. "...discarding the first part of the amendment..."

It is not discarding the first part of the Second Amendment to  interpret it the way the Supreme Court and the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did.

In fact, people in the Founder's time would have found the way many honest people interpret it today strange indeed. Preambles and purpose clauses do not limit the scope of a law unless the operative portion is unclear. Since "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is clear, the purpose clause does not limit its meaning.

The way laws, consitutions and even contracts are interpreted hasn't changed since the Constitution was writen, it's just that writing in that way is much less common today. However, consider a simple analogy.

A father's last will and testament is read. One of the paragraphs reads as follows:

Since competence in accounting is necessary to the management of an accounting firm and Susan is the only one of my children who is a certified public accountant, I leave my company to her provided that she must take a salary of no more than $150,000 per annum adjusted for inflation and share the profits equally with her siblings.

The purpose clause—"Since competence in accounting is necessary to the management of an accounting firm and Susan is the only one of my children who is a certified public accountant—contains not a shred of direction.

A court would interpret this exactly as if it read: "I leave my company to {Susan} provided that she must take a salary of no more than $150,000 per annum adjusted for inflation and share the profits equally with her siblings." The court would not be ignoring the first part, it would be reading it exactly as it was written. It would be enforcing every instruction that the first clause contained; it is not the court's problem that the first clause contained no instruction whatsoever. If the clause contains no instruction, one cannot be created by the court and injected to avoid "ignoring" the clause.

Now let's say that Susan's brother Jim went to school and got his CPA. Let's say he went to a better school than the one Susan attended and got better grades. Let's say he then wanted to take over the company, or at least to share control with her.

He could argue that the first part of the sentence—the purpose clause—is no longer true. He would be right. He could also argue that since the first part is no longer right—Susan is no longer the only one of his father's children who is a CPA—the operative clause is no longer binding. But that logic would not work in court.

The purpose clause cannot overule or change the scope of a clear directive.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117255387#post32

38. It was quite common at the time to have purpose clauses or preambles.

In the case of the Second Amendment and many other laws of the time, the purpose clause was given to communicate the purpose of the enactment. That is the same reason for the first clause in the paragraph in the will. It is also the reason for the Preamble to the Constituition.

However, it would be illegitimate for the president to claim that the Preamble's "provide for the common defense" snippet overrode the clear directive that he can serve no more than two terms, and that in order for the nation to have clear and consistent leadership through these trying times, he must continue as Commander in Chief—for the common defense. That would (hopefully) get laughed out of court—the preamble cannot override a clear directive in the body.

The purpose clause of the Second Amendment sounds strange to us today, but we still have something similiar (and I would argue much more superfluous). Here's a made up example of how some laws still read:

Wheareas the great state of Nevada has always been at the forefront of championing human rights, and Whereas the people of Nevada have seen fit to entrust this body with the sacred duty of protecting the bond between mother and child, and whereas it has been shown that breastfeeding is beneficial to children's mental, emotional and social development, be it hereby enacted that

1) All restaraunts in the state of Nevada having greater than 2,500 sf of dining area shall provide no fewer than three (3) private booths suitable for mothers to breasfeed their children...

Why would the legislature take the time to inform us that the state of Nevada is great? I guess because it sounds good. But it is not enforceable in court. It is very clear where the enforceable part begins.

The bottom line: the signers wanted to tell us why they were enacting the Second Amendment, it was customary in those days, and we have analogous clauses even today, though we word them differently.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117255387#post38

[gejohnston]

29. his stance of civil rights never changed

he did start to lean right on other issues.

[PavePusher]

87. How old are you? Maybe 17? n/t

[samsingh]

125. wow - you guys get really insulting when someone questions your logic

actualy 17 is a compliment. thank you.

[TPaine7]

22. It speaks to the intellectual dishonesty of the professor or of the author of the OP's source. n/t

[COLGATE4]

155. What pray tell is dishonest about what the professor says?

[TPaine7]

160. First, let's be clear. I did not say that the professor was intellectually dishonest:

Here's what I said:

It speaks to the intellectual dishonesty of the professor or of the author of the OP's source.

There is definitely intellectual dishonesty in the OP's source, however. For example,

Congress passed the first set of federal laws regulating, licensing and taxing guns in 1934. The act was challenged and went to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1939. Franklin Delano Roosevelt's solicitor general, Robert H. Jackson, said the Second Amendment grants people a right that "is not one which may be utilized for private purposes but only one which exists where the arms are borne in the militia or some other military organization provided for by law and intended for the protection of the state." The court agreed unanimously.

The Court most emphatically did not agree with that. If it had, why didn't the person responsible for that paragraph (whether it be professor or journalist) cite the decision, instead of the Solicitor General? The Solicitor General's brief is not authoritative.

Robert Jackson did make a ludicrous argument, but the Court didn't bite. The Court has never said anything remotely equivalent to the bolded quote. It has said many things opposing the bolded quote. If the quotation bolded above where true, it would have contradicted lots of previous Supreme Court statements on RKBA.

[bongbong]

2. Good article

Just the excerpt quoted in the OP utterly destroys about 8 of the more common NRA Talking Points the gun-relgionists repeat on DU over and over and over and over and over and over and over and ... (the "Big Lie" technique)

[samsingh]

129. it clearly does

[TPaine7]

4. Bullshit.

The professor is misrepresenting at best and intentionally lying at worst. I think he's lying (or the author is misrepresenting his position.

History is not on the side of the anti-gun zealots, revisionism notwithstanding.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=300206&mesg_id=300331

[samsingh]

6. i don't think so. you may not want to believe it, but this is true.

