Rethinking The NRA

[Unperson 309]

More and more, I'm reminded of something a friend said to me back in 1986 and realizing that "By God, he's absolytely right!" *shudder*...

A very good friend of mine, a tinkerer, gun collector, libertarian, social liberal rabble rouser and heartbrother, is also a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association. He is the sort of person who is probably in total agreement with Michael Moore, but also a regular attendee at gun shows. For the longest time, I thought his stance was very strange. How could someone who is farther to the left than I am, even consider the NRA, let alone be a lifetime menber and fervent supporter?

So I asked him. And here is what I learned:

The NRA (according to my friend) has adopted the public stance that the Constitutional amendment regarding "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is the point on which it will make its stand. The hidden 5,000 lb elephant in the room is that the REASON the right shall not be infringed is that some day the right to bear arms *against our own leaders* may become critical!

As the old Sixties saying goes, "if you lose the right to say 'fuck', you also lose the right to say 'fuck the government!' and that's a loss this nation cannot endure.

If we lose the right to buy guns, *ANY* guns, (big, little, assault, hunting, automatic, shoulder-fired, chain, artillary, etc) we lose the ability to look the government straight in the eye (or straight in the rangefinder) and say "Fuck YOU, you fascist asshole!" BLAM!

The NRA has had to fight the "Awww, come ON, now!!!" reaction from the anti-gun folks. I was one of these. For DECADES I have fought against the NRA. I've thought they were totally off the wall. That, of course, is why they have not publicized that aspect of the right to bear arms.

For years, my stance has been "I don't have a gun and I don't feel threatened. Why do you need an assault rifle or a bazooka?! Can't the NRA accept even the TINIEST margin of 'infringement' on that right?!"

That was then. This is now. Yes, the NRA is riddled with right wingers. Yes, the membership (in general!! not in totality) is likely to be on board with this current misAdministration. But if is high time we liberals begin to see that on the aspect of defending outselves against the current crop of criminals in power, they're right on the money!

So here you have it. My public apology to the NRA (and to all its members) and to my friend.

I was wrong. You, the NRA and many (if not the overwhelming majority!) of "cold-dead-hands gun nuts" were RIGHT. It is high time we liberals bagan joining the NRA, buying the tools of democracy (Sweet Jesus, I can NOT believe I'm saying this!!) and taking lessons in how to acquire, store, clean, aim and FIRE those tools!

My stance, now, is changed. "I don't have a gun.... YET!"

Hearing about the plans to possibly postpone or cancel the elections... It takes a strong person to admit that a lifelong commitment to a view is in error. I think many of us need to re-assess our stances WRT weaponry. The time is coming when we're gonna need them. It's coming faster than I ever thought possible.

Comments?

309

[amber dog democrat]

1. I like the NRA

I am thinking of rejoining myself. i have a couple of well oiled fire arms just in case I need to do some target practice.

Happiness is a tight pattern.

[Seabiscuit]

42. OK, Point/Couterpoint:

FUCK THE NRA! :evilgrin:

[amber dog democrat]

44. Well, it does not mean I agree with them

but still....and I know this is politically incorrect.... I like having access to ammo and a firearm. I grew up with guns, competed on rifle ranges, ( i never hunt or have killed anything ) and had further training in the Navy.

I agree with you, the NRA is on the wrong side of many issues, but still I am glad they are there.

point / counterpoint duley noted.

I just re oiled my weapons of mass destruction this afternoon and put them away again.

[Seabiscuit]

75. Sorry about mis-spelling

"Counterpoint".

You wrote: "I just re oiled my weapons of mass destruction this afternoon and put them away again."

LOL! Hope you have better luck finding them when you look for them than Dubya did!

[foolmeonce]

291. son of a school teacher and professional bench-rest shooter

don't toy with my emotions. 8)

[sendero]

2. I basically agree with you....

.... about guns, as I have said here many times. Liberals better buy them or only the wingnuts will have them.

On the other hand, while I totally agree with gun rights, I find the tactics of the NRA to be pretty distasteful. I'm not sure I could ever actually support them. It is possible to take a position without being a rabid, foaming fanatic, and the NRA leadership does not seem to have figured out how to do that.

[DoNotRefill]

202. Sometimes, rabid, foaming at the mouth advocates are required.

Think about the parallels between the ACLU and the NRA. Recently, they worked together on a FIRST amendment lawsuit.

I REALLY don't like Nazis. But I was 100% behind the ACLU's defense of the Nazi's right to assemble and freedom of speech.

The NRA has not always been a Republican group. The real JFK was a NRA member, as was Jimmy Carter (I think Carter still is). When Howard Dean was Governor of Vermont, they gave him an "A" rating, despite his being a Democrat. My local congressman gets an "A" rating from the NRA, which is why he's still in office, and he's still a Democrat, too. It's amazing...if you want the NRA to like you, all you have to do is be pro-gun. Go figure. What's next, the AARP liking people who fight for senior citizens? The NAACP liking people if the people support minority rights? Groups supporting politicians who support the reasons behind the group? Where will the insanity end?

[tommilator]

3. yes... many apologies

As a European I used to think Americans were nuts with their unassailable RKBA.

These last years have changed my mind too, and I'm truly sorry for the various insults and ridicule that have been hurled from my ivory tower.

Citizens owning guns may not be able to overthrow a government but they sure make civil unrest take on new proportions.

[CrispyQ]

4. GASP! I never dreamed I would say that . . .

...I am considering buying a gun.

BTW, someone last night said that you should own a handgun, a rifle & a shotgun. What is the difference between a rifle & a shotgun. Should someone who doesn't know the difference even be considering buying one? There is a local gun club that I think I will investigate for classes.

ARGHHH!!!! I HATE this current administration & what they have done to my country.

[sendero]

10. Do a bit of...

... research - turn to Google. The difference between a rifle and a shotgun is simple - a rifle launches a bullet and a shotgun launches a clump of pellets.

Both are useful for different purposes.

There is plenty of good info about guns out there, but admittedly most of it is aimed at folks that already know the basics. Spend a few hours reading and you will be fine. Or even better, find a friend or relative who knows guns and buy them lunch :)

[Frodo]

12. UNTIL you can tell the difference between a rifle and a shotgun.......

... you really should not own EITHER.

lol.

[freedomonk]

121. huh ?..

you can put slugs or buckshots in shotguns, what the hell are you talking about? a 12 gauge slug will make an exit wound look like a basketball

[JayS]

127. I think Frodo meant that the poster should get familiar with...

...firearms before he/she makes a purchase, just to be safe.

[FatSlob]

188. Go to the gungeon, the Justice/Public Safety forum.

They'll answer your questions.

[brokensymmetry]

5. Welcome!

I know how you feel. More and more people are beginning to perceive the same trends.

We're in for some very bumpy times; it may come from a budgetary crises, peak oil, more misguided efforts at fightin' terra - or, more likely, from some area I can't even imagine.

What happens then? More freedom for all? Most likely, there will be more repression.

There's an old theory that if the Nazis had known that each Jew could take out one SS man, the holocaust would never have happened. It's a theory worth pondering, in my opinion.

[bryant69]

6. As bad as it is, I don't think we are close enough yet

I mean if they shut down the Village Voice or the nation, if they shut us down or Daily Kos or Atrios, if they start occupying our campuses to enforce ideological unity, if they actually cancel the election, if President Bush refuses to hold elections and the army supports him, well, then yes, maybe it's time. But we aren't there yet.

In my opinion.

Nothing wrong with getting prepared just in case, but I really think that the American people and the American republic is strong enough to withstand President Bush without resorting to violence.

On the other hand, I've always supported gun ownership on the basic premise that in order for something to be outlawed (in a free society) you need a very strong argument, and the anti gun lobby argument was never quite strong enough.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[billybob537]

8. What army

The army is busy in Iraq chasing ghosts of what used to be.

[sendero]

11. If you wait until then..

... you won't be able to get a gun. Get at least one now.

[bryant69]

15. No thank you

I choose not to own a firearm, personally. I have philosophical objections to taking a life.

Bryant

[sendero]

20. And I have a philospohical objection....

... to being at the mercy of crazed lunatics with guns.

[bryant69]

22. Well than we are all men of honor

You are living acording to your beliefs and I am living according to mine. What could be better?

[DoNotRefill]

203. Heh...you said: "What could be better?"

when the SHTF, if you don't come to us begging for supplies to keep your ass safe. It's well and good to say "I don't believe in violence", but when you're bent over getting proverbially (or literally, for that matter) ass-raped, don't expect us to go out of our way and expose ourselves to increased risk to save you. You make your bed, you lie in it. THAT would be best.

Many moons ago, I lived someplace which was overtaken by several days of fairly violent rioting/looting. I, of course, had adequate supplies (guns, ammo, food, bottled water, et cetera) to get by quite confortably. My neighbors basically shunned me because I had guns before the riots. Once the riots started, guess who came knocking at my door trying to beg guns and ammo? I gave them enough food and water to make it through, but didn't give them guns or ammo, because it wouldn't have been safe. Instead, I kept an eye on their property, too, and stuck my neck out to do it. After the riots were over, and order was restored, they went back to shunning me because I have guns. If it ever happens again, I'll let them burn. Fuck'em. If they don't like me, warts and all, why should I let them use my warts for their advantage? Or maybe next time I'll simply offer to sell them stuff....I figure an SKS rifle and 200 rounds of ammo should bring around $5,000 in a riot... ;)

[bryant69]

268. OK

I won't come to you and ask you to save me.

I don't understand someone who can't allow someone else to live their life they want to. I've never said you can't have guns if you want them, I've justed expressed my own decision not to have them.

But I suppose your desire to lecture me on my descision not to own them is well-intentioned.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[DoNotRefill]

272. I just want to save you from being a hypocrite.

If you choose to live without the ability to defend yourself, that's fine with me. I just expect you to "suck it up" when you need to defend yourself, rather than come running to people who made other lifestyle choices and asking for them to defend you.

You have a personal responsibility to be able to defend yourself. If you choose to reject that responsibility, that's A-OK with me. Just don't expect me to pick up the slack for you.

[bryant69]

273. I have a personal responsibility to be willing to kill?

And the tools to kill?

I'm sorry, that just doesn't make any sense to me. If the time comes and there's a choice between dying or killing, I'll take dying. You might disagree; fine. But I don't really see why you feel the need to call me a hypocrite and personally irresponsible.

There are other ways to make your point without attacking those who disagree with you. To quote the Buddha "Do not speak harshly to any one; those who are spoken to will answer thee in the same way."

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[DoNotRefill]

274. You have a personal responsibility to take care of yourself...

SCOTUS has said that the police have no obligation to protect individuals.

I didn't call YOU a hypocrite. For all I know, when faced with a threat to your life and your property, you'll surrender both cheerfully, as your ideology demands. My neighbors, now, THEY are hypocrites. They adopted the same basic philosophy as you, until it came time for them to actually practice what they preached for so long, when they came snivelling to me for the tools to defend themselves.

I hope you are never victimized. If you are victimized, I hope you realize that your inability to defend yourself was caused by your personal choices.

[FeebMaster]

275. You're a better man than I.

I'd sell them the rifle for $5000. Ammo would cost them another $100 a clip. $10 a round sounds fair.

[Unperson 309]

40. I Don't WANT To be A Lunatic!

I don't want to own a gun. I don't want to fire a gun. I don't want to be in the position of HAVING to own and /or fire a gun!

I've lived nearly 60 years without ever having even *touched* a gun... anyone's gun! I once fired a BB gun at a penny arcade in Disneyland... but that's it! I've never touched or held or seen unholstered, an actual *firearm* (other than behind glass in display cases I passed) So the very concept of handling, owning, loading, firing such a beast is alien to me...

I'm NOT going to run out and get "all gunned up"! I may not even obtain one at all... but what I AM going to do is talk to my friend. He has taught gun safety courses and he sells weaponry and various kits, ammo etc. He will either be able to teach me to handle a firearm or he will know someone who can. I will not buy a gun UNTIL I have practised with several types. I will take whatever professional course is available and suitable before purchasing a gun, and when I KNOW damned well how to take care of and fire one, then I'll consider adding one of those horrible bang-sticks to my household.

we don't have children in the house, nor do we ever have them to visit, but IF I have a firearm in the house, it'll be in a safe, but quickly accessible place (a fast-open gun safe, perhaps) with ammo next to it. And I hope and pray that when I die, of old age, it'll have the same bullets in it as when I bought the frickin' thing!

We'll just have to see what happens. I am NOT going to go quietly!!

309

[Lazpash]

277. I hope there is never a NEED

For you to utilize your firearm if/when you get it in anything anymore than "target practice", however, I can say I'm glad you've seen there MAY be valid reasons FOR firearm ownership.

Like my usual tag line says: When citizens fear their government you have tyranny. When government fears its citizens you have freedom. -Thomas Jefferson

Time for the citizenry to STOP being fearful of its government, and time for the government to have a healthy respect/fear of its citizens....

[Cats Against Frist]

21. It hasn't happened, you say????

"if they start occupying our campuses to enforce ideological unity"

Try this:

http://www.campus-watch.org/

This is a site, despite their high-sounding rhetoric, dedicated to infiltrating the university and "smoking out" teachers who present the Palestinian side of the Israel/Palestine conflict, favorably.

And if you are trying to say that "it's not the government," -- watch out, because this is how they're going to get us. They're going to subvert the protections in the Constitution, like they have tried with media concentration, and use the money of corporations to infringe on our liberties -- and they won't stop it, because the corporations own the government.

Bank on it.

