...the basic rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness have little meaning if those pursuits may be lost or destroyed by the selfish, capricious and arbitrary decisions of criminals. Some folks after a lifetime of work may, due to bad luck or low wages, may have not so much worth of possessions but who am I to decide that while it might be okay to shoot someone over a truck and $15,000 in tools that it isn't acceptable to shoot someone over grandma's pearls.

This is a repost of a reply I made a while back to a knowledgeable poster who wrote critically about the MSM characterization "High powered assault rifle." For those who've read this before and/or who have this information, my apologies.

These are terms whose significance is lost on most of the public. It has been my experience that any general details of ballistics are held as some mix of boring and complex. Specific details of works authored by experts such as Dr. Roberts for example: < http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf > among others, are viewed the same way with somewhat gruesome overtones. The idea that scientific means exist to design and evaluate the incapacitating effects of a weapon system is disgusting and contrary to the beliefs of many in the anti-gun camp.

IMHO:
- "High powered assault rifle" has origins similar to "double secret probation". A high powered rifle is a "bad" thing. An assault rifle is a "bad" thing. Form a conjunction of those terms and the object described has to be a "worse" thing.
- Often, the worst inaccuracies are perpetrated when those credentialed, charismatic and popular writers and speakers publicize their emotion based opinions.

It is an odd mixture of my own feelings to view these anti-gun pundits with anger, sympathy and pity; anger for trying to teach others based on their emotional prejudices, sympathy for their ideological goals and pity for the knowledge of their rather certain self-frustration of their cause.

Religion and politics are two topics that don't mix well in discussion but they do share some common ground. In religion, when a believer dissents from an accepted belief or doctrine, he is called a heretic. The thing about heresy is that whether political or religious, is that it originates from a fundamental defect/misunderstanding of the nature and source of the belief system.

Horwitz, who wrote this article has either deliberately ignored or consciously denied two serious contradictions. The one, mentioned elsewhere in this thread, that 2A is also part of the Constitution can be explained by the common collectivist view. However, the fact is that this country predates the Constitution and was founded by the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution founded the current federal government not the country.

The Declaration gives the reason for our country's existence:

(emphasis is mine)

In their wisdom the Founders recognized the need for the Constitution to change. They provided for that in Article Five. During the Constitutional Convention representatives for many states brought up the need for a Bill of Rights and required that a Bill of Rights be added to Constitution. This was the first use of the Article Five provisions and probably most important change to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights does a number of things but the one relevant to this topic is in the 2A. This amendment provides a second method for changing the government and had the Founders not thought that right so important, it would not have been among those clearly protected.

Adding to this misunderstanding we have this gem from Mr Horwitz:



This sums up my thoughts on Huffington's heretic: The Founders knew that the principle danger to liberty was from the government. No other message comes through so loud and clear. British oppression prompted the founding of the US. What the hell could be so wrong with someone that they couldn't see that?

"Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - W. Churchill

Self-preservation and self-defense are requites in a productive life. A commitment to non-violence to the point of death is a black hole in society. While the death of an individual or group may make a social statement, it usually doesn't highlight a best solution to anything but deaths of those killed.

Non-aggression is very reasonable goal. Failing in your own self-defense is functionally equivalent to helping plan your own murder.

...a fact finder finds facts that help him form an opinion.

A fault finder finds faults that help him defend his prejudices.

just sayin'

In the wake of the Dark Knight Rises shootings, one of the topics under scrutiny is the public impact of individual's mental health or lack thereof in firearm crimes.

I note on page 12 of the MAIG report Fatal Gaps that the state of Colorado is among those states close to the national average in terms the cases of mental health records per 100,000 of population submitted to the FBI as part of the information accessible for NICS checks.

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/maig_mimeo_revb.pdf

Good job Colorado, but it's a shame Holmes did make the prohibited list.

I read in the news today:



http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-08-31/james-holmes-psychiatrist-aurora-shooting/57474726/1

Now the topic of the poll: In cases such as this, where should the burden of proof rest, with the defense to prove insanity, with the prosecution to prove sanity or to be determined in a separate proceeding outside of the trial?