[TPaine7]

12. No, it is a mishmash of misrepresentation and lies.

This quote, for instance, is an embarassing misrepresentation of Miller—to the point of being a lie if said by an informed person:

Congress passed the first set of federal laws regulating, licensing and taxing guns in 1934. The act was challenged and went to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1939. Franklin Delano Roosevelt's solicitor general, Robert H. Jackson, said the Second Amendment grants people a right that "is not one which may be utilized for private purposes but only one which exists where the arms are borne in the militia or some other military organization provided for by law and intended for the protection of the state." The court agreed unanimously.

I cannot believe that even an anti-gun professor would actually say that on the record. I have to believe that the professor was misunderstood.

[samsingh]

16. lies like those perpetuated by the NRA?

[TPaine7]

25. Impressive rebuttal, but the NRA is beside the point of the post you answered. n/t

[samsingh]

30. the post refers to changes in the 1970s which were definitely supported by the NRA

[TPaine7]

55. Actually, post 12, the one you replied to, says nothing whatsoever about the 1970's

TPaine7 (3,598 posts)
12. No, it is a mishmash of misrepresentation and lies.

This quote, for instance, is an embarassing misrepresentation of Miller—to the point of being a lie if said by an informed person:

Congress passed the first set of federal laws regulating, licensing and taxing guns in 1934. The act was challenged and went to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1939. Franklin Delano Roosevelt's solicitor general, Robert H. Jackson, said the Second Amendment grants people a right that "is not one which may be utilized for private purposes but only one which exists where the arms are borne in the militia or some other military organization provided for by law and intended for the protection of the state." The court agreed unanimously.

I cannot believe that even an anti-gun professor would actually say that on the record. I have to believe that the professor was misunderstood.

1934? Check. 1939? Check. 1970s? Nothing there.

Why do you guys try to always try to bring up the NRA (or "gun bloggers&quot ? If you follow my link, you will find citations to eminent law professors and original sources.

[samsingh]

130. in the OP

the article's author discusses how things started changing in the 70s.


"Things started to change in the 1970s as various right-wing groups coalesced to challenge gun control, overturning laws in state legislatures, Congress and the courts"

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2121660,00.html#ixzz236mht7wq

[TPaine7]

14. Read the post I linked to and make a cogent response and we can talk. n/t

[samsingh]

19. why don't you do that with my post?

[TPaine7]

50. There's very little substance, but OK.

Congress passed the first set of federal laws regulating, licensing and taxing guns in 1934. The act was challenged and went to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1939. Franklin Delano Roosevelt's solicitor general, Robert H. Jackson, said the Second Amendment grants people a right that "is not one which may be utilized for private purposes but only one which exists where the arms are borne in the militia or some other military organization provided for by law and intended for the protection of the state." The court agreed unanimously.

The Court most emphatically did not agree with that. If it had, the fraud responsible for that paragraph (whether it be a professor or journalist) should have cited the decision, not the Solicitor General.

Robert Jackson did make a ludicrous argument, but the Court didn't bite. It said nothing that any literate English speaker could interpret to be equivalent to the bolded quote above.

I have a book, Supreme Court Gun Cases, that goes through every Supreme Court gun case until just before Heller. The Court has never said anything remotely equivalent to the bolded quote. It has said many things opposing the bolded quote. If the lying quote bolded above where true, it would have contradicted lots of previous Supreme Court statements on RKBA.

For example, the very first time the Supreme Court mentioned the Second Amendment, it called it and other fundamental rights, "rights of person." That's about as clear as you can possibly get in saying that a right is personal, and RKBA is a personal right, just like speech is a personal right. That was the first mention after the Bill of Rights was passed. The Court also said in the same case that citizens had the right to travel freely in any state and to keep and bear arms wherever they went. That was the status of the law the first time the Court spoke on the matter.

There have also been more recent cases where the Court's language has made clear that the right is personal. In addition to that, the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment wrote that Amendment specifically and explicitly to ensure that people, individually, had a right to carry arms and that states would be forced to respect that right. This had nothing do do with a militia or protecting the state, and they were very clear on that point.

This is supported with citations in the link I gave you before.

Things started to change in the 1970s as various right-wing groups coalesced to challenge gun control, overturning laws in state legislatures, Congress and the courts. But Chief Justice Warren Burger, a conservative appointed by Richard Nixon, described the new interpretation of the Second Amendment in an interview after his tenure as "one of the greatest pieces of fraud--I repeat the word fraud--on the American public by special-interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."

Burger was wrong. EVERYONE knows it—all legal scholars of all persuasions.

The lie of omission in the "change" theory is that the law is changing back. Since 1939, the courts have pretended to understand Miller to say something it clearly does not (if you doubt me, google and read "Can the Simple Cite be Trusted" or simply read the Miller case and the arguments on both sides.

The part about concealed carry is truth being pressed into the service of a lie. Yes, concealed carry was not understood in the Founding Era as being protected by the Second Amendment. But open carry was protected. It was not perfectly protected, but that does not mean that it was not a right. (The First Amendment was definitely not perfectly protected for decades; google "Alien and Sedition Acts.&quot

What the antis did was make open carry, the individual, personal right that the Second Amendment protected and the Fourteenth Amendment made applicable to the states, widely "illegal." They are now trying to use the fact that concealed carry was unprotected in many states to fight against all carry. But the reason why concealed carry is so prevalent and necessary, at least one of them, is that the antis have trampled the Constitution for decades, making open carry rare and "taboo."