[library_max]

222. This is the kind of thing you'd stop with lawsuits, not guns. /nt

[Lazpash]

278. Yeah, that worked really well for our Jewish bretheren...

[library_max]

282. To what do you refer? /nt

[billybob537]

7. Gun control

is hitting what you aim at. I'll never join the NRA because they are over whelming Republican, this may be starting to change now. But short of a complete revision of their policies and apology to the good people they have smeared they'll never see a dime from.

[LWolf]

9. ok, here ya go.

I do not oppose the 2nd amendment. The NRA gives me the creeps. I have never wanted to own a gun. Or handle one. I'm not against guns. I know of a few practical uses for them.

That said, here is my take. The idea that owning a rifle or some handguns is going to defend me against my own government is ludicrous, unless you are envisioning a 2nd enactment of David and Goliath. The weapons that my government can bring to bear make a handgun or rifle resemble that slingshot.

We have had, periodically, individuals or groups who try to defend themselves against "the law" with weapons. What has been the result?

Waco.
Ruby Ridge.

[Fish08]

13. Sounds like fear mongering from a different perspective

Why give up on your old belief's now just because your more scared of the current situation? Will you now join the group who feel safer when they have a gun in the house? Its a different spin on the same problem.

Taking this pro-gun stance in protection against your government is even more wacky than the traditional "protecting" yourself against your neighbors. The NRA is a dangerous organization and I don't believe they have much to do with protecting our liberties. If you own a gun because you like to hunt game thats your choice, but when your forced to buy a gun in the self-delusion that you need it to stay safe in your own home its another matter.

[LWolf]

17. Good take.

It does sound like fear. That's the most common reason to own a gun, I guess. Because you're afraid of all the bad guys/girls.

Having lived rurally, a gun can come in handy. It can chase the coyotes away from your chickens or put a suffering creature out of it's misery. It can take a long time to get a vet out to animals that can't be transported. I've never liked the idea of using a gun for personal safety. If I actually used it, I might end up killing someone. :-(

[JayS]

66. Sadly, sometimes you need one in your own home. I am lucky...

...in that the average, in my neighborhood, response time for the police to arrive is only an average of eight minutes and I have rarely been placed on hold for long on a call to 911. That being said, I don't want to be calling 911 every time a raccoon takes it upon itself to try and jimmie a lock and I don't want to check out a disturbance with only a cell phone in my hand.

[hansolsen]

16. Facist, corrupt dictators sitting in Washington like unarmed citizens

A facist regime could manage unarmed but unruly mobs with a handful of loyal, well armed Gestapo type police regiments.

But confronted with a well armed, and angry citizenry, (did you know we now have about 300 million arms in private hands?)they would need a large, loyal, and technically competent army to put down a real insurrgency. You see how difficult that is in Iraq.

And getting that loyalty could be a big problem for them.

So the NRA is right about this.

My motto: If you don't own a gun, buy one. If you do own a gun, buy more ammunition.

This from a life long Democrat and professed "liberal" on a whole host of issues.

Gun control legislation has not saved one life (have actually resulted in people buying more guns), and have lost the Democratic Party millions of votes. It has been a disaster.

[library_max]

34. That explains why the neocons are hugely pro-gun. Oh, wait . . .

Gun "enthusiasts" will embrace any argument, no matter how ridiculous, if means they can keep their guns and get more.

[hansolsen]

37. 90% of NRA members are pro gun because they are hunters first

and Minutemen second.

And we are going to keep our guns whether you like it or not.

One of the most bizarre spectacles in American politics is watching some naive, uninformed liberal shit head talk about gun control legislation that is either:

a) So lame and ineffectual that it is wast of time, money and political captital. or

b) So draconia that it might actually make a difference in the number of guns in the hands of citizens. The trouble is, such laws would set off a civil war.

Watching gun control nuts discuss their legislation over tea and crumpets, all smiles and self satisfaction, while oblivious to the fact they are starting a war, is one of the ugliest spectacles in American politics, and it is losing the democratic Party millions of voters.

John Kerry understands this. That is why he is proud and right to let people know he is a hunter and gun owner. Too bad all our supporters are slow to understand the terrible costs and meager benefits of our war on guns.

[library_max]

39. Your side controls the politics for the time being.

Enjoy it while it lasts. As late as the 1850's, it was political suicide for any politician to admit to being an abolitionist. Even Lincoln fudged the issue. Fortunately, there's such a thing as progress.

[hansolsen]

78. Well, I didn't mean to close off debate just because Kerry is on my side

on this issue. I think Kerry is hardly fallable, and is wrong about plenty of other issues. Putting that aside, do you really believe the gun contol legislation passed in the last few years has been a net plus in any way??

The facts are against it.

[Lazpash]

279. Don't confuse him with the facts!

[library_max]

283. Typing the word "facts" isn't the same as providing actual facts.

Just in case you were confused on that point.

[Tannhauser]

102. please don't stoop to name calling

Hansolen,

When you resort to using foul language to describe people who do not recognize the 2nd Amendment as a civil liberty and an individual right, you make those of us that do look bad.

I don't believe that John Kerry or George Bush have any real interest in the 2nd Amendment and this country's laws on and regulation of gun ownership. Each will do or say what is politically expedient for them.

-Tannhauser
BTW, I am not a member of the NRA.

[DoNotRefill]

204. Yup, we sure as shit pacified Iraq in record time....

How many people live in Iraq? And don't you think the army would have a harder time dealing with armed Americans than they would dealing with armed Iraqis?

[Rick in Maryland]

14. Gun ownership is a privilege, not a right. When the 2nd Amendment speaks

of gun ownership, it is speaking of the states (not individuals) and their ability to field a militia.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The Supreme Court has already ruled that the "militia" the Second Amendment speaks about is the National Guard.

Gun ownership is a privilege, not a right. Personally, I have no problem with people owning guns... as long as they are held responsible if and when something goes wrong. I find owning a gun to be extremely dangerous. I think that if you own a gun and something bad happens with that gun, you should be held responsible. This includes if it is stolen and then used in a crime by someone else. If you broadcast the fact that you own a gun and then do not take proper precautions with that gun (i.e. gun safe), you should go to prison if and when that gun is stolen.

Not that that would ever happen. People are too used to not being held responsible concerning guns.

[MUSTANG_2004]

24. You're wrong. Reasons why:

1) Not to get into a debate on the 2nd Amendment, but the US v Miller does not equate the militia to the National Guard. It says the militia, primarily civilians, would be expected to bear weapons and act in concert for the common defense. As sawed-off shotguns would not be suitable weapons for such a purpose, the court ruled they could require licensing.
2) While there are no other examples in federal bill of rights, laws and state bills of rights often have a 'preamble' that explains why they are passing the law (i.e. since people have a right to a fair trial, the accused has the right to be tried in the district of the crime, etc.). In those cases, the courts have ruled that, whether the preamble is still relevant, what follows is still law. In other words, giving the reason for the right ("a well-regulated militia being necessary") has no bearing on the right ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed").
3) You hold to a distinctly unusual viewpoint that a victim of a crime (theft of a gun) is the responsible party. Most people would say all guilt should be attached to the thief, not the victim. Do you also hold that if someone leaves their keys in the car when dropping off a movie rental, they should be sent to prison if someone steals it and uses it in a crime?

[MrBenchley]

28. Every court decision on the Second says "collective right"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=49341

You will notice the NRA NEVER tries to sue on Second Amendment grounds...although if their rancid little theory were true, EVERY gun control law in the country wolud be unconstitutional.

"Do you also hold that if someone leaves their keys in the car when dropping off a movie rental, they should be sent to prison if someone steals it and uses it in a crime?"
How many people would fail to report the theft of their car UNTIL the cops traced it back to them post-crime? Even more to the point, how many people go and buy 20 or 30 cars for criminals at one time? But then cars are registered and drivers are licensed.

[Rick in Maryland]

36. No court has ever ruled that the 2nd Amendment was an individual right

It has always ruled that it was a collective right.

My viewpoint about gun responsibly is really quite simple. If people chose to own something as dangerous as a gun, they should be held responsible if and when that gun is involved in something bad. If you have guns lying around unsecured and they are either stolen or used by someone that has no business handling a gun (a child), you should be held responsible. Guns are dangerous. Care should be taken concerning them. They should be locked up and secured.

Leaving keys in a car while one is returning a movie rental is stupid. If thousands of people were dying every year because of this practice, I guess measures to stop this practice would be worth looking into. Then again, most people know that leaving keys in a car is really stupid. Pity they don't seem to know leaving guns unsecured is also really stupid.

[lastliberalintexas]

45. You and Mr. Benchly are wrong

I don't have the time right now to find the style of the case for you, but the Fifth Circuit has ruled that the 2d does indeed guarantee individual rights. The case was sometime in the last couple of years, should you desire to search for it.

[MrBenchley]

49. Nope...

And you will notice that gun nuts hardly ever sue on Second Amendment grounds...because on the rare occasions that they do, they're laughed out of court.

[Rick in Maryland]

51. The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment

applied only to rights having to do with the preservation of a well regulated militia. Attorney General John Ashcroft and the NRA disagree with that historic decision. He instructed federal prosecutors that the Justice Department's official position was that the Second Amendment protected the gun ownership rights of individuals, even including people that were not members of a militia.

Can the Fifth Circuit overrule a Supreme Court decision?

[lastliberalintexas]

54. No, the Fifth can't

And believe me, most of the time that is a good thing!

I wasn't trying to get into a legal discussion of the merits of any of these decisions, mind you. I was simply pointing out that there was a case/court which had held the 2d protected individual rights.

[Rick in Maryland]

56. .... but the Supreme Court already has ruled that the 2nd Amendment

applied only to rights having to do with the preservation of a well regulated militia. It would take the Supreme Court to overturn that decision. Not the Fifth Circuit or any of the other circuit courts.

[MUSTANG_2004]

67. There's a fine hair to split

And here is the splitting that the courts have done:

The SC has said the 2nd Amendment pertains to weapons that would be useful for a militia. That is how they've allowed laws that require licensing of sawed off shotguns, etc. They have not said the right only applies to people in the National Guard. Indeed, I believe it is in Miller that they specifically mention that a militia would contains civilians.

[library_max]

76. It doesn't matter what the Supreme Court has SAID,

so much as it matters what the Supreme Court has RULED. The Supreme Court has always ruled in favor of the gun control measure, never in favor of the gun owner. The Supreme Court has never ruled any case on the basis of the idea that the Second Amendment confers an individual RKBA. Even the lower court rulings that still stand are unanimous in finding that the Second Amendment does not apply to whatever case they are deciding. No case has ever been ruled in a gun owner's favor on Second Amendment grounds, excepting cases that were subsequently overturned such as the original Emerson decision.

[hansberrym]

83. And what the Supreme Court ruled was: "Reversed and remanded. "

But the recent lower court opinions upholding the Collective Right interpretation do not even mention that the Miller case was "remanded for futher proceedings". It would seem that half of the truth serves the collective rights argument very well. On the other hand, the whole truth exposes the utter dishonesty of that argument.


Do the Collective Rights advocates truly beleive that "remanded for further proceedings" was a frivolous gesture by the Supreme Court and it had no particular meaning? Maybe the Supreme Court just flipped a coin that said "reversed" on one side and "reversed and remanded for further proceedings" on the other, and it really didn't matter at all which they wrote into their opinion. Not hardly, the Collective rights judges tell only half of the truth, because that is what suits their argument.

If there were NO individual right to keep and bear ANY weapon, as the Collective Rights advocates insist, the Supreme Court would NOT have remanded for further proceedings concerning a PARTICULAR weapon. That would have been pointless.


Also from Miller:
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158."



Judge Reinhardt (Silveira opinion) feigns ignorance not only of the Miller ruling in its complete form, but also of the meaning of key terms of the amendment as used in the Miller ruling such as "militia" and "keep and bear arms".

Note that the Supreme Court supplies its definition for the term "militia":
"With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view. The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they <307 U.S. 174, 179> were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ‘A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.’ And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. Blackstone’s Commentaries, Vol. 2, Ch. 13, p. 409 points out ‘that king Alfred first settled a national militia in this kingdom’ and traces the subsequent development and use of such forces.(end quote from Miller) (my emphasis)

[library_max]

103. Keep clutching at straws.

Reversed is reversed. And it was reversed BECAUSE the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not apply. Was there any real-world consequence of the case being "remanded for further proceedings"? Did it actually result in an actual decision finding that the Second Amendment protected some gun owner's individual RKBA? No, it did not. Because there has never been such a decision that wasn't reversed later.

And again, if Reinhardt is so wrong in Silveira, why hasn't Silveira been reversed?

[hansberrym]

162. Wrong again. The Supreme Court did NOT rule that the second...

amendment did NOT apply. If they had, there would have been no point in remanding.


As you well know, they ruled that "in the absence of evidence...", AND they reversed AND remanded for futher proceedings because it was the job of the lower court to develop the facts regarding whether a shotgun 18 inches in length was any part of the ordinary militiary equipment.

The Miller decision still stands, it has not been overturned.


Silveira was not reversed because that circuit refused an en banc rehearing of the case. You might read the dissenters in the decision to rehear Silveira, they are completely aware of falsehoods and feigned ignorance that Reinhardt strung together.

[library_max]

163. Nothing but straws, and pathetic straws at that.

Miller says very plainly that the Second Amendment does not guarantee Miller or any other citizen the right to keep and bear a sawed-off shotgun. That was the basis for reversing the previous decision in the case. Again, if you can present any real-world result from the "remanding" business, please do. Otherwise, it's just a pathetic attempt to distract from the real-world precedent of the case - that the Second Amendment only applies within the context of the militia.

"In absence of evidence" means that no evidence to that effect was produced, presumably because there was no such evidence (certainly the decision was based on that assumption - that a sawed-off shotgun was not in fact proper equipment for a militia). It doesn't mean that the case was tried in general absence of evidence or that it was illegitimate in any way. As you yourself point out, it stands to this day, rebuking an individual RKBA. This "absence of evidence" thing is just a word game.