Please share some thoughts.

Arms: could mean anything from pocket knives to nukes. The current status is that we've accepted the compromise for personal arms that they be of size, configuration and function such that they can be operated by one person, carried by one person and efficaciously be used in the defense of one or more people.

Rights: are attributes of humanity. An individual has two eyes and one nose those are also attributes common among humans. An individual also has a right to life. The right to life implies a right to self defense. Rights are not sourced from government or other collectives. Rights are not subject to legislative approval, votes from the citizenry, or the approval of my neighbors. Each and every individual has the RIGHT to due process before any of his rights are compromised. That includes terror suspects, illegal aliens, Gitmo detainees and "gun-nut" neighbors of which you may be afraid.

--Rights, The Bill of Rights: protects and enumerates certain rights of the people and powers of the states from government interference. The Constitution defines the federal government; the Bill of Rights outlines some of the government's borders.

--Rights, SCOTUS: has decided in McDonald v. Chicago that the application of protection of the RKBA as an individual right, as decided in DC v. Heller, is extended to state and local governments. It should be noted that among the many amici curiae briefs filed with the court is one from Congress asking the court to find in favor of the petitioners and against Chicago. That brief filed by 2 Senators and 2 US Representatives, 1 of each Republican and Democrat, was signed by 58% of the Congress, overall, more than any other in history.

Laws: are meant to govern the people and control the government. Our government and laws do not nor should they be intended as controls for individuals. Court records and common sense show that neither a law, a gun to the head nor knife to the throat will for sure determine an individual's behavior. Society uses the rule of law to justify the court's due process. Individual behavior (and any crimes arising therefrom) is principally due to individual decision. Believing otherwise rather leads one to question the validity of a sentence determined by the court.

Militias: as detailed in the Constitution are NOT the National Guard.

With the above in mind, any informed reading of the Constitution will, among other facts, lead to the conclusion that it's purpose is to form and constrain the authority of the federal government and define its relationship with the several states. The goals of the federal and state governments are mostly enumerated in the Constitution's Preamble.

Looking at a law as a means of control is counter to the ideals of liberty and justice. When an individual decides to and carries out the killing of another innocent individual. He is detained, charged, tried and sentenced for the offense. If he is coerced by the threat of death or serious injury in the killing, that fact may be offered in his defense. If he has killed in self-defense, he is not guilty of murder. If he has killed by mistake, through no negligence, he is not guilty of murder. To believe that somehow the law would CONTROL the people, would form the basis for an argument that, in the case of a crime, somehow the law was deficient. How could an individual be sentenced for the crime if the law is faulty and partly to blame?

Any thoughts?

"Allow yourself to think only those thoughts that match your principles and can bear the bright light of day. Day by day, your choices, your thoughts, your actions fashion the person you become. Your integrity determines your destiny." - Heraclitus

Have a great weekend to all.

...of those with CC permits make the permits themselves an oxymoron?

...of this debate is the definition of the term "militia". A lot has been written on both sides of this issue concerning that definition. Underlying the idea that the militia be composed of and raised from the body of the people, is that same concept which Lincoln raised in the Gettysburg Address, that of "...government of the people, by the people, for the people...".


The Declaration of Independence proclaims that governmental authority is derived from the consent of the governed. Here in the US we accept that each individual is sovereign. By living here, we all participate in government. The judges, legislators and executives in their roles may be more involved with the day to day issues of government but they are not a separate class of individuals. Every individual, by his voice on issues to his neighbors, by his calls for change to officials, by the respecting of just laws and by his vote, is a an active part of the government.


A core expression of part of the concepts involved is expressed in this quote from JFK:




This government is a fair and democratic implementation of a representative republic. There is no facility within the law to recognize a right and concurrently limit that right from any group in general or certain individual without due process. The idea of accepting a right for only active militia members is so counter to the American spirit as to be an oxymoron.