According to the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, there is a right to keep and bear arms in New York City. If New York City, Chicago, LA, Hawaii and other unconstitutional enclaves want to forbid concealed carry, they can. But according to the text and history of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, they cannot also forbid open carry. It's concealed or open, not concealed or nothing.

[samsingh]

53. how is it that everything that does not support your position is a lie. Burger lied?

[bongbong]

62. Standard for gun-relgionists

Whenever a person posts something from the Brady Campaign or any other source that gun-relgionists hate, they call it "lies".

The only approved info for gun-relgionists is the NRA Talking Point Manual. It's probably published by Fox "news".

[TPaine7]

70. No, I wasn't saying that Burger lied. He may have simply been misinformed.

The author of your source lied, misunderstood or was mislead.

The "change" meme is a lie. There is copious historical data, of the most unimpeachable type, to prove that the "change" is taking us back towards the legitimate historical meaning of the RKBA.

When you know the history, as I do, it is obvious when key facts are being left out. I don't doubt that the professor was the source of the information on concealed carry. And perhaps he didn't mean to use the fact that concealed carry was not considered to be protected by the Second or Fourteenth Amendments to mislead the reporter. But the fact is that open carry was always intended to be protected by the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

By focusing on concealed carry, the story gives the impression that RKBA was not an individual right apart from militia service, and that we a "changing" to a warped interpretation of history. That is a lie, and it is a lie "supported" by carefully weaved half truths and fabrications.

Of course, not everybody who disagrees with me is a liar. But if you actually know about the history of the interpretation of the KRBA, if you know that the idea of it being a militia or states right never appeared in a state or federal court opinion (with the exception of a single dissent) until the 20th century, if you know that the Court has expressed the individual rights view dozens of times, if you know that professors who by their own admission hate the idea of citizens bearing arms admit, however grudgingly, that it is a personal individual right, if you know that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment explicilty set out to protect the personal, individual right to keep and bear arms from states (not for the protection of states)... if you know the history, it's hard not to see that the "change" meme is a lie, and that the careful omission of key facts, the careful selections of certain facts and the blatant misrepresentation of reality is a lie.

I didn't accuse you of lying. I'm not sure who the liar is—the professor, the author of the piece, or possibly other sources that colored the author's perspective and facilitated a misunderstanding of the professor's carefully selected facts, but there is a liar.

I urge you to investigate the history. It will shock you, even if you still support severe gun control as a policy. In a nutshell, the Fourteenth Amendment was never interpreted correctly and respected because the Supreme Court twisted like a pretzel to support Klansmen and their fellow travelers. The corrupt precedents set by leaving slaves to the mercy of southern states allowed 20th century judges to ignore the clear meaning of the historical record and support modern gun control. The Court still has not given the Fourteenth Amendment its full force, but it has at least incorporated the Second Amendment using the wrong clause (the same wrong clause used to incorporate the First and the Fourth and so forth).

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

75. For a true perspective from an intellectual committed to freedom...

...read some of what is relevant from Justice Joseph Story. Aside from being the youngest Justice ever appointed, he was appointed by Madison who was one of the principle writers of the Constitution and his father, Dr. Elisha Story, participated in the Boston Tea Party.

Oh wait... does that mean his daddy was a Teabagger???

It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people.
- snip -
The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.
- Joseph Story (Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States., 1833)

[samsingh]

101. i know history as well. It seems to me that you're using observations as facts when they

suit the pro-gun argument. Anything that does not means the person is misinformed, lying, twisting, ...

[gejohnston]

103. how much history do you know?

what specific area of history?

[samsingh]

105. University level American History, European History, Russian History.

[gejohnston]

137. Russian history,

so why does Russia have very little gun violence, yet a murder rate over twice ours?

[bongbong]

158. I know why!

Because Russia stats are a nice Red Herring for gun-relgionists to bring up when they're losing an argument.

[gejohnston]

166. you obviously missed the point

but I'll give you a red star for effort.

[bongbong]

167. I got the point

Another Red Herring from a gun-relgionist.

Yawn, they're almost as common as parroting of NRA Talking Points.

[TPaine7]

165. First, I don't doubt that you know history. You may very well know more history than I do.

But you're missing the point.

I am talking specifically about the legal history of gun control in the United States, not who signed what treaty in what year and other facts and information unrelated to gun rights.

Did you know that the Framers of the 14th Amendment wrote specifically to allow black people, along with other citizens, to individually carry arms? Did you know that they specifically wrote the language of the Amendment to overturn a ruling saying that blacks couldn't carry arms? Did you know that they explicitly set out to protect the personal, individual right to keep and bear arms? Did you know that they explicltly protected that right from the state —not, as many would have it, only when one is in a militia under control of the state? Did you know that that purpose was announced on the floor of the Senate as the Amendment was introduced? Did you know that the introductory speech was published in the major papers of the day, either in its entirety or as a gloss, and that it was debated nationwide? Did you know that both its opponents and its supporters acknowledged that the 14th Amendment would protect the right of individual blacks as well as everyone else to carry arms?

Those are factual claims, not mere "observations." Do you doubt them? Do you have other facts that show that the collective right theory expressed in the OP is correct?

If you knew that history, just as a small sampling, why did you post the OP?

[Adrahil]

180. Thje 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments....

all prtoect individual rights. Why would the 2nd be any different? And if the Framers had intended only to protect the RKBA in the context of a milita, then why not say the the MILITA has the RKBA instead of the PEOPLE? The collective rights argument makes no sense at all...

[DanTex]

36. LOL. "The professor is misrepresenting". Boy if I had a nickel... nt

[TPaine7]

79. Lying again?

The professor is misrepresenting at best and intentionally lying at worst. I think he's lying (or the author is misrepresenting his position.