The en banc business is more wordplay. The NRA has millions of dollars. It could easily finance an appeal of Silveira, if they thought they had a snowball's chance in hell of winning. They don't.

[JayS]

165. Why would the NRA want to win, ever? What would be the...

...point of that? Would you walk into your bosses office and say that instead of getting paid $20,000 a day you want to get minimum wage from now on?

[library_max]

173. Here's your tinfoil hat.

:tinfoilhat:

What's your hurry?

[JayS]

174. We need a cynical hat. :) n/t

n/t

[hansberrym]

185. Still wrong. Miller does not say that. Miller says only that...

there was no showing... and that it is not part of judicial notice, therefor they can not say that there is a right to keep and bear a shotgun less than 18 inches in length.

Notice that the Supreme Court did NOT say that there was NOT a right to keep and bear such an instrument. They said only that the lower court was wrong to conclude that there WAS a right to keep and bear without determining whether the possesssion or use of that weapon had a reasonable relationship to the preservation of a well regulated militia. They reveresed AND remanded for further proceedings. IF there had been NO right to KEEP ANY type of weapon, as Reinhardt claims, then it would make no sense to remand for further proceeding concerning the posseession or use of a PARTICULAR weapon.

From Miller)
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158."
(end quote from Miller)



Even Honest Abe Reinhardt DISagrees with you.



(From Silveira)
the Miller Court concluded:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that
possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of
less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has
some reasonable relationship to the preservation or
efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say
that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to
keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not
within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of
the ordinary military equipment or that its use could
contribute to the common defense.
Miller, 307 U.S. at 178.

The Miller Court also observed more generally that

“with the obvious purpose to assure the continuation
and render possible the effectiveness of {state militias}
the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment
were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end
in view.” Id.

Thus, in Miller the Supreme Court decided that
because a weapon was not suitable for use in the militia, its
possession was not protected by the Second Amendment. As
a result of its phrasing of its holding in the negative, however,
the Miller Court’s opinion stands only for the proposition that
the possession of certain weapons is not protected, and offers
little guidance as to what rights the Second Amendment does
protect. Accordingly, it has been noted, with good reason, that
“the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on the scope of the
Second Amendment is quite limited, and not entirely illuminating.”
Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis, 185 F.3d 693,
(end quote from Silveira)



Note that "the right to keep and bear" means the right to "possession or use" arms as per the Supreme Court's ruling, and as interpreted by Judge Reinhardt. Yet later on in this same opinion (Silveira) Honest Abe feigns ignorance of the meaning of the word "keep".

Note also the Honest Abe Reinhardt employs a slieght of hand in switching the actual text "such forces" for his own "State Militias" . This is extremenly dishonest in that it doctors the actual text of the Miller ruling.






(from Silveira)
Finally, we address the use of the term “keep” in the
second clause. The reason why that term was included in the
amendment is not clear. The Emerson court, citing no authority,
concludes that “keep” does not relate to military weapons
and therefore the use of the word supports the position that
the amendment grants individuals the right to keep arms for
personal use. 270 F.3d at 232. There appears to be little logic
or reason to that analysis. Arms can be “kept” for various purposes
— military, social, or criminal. The question with
respect to the Second Amendment is not whether arms may
be kept, but by whom and for what purpose. If they may be
kept so that the possessor is enabled to “bear arms” that are
required for military service, the words would connote something
entirely different than if they may be kept for any individual
purpose whatsoever. In this connection, some scholars
have suggested that “keep and bear” must be construed
together (like “necessary and proper”) as a unitary phrase that
relates to the maintenance of arms for military service. See
Dorf, supra, at 317. That argument appears to us to have considerable
merit. Certainly the right to keep arms is of value
only if a right to use them exists. The only right to use arms
specified in the Constitution is the right to “bear” them. Thus,
it seems unlikely that the drafters intended the term “keep” to
be broader in scope than the term “bear.” Any other explanation
would run into considerable logical and historical difficulty.
Furthermore, historians have noted that the right of the
states to “keep” arms was a catalyst for the Revolution — it
was the British troops’ attempts to capture the Massachusetts
militia’s arsenal that prompted Paul Revere’s warning and the
battles at Lexington and Concord to defend the states’ stores
of munitions. Finkelman, supra, at 234. Accordingly, the ability
of states to “keep” arms for military use without external
interference undoubtedly was prominent in the minds of many
founders. In the end, however, the use of the term “keep” does
not appear to assist either side in the present controversy to
any measurable extent. Certainly, the use of the term does not
detract from the significance of the drafters’ decision to protect
the right to “bear” arms rather than to “own” or “possess”
them. Thus, it in no way undercuts the strong implication that
the right granted by the second clause relates to the performance
of a military function, and not to the indiscriminate
possession of weapons for personal use.
(end quote from SIlveira)




More half-truths from Judge Reinhardt.

The right that shall not be infringed is the "right to keep AND bear arms", and the judge earlier in this opinion has said this means "possession" and "use", yet above he feigns ignorance, not only of the Supreme COurt's ruling, and of the Founder's use of that term, but even of his OWN use of that same term.

Notice also that Judge Reinhardt ignores that each citation regarding "bearing arms" has to do with an individual's action"


Madison: “…no person scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person ”.

George Wyethe of the Virginia convention: “…that any person scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead.”

From the Rhode Island convention: (identical to Wyethe)
“…that any person scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead.”


Judge Reinhardt notes, in his half-truth style, only that each reference of the phrase bearing arms related to militia service, but he neglects to mention that each reference is to an INDIVIDUAL person's service.

He also negelects to mention that under the Virginia militia act of 1785, each citizen capable of bearing arms was a member of the militia and was required to "keep" a supply of arms. There again "keep" refers to an individual's action.

[library_max]

190. So many words. No point at all.

You keep picking at microscopic details of verbiage and clutching at straws. I'll just reiterate the fact that every single standing court decision has ruled that the Second Amendment does not protect the RKBA of whatever apellant or defendant has been before the court.

[hansberrym]

261. You are still wrong. Where in US v. Miller did it say that ...

Mr. Miller did NOT have any right protected by the second amendment?



Why would the Supreme Court "remand for further proceedings" if Mr Miller had NO right protected by the second amendment?


Is it REALLY a microscopic detail that the Supreme Court remanded for futher proceedings?


Does "Reversed and remanded." mean the same thing as "Reversed." ?
Why is "remanded for further proceedings" a MICROSCOPIC detail?
Is it BECAUSE the Collective Rights side has no answer?



Is it REALLY a microscopic detail that Judge Reinhardt feigns ignorance of the meaning of "keep" on one page of the Silveira opinion, yet on another page of that very same opinion he discusses the word as meaning "possession", or that a 1785 Virginia militia act uses the word "keep" in reference to an individual person's action in securing and maintaining a supply of arms?


Is it REALLY a microscopic detail the the phrase "bear arms" is used as a reference to an INDIVIDUAL's action each time it was used during the ratification debates on the Bill of Rights?


Is it REALLY a microscopic detail that the most important word of the second amendment according to Reinhardt is the word "state" as in "State militia" though that usage does not even appear in the amendment or in any of the contemporary texts cited by the Silveira court.

Is it a microscopic detail that Reinhardt dishonestly inserts "State Militia" into citations which do not contain it in the original.


Is it REALLY a microscopic detail that Reinhardt builds his argument around a premise that "militia" is a refernce to a state military entity everywhere in the Constitution and so must be interpreted that way in the Second amendment, yet Reinhardt himself refers to the training of the "militiamen" as provided by the Constitution.


(from Silveira)
On the one hand, the Constitution granted Congress the power to prescribe methods of organizing, arming and disciplining the state militias. U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8,

On the other, the states expressly retained the power to
appoint militia officers and provide the militiamen with their
training, in accordance with Congressional dictates, if any.
(end quote from Silveira)


Apparently it is too absurd a proposition even for Reinhardt to claim that the "entity" is what is being trained, drilled, etc., and by his own usage he disproves the basis of his argument.


Reinhardt's "arguments" are filled with logical inconsistencies and the omission of evidence. Reinhardt is not playing straight, He is a liar.




I understand why you do not defend Reinhardt's arguments.

[library_max]

263. So many (more) words. (Still) no point at all.

You keep picking at microscopic details of verbiage and clutching at straws. I'll just reiterate the fact that every single standing court decision has ruled that the Second Amendment does not protect the RKBA of whatever apellant or defendant has been before the court.

And yes, they are microscopic details. Not a one of them has any impact on the actual precedent set. Not a one of them has or had any real-world effect whatsoever.

[hansberrym]

287. Why can't you find a citation from US v. Miller to back that up?

(Quoting Library Max)
I'll just reiterate the fact that every single standing court decision has ruled that the Second Amendment does not protect the RKBA of whatever apellant or defendant has been before the court.
(end quote)


Back up what you say.

[library_max]

293. What, quote every single court decision that mentions the 2nd Amendment?

Don't be ridiculous.

As for Miller, here is the quote, which you already knew:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

[hansberrym]

296. Ridiculous is your assertion that

"we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."


means the same as


we can say that the second amendment does NOT guarantee the right the keep and bear such an instrument


Not even that lying jackass Honest Abe Reinhardt makes a claim so transparent, but then Reinhardt is clever.

[library_max]

309. The precedent means what it means.

It means what every court decision citing it has taken it to mean. In spite of your convoluted and disingenuous attempts to argue otherwise.

[DoNotRefill]

209. Huh?

Wait, reading Miller, it seems quite clear that in order for a weapon to be protected by the Second Amendment, there must be "some showing" that it has some kind of military use. When Miller was remanded, it was sent back to the lower courts for a FINDING OF FACT, on if a sawed off shotgun had some military application.

Silviera hasn't been reversed because SCOTUS has been ducking this issue forever. You'll notice that they didn't overturn Emerson, either.

[library_max]

224. What was the real-world result of this "finding of fact"?

Since it's so apparently earth-shatteringly important?

As a matter of fact, it had no real-world result of any kind whatsoever. It's just a red herring to pretend that Miller doesn't say what it says.

And Emerson ruled against the gun owner and in favor of the gun control measure. It ruled that the Second Amendment didn't apply to the case in hand. All the rest is irrelevant verbiage, and irrelevant verbiage can't be overturned (nor does it consitute a precedent).

[DoNotRefill]

233. the finding of fact never happened.

because Miller was long-gone.

What that leaves us with is the status that if you can show that a gun has some military value, it is protected under Miller.

BTW, you DO know that Title 18 §922(o) was recently struck down as unconstitutional in the 9th Circuit, don't you?

[library_max]

240. Then it doesn't matter, does it?

And clearly that's not what it leaves us with, as all the cases since Miller admirably demonstrate.

As for Title 18 I-don't-have-those-keys-on-my-keyboard, was it struck down on Second Amendment grounds? (he asked sweetly, knowing perfectly well the answer).

[Name removed]

250. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[library_max]

252. A finding of fact that didn't happen does not create a binding precedent.

Gee, you'd think a guy with a law degree would be able to figure that out for himself.

Oh, and eminently worthy of your side of this argument to end it like a kid with his fingers in his ears, "La la la, I can't hear you!!!"

[DoNotRefill]

255. Really? So if SCOTUS says something....

remands back to an inferior court, and it never gets heard in the inferior court, what SCOTUS says doesn't matter???

The binding precedent is what SCOTUS said, NOT what the inferior court said. Jeez...the more I talk to you, the more I understand why practicing law without a license is a criminal act...

[library_max]

264. What SCOTUS said was that the Second Amendment didn't apply to Miller.

The "remanded" thing is a red herring. It doesn't change the precedent.

[Name removed]

271. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[library_max]

284. Good. When you've got no actual response, try a sneer. That'll work.

NOT.

[hansberrym]

288. Site please. Where does the Spreme Court say that? n/t

[library_max]

294. I gave you the cite in #293 above.

Why do you keep asking over and over again for the same quote? You've seen it at least a dozen times by now.

[hansberrym]

298. The quote I'm asking for is YOUR fantasy quote where the Miller

court finds that the possession of a sawed-off shotgun is NOT protected by the second amendment.


Instead you keep posting where the Supreme COurt is plainly talking about findings it can NOT make in the absence of evidence.


In the absence of X, we can NOT say Y.

In the absence of X, we can say NOT Y.


Are you feigning ignorance to try to score a point, or are you really unable to discern the difference between those two staements?

[library_max]

310. You're being deliberately obtuse.

The Miller decision wasn't decided on the basis of lack of evidence and you know it. To say that no evidence was presented that a sawed-off shotgun was a military weapon is another way of saying that no such evidence existed because a sawed-off shotgun was not and is not a military weapon. The fact that there was no "finding of facts" after the case was remanded demonstrates this, as does the fact that every single subsequent court case that cites Miller does so on the understanding that Miller limits Second Amendment protection to that which is relevant to the militia.

[FeebMaster]

314. Of course no evidence was presented

that a short-barreled shotgun had military usefulness. No defense was presented at all. You have read the decision, right?

[Name removed]

208. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hansberrym]

186. Was Mr. MIller a member of any militia? Did the Supreme Court

require a showing that he was?

Did the case that the Supreme COurt cited in Miller (Aymette) require a showing that the defendants were members of any militia?


The answer is NO to all those questions.

The only showing required was whether the weapons in question had a military use.

Why do you suppose the Supreme Court remanded for futher proceedings
if there were NO right to keep and bear ANY gun?

[DoNotRefill]

207. Put up or shut up. Cite, please.

"The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment applied only to rights having to do with the preservation of a well regulated militia. "

And if you're thinking about trotting out Miller, please explain why Miller's status as a convicted felon who was not eligible for duty in a militia of any form was NOT dispositive, if the Second Amendment only applies to the militia.