Lying by strategic ommission is no less lying than your usual means; the "or" is still there, even if it doesn't suit your purposes to acknowledge it.

Oh, and don't let the fact that you don't know much of anything about the subject (or you didn't last time we talked, anyway) trouble you.

You might not have the slightest clue as to the history, the theory, the facts or the ideas associated with the RKBA, but you don't care. Last time we talked about this, you actually admitted the truth—that the historical reality and the legitimate legal principles really don't matter to you.

Eventually. After spinning, evading, talking about "gun bloggers", and demonstrating your profound ingnorance.

Hopefully this time you'll constrain your BS to taking statements out of context.

[gejohnston]

5. Georgia banned handguns and concealed carry

in the 1830s, but was over turned.

Congress passed the first set of federal laws regulating, licensing and taxing guns in 1934. The act was challenged and went to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1939. Franklin Delano Roosevelt's solicitor general, Robert H. Jackson, said the Second Amendment grants people a right that "is not one which may be utilized for private purposes but only one which exists where the arms are borne in the militia or some other military organization provided for by law and intended for the protection of the state." The court agreed unanimously.

Actually, that is not quite right. The first was a federal sales tax on handguns in 1919, and the Mailing of Firearms Act of 1927. The NFA did not ban machine guns etc. because FDR's attorney general predicted that a ban would be overturned.

A few things the author forgot to mention about US v Miller. The lower court ruled that NFA did violate the 2A. The SCOTUS did not rule either way, since there was no opposing council. All the court ruled was that a "sawed off" shotgun was not constitutionally protected because there was no evidence presented that such a weapon had military use. That is why both sides claim Miller as a victory for their side.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act
http://www.law.nyu.edu/ecm_dlv2/groups/public/@nyu_law_website__journals__journal_of_law_and_liberty/documents/documents/ecm_pro_060964.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

Things started to change in the 1970s as various right-wing groups coalesced to challenge gun control, overturning laws in state legislatures, Congress and the courts. But Chief Justice Warren Burger, a conservative appointed by Richard Nixon, described the new interpretation of the Second Amendment in an interview after his tenure as "one of the greatest pieces of fraud--I repeat the word fraud--on the American public by special-interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."

During that time, it was mostly conservatives that were for strict gun laws, especially in the south.
Oh this article speaks for itself.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html?pagewanted=all

[samsingh]

7. so overturning it again would be fine then.

[gejohnston]

11. no, because it was based on the second amendment

McDonald incorporated the 2A under the 14th, overturning one of the worst decisions ever. That prevents a ban, which is why NFA was a large transference tax and registration instead of a ban. That ban, along with South Carolina's 1911-1965 handgun ban (and North Carolina's handgun permit scheme) would put you with some, shall we say, very un liberal company.

[samsingh]

13. in that case

should'nt everyone have to be part of a militia according to the second amendment:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,......"

[gejohnston]

23. because the collective right theory did not exist

until the 20th century. Every gun law SCOTUS upheld dating back to the 19th century (including a 1894 case upholding Texas' licensing law) was based on pre incorporation view that the BoR only limited the federal government, but not states. In other words, "states rights".

[Bonhomme Richard]

8. My problem with the state of things is that the NRA will not.......

even allow the issue to be discussed. Period. In any context. If we can send a craft to Mars we can certainly come up with some solution to weapons falling into the hands of those that shouldn't have access to them. If we have a reasonable discussion and still can't come to agreement then fine. We tried. If it's the enforcement of the laws already on the books then fine. To shut down a debate before it can begin is not a reasonable approach.
For the record I own assorted rifles and handguns, am not a member of the NRA and I am not afraid of the issue being discussed.

[samsingh]

9. i'd be fine with that - but the NRA will not be.

[gejohnston]

17. good point, but

prohibitionists are not interested in enforcing current laws, not really interested in reasoned discussion, they are culture warriors. Hoyt and bongbong are typical examples.

[samsingh]

27. you are so wrong. first off, who's asking for prohibition? i'm not.

when there are massacres so often, and gun supporters don't offer a meaningful solution to stop these, who is disinterested in meaningful discussion?

There are a lot of guns. More guns cannot be the answer, obviously. Would arming everyone, everywhere stop the massacres?

[Bonhomme Richard]

33. And there is the rub. The NRA believes more guns are the answer.

It's good for them and it's good for their backers bottom line.
Follow the money.

[GreenStormCloud]

37. Most of the money comes from members.

4.3 million members at $35 apiece, plus member donations.

[Bonhomme Richard]

44. NRA backers

"The NRA organization partners with corporate interested gun makers in their program called: Ring of Freedom Corporate Partners that asks for donations of $25,000 or more from the gun industry and they receive millions from the gun industry"

Read more: http://www.politicolnews.com/who-bankrolls-the-nra/#ixzz235ey8wPy

[GreenStormCloud]

48. And they receive even more millions from members.

4.3 million X $35 = $150.5 million.

The NRA certainly does get some money from gun makers. Ruger recently advertised that they would donate a million to the NRA if they sold one million gun in the year, and would donate $1 for each extra gun they sold. The advertising campaign was a solid success as they passed their goal of one million sales. NRA membership has no objection to that.

But the NRA is controlled by the annual convention in which the membership votes. Gun makes don't get to vote as corportations although the individuals get to have individual votes, just like any other member.