[library_max]

217. You obviously already know the cite. You just don't like it.

:nopity:

The Miller decision says that the Second Amendment applies only to the preservation and effectiveness of the militia. It says not word one about Miller's status as a convicted felon. It says what it says and it doesn't say what it doesn't say. Why doesn't it say what it doesn't say? Who cares? The precedent is in what it does say, and that precedent has been used in all the cases since, to the effect that no standing court case has ruled in favor of any gun owner or against any gun control measure on Second Amendment grounds. Period.

[DoNotRefill]

226. you're adding syllables to words in Miller....

that change the meaning.

Miller doesn't look at WHO can own guns, it looks at the status of the GUN ITSELF, under the Second Amendment. SCOTUS's conclusion: If there is no showing that a gun has some military function, THEN AND ONLY THEN it is not protected by the Second Amendment.

If a gun has no military value, it doesn't MATTER if it's issued by the government to the militia, it's STILL not protected (of course, the fact that it's issue would tend to show some military use). Similarly, if a gun DOES have military value, then it is protected by the Second Amendment REGARDLESS of WHO owns it.

[library_max]

230. Except that Miller doesn't actually say any of that.

And if you need the point clarified, see Silveira. Non-reversed Silveira.

[DoNotRefill]

238. read the holding of Miller. NOWHERE.....

does the holding say ANYTHING about the status of the person owning the gun, but it ONLY addresses the "absent some showing" that a gun has military use. That's why there's the verbiage about it not being within the judicial notice of the court....

[library_max]

242. Exactly. It says nothing about those things.

So why do you keep trying to pretend that things NOT said in the Miller decision constitute a precedent? They don't.

[DoNotRefill]

249. What the holding of Miller says....

is that if there's some showing that a gun has military use, it's protected by the Second Amendment.

[library_max]

253. No, it doesn't. It says that the Second Amendment was not relevant to

the case brought by the appellant. The rest is your personal extrapolation. And yet again, if you require clarification on that point, Silveira.

[DoNotRefill]

256. Fine. In that case, it'll be easy for you to prove.

please cite the exact language found in the holding of Miller which says "that the Second Amendment was not relevant to the case brought by the appellant."

You're talking out of your ass, and you KNOW it.

[library_max]

265. You've seen this before. You're being disingenous and you KNOW it.

From Miller:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

and

"With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."

[DoNotRefill]

270. oh horsecrap.

"we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

That DOES NOT say that the Second Amendment is irrelevant to the case being brought, it says that "in the absence of any evidence" that such a weapon has a military use, the protections enumerated by the Second Amendment are not brought into play. Consequently, if there IS evidence that such a weapon has military application, it IS protected by the Second Amendment, hence the reverse and remand to a trier of fact to see if there is evidence to support the notion that such a weapon has a military use. What that sentence states is that the defendant didn't meet his burden of proof, which is no surprise, since he wasn't there.

[library_max]

285. Language!

The case was what it was. What you're trying to argue is that the decision might have been different if the facts of the case had been different. So what? The facts of the case weren't different. They were what they were, and consequently the decision was what it was and said what it said. You can't make a precedent out of what you think the Supreme Court would have said if the facts had been presented differently. That's fantasy law.

[hansberrym]

289. What's "FANTASY " is YOUR claim that the Supreme Court

ruled that the second amendmnt did NOT apply in Miller. Please cite where the court says that!

Note that Judge Reinhardt cited all the same quotes you have, yet he was very careful NOT to make the statment that you have because it is factually incorrect and thus grounds for reversal (as opposed to the interpretation of facts, which no matter how assinine the interpretation might be, is not automatically a ground for reversal}



(from Silveira)
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that
possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of
less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has
some reasonable relationship to the preservation or
efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say
that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to
keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not
within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of
the ordinary military equipment or that its use could
contribute to the common defense.
Miller, 307 U.S. at 178.

The Miller Court also observed more
generally that “with the obvious purpose to assure the continuation
and render possible the effectiveness of {state militias}
the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment
were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end
in view.” Id.

Thus, in Miller the Supreme Court decided that
because a weapon was not suitable for use in the militia, its
possession was not protected by the Second Amendment. As
a result of its phrasing of its holding in the negative, however,
the Miller Court’s opinion stands only for the proposition that
, and offers little guidance as to what rights the Second Amendment does protect. (end quote from Silveira)




Though judge Reinhardt feigns ingnorance, he can not be so obtuse as to misunderstand the obvious, he is left only with half-truths, misdirection, and outright lying. However Reinhardt is much to clever to claim that the Supreme Court made a ruling that they plainly did NOT make.



What say?, "the possession of certain weapons is not protected" ?, I thought the meaning of "keep and bear arms" was lost in the mists of history according to judge Reinhardt.


If NO individual rights AT ALL are protected by 2A, why would the Supreme court make a statement concerning the right to possess or use CERTAIN weapons?


Why remand for further proceedings if there is no individual right at all?

Why not dismiss on the basis of standing if Mr Miller had no rights to examine further. IF the only RKBA was a collective right, the Court surely would have dismissed at that point rather than remanding for further proceedings.


Judge Reinhardt's answer to each of the above: Play dumb, feign ignorance, but never, never, never, admit the obvious.

[library_max]

295. For all of your long-winded rhetoric,

the Silveira decision very properly makes the same point I made - that the Miller court found that the Second Amendment did not protect Miller's right to own a sawed-off shotgun, which was the entire question of the Miller case. Reinhardt also points out, quite properly, that the Miller case leaves open the question of what the Second Amendment does protect (in the context of the militia, which Miller insists is the only valid context for considering the Second Amendment).

[hansberrym]

297. For all of your sophistry, you can not locate where the Miller ...

Court found what you say it found. Instead you point to where the court says;

In the absence of evidence...we can NOT say there IS a right to keep and bear ...,


and you spin that to mean the same as


In the absence of evidence... we CAN say there IS NOT a right to keep and bear...




That's just so lame.

[library_max]

311. It's not spin, it's fact. Every case that cites Miller agrees.

Your determination not to face facts is just so lame.

[DoNotRefill]

206. Wrong. Read Emerson.

The circuits are (badly) split on this. SCOTUS has NEVER said if it was individual OR collective. They're ducking the issue.

[library_max]

218. Emerson ruled that the Second Amendment did not apply to the case in hand.

NEXT!

[DoNotRefill]

227. But it DID find that the Second Amendment enumerates...

an INDIVIDUAL right, NOT a collective right.

[library_max]

231. Not in the decision. The decision was that the Second Amendment

did not apply. Just like every other standing court decision. The other verbiage is extraneous and does not constitute a precedent. Again, if you need clarification, see Silveira.

[DoNotRefill]

235. You're really starting to bore me....

get back to me when you get your J.D....

[library_max]

239. Sorry you don't like the facts.

They don't change when somebody gets a J.D.

But hey, why don't you take your law degree and go appeal the Silveira decision! Dazzle the Supreme Court with your mastery of obscure and irrelevant semantics!

[DoNotRefill]

241. because I A) don't have standing....

and b) don't practice in California.

[library_max]

245. You don't have to be the appellant, just the attorney.

Attorneys don't have to have standing.

As for California, that's fixable, isn't it? I mean, the death struggle of the Republic is imminent anyway, right? What could be more important than getting guns to every man, woman, and child in every blue state, starting (of course) with California?

[DoNotRefill]

247. ever hear of the term "ambulance chasing"?

here, at least, what you suggest would be a disbarrable offense. Thanks, but I'll pass on your "suggestion" that I violate the law. It wasn't your INTENT to get me to violate the law, was it???

[DoNotRefill]

205. Hmmmm...."right"...."people"....."shall not be infringed".....

Where does the word "privilege" appear in the Second Amendment? Reading the Second Amendment, which you so kindly quote, it would appear that there is, in fact, a "right" (not a privilege), it belongs to the "people" (not the states), and it "shall not be infringed" (not even a little bit). Which word are you having problems with?

Can you provide a cite to your statement that the US Supreme Court has said that the Second Amendment only applies to the National Guard? Given that the National Guard didn't exist until WWI (which started in 1914), and the Second Amendment has been on the books since what, 1789, that's gonna be a HARD sell...

Given the ability of the Founding Fathers to separate the concepts of the state from the people, how can you say that "the people" in the Second Amendment really means "the states"? And once you DO say that "people" really means States, how do you deal with the complete destruction of the rest of the Bill of Rights? You know, the part about only the States being free from unreasonable searches and seizures, the part about only states having a right against self incrimination, et cetera?

I can tell you're getting your talking points from a VERY partisan group, one which hasn't thought out the logical conclusions of their arguments.

[library_max]

219. "Well-regulated militia" . . .

Oops, wasn't supposed to read that part, was I?

The well-regulated militia part is what distinguishes the Second from the rest of the Bill of Rights, so you needn't make too much disingenous noise about the destruction of the whole thing. US courts have always ruled (at least, in all decisions that still stand) that the RKBA is not individual but does in fact tie in with the militia, which is a state matter, not an individual matter.

[DoNotRefill]

229. Au, contraire...you can't pick and choose how a single word is used...

the word "people" MUST mean the SAME thing throughout the entire constitution. You can't have "people" mean one thing in one place, and then something entirely different someplace else. This is BASIC Conlaw...

[library_max]

232. No, this is DoNotRefill's opinion.

An opinion not shared by the American judiciary.

[DoNotRefill]

234. Really?

can you find a SINGLE case where the courts have found it acceptable to interpret the same word in two different ways in the BoR? I'd truly LOVE to see your cite for that proposition...

Come on, Mr/Ms/Mrs Constitutional Scholar, show us a SINGLE such case.

[library_max]

237. Really.

I don't have to show you a thing. You're the one making an assertion. YOU prove it. I'll just reiterate that every single standing US court decision agrees with me and none of them agrees with you.

[JayS]

331. I like the way the judge in the Emerson case put it. He said...

...something to the effect of "if the Second Amendment was not meant to be a right that applies to the People, the Founding Fathers sure picked a funny place to put it, but, like any right, there are limits to them."

[library_max]

334. There's nothing like that in Emerson.

The Emerson decision (not counting the lower court decision that was overturned) was that the Second Amendment did not apply in Emerson's case.

[JayS]

336. Reread the full decision.

[FeebMaster]

337. Reread? (nt)

[library_max]

342. Nice suggestion - easier for you than actually finding a quote, I guess.

Anyhow, I've read the decision, and I know what you're talking about. But what you miss is the fact that all that verbiage about the Second Amendment and militias is just verbiage. The actual decision was that the Second Amendment did not apply to the case. The reason why this is important is that mere verbiage can't be reviewed and overturned, if it's not the basis for the decision. That's why it's also not part of any precedent, which is why it doesn't matter.

[JayS]

344. Try here

http://www.saf.org/EmersonAppealGovt1.html

[library_max]

347. And look what I found there.

E. Applying Miller And Its Progeny To This Case

Simply put, Emerson's Second Amendment claim must fail because he failed to establish a reasonable relationship between his possession of the Beretta pistol and service in a well regulated militia As Miller mandated, as this Court mandated in Johnson and Williams, supra, and as nearly every other federal court of appeals has mandated, a "reasonable relationship" between the possession or use of a firearm and the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia must be demonstrated before a person can invoke any Second Amendment protections. Not only did Emerson not satisfy this test, the District Court wholly failed to apply the test. By failing to apply the test, the District Court broke with the rule of stare decisis. Accordingly, this Court should reverse.

[JayS]

348. Keep reading. It gets interesting.

[library_max]

350. Say what you're going to say or drop it, please.

I'm tired of doing all the work on both sides here.

[JayS]

351. I think you would benefit from reading the full decision and...

...the rulings it relies on.

[library_max]

353. But since I've already done that, kindly put up or shut up. /nt

[JayS]

356. If you say you have, you have.

[library_max]

360. So you've got nothing.

Jay, I appreciate the fact that you argue civilly and that you rarely indulge in flights of fancy or play a lot of the other games common among some other RKBAers down here. But this is the second time on this very thread that you've dragged me along on a shaggy-dog subthread only to find at the end of it that you had nothing to say in the first place. It does get old.

[JayS]

364. There is plenty there but you are going to have to read.

[FeebMaster]

354. He's just "selectively ignoring" all of the

"irrelevant twitter" that disagrees with his position.

[library_max]

357. Pobrecito. Sorry I hurt your feelings.

But you must have known what I was referring to - catch-phrases you like to throw in the face of specific DUers when you don't have anything else to say, like the quibble about the commas in "pro-gun Democrat."

[FeebMaster]

359. My feelings are fine.

There are no commas in "pro-gun Democrat" and I have never claimed otherwise.

[library_max]

361. Quotation marks, not commas.

Oo, FeebMaster caught me in a misstatement. Guess guns are cool after all, then.

[FeebMaster]

365. I don't see how

guns being "cool" hinges upon your mistaking quotation marks for commas.

As far as the "pro gun democrats" vs pro-gun "Democrats" thing is concerned, I think I've made it quite clear in the other thread that "pro gun democrats" is ambiguous at best.

[Lazpash]

280. That is faulty "logic"...

Sounds to me more like you are saying rape victim was raped because of the "way she was dressed" had she NOT been dressed that way (had the firearm been locked in a gun safe) she wouldn't have been raped (the firearm wouldn't have been stolen).

For shame!