[gejohnston]

43. once a year

by population, isn't that different than other countries.
Stop the massacres? Mitigate the damage in some cases, and it has. There are an infinite number of variables. In VT, yes someone with the ability to defend themselves inside a locked building (while campus police stood around with their fingers up their asses) could have made it better. It would have not have made it worse.

I have yet to see any gun control advocate oppose prohibition like Chicago and DC. As each of these laws prove to be worthless in saving lives, there will be calls to fill "this loophole" or that "loophole" or just one more law will do xyz. They never do, that is why Prohibition eventually comes up. UK is the perfect case in point, each law was a knee jerk response to one incident but did nothing to prevent the next one. The mass shooting in Toronto a couple of weeks ago is another example. The shooter's pistol used magazines that are not legal in Canada, he did not have a PAL (in fact he just left court on illegal weapons charges, but got a slap on the wrist) and the gun was not registered (which is easy to do, the RCMP has a website to allow you to do it online. Once you get or gun from the gun store, online or whatever, you register it. ) yet the mayor wanted to confiscate legal guns from PAL holders. While you may not be interested in prohibition, it will eventually lead there.

Many scholars have suggested that Americans' positions on gun control are the product of culture conflicts. This assertion has been largely based on associations of gun control opinion with membership in social groups believed to be hostile, or favorable, towards gun ownership, rather than with direct measures of the cultural traits thought to mediate the effects of group membership on gun control opinion. Data from a 2005 national telephone survey were analyzed to test competing theories of why people support handgun bans. Instrumental explanations, which stress belief in a policy's likely effectiveness, accounted for less than 25 percent of the variation in support. The results supported the culture conflict perspective. Those who endorsed negative stereotypes about gun owners, and who did not believe in the need to defend their own homes against crime (versus relying on the police) were more likely to support handgun bans.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235209000932

[Trunk Monkey]

92. OK, what are you asking for then? Please be specific. NT

[Bonhomme Richard]

32. Exactly my point. You are afraid to discuss it because.....

you believe that they will win what they want. That's not the way these things work in reality. There are extremes everywhere and if nothing were discussed because extreme positions exist then nothing would be discussed.
It's the debate that the NRA is afraid of.

[GreenStormCloud]

40. Nobody is stopping anything from being debated.

Last weeks issue of Time had a cover story on the guns issue. DU has this forum, although there are many DUers who want this forum shut down. It has recently been debated twice before SCOTUS.

[gejohnston]

67. you didn't read it closely did you?

The reasoned discussion is lacking on the other side, not mine. See Hoyt, bongbong, and the departed iverglas. Can you name any equivalents to them on my side?

[Missycim]

144. If you want pro-2nd

believers to give up certain things what are you willing to give to us to facilitate an agreement?

[Bonhomme Richard]

156. How about national concealed carry permit reciprocity

Unless you would prefer something like a rocket launcher.

[Missycim]

157. no rocket launcher please

I can get behind that idea.

[GreenStormCloud]

164. Rocket launchers are legal, it is the rockets that are controlled.

A rocket launcher is nothing more than a hollow tube with an electrical switch. For that matter, rockets can be launched using a rope stretched between two trees as the launcher.

[Atypical Liberal]

47. That's because what you are asking for is impossible.

If we can send a craft to Mars we can certainly come up with some solution to weapons falling into the hands of those that shouldn't have access to them.

If you accept that the primary purpose of the second amendment is to have an armed citizenry being sufficiently armed so as to perform military service against enemies both foreign and domestic, then you have to face the reality that you cannot propose restrictions that negate that fundamental capability.

Any gun control proposal that gives the government a list of firearm owners seriously undermines the intent of the second amendment.

The only way you can even have a chance at stopping shootings like the two recent events is by having a mandatory psychological examination for everyone who wants to own firearms. This obviously creates a registry of firearm owners, and as such is a non-starter.

My problem with the state of things is that the NRA will not even allow the issue to be discussed. Period. In any context.

This is not true. The NRA completely supports laws that prohibit convicted criminals and adjudicated mentally incompetent people from possessing firearms. And they support strong punishments for people who commit crimes with firearms.

What they will not support are laws which presuppose that everyone is a criminal or crazy person who just hasn't been found out yet. They won't support laws which put expensive hurdles in front of firearm ownership. And they won't support laws which create registries of firearms or firearm owners.

[samsingh]

51. its a joke to think that armed civilians can stop any nation powerful enough to defeat the US

military.

Come on.


"If you accept that the primary purpose of the second amendment is to have an armed citizenry being sufficiently armed so as to perform military service against enemies both foreign and domestic, then you have to face the reality that you cannot propose restrictions that negate that fundamental capability."

[Atypical Liberal]

118. Really?

its a joke to think that armed civilians can stop any nation powerful enough to defeat the US military.

Come on.

The United States has lost or quit every military engagement it has undertaken in the last 65 years.

But whether the citizens of the United States can live up to the expectations of the Constitution or not is irrelevant.

It is what the Constitution says that is relevant.

[samsingh]

122. very circular logic - you stated the purpose was to protect against foreign aggressors.

i responded to your statement.

[Atypical Liberal]

145. Foreign and domestic.

I'm mostly concerned about the domestic.

[Bonhomme Richard]

72. Maybe a reasonable solution is to set up a televised national commission, of sorts, to

see if they can sort out some agreement that is acceptable to most of the nation. Not the extremes of both sides. Certainly have the NRA at the table.Maybe the conclusion will be that the laws on the books are adequate or maybe they would be adequate if they were consistent from state to state. Maybe not.

Yes , there is debate at the ground level but it seems to me that the NRA is resistant to debate on a national level. All someone in office has to do is say we need to talk about this in an open forum nationally and I guarantee that the NRA would throw a ton of money toward their opponent in the next election cycle.