[cheezus]

18. Okay, you try to fight off the US military. Go ahead.

If we lose the right to buy guns, *ANY* guns, (big, little, assault, hunting, automatic, shoulder-fired, chain, artillary, etc) we lose the ability to look the government straight in the eye (or straight in the rangefinder) and say "Fuck YOU, you fascist asshole!" BLAM!

uh huh. ANY guns? how about RPGs? those are fine? How about tactical strike fighters, the government has those. Oh yeah, and tanks. And firebombs - I suppose we'd better let joe citizen have those. And while were at it, Uncle Sam sure has a lot of nukes he could use to oppress us - we'd better let our citizens have those too.

You're just looking for the type of civil war where EVERYONE dies.

[VTMechEngr]

47. I doubt the Military would fully obey to murder Americans.

More likely is "brownshirt" style mobs roaming the streets like what happens in Africa from time to time. Sudan is having this happen as we speak.

[voice of reason]

74. true dat

There's no way to know which side the military would end up on either. Most coups are led by generals anyway.

The military may decide that it doesn't agree with what the government is attempting to do (whatever that may be at the time) and side with citizens in revolt.

[Jose Diablo]

95. Maybe not military

but a 'standing army' consisting of mercenaries has been organized by this administration.

As for the voluntary military it is unclear if they would follow orders that would be designed to dissolve the constitution. Would they just follow orders or would they refuse 'unlawful' orders? Would they allow FEMA executive orders to countermand constitutional law?

Are FEMA executive orders even constitutionally legitimate?

[neverborn]

181. A nuke? Are you joking?

A nuke to oppress people? A nuke flattens the area and makes it unlivable -- not what they want.

[mrfrapp]

19. Michael Moore

"A very good friend of mine, a tinkerer, gun collector, libertarian, social liberal rabble rouser and heartbrother, is also a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association. He is the sort of person who is probably in total agreement with Michael Moore, but also a regular attendee at gun shows."

This isn't as strange as you may think considering that Michael Moore is also a member of the NRA. Source? Bowling for Columbine.

[MrBenchley]

23. Well the NRA IS right wing, racist AND dishonest...

but it's also crazy as an outhouse rat....

"The NRA (according to my friend) has adopted the public stance that the Constitutional amendment regarding "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is the point on which it will make its stand."
Of course that's a deliberate FRAUD. The plain fact is that the courts have ALL ruled that the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right. And you'll notice that when the NRA takes to the courtroom to try to overturn this or that gun law, it NEVER cites the Second Amendment.

"But if is high time we liberals begin to see that on the aspect of defending outselves against the current crop of criminals in power, they're right on the money!"
Yipeee!!! Bang!! Bang!! Bang!!

It's amazing that these forums are lousy with "pro gun democrats" willing to announce they'll shoot somebody for the "cause". But nary a one of them is ever willing to do something REALLY dangerous...like counter the dittomonkey nonsense that percolates through every online gun owner forum.

[MUSTANG_2004]

26. Blatantly untrue

Your statement is absolutely not true: "The plain fact is that the courts have ALL ruled that the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right."

Read US v. Emerson (1999). The Fifth Circuit said "We find that the history of the Second Amendment reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or not they are a member of a select militia or performing active military service or training."

[library_max]

29. Yes, but if you read ALL of US v Emerson,

you'll see that the Fifth Circuit found that the Second Amendment did NOT apply to the case at hand. It had no effect on the decision, which was against the gun owner as always. The text you're citing is just the Fifth District irrelevantly bloviating about the Second Amendment. It's not a ruling of any kind, and therefore not subject to review and reversal.

[MrBenchley]

30. Too TOO funny...

The most corrupt right wing court in the country...and even they found an excuse to take that loony Emerson's guns away.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=49341

[LuminousX]

57. NRA, ACLU any organization fighting for people's rights

I much rather live in a country where we have these organizations trying to extend our rights than a country where these organizations don't/can't exist.

I believe in gun control, but I believe a person who has shown standard competency with a firearm should be allowed to own one. Yes, yes, there are many other caveats that can be and should be added, but the crux of the matter is I support an individual's right to own guns.

[MUSTANG_2004]

69. I agree wholeheartedly (at least with the first part)

The people who vilify the NRA miss the point, I think. Unlike big-business lobbies, the NRA is much like the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, and the Nature Conservancy in that they are groups supported by citizens who aren't toiling for financial benefits. That these groups are a powerful lobby simply means that as individuals, we *do* have a voice in the government, through citizen action groups such as these.

[Selwynn]

93. The ACLU is an honest broker. The NRA is a dishonest front.

That's the difference.

[gatlingforme]

99. You summed up my perspective quite nicely.

[Eloriel]

25. I think this comment of yours says it all --

"I don't have a gun and I don't feel threatened."

I too once felt the same way. I didn't feel in the least threatened. And I feared and loathed guns: they too often provoke problems and tragedy (and in truth, they do).

Then I moved out into the country. It really is an entirely different mindset, and a culture that has included firearms for hundreds of years. In addition to wild animals (copperheads, rattlers, rabid mammals, etc.), there's hunting, which is very important to these people too.

That culture isn't going to go away, not in the short term and possibly not in the longterm.

The Dems need to get used to it.

[11 Bravo]

31. I thought it was against the rules to speak calmy and sensibly ...

on a gun thread.

[bread_and_roses]

115. People in the country own guns

or rifles or shotguns for hunting, for scaring off varmits, etc. yes. And I don't recall any "Dems" who are trying to take away those guns. So what is it exactly "the Dems need to get used" to? To right wing nuts spinning reasonable gun control stances as "they're taking away all our guns?"

[library_max]

27. You're going to stand against the US military with your gun(s)?

Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines - planes, tanks, artillery, missiles, combat robots - high explosive, chemical, biological, nuclear - with what, your automatic rifle?

Hey, here's a crazy idea! What if, instead of getting a gun, every American would get off his/her ass and vote! Then maybe we wouldn't have to worry about a scenario in which the only effective thing you could actually do with your gun would be to shoot yourself with it.

[Tweed]

32. Great reply, but what do you think the Iraqis are doing?

We should get out and vote and I think all this gun talk is absurd! The Iraqi people are standing up to the American army though. Plus, I would bet the Army would be much more hesitant to use bombs. Urban bases would be high areas of protesting against Bush. Certainly the government would not want to bomb Chicago, New York, LA, etc. into the ground. I guess desperate times call for desperate measures, but consider that for a second.

[library_max]

33. So Iraq is your model?

You perhaps think things are going well for the Iraqis in Iraq?

The only scenario under which the Iraqis might "win" is if the US gov't. decides it's not worth it and brings the military home. If the same exchange were going on in the US, there'd be no question of the military quitting and going home - there'd be no "home" for them to go to. It'd be a twilight fight to the death, with all the advantages on one side. The best the resistance could do is draw it out, which is all the Iraqi resistance is accomplishing by the way.

And also by the way, I don't suspect that Bush would cry over New York or LA.

[DoNotRefill]

210. heh...

"You perhaps think things are going well for the Iraqis in Iraq?"

They're going a hell of a lot better for the Iraqis than they would be going if the Iraqis were disarmed....

Which do you prefer....Iraqis with AK-47s, or Iraqis throwing stones?

[library_max]

220. Man oh man.

So death and destruction are your idea of a good thing, eh? Why am I not surprised? I opposed this illegal war from the get-go, but what good is the resistance actually doing the average Iraqi? Do you really think killing US soldiers is making them better off?

And anyway, you don't address my main point at all. The US military might leave Iraq and go home, but it sure as hell isn't going to leave the US and go somewhere else. Resistance would be futile. So what we need to do is put down the guns and pick up our ballots, so we don't have to worry about fighting tanks with rifles and shotguns.

[DoNotRefill]

223. Well, it depends.

Would the Iraqi people rather be left in peace while being occupied by a foreign invader, or would they rather fight, kill, and die to drive the invader out? That's not a rhetorical question, the answer is available, just cut on the news.

If the Iraqi people were NOT resisting, it'd be Germany all over again, and we'd be in there for another 60 years. After all, why should we leave if they aren't fighting us?

As for the US military fighting in the US, how long do you think it would maintain combat effectiveness if engaged in close quarters combat in US cities? What percentage would desert? What percentage would simply refuse such unconstitutional orders? Remember the 29 Palms survey and what it found? And remember to what the military officer corps has sworn an oath to...The oath is to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

[library_max]

228. Does the military seem to be leaving Iraq?

Looks like they're staying to me. When and if they do leave, it'll be because we got a regime change here at home, not because of the resistance.

And if you expect the military officers to uphold that oath and not support a military dictatorship, then whaddya need your guns for? Either you aren't going to need them or they aren't going to do squat. There's no credible middle scenario.

[DoNotRefill]

243. and why will we have a regime change here?

If the war in Iraq was going well, and the area had been pacified, and everybody was getting along, why would we NEED a regime change here at home?

Remember Viet Nam? Where the US military won every major battle it took part in? And still lost the war because of public opinion back home?

Now you're just trolling...

[library_max]

248. The economy, civil liberties, the Supreme Court, the environment,

employment, business scandals, education, health care - geez, do I need to go on? You're on DemocraticUnderground, and you can't imagine why we'd need a regime change if the war in Iraq was going well??? You ought to get out of the Gungeon more often.

[DoNotRefill]

251. So you're saying that those issues.....

are more important to Joe Sixpack than the war in Iraq is?

This election is going to come down to a referendum on the war on terra....and Iraq is a HUGE part of that.

[library_max]

254. Once again, your opinion.

And even if it's true - how many Iraqis and American servicemen and women do you want to see die in order to swing this election against Bush?

[bread_and_roses]

118. Great idea! A lot better

than armed revolution against tanks, helicopters, etc. I find this whole thread rather scary...peace, brothers and sisters, peace. Do we really want to see children blown apart in our own neighborhoods, like we are blowing them to bits in Iraq? Those so eager to think that armed rebellion is on the horizon are not thinking of the costs.

[library_max]

134. Most of the supporters of this cockamamie idea

are just die-hard "gun enthusiasts." They don't care what insane idea they embrace or what ridiculous argument they peddle just so long as it means they get to keep their guns and buy more.

[Lazpash]

281. I'm not a "gun enthusiast" ...

But a firearms RIGHTS enthusiast - you bet! Why? I study history. Every oppressive regime has first gone after the "weapon" of the day, Guns in Nazi Germany, Crossbows before there were guns, guns in all the areas where genocide was "instituted". For better or worse, firearms are "todays" personal weapon... and Japan didn't INVADE the U.S. because too damn many people back then HAD firearms! and in THAT "invasion" not a shot was fired. Why? Because it NEVER needed to be fired! The "idea" that they COULD be shot at (literally, by every Tom, Dick & Harry)made them REJECT the very possibility of invading North America.

[library_max]

286. Okay, now please wipe the spittle off your monitor screen.

And then we can discuss the total lack of facts to support your assertions and conclusions. Possibly you can explain how all the personally owned firearms in the U.S. prevented 9/11. Oh, wait . . .

[DoNotRefill]

211. Heh...

"Those so eager to think that armed rebellion is on the horizon are not thinking of the costs."

It's inevitable. The only question is are we going to lie down and take it when it comes, or are we going to stand and fight? If we lie down, it'll make it MUCH easier and safer for the right.

[library_max]

266. And then there are the Mad Max wannabees

who salivate at the very idea of a nation in flames and chaos.

Not too many of those, though, fortunately.

[JayS]

330. I see a lot of them during my morning commute. :) n/t

n/t

[Frangible]

35. I still don't like the NRA...

Because they give such large amounts of cash to Republicans, but I support the second amendment pretty strongly.

And if the shit hits the fan, yes, guns do make a difference. And if there was civil unrest, we would not be fighting against the entire military... I think most of the national guard, all of the police, and parts of the normal military would be on our side.

With all this talk from the Department of Homeland Insecurity about suspending elections and keeping Bush president... I think I need to buy some more ammo.

[hozedork]

38. The NRA loves Republicans

I'm an NRA member and, prior to this election season, renewed my membership annually. The NRA has become extremely partisan. The last 2 mailers I have received from them, both within the last month, explained that the NRA only has 90 days left to lobby for Bush before some liberal law prevents them from making any more partisan advertisements and endorsements. They contain fake surveys and letters full of hyperbole about how important their political activism is in the November elections...It really irks me that they care more about re-electing Bush than actually fighting for gun ownership. In the 2000 election Bush's stance on gun control was in support of the renewal of the 1994 AWB, and he stated that he would sign that bill once if it crossed his desk (the Republican answer was that their congress would never allow that to happen, so it was really some Machiavellian antics by Bush to appear pro-gun control but not let it pass...hahaha). Anyways, their endorsement of Bush, despite his lukewarm support of the 2nd amendment, makes me pretty suspicious of their true motives. (As an aside, it does not help Kerry's cause with gun owners that one of the only bills he showed up in congress to vote on was the liability/assault weapon ban renewal fiasco a few months ago.)

I like keeping and bearing arms, but I despise big government freedom hating Republicans like Bush under whom the DOJ and ATF are just as bad, if not worse, than under Clinton and Janet Reno.

I plan on voting for Kerry and sending my checks to the Gun Owner's of America and the 2nd Amendment Foundation until the NRA gets its priorities straight.

[MrBenchley]

41. Interesting...

"the NRA only has 90 days left to lobby for Bush before some liberal law prevents them from making any more partisan advertisements and endorsements."
Not strictly true...what happens is that from then on if they run an ad they have to say it's an ad from the NRA...they can't make up a bogus "Wounded Veterans With Kittens" group to run ads.

[MUSTANG_2004]

70. Question on the 60 day limit

My understanding of McCain Feingold is that 3rd party organizations aren't allowed to buy tv ads within 60 days of the election that mention candidates names or show their pictures. Do you have a cite that says this isn't the case?

[taxidriver]

43. "The hidden 5,000 lb elephant in the room " is the reason for my arsenal.

thank you, thank you for posting this thread. in the past few months, i have seen scores of libs having revelations about gun ownership.

[lastliberalintexas]

46. I loathe the NRA

They are nothing more than a repub lobby group in drag.

Having said that, I have never agreed with the Brady group's desire to ban firearms, or even the wishes of many liberals to register them. Instead, I look at the issue from a civil rights standpoint, rather than get all hot and bothered over the actual physical object of a gun.

What most people who support gun control do not think about is the fact that they are advocating for the government to have a right superior to that of the individual. As a liberal, I simply can not support that.

Our government does not give me rights as it wishes- I have those rights already. Instead, the government must provide a rationale for taking a particular right away from me- and it better be a damn good reason for doing so. While the government does have a substantial justification for regulating my USE of a gun, it has no business telling me whether I can simply own or possess one.

[JayS]

62. A lot of NRA members loathe the NRA also, but it is the...

...only game in town, for the most part.

[Selwynn]

94. There is more than plenty of good rational for regluation of guns.

I agree with what you said, except that there is more than enough rationale for the regulation of guns, oh and I guess the small fact that I don't for a second believe that owning a gun is an a priori inalienable human right.

Do you believe the government has the right to tell an individual they cannot personally own a nuclear missle? Ok then, there's a precedent. Clearly, there are some circumstances in which the government does have a justifable right to tell you whether or not you can possess something.

What you're really debating is where that LINE should be drawn. Goverment has the responsibility to both regulat your use of a gun, and regulate exactly what kinds of lethal killing devices you're allowed to have. The government has to balance your "rights" with the risk to others, and the risk to society if you won't exercise that right responsibly. And personally I thank sweet god that may neighbor can't legally own a surface to air missle launcer, or a full automatic high caliber assualt weapon, or a nuke - because I believe the risk to myself, my family my neighborhood and all those others around me that he may in fact not weild those things responibily is worth non-interferene in his so-called "rights" to do whatever he wants.

If my neighbor wants to own a nuke, I'm more than glad my goverment tells him to fuck off. The real question is where is the line. That's always been the question, and the only question, and trying to make it anything else is silly.

[ronabop]

96. ITYM rationale

Besides that, making backyard nukes is legal. Making backyard missles is legal. Same with a SAM. ICBM's are illegal, because of space treaties. Significant nuke efforts are IAEA regulated, but making one is fairly easy to do legally, if time consuming and boring.

People are overly paranoid about weapons, especially nukes. Do you live within 100 miles of *any* weapons? Do you fear that someone might mis-use them? Do you know exactly what impact a small nuke, 100 miles away, would have?

-Bop

[DoNotRefill]

212. your argument works just as well...

for disenfranchising minorities.

Think about it.

[Killarney]

48. I support gun control

I don't own a gun. I don't hunt and I don't live in fear, so I see no need. However, if I lived in a rural area I might own one (protection from wildlife, cops too far away, too long of a response time, etc.). I support the right for people to own guns, but I also support gun control. For example, people with restraining orders on them, criminal records of stalking, spousal abuse, etc should not be allowed to own a gun. etc. And obviously there needs to be a waiting period so this research can be done, so I support that. But, if you're a good citizen and you want a gun, go right ahead, in my opinion.

However, I hate the NRA. They pander to fear. They try to make everyone afraid. They're like the FoxNews of lobbies. Make people fear. FEAR FEAR FEAR!

I also think that the idea of people having to own guns just in case we need to protect ourselves from our own govt someday is kooky talk. You have a much higher chance of blowing your own kid's face off than protecting yourself from the govt. And if the govt does come after all of us (fear fear fear boogity boogity boo) then a gun won't help you. Their weapons are bigger.

[FeebMaster]

50. They have this thing called NICS now.

It makes waiting periods for background checks obsolete.

[Killarney]

53. I haven't heard of it.

Could you tell me more?

[FeebMaster]

55. Sure.

It's instant, more or less. That's what the 'I' stands for. Although as I understand it, confirmation can be delayed for up to three days. Clinton signed the law ten or so years ago now.

Part of the law originally required a five day waiting period, but that was an interim measure that expired in 1998. At least it was supposed to. I actually don't know all the details on it since my state has far more restrictions than the Brady Bill provided. We have something like a two week waiting period for long guns. I think handguns are even longer, three weeks maybe.

Here's some information from the FBI: http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics/index.htm

[bread_and_roses]

52. Sorry, I don't think this arguement is valid.

"Arms" include nuclear weapons. Think individuals should be allowed to own them too?

"The government" is still us: we voted them in, we have the ability to vote them out. If we should ever come to the point that armed groups of our citizens are battling each other (because surely you realize that in the scenario you envision there would be supporters of "the government") then there will be looting and black markets just like in any third world country. Guns will be available, since we have - what is it? one for every man woman and child in the nation? something like that? - floating around.

The remote possiblility of such a scenario does not justify supporting the extreme positions of the NRA.

[Frangible]

60. No, it doesn't.

The second amendment was written to apply to only military-grade infantry firearms. Cannons and artillery were purposefully excluded.

To put it in today's terms, such weapons would be the M16A2, M4A1, M14, etc etc.

Next, you state being able to vote them out. Need I remind you the dept of homeland insecurity is now talking about doing away with the presidential election?

Finally, you state there will be looting and black markets if such a situation does happen. All the better reason to get a gun now, instead of being a victim.

[bread_and_roses]

65. The text of the second amendment

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

That's it. It does not specify which arms.

No, you needn't remind me, nontheless, it hasn't happened yet and I think "doing away with" is a bit of an exageration. Which is not to say I put anything past this Administration, I don't. But fear-mongering about what could happen is all too reminiscent of the rationals used by extremist right-wing militia types.

People can and do legally own guns in the US...lots and lots of them. The point is support for the NRA and its' extremist positions, not for the right to own some types of firearms.

[JayS]

68. I ask this with all due respect, but do you know what positions...

...the NRA takes on most issues? I mean the position minus the spin from either the NRA itself or the Brady Bunch and related organizations.

[bread_and_roses]

71. Do I spend a lot of time reading NRA positions?

NO. There is only so much time in the day. So if they are no longer advocating that machine guns not be regulated, I am happy to hear that.

Look, my point here is that I find all this fear-mongering about we'll all need guns to fight the revolution in the streets almost as scary as the Administration. I lived through the 60's and early 70's when we damn near did have revolution in the streets. It ain't pretty. We really want to work very hard to make sure our's is the politics of the voting booth and not the machine gun.

[FeebMaster]

72. Were they ever arguing that machine guns not be regulated?

I don't think I've ever heard anything from the NRA about removing the restrictions on machine guns in my lifetime. Did they even oppose it when they started regulating them in 1934?

[JayS]

73. Fighting in the streets does not sound like much fun to me also...

...especially with all the traffic we have here. :)

I very seriously doubt there will be any literal fighting against the government anytime soon. Now riots would not surprise me all that much...

It often amazes me at what I hear the NRA is up and what they are actually up to. It leads me to think that they are spending money to create their own opposition.

[hansberrym]

84. If "arms " includes nuclear weapons, does each State ...

have the right to "keep" nukes under the Collective Rights interpretation of the second amendment?

Note that the Constitution forbids States to keep regular troops or ships of war without the consent of congress. It is quite absurd to think that the states have the right to keep nuclear weapons.


"Arms" in the second amendment is defined by the Miller decision, with references to Aymette, as the types of weapons in common use.
The court then goes on to cite the contemporary militia acts of 3 states, each which show that the individual citizen was to supply his own weapons, and that they were the typical infantry weapons (muskets, rifles, bayonets, swords, etc.) Field pieces(artillery) are not mentioned in any of the lists cited by the Supreme Court, so it is not difficult at all to draw a line as to which weapons were meant to be kept by the citizens.

This "arms" definition is an often used red herring that fall flat when examined in light of the facts provided by the Miller court.

[JayS]

58. Scan the Congressional Record for the NRA and some of its...

...leaders; these won't be the ones that get all the air time. You will be surprised to see how many times they come up, even in Clinton's administration. I happen to support the gun control programs that the NRA pushes, as does Bush and as did Clinton. I also supported the "gun show loophole" bill the the NRA partially wrote, that died when their name got associated with it.

[MrBenchley]

61. Too Too Funny...

"I happen to support the gun control programs that the NRA pushes, as does Bush and as did Clinton"
Is that why these extremists carry on all the time about the "Clinton gun ban?"

The only NRA leader I know of in Congress is that far right wing fuckwit Larry Craig. But Republican hate-monger and crackpot Grover Norquist is also on their board.

There's also the Second Amendment Caucus...made up of some of the most bigoted and ignorant far right wingers there.

[JayS]

80. Who said anything about elected officials? n/t

n/t

[MrBenchley]

97. So then you mean the NRA's own band of numbskulls

like Ted Nugent and Grover Norquist?

[JayS]

98. To my knowledge the have never given any serious...

...testimony. They just hop around and draw all the attention away from everyone else from what I can determine.

[MrBenchley]

100. So then what is the congressional crap you want us to look at

if it isn't what that asswipe Craig is up to?

[JayS]

101. See post #58

[MrBenchley]

105. Post # 58 says precisely nothing....

other than that you claim there's something in the Congressional Record you seem curiously reluctant to mention.

[JayS]

107. If you can't understand post #58, you wouldn't know how to...

...search for anything anyway. The post is clear on what to scan for.

[MrBenchley]

111. I can understand post #58...it's contentless pap

trying to imply something you cannot come out and say.

[JayS]

113. It just says to search for the keywords I suggested. What you...

...find is what you find.

[MrBenchley]

116. And it's won't be worth reading, judging from past experience...

or else you'd be posting it yourself.

[JayS]

119. It would be an awful lot to post, but thanks for keeping the thread...

...kicked.

[MrBenchley]

122. Always happy to show how dishonest the arguments for "gun rights" are....

[JayS]

126. Then please show them. This should be interesting.

[MrBenchley]

142. Gee, jay...if they were honest

you could show them....but you and I both know you can't....or you would have.

[JayS]

155. You will have to show them since you are the only one that...

...knows what you are talking about.

[MrBenchley]

176. Contentless post #58

shows it better than anything I could ever say.

[JayS]

182. Line #176 = Null

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

59. You are absolutely right - I have been intending to join

for the same reasons you state. And I'm as Liberal as anyone I know. For all his failings as a leader, for all the murder and mayhem that he perpetrated, Chairman Mao had it absolutely right when he said:
"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun". No revolution anywhere, anytime, anyhow has ever been possible without some physical force. Of course true revolutions start with ideas. But our own Civil Rights movement in the United States, with its magnificent ideals still had to be enforced through the barrel of a gun of a National Guardsman. I'm not discounting the power of non-violent verbal persuasion and changing hearts and minds. But there are some situations where talking does no good. It's at that point that the right to bear arms becomes particularly critical. It's said that the French had approximately 350,000 who served in some capacity in the French Resistance, either actually fighting or providing intelligence. Of those, about 70,000 are said to have been killed. If instead of 350,000 there had been 3.5 million, all well-armed, each killing one German soldier when they came to knock on their door, World War II would have been a different story.

[derby378]

63. The Supreme Court...

...has not ruled in favor of either the 9th Court or the 5th Court. The question of individual right vs. collective right has never been resolved at the SCOTUS level.

My suggestion is that something like "Amendment II Liberals" be formed as a counterbalance to the NRA (and possibly to siphon members away from the NRA, including Michael Moore).

[library_max]

77. And the 5th District decision in Emerson,

while it did contain a lot of blather about Second Amendment interpretations, ended up concluding that the Second Amendment did NOT apply to the Emerson case. So as far as rulings are concerned, the 5th (Emerson) and the 9th (Silveira) are in agreement - the Second Amendment doesn't apply.

[formernaderite]

64. I'm a member and have been for over ten years....

...alot of my political cousins the Libertarians are members...it's not as right wing as you think, having gone to meetings. The problem as always, is stupid democratic politicians who decide to make a political statement by banning a weapon. If this were NOT the case, there would be an awful lot of democrats being supported both financially and politically. But whatever....

[bigbillhaywood]

79. Here's a better idea-- organize a left-leaning version of the NRA

Independent of all the reactionary politics of the NRA. I used to be an NRA member myself, but their wacky right-wing bullshit politics drove me right out. There are plenty of pro-gun DUers here. If we all got together and drafted some points of unity and a basic political advocacy program we could get started. People would have to volunteer to do the organizing work and fundraising, but I'm sure we have talented people here who can handle that sort of thing.

Just think. Passing out leaflets at gun shows titled "Top Reasons Gun Owners Should Not Vote For Bush". The PATRIOT Act could be at the top of the list-- the NRA types are pretty libertarian minded and (justifiably) fear that sort of government power. The fact that Karl Rove's mentor, Grover Norquist is an admirer of Lenin and advocates the Republicans use Bolshevik tactics to seize one party control of the State could be another. We may not be able to get many people to vote for Kerry, but we could certainly scare people off from voting for Bush.

And those sort of actions could just be the start.

[Hippo_Tron]

81. NRA = National Republican Rifle Association

They demonize democrats calling them "gun grabbers" when they simply want a few restrictions to prevent insane people and convicted fellons from getting guns. I'm not sure that I even support the assault weapons ban but I will NEVER support these bastards.

[FeebMaster]

82. That's a bit of an exaggeration don't you think?

People being called gun grabbers generally want more than a few restrictions to prevent insane people and convicted felons from getting guns.

[Hippo_Tron]

85. John Kerry will be called a gun grabber, just wait

Al Gore was called one as well. Is their position on gun control anything extremely far to the left?

[FeebMaster]

86. Kerry has only himself to blame.

Really, what do you expect when you vote to ban some of the most popular hunting calibers in the country because they're "armor piercing."