On another note, the idea that the citizens with their 9mm handguns and single shot assault rifles could stand up to a professional army today is ludicrous at best. You might be able to hole up somewhere but eventually when they got around to it you wouldn't even hear the drone coming.

Maybe enforcing the current laws in an even manner across the country is the reasonable solution. I don't think we will know unless it is debated openly for all to watch.

I am not for taking any competent persons right to have firearms for hunting, defense or target shooting away. I certainly do not want to give up mine.

[gejohnston]

77. you make sense but I must correct one thing

"single shot assault rifle" is an oxymoron.

[Bonhomme Richard]

78. For want of calling them fashionable pretend military style hunting/target rifles. n/t

[aikoaiko]

82. If by discussion you mean legislation that bans some firearms and/or their accessories, then

yes, I support people (NRA or anyone) blocking that action.

I'm not afraid to discuss these issues either. but the other side is more interested in ban or restrictions.

[Bonhomme Richard]

89. If I understand you right. You want preconditions before...

a discussion starts.
Discussions don't automatically become law or policy. They are simply discussions.
I also believe it would need to be televised. That would neuter the extremes on both sides.
Like I said, maybe the outcome would be the universal enforcement of existing laws or more focus on mental health. I don't know. I am not afraid of talking and if you believe the majority of Americans support the way it is now then you shouldn't fear a national discussion either.

[Equate]

93. I would be open to a televised discussion

as long as it isn't used to bash one side or the other.

[Bonhomme Richard]

108. I think, knowing that they were being televised, they would....

go out of their way to be civil.

[aikoaiko]

95. What I would like is for discussion to happen before Shumer tacked on a magazine ban to a bill.

That's real. There is only win or lose when people propose legislation.

I'm fine with talking too, but not proposing federal bans in the form of legislation before talking can begin is a precondition.

[Missycim]

143. I wouldn't discuss it at all

If you give pro-controlers a inch this will try for a mile, they never give up.

[Equate]

10. And yet Constitutional scholors like Lawrence Tribe disagrees with

Adam Winkler
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
There are far more liberal Constitutional scholars who agree that the 2A is an individual right as opposed to a collective right.

[aikoaiko]

15. Like those who supported the elimination of other civil liberties

Anti second amendment freaks are discredited and a vanishing breed.

[samsingh]

21. i don't think so.

[Equate]

34. The proof is in the pudding

How many members does the Brady org. have? How about the VPC? You could combine all the gun control org. together and still not come anywhere near what the membership of the NRA.

Want more proof? How many gun control bills have passed since the AWB expired?
You are on the losing side of history.

[DanTex]

45. "losing side of history"

That's only if you define history to be a 15-year period of right-wing legislation that has occurred in the US. If you include the rest of the world, of course, there is no move towards "gun rights" at all -- quite the opposite. Of course, pro-gunners being the rah-rah go USA jingoist types that they are, it never occurs to them that the US is not the only nation in the world.

And, ironically, as long as the US continues to serve as an example of just how many needless deaths result from inadequate gun laws, there is basically no chance at all that any other civilized nation would want to follow our example. Sane gun laws are kind of like universal healthcare. The US is the only wealthy nation without it, and right-wingers here want to keep it that way, but even conservatives in places like Canada or the UK would be laughed at if they suggest a transition to a US-style system.

I for one an optimistic that the current wave of right-wing legislation -- not just on guns, but on economic issues, the environment, abortion rights, etc. -- is only temporary. But if it goes on, it will be to the detriment of the US.

[Equate]

46. I really don't care what other nations think of our 2A

not one whit.
Our gun laws are not inadequate, the enforcement of those laws are inadequate.
I make no apology for, how did you put it. being a rah-rah go USA jingoist type.

I am damned proud to live in a country that trusts it's citizens to own and carry guns.
Be optimistic, I urge you to, but don't come back complaining when your optimism turns out to be false.

[DanTex]

49. Yes, that was my point.

You're probably also proud to live in a country where 30,000 people are killed by guns every year, where millions of people lack health insurance, and where billionaires pay a lower effective tax rate than their secretaries, and so on. It looks like you've found the right part of DU to post in (again). Like I said, right-wingers have made a lot of progress in the last 15 years. I for one hope that changes.

[Equate]

61. Nice job putting words in my mouth.

We have problems in this country that do need fixing, never denied it.
Your figure of 30,000 killed every year is misleading, take away suicides, and the number is reduced by half.
Car accidents kill far more every year, but I guess that it's a different dead because it isn't by a gun.

And I am still damn proud to live in a country that trusts it's citizens to own and carry guns.

[bongbong]

65. Religion

> take away suicides, and the number is reduced by half.

I love how the gun-relgionist ditto-heads parrot this Talking Point (AKA BIG LIE)

How many of those suicides would'nt have happened if there wasn't a gun around? If it took more time to kill yourself so you could change your decision?

We'll never know, because the NRA says "NEIN!" if any mention of gun control comes up.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

66. I was wondering if...

...you might be interested in making a post here that excludes the terms: "gun-relgionist", "NRA" and "Talking Point"?

Maybe you could just summarize your particular view of the nature of rights including the RKBA and characterize any related laws which should be in place.

[bongbong]

168. OK!

> Maybe you could just summarize your particular view of the nature of rights including the RKBA

Refer to Justice Steve's dissent in the Heller travesty.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

170. I thought you would...

...be incapable, and you have proven me right.