[library_max]

106. Yet another ringing endorsement of our nominee

from one of the Gun Dungeon "pro-gun Democrats." Guess which part of that formulation is the part that matters?

[JayS]

109. The post is true. Kerry has chosen to stick with the Anti-2nd...

...stance. If that is what he wants to do, it is his business. That said, if he gets criticism for this, it is also his own fault.

[MrBenchley]

112. Amazing isn't it....

All these "pro-gun democrats" that exist only to bash real Democrats and post right wing horseshit.

[JayS]

114. Who is bashing John F. Kennedy? Or LBJ? Or Edwards?

Or Dean? Or Kuchinich? Or Dingell? ....

[MrBenchley]

117. Jinkies, which prominent Democrat running for President

does Jay fail to mention here?

[JayS]

120. Kerry, obviously. n/t

n/t

[FeebMaster]

123. Endorsements have to be earned.

Just because Kerry has a D after his name doesn't make him immune from criticism, if you could even call my post criticism. I was just pointing out that if Kerry doesn't want to be seen as a gun grabber, not being a gun grabber would be a good place to start.

Like I told Benchley, "pro-gun Democrats" would really look better as pro-gun "Democrats", since that's what you seem to be trying to imply.

[library_max]

138. Yeah, how utterly unreasonable to expect to read positive stuff

about the Democratic nominee for President on DemocraticUnderground! I mean, what are we around here, a bunch of Democrats or something?

[FeebMaster]

139. It's very simple.

If Kerry doesn't want to be seen as a gun grabber or be called a gun grabber he shouldn't vote like a gun grabber. It's not like he has this big pro-gun record that everyone is ignoring.


So did you ever figure out how to get guns banned in the United States?

[library_max]

147. And if this were the GunsForEveryone website, that'd make perfect sense.

As, however, this is DemocraticUnderground, it makes no sense at all.

[FeebMaster]

154. It makes perfect sense.

Nevermind that I haven't said anything negative about Kerry in this thread. I'm not sure I'd even call pointing out that he voted to ban a bunch of hunting calibers criticism, it's really more just pointing out facts. But by all means, continue to pretend that I'm bashing Kerry. It's very entertaining.

Blind obedience is no virtue to my way of thinking. There is a political party whose voters are into that sort of thing, though. They pass a lot of gun control too. They even have a number of popular forums on the internet.


So did you ever figure out how to get guns banned in the United States or have you given up on that?

[MrBenchley]

108. You can expect gun nuts all over the web to lie their asses off, feeb...

which they do.

[FeebMaster]

124. Assuming that's true,

what does it have to do with Kerry voting to ban some of the most popular hunting calibers in the country?

[DoNotRefill]

214. Why will Kerry be called a gun grabber? Here's why:

He did it to himself.

[library_max]

236. So again, slam Kerry on DU and pretend that that's okay.

Love these pro-gun "Democrats."

[FeebMaster]

244. How is that a slam?

It's simply pointing out reality.

At least someone finally got the pro-gun "Democrats" thing right.

[DoNotRefill]

246. Yeah, I know, MrBenchley....

eom

[MrBenchley]

257. Oooh...what a retort from a "pro gun democrat"

Too bad you "enthusaists" all showed your true colors a long time ago.

Get used to saying "President Kerry," refill...he's going to kick the NRA's ass six ways from Sunday.

[DoNotRefill]

269. I wish that were true, MrBenchley....

"he's going to kick the NRA's ass six ways from Sunday."

I just don't see it happening. Time will tell.

[JayS]

324. I am sure he will try and it will be a repeat of the early 1990s. n/t

n/t

[DNA]

87. I have to tell you, unperson

(and I don't mean this against you personally), the pro-gun arguments are among the most inane in our political discourse.

The Constitution does not mention guns. The second amendment, which is wholly archaic now, mentions "arms". In order to defend yourself against the government these days, you'd need a hell of a lot more than a gun or an arsenal of guns. Just read local newspapers across the country and see what I mean.

The idea of shooting people who politically disagree with you is idiotic (and, not to mention, immoral). If you can't win an argument with ideas, resorting to guns merely proves you've run out of resources. And you can't kill ideas with bullets, only with time and reason if the ideas are truly bad.

The notion that you need guns to protect yourself from other elements of society is equally flawed. One need only look at the fact that guns are most prevalent in high crime areas.

The only argument I ever heard regarding guns that slightly made sense was that the government should not intervene in our personal choices, but buying a gun is not a personal choice in the way that buying a dildo is, and the government does wisely intervene to protect us from other stupid choices we make. Why not in the case of guns? If you can recall a Corvette because it kills people, you should be able to recall a gun that's being used in hold-ups across the country.

The best quote I ever heard regarding guns: The computer and guns are the two inventions that allow you to commit the greatest mistakes in the shortest amount of time.

[FeebMaster]

88. Right.

"One need only look at the fact that guns are most prevalent in high crime areas."

Like Washington DC, Chicago, and NYC. Oh wait, only the police and criminals have guns there. :eyes:

[DNA]

89. If you're going to argue

that "only" the police and "criminals" have guns in any one place, you're clearly not arguing that there are no guns present. So, there are guns and there's crime. So, guns do not protect anyone in the vicinity.

I might also add that a criminal is not a criminal until he or she commits a crime, and having guns makes that likelihood oh so much easier. How many times do I have to read about non-criminals who become criminals by shooting their entire families before they take their own lives? Or taking a gun to school and shooting fellow classmates? Or getting drunk and shooting a spouse or roommate in the heat of an argument? Easy as it is to decide that there are genetically marked humanoid creatures who are distinctly criminal, the fact is a criminal is someone who commits a crime, and having a gun makes the step from non-criminal to criminal much easier to make.

By the way, per capita crime is highest in the Bible belt, not in DC, Chicago or NYC. This also, incidentally, happens to be the area most wedded to the NRA.

[FeebMaster]

90. You should come down to the dungeon.

You'd fit right in.

[DNA]

91. Don't know what that is.

Doesn't sound very appealing.

Please note that the crime rate per capita is significantly lower in California, New England, New York, and New Jersey than in decidedly pro-gun states like Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Oklahoma and Texas.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004912.html

[FeebMaster]

92. Justice/Public Safety

aka the gungeon, although I prefer dungeon.

[Romulus]

104. that;'s because of several things:

1) poverty
2) income inequality
3) lack of social services
4) statistical book-cooking by those "low crime" regions:

http://www.nycpba.org/press-nyt/04/nyt-040525-stats.html
"The police union, the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, has charged that precinct commanders feel such intense pressure to drive down crime that they ''cook the books,'' reducing the severity of crimes on paper to avoid recording them among the seven index crimes reported to the F.B.I. "


You cannot convine me that I am "safer" in NJ, Chicago, LA, or NYC than in Virginia. California and New York are also largely RURAL states, BTW, despite what is shown on TV.

[Tannhauser]

110. these stats don't tell the whole story

These stats overlayed on the map that shows "gun-friendly" and "anti-gun" states hardly tell the whole story.

I live in Louisville, KY, our states "liberal capital". Kentucky is a pro-gun state in case you didn't know.

33 of the 34 murders committed in Louisville this year were committed in the city's crime district: our west end, the poorest part of the city with the largest density of minorities. The majority of these crimes were comitted using illegally obtained guns.

But I don't blame minorities or the guns for the crime. There are minorities and guns in every corner of this city. I blame poverty, disinfranchisement and lack of education and opportunity on our West End' high crime rate.

Benchly, it's true that dittoisms due run rampant on pro-gun forums. Apparently dittoisms are endemic to all internet forums and sides of the gun issues. And DU is no exception.

[library_max]

135. Illegally-obtained guns were once legally-obtained guns.

Criminal can't "illegally obtain" guns by snapping their fingers and having them appear out of thin air. They get their guns from the same place that people legally obtain guns, or they get them from those people. If you increase restrictions on legal access to guns, you also restrict illegal access to guns. To say that guns were "illegally obtained" and therefore gun controls don't matter is illogical.

[JayS]

137. Actually, the biggest supplier of illegal guns and the cause of...

...the most gun violence is none other than our old friend The War On Drugs. If we want to reduce the former we have to change how we "fight" the latter. We learned this lesson from Prohibition but forgot it.

[library_max]

140. What the hell?

The War on Drugs is supplying guns? Please explain how that works. Are mules bringing guns out of Colombia in plastic bags that they've swallowed? Are "cookers" whipping up batches of guns in garbage cans? Are potheads growing guns in their basements? How in the pluperfect blue hell is the War on Drugs supplying anybody with guns?

That was very possibly the silliest thing I've ever seen a "gun enthusiast" write on DU, and that's going some.

[JayS]

146. The "business" that is the illegal drug market is a super-...

...efficient, highly-resilient marketing and distribution network for drugs and contraband of all kinds. It is incredibly easy to do business with this network as there is always a "field rep" near you. This "business" thrives on the black market and is highly profitable because of the nature of banned products.

Sadly, those engaged in this "business" are not of the best character and their "business model" reflects this.

[library_max]

148. What does that have to do with guns?

Do you have any actual facts regarding the drug trade "supplying" anyone with guns? I believe you'll find they're a consumer, not a producer.

[JayS]

150. Contraband = drugs, guns, etc. Do you know if you have a...

...Ride-A-Long program in your area? This is where you ride with a police officer. I think there you will find all the proof that you could ever want.

[library_max]

156. So, no facts. What a surprise. /nt

[JayS]

159. Ooooh...I got plenty of information on my side. My suggestion to...

...you was made because I think that first hand experience would be more meaningful to you. Plus, it has an element of risk. :)

[library_max]

161. So, no facts. What a surprise. /nt

[JayS]

164. Here is one report that has about all issues in one place.

If this is of interest to you then I'll break it down by issue. It is a large subject but an interesting one.


http://www.tcada.state.tx.us/policy_info/2003DrugReduction.pdf

[library_max]

167. Well, I'll say this for your site - it crashes impressively.

Took my computer with it the second time.

But what say you quote something, anything at all, from that report that says that The War on Drugs, or drug gangs or drug cartels or anyone at all related to the drug trade, is supplying any significant percentage of the "illegally obtained" guns in this country?

Otherwise, the inescapable conclusion is that you're trying to palm off a mammoth, irrelevant report in order to obfuscate the issue, i.e. blow smoke.

[JayS]

169. What version of Acrobat are you using? I can post the HTML...

...version of it but it is pretty messy.

Would you be interested in looking at Project Surefire as an example? That would be limited to just one city and may be easier. The "teaser" for the report is at:

http://www.atf.gov/field/chicago/press/113000ycgiichicago.htm

[library_max]

171. What is it with you and facts & figures?

If you've got something to say, say it. Put the actual facts, numbers, etc. in your message. I shouldn't have to read a 100 page report to find out what the bleep you're talking about. That is, assuming you actually want anyone to find out what the bleep you're talking about.

[JayS]

175. Well, it is a complex issue and does require a bit of study, which...

...is why it is hard for a politician to campaign on. If you want numbers like arrests and convictions for "felony drug possession plus firearms possession" that is readily available...but doesn't exactly tell you much, just that someone was busted carrying a substantial amount of drugs and one or more firearms.

[library_max]

177. That won't cut it.

The fact that a lot of drug dealers carry guns IN NO WAY proves or supports your contention that The War On Drugs is supplying illegal guns to the US black market. You're confusing cause and effect. Guns are available, so drug traffickers get their hands on them. They're not available because drug traffickers get them, drug traffickers get them because they're available.

[library_max]

179. Here are some facts and figures, just by way of a demonstration.

This is from a 1999 ATF report (sorry, most recent I could find).

Sources of firearms trafficking identified in ATF illegal trafficking investigations involving youth and juveniles

Note: Since firearms may be trafficked along multiple channels, an investigation may be included in more than one category.

Firearms trafficked by straw purchaser or straw purchasing ring - 50.9%
Trafficking in firearms stolen from FFL - 20.7%
Trafficking in firearms by unregulated private sellers - 14.2%
Trafficking in firearms at gun shows, flea markets, auctions, or in want ads and gun magazines - 9.9%
Firearms trafficked by licensed dealer, including pawnbroker - 6.3%
Street criminals buying and selling guns from unknown sources - 4.0%
Trafficking in firearms stolen from a common carrier - 2.5%
Other sources (e.g. selling guns over internet, illegal pawning) - 1.4%

End quote. Sorry I can't post a link. I got this through Lexis-Nexis. But you can see that, AT THE VERY MOST, 4% of the guns in the study might have been smuggled into the country. The overwhelming majority came from ordinary legal sources - "straw purchasers" buying guns legally from legal sources, guns stolen from gun dealers, guns sold by "collectors," gun shows, flea markets, auctions, magazines, licensed dealers, pawnbrokers, etc.

So. Clamp down on the legal sources and you've clamped down on the illegal trafficking. Like I've always said. And The War On Drugs hasn't got diddley to do with it.

[JayS]

183. I see what you are thinking about now. You are looking at...

...guns smuggled into the country. I am looking at what moves within the country. The only firearms I have heard of recently that were smuggled into the country were automatic weapons.

The ATF study I was looking for (that is only seven pages long :)) had illegal firearms moving through "the network" at 81%, if I remember correctly. The number was calculated by tracing the recovered weapon back to its origin and trying to determine how it got to its destination, or something like that. The weapons did enter the system by the methods in the ATF post. The entry point is heavily controlled now except for private sales, and of course theft.

Guns are a great store of value and easily transported...and easily converted to cash. I had some ATF links of sting operations near schools that are scary beyond belief. Things got moved when ATF became a part of Justice but I am sure I can find them if you are interested.

Most of the studies will deal with estimates as those that market and distribute contraband are not big on receipts or paying sales tax. :)

[library_max]

192. But all the guns you are talking about began in legal markets in the US.

So my point, which was that illegal guns come from legal sources and nowhere else, remains unrefuted.