[bongbong]

172. Learn to read

So you had trouble reading Justice Steven's dissent? I understand that it is a bit too complex an opinion for many gun-relgionists to get, but I appreciate your honesty in admitting you can't figure it out.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

173. right

[bongbong]

174. Yes

[Equate]

69. Whatever you say

you bring nothing to the debate so have a good evening.

[bongbong]

90. LOL

> you bring nothing to the debate so have a good evening.

Debunking the NRA Talking Point that half the deaths are suicides, implying something that isn't true, makes you gun-relgionists scared.

Cower with your guns in your bunkers!

[GreenStormCloud]

52. There are fledgling gun-right organizations and movements in other countries.

India has "Indians for Guns", their version of our NRA. Even in Saudi Arabia women are wanting to be able to take gun classes and carry guns for self-protection. Other countries are seeing pro-gun movements start. They are tiny at this point, but previously they didn't exist at all.

Canada has gotten rid of their long-gun registry.

[DanTex]

63. Yeah, but they don't make any progress, and one major reason for that is the US.

A shining example of what happens when you let right-wing gun nuts write your gun laws. In fact, if you look at things globally, the NRA might actually be helping the gun control cause by making sure the number of gun deaths in the US stays astronomically high, so that no sane person could possibly consider a switch to US-style gun regulations. It's not so great for Americans, of course...

[GreenStormCloud]

83. They are new, and growing.

It is a bit early to count them out. Let's see what happens. In increasing number of women in India are applying for handgun permits.

[GreenStormCloud]

24. That's only part of the picture.

Early gun restriction laws were not aimed at the general populace but instead outlawed the sale of guns to Blacks or Indians or other minorities.

During the days when those anti-concealed carry laws were made, open carry was legal. In most states open carry is no longer legal, so CC is made legal. In the South, many of the gun restriction laws were either enacted during reconstruction or were post-reconstruction aimed at keeping Blacks disarmed. In Texas, during reconstruction. both open and concealed carry were outlawed, but it was understood that the law would not be enfored against white people.

During the Civil War the Comanches had pushed to frontier back by about 100 miles. A good handgun was carried in case the settler had to suddenly defend himself against Comanches or outlaws.

Handguns were not valued much until after the Mexican-American war. The handguns prior to Colt's revolver were slow, clumsy weapons and the general public attitude toward them didn't change. Then, during the war the Texas Rangers used their new Walker Colts with great effectiveness against the Mexican Army. Reporters of the time wrote about their exploits, the legend of the Rangers was born, and America fell in love with effective handguns.

Many of the very early gun regulations required people to have guns and to go about armed, and stipulated what type. For example men were required to bring guns to church in case of sudden Indian attack.

I bought Winkler's book, Gunfight, and highly reccommend it. It does not support the idea that early America was anti-gun.

[samsingh]

26. wanting gun laws and sane gun control does not make one anti-gun

it makes one pro-life.

[GreenStormCloud]

35. "Sane gun control" is code for gun prohibition.

We have been fooled by gun-prohibitionsists before - not again. No restriction will ever be enough for your side, you will always want addition restrictions.

When the AWB was expiring the anti-gun folks tried to get a new AWB (H.R. 1022 - IIRC), advertising it as a mere renewal of the AWB. But the new AWB included many severe restrictions. Fortunately, it never made it to the floor.

[samsingh]

56. that's such an emotional over-reaction.

[TPaine7]

74. Actually, the city supported by the Brady Campaign and numerous anti-gun groups and luminaries

had a policy that was just as effective as banning guns.

In DC, you were allowed to have a rifle or shotgun, but only if it had no ammo and was locked or disassembled.

It was illegal to assemble or unlock and load your gun for any reason.

You couldn't make your gun functional

1) If someone was trying to break in
2) If someone was in the process of raping you or a family member
3) If someone was in the process of killing you or a family member
4) If someone was in the process of torturing you or a family member

Now you might think that there would be an exception for such eventualities, but that very argument had been made in court—surely you can load a gun in such circumstances—and DC won!

That was the law of the land in DC before Heller. That was black letter law—part of the web of legal restraints that the Brady Campaign rewarded with the highest rating in the USA. It was this city, with the most draconian of gun laws—short of a total ban—that won the support of groups like MMM, VPC, and anti-gun luminaries.

I have learned not to underestimate gun control zealots.

[GreenStormCloud]

84. Experience, not emotion. I gave you the example of HR 1022.

Of course you ignored the example.

[rDigital]

38. As opposed to Pro-Choice?

I'm Pro-Choice when it comes to my personal safety. My body, my family & my choice.

[samsingh]

58. as long as you don't infringe on my personal safety by supporting a culture that allows maniacs to

run around with firearms, i don't care what you do either.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

60. Your straw-man's on fire

[Equate]

39. We already have a plethoria of gun laws

what we need is better enforcement of those laws.
I would be open to tweaking some of those laws but I oppose any laws that will ban a certain class of weapons just because they look scary or limit mag. capacity because a hi cap was used in a crime.

[samsingh]

59. i guess we need more because they're not working

we have a plethoria of guns and that doesn't seem to be helping either.

is there anyone in this forum who was not able to get a legal firearm because of a regulation?

[Equate]

68. they're not working because they're not enforced

or they're plea bargained down.
You are a perfect example of why the gun controllers are not trusted, you all just keep wanting more gun control laws and when those don't work like you want them to, you will want more and more and more until you get such restrictions that you have a defacto ban.

Sorry, but org. like the Brady org., VPC, million mom march, and many more have awakened a sleeping giant and we'll never go back to sleep again.

So what do you think of Lawrence Tribe, who is most assuredly not a RW'er, who thinks the 2A is an individual right?
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

71. BTW....

Sanford Levinson agrees that the 2A is an individual right. For that matter, so does Justice Stevens.

[Equate]

73. I knew Justice Stevens did

but I didn't know that Sanford Levinson did. Thanks

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

76. You're very welcome

[russ1943]

161. Stevens agrees 2nd is individual right? Not exactly.

Post # 71 States as fact that Justice Stevens “agrees that the 2nd Am is an individual right”.
Post #73 agrees that this is a known fact.
This is “fact” only in some prejudiced circles.
Even Chris Cox NRA-ILA Executive Director described the Stevens dissent in Heller as “concluded that the Second Amendment does NOT guarantee an individual right to own a firearm….” . http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2012/justice-ginsburg-reminds-us-what-is-at-stake-in-november.aspx

While everyone is entitled to their own opinion, most legal scholars understand Stevens didn’t write what you guys seem to think.
See also, John Paul Stevens on Gun Control http://www.ontheissues.org/Court/John_Paul_Stevens_Gun_Control.htm

[AnotherMcIntosh]

171. The actual language used by Stevens in his dissent can be found here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html

The holding of the Court can be found here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

[GreenStormCloud]

85. Gun violence has been decreasing for the past 18 years.

You can browse around for yourself in the FBI UCR statistics pages.

Decreasing violent crime strongly suggests that what we are doing now is working.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

57. The 2A grants nothing. Article is fundamentally flawed.

Last edited Thu Aug 9, 2012, 09:26 PM - Edit history (1)

"...Robert H. Jackson, said the Second Amendment grants people a right that "is not one which may be utilized for private purposes but only one which exists where the arms are borne in the militia or some other military organization..."

Perhaps you are one of those who believes that rights are "granted" by the government. You can dismiss that now as only fools hold that view.



Try reading a few facts about what Justice Burger said and where, when and why. http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Mags/crburger.htm

Because the Chief Justice never said anything about the Second Amendment when he was actually on the Supreme Court.
Nor did Mr. Burger write anything about the Second Amendment in scholarly legal or historical journal. (The scholarly consensus is virtually unanimous that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right).

Un-American??? poppycock, ridiculous, tomfoolery, twaddle...

[liberallibral]

80. Because Strict Gun Laws Work SO Well in Chicago and NYC...

Baltimore also has very strict gun laws, and they do nothing... Criminals are always going to have guns, so citizens should (and hopefully will) ALWAYS have the right to bear arms!

[bongbong]

91. Wow!

This is the 1,000,000th post of the "Criminals don't follow laws so why have them?" NRA Talking Point on DU.

YOU win a genuine "thug" (wink wink) target to shoot at.

[samsingh]

119. it actually makes me want to cry - yes, we starting bailing water when the boat was

underwater and the boat did not float. So bailing water does not work. Pour more water and it will be okay.

sounds like the logic used against gun control.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

86. So what is the author Fareed Zakaria's recommendation? Call people un-American and insult them?

How well has that worked so far?

[samsingh]

112. why don't you ask him?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

138. Earlier, when you were asked about your age, you said (#125) "actualy 17 is a compliment."

By the time that most educated people reach the age of 17, they can commonly recognize rhetorical questions.

But, since you don't seem to recognize rhetorical questions at #86 and consider age 17 to be a compliment, you are probably younger than that. Because you seem to be unfamiliar with rhetorical questions and will undoubtedly encounter more of them as you grow up, the following can be of help to you.

A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question that is asked in order to make a point and without the expectation of a reply. The question is used as a rhetorical device, posed for the sake of encouraging its listener to consider a message or viewpoint.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question

Whether you choose to learn is up to you.

You're welcome.

[ileus]

94. Never give up basic human rights...

just because someone is scared of a mechanical device...

[samsingh]

114. yes trivialize death

why are there speed laws just because people are afraid of being bumped by a little piece of metal.

why are narcotics illegal, they're just dried plants.

[xxenderwigginxx]

141. There is no Constitutional protection

for the "right to operate a vehicle" or the "right to be intoxicated". On a side note, I am only aware of one illicit drug which is a "dried plant", that would be Cannabis. However, under the legal definition, Cannabis is not a narcotic. It is often referred to as a narcotic when the word "narcotic" is being used as an adjective, not a noun. Most drugs that are legally defined as narcotics are plant derivatives or synthetics.

[samsingh]

148. there are many debates going about what the constitution protects and does not protect.

[Adrahil]

181. hey... why not make cars illegal?

After all, they cause tens of thousands of deaths each year!

[AnotherMcIntosh]

169. It now turns out that the author is accused of related plagerism and has "apologized profusely for

apparently lifting a paragraph out of The New Yorker for a recent Time column."

For more, see Even more bad news for CNN: Fareed Zakaria... PLAGIARISM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021105852

Prior to Fareed Zakaria purportedly writing the first paragraph in the above OP, Jill Lepore wrote her article and the origional text that appeared in the New Yorker in April:

"Adam Winkler, a professor of constitutional law at UCLA, documents the actual history in Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America. Guns were regulated in the U.S. from the earliest years of the Republic. Laws that banned the carrying of concealed weapons were passed in Kentucky and Louisiana in 1813. Other states soon followed: Indiana in 1820, Tennessee and Virginia in 1838, Alabama in 1839 and Ohio in 1859. Similar laws were passed in Texas, Florida and Oklahoma. As the governor of Texas (Texas!) explained in 1893, the "mission of the concealed deadly weapon is murder. To check it is the duty of every self-respecting, law-abiding man.' "
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021105852