[JayS]

195. These are heavily regulated legal markets but control at...

...this point is still tough but I have been impressed with the ATF's sting operations and new interest in prosecuting people that violate the law. Making it tough though is that guns are basically currency in the "underworld" and as long as we provide fuel to this "underworld" we will continue to have major problems.

[derby378]

152. WTF?

The second amendment, which is wholly archaic now,

Archaic, my eye. Resistance to tyranny requires the tools to actually throw the tyrant out of office. Not all revolutions are as peaceful as Czechoslovakia's.

[Gruenemann]

125. Your argument is based on the assumption

that the only way to fight tyranny is with a gun.

A skinny Indian lawyer brought the British empire to its knees and won independence for his country without ever firing a shot.

There were many instances of Nazi plans being thwarted by nonviolent noncooperation (I just read about Norway's resistance a couple of days ago.)

As for myself, I'd love to blast away at the fascists with whatever firearm came to hand, but then I'm a chickenshit and don't think I could face them down unarmed like a truly courageous person.

Just because you can't say 'fuck,' it doesn't mean you can't fuck the government over royally by other means.

[DoNotRefill]

215. Uh huh...and what did Ghandi say about the British....

denying Indians their right to keep and bear arms? Something about that being their blackest deed....

[InvisibleTouch]

128. You make very good points.

I don't mind admitting that I'm a liberal who's very much in favor of gun ownership. I do consider it a matter of having the right to protect oneself, first and foremost, and that was clarified for me even more sharply the day I was threatened by a guy with a 12-inch knife, in broad daylight, right outside my front door. Let me tell you, I was glad to have a handgun in the closet, and it didn't leave my side for the rest of the day. I kept expecting this nutbar to try and force his way in.

I too have a good friend who's a "gun nut," and it's this issue alone that causes him to support Bush and the Republicans. I don't think he agrees on any other point - just the irrational fear that the Democrats will take away his guns. How many votes are we losing over this?

My problem with the NRA and some of their members is that they seem to support policies that don't make sense - for instance, opposing any manner of background checks, waiting periods, etc., because they're afraid it will be a "foot in the door" and lead to the erosion of their other rights. So while Democrats need to take a more sensible public stance on gun ownership, so does the NRA. Can we agree that the right to personal protection - and yes, even the right to own so-called assault weapons for sporting and collectible purposes - must be balanced with the need to keep any deadly weapon out of the hands of known psychopaths? No system is perfect, of course; you can run someone down in a car, that too is a potential deadly weapon, and you will never filter out every crazy before they're able to get a driver's license. The trick is finding the right balance between protecting society at large, and maintaining the rights of responsible individuals.

[JayS]

129. "background checks, waiting periods, etc."

What is the source of your information on what the NRA opposes or supports and the reasons for the support or opposition?

[InvisibleTouch]

130. Hearsay

Admittedly hearsay, rather than specific links I can point you to, but this is what I hear from individual people, who are so afraid of any government regulation that they're opposed even to sensible rules. Like I said, I think the Democratic party needs to find a balanced stance, and then promote the hell out of it. We can only benefit.

[JayS]

132. I know some people like that...but then I think they may be...

...part of the same group that claims they are the legitimate government of the State of Texas. Interesting bunch, to say the least.

There are lots of good sites on the Internet to learn more about the subject but I would avoid all the political groups. Some of the posters down in J/PS can send you to some good non-partisan sites.

[MrBenchley]

131. Now Jay...

surely you're not going to pretend that the NRA supported the Brady Bill....because that's a flat out lie.

[JayS]

133. Considering that the final draft of the bill had the NRA's...

...fingerprints all over it, you can say what you want. You also know where to go to learn more. :)

[library_max]

136. Hillary Clinton's health care plan

had the medical and insurance industry's fingerprints all over it. Did they support it? Survey says - NO.

The fact that the NRA used its insider status with Republicans to try to gut the Brady Bill that they couldn't defeat honestly is hardly evidence that they supported it.

[JayS]

141. I think you can get to the final discussion through Thomas now.

You might have to search the congressional record from that time period. The way that bill was written before the NRA got ahold of it would have never passed. On the other hand, the NRA sponsored legislation (McCarthy-Dingell) to close the "gun show loophole" in part flopped because it was known that the NRA was involved. So a good bill died because of hysteria over an organization.

[MrBenchley]

145. Too too funny....

"the NRA sponsored legislation (McCarthy-Dingell) to close the "gun show loophole" in part flopped because it was known that the NRA was involved"
It's nice to see RKBA fantasy is alive and well....McCarthy sponsored a bill to close the gun show loophole and Dingell added an amendment to gut it...

http://www.house.gov/carolynmccarthy/pr101697.html

[JayS]

149. That was how the bill died. n/t

n/t

[MrBenchley]

144. Really, how desperate do you have to be

to pretend the NRA supported the Brady Bill?

[JayS]

151. Who said they supported it?

[library_max]

158. You did.

MrBenchley: Now Jay, surely you're not going to pretend that the NRA supported the Brady Bill - because that's a flat out lie.

JayS (in direct reply): Considering that the final draft of the bill had the NRA's fingerprints all over it, you can say what you want. You also know where to go to learn more.

Please don't tell us you're going to try to pull the same kind of dodge Bush did with the "imminent" threat in Iraq ("I never used the word 'imminent,' so I didn't lie").

[JayS]

160. I left the question's answer entirely up to you, as you can see. n/t

[MrBenchley]

143. Mostly where they tore it apart....

I know better than to go to the NRA for anything true...

[CO Liberal]

153. NRA = "Nuts Ruining America"

And until they get the assholes like Wayne LaPierre and Ted Nugent cleaned out of their leadership ranks, they will remain a radical fringe group.

[Renew Deal]

318. The NRA isn't a fringe group

unfortunately. They represent many gun owners even though many people don't agree with them, or are even members. People that own guns are sympathetic to the NRA. That's a lot of people.

[Hippo_Tron]

157. The NRA will be raising MILLIONS for Bush

Just remember that.

[JayS]

166. Yup, money that could be going to the Democrats if they...

...would just rethink their "brand" of gun control.

[MrBenchley]

178. In other words, if Demnocrats pandered to extremists like the GOP does

we could get the support of the scum of the earth....what a swell idea!

[JayS]

184. No pandering. The "Demnocrats" would have to admit that...

...the "brand" of gun control they have been pushing all these years has not worked and it is time to make a change to something that actually does save lives.

[library_max]

193. Tomato, tomahto. Two ways of saying exactly the same thing. /nt

[JayS]

196. Changing to something that is proving effective is not...

...pandering. At some point it is time to quit beating a dead horse and get off of it because it isn't going anywhere.

[MrBenchley]

200. In other words, they'd have to lie their asses off and pander to scum

No thanks.

[styersc]

168. The Constitution does not give you the right to armed rebellion-

"If we lose the right to buy guns, *ANY* guns, (big, little, assault, hunting, automatic, shoulder-fired, chain, artillary, etc) we lose the ability to look the government straight in the eye (or straight in the rangefinder) and say "Fuck YOU, you fascist asshole!" BLAM!"

YOU DO NOT HAVE THIS RIGHT!!!!!

We are given the opportunity to change government on a regular interval. You forget that in the US the Gov't is the people. You have the right to run for office, vote for whoever you wish, openly support or critisize the gov't to influence to vote the way you do and support your ideas. You do not have the right nto take up arms just bvecause things don't go your way!!!

The south started the Civil War with this very thought. They didn't get their way in the Federal legislature so they had a tantrum that killed hundreds of thousands of HONORABLE and PATRIOTIC Union soldiers as well as resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of traiterous rebels.

[JayS]

170. I think the posts that have that sort of message are those where...

...a "Doomsday Scenario" is being discussed. No one has the right to run around shooting those that don't agree with them or blowing up federal buildings with fertilizer and so forth.

And the South wished to leave the Union, not fight, although they were prepared to. Had the North been smart and mindful of its pocket book, they would have settled the disagreements over tariffs and trade, plus the other issues, and simply compensated the slaveholders for their economic loss. Much cheaper than going to war I'd say.

[library_max]

172. Oh, you've done it now!

Talked smack about guns AND the Confederacy! Best thank yore lucky stars we ain't in the Gungeon right now.

p.s. you're right, of course, but that won't cut much ice with our wandering Gungeon "progressives."

[styersc]

180. Its ridiculous to speak of armed rebellion as a "last resort"

in a representative democracy where fewer then 40% of the eligible electorate fail to take advantage of their right to vote.

We should try the ballot box, as is designed in the Constitution, long before we consider bullets.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

197. If the government knocks on your door to take you away

and detains you in an undisclosed location for questioning, without affording you the right to an attorney, or the right to know what charges are against you, or the right to communicate with anyone...

will waving a copy of the Constitution at them help? Maybe a duck hunting trip with a member of the Supreme Court hearing your case would help more.

I'm not saying we are there yet. But I think we've taken a step or two closer to "there" in the last 3 years.

[styersc]

258. Thanks for the in put Reverend Koresh.

.

[DoNotRefill]

216. ya might want to reread the Declaration of Independence....

the right to revolt doesn't stem from the constitution, it far predates it.

[Jose Diablo]

276. There ya have it

Quote:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

You see, it is an inherit right, being formalized as a II amendment tells the government one of its limits, a right reserved by "the people". It also puts the government on notice, where the power to change resides. And guns are power, like or not, this is a fact of this world.

To be sure, it is better to change the government through the ballot. But what happens if the power of the ballot is subverted or thwarted through unconstitutional means? These FEMA regulations are not constitutional laws, they are "Executive" orders. What happens if the "Executive" become corrupt, the Congress refuses its constitutional responsibilities and the Judiciary begins to follow federalist theories rather than their constitutional obligations (like interpreting Constitutional Law). If the Ballot, the separation of powers fail, then all thats left is the People enforcing their will on the government to re institute a government of Law.

The second Amendment guarantees the People a chance of reconstituting a just government.

All this proselyting and wringing of hands over the dangers of guns, crime, etc is just so much wasted breath.

[FatSlob]

187. I'm an NRA member.

And a Lefty. One can be both.

[Renew Deal]

189. Do you find the NRA to be full of racists?

I know that they are pretty anti-dem, but someone in the Gungeon is howling about how they are all racists.

[JayS]

191. I know the howler in question. :)

The NRA members that I know are far from being racists; some are even *gasp* minorities. Members here tend to think of the NRA in terms of their local group, not some group in Washington.

[FatSlob]

194. Don't find it to be that way at all.

The howler in question is well known to be not much more than a howler.

[mosin]

201. As a lifelong...

African-American member of the NRA, whose father is a lifelong African-American member of the NRA, all I can say is "Hell, No!"

The NRA is a single-issue safety, training, and civil rights organization. They support any issues and candidates that promote safe and responsible gun ownership. They oppose any issues and candidates that try to restrict responsible gun ownership. Candidates, Democrat and Republican, control their own destiny when it comes to NRA endorsements.

[Renew Deal]

225. Is it responsible to demand that owners not use trigger locks?

I don't understand how that is not responsible.

[DoNotRefill]

306. who is demanding that gun owners NOT use trigger locks?

the NRA opposes MANDATORY use of trigger locks, but I've never, EVER seen them say that they oppose VOLUNTARY use of trigger locks.

There's a huge difference. Imagine if police officers were REQUIRED to keep trigger locks on their guns all the time. What result?

[DoNotRefill]

305. is any group free of racists?

let's not get into a discussion of who was in the Klan...but any large group will have some idiots in it.

By and large, I don't think the NRA is racist. I'm sure they have some racist members, but the basic political goal of the NRA is for anybody, anywhere, to be able to own a gun with no governmental hassles. That includes minorities.

Think about it...gun control has always been about minority control. Moore touched on this in BFC. As late as the 1940's, a state supreme court ruled that gun control laws didn't apply to whites, because the legislative intent was to disarm only people of color. Prior to the Civil War, gun control laws ALL were EXCLUSIVELY there to disarm African-Americans. Even the Dred Scott decision had an explicit nod to this notion, with Taney saying that African-Americans cannot be citizens, because if they were citizens, they could own guns. Look at the various gun control laws after the Civil War (for example, the "Army/Navy" laws, which made handguns illegal, unless they were too expensive for African-Americans, or were brought home by returning white soldiers of BOTH sides) and you'll see this continued. Even today, there's still both a racist and classist element to some gun control laws. Take, for example, "Saturday Night Special" laws. Originally, the "non-PC" term was "Saturday Night N*****town Special", because the guns in question were affordable to even the poorest minorities, and were the kind of gun a white person would run into while "slumming" in a minority ghetto. Now, the term means any gun that even the poorest person can afford. Often, gun control advocates speak of "keeping guns out of the wrong hands". Unfortunately, the "wrong hands" seem to be almost exclusively poor African-American hands. For example, look at the cities which have the highest percentage of poor minorities living in them. Then look at their gun control laws. Odds are excellent that the gun control laws for urban places with large poor minority populations are far more strict than the gun control laws in the white affluent suburbs that surround such areas.

[Joe Fields]

198. The NRA is one of the most counter-productive, un-American

organizations in this country. They have subverted, perverted and corrupted the business of this nation, and they shall continue to do so, until good people come to their senses.

One of the reasons we are still one of the most violent nations on earth is because of the NRA, and this country's ever-lingering fascination with the "Old West" mentality.

The NRA's idiotic intransigence on no-brainer issues like assault weapons bans and the simple licensing of weapons (we license cars don't we?) only prove that their agenda isn't on the up and up.

Here is a simple equation: Fewer guns =less violence!

P.S. If you feel the need to rise up against our government, (and it looks quite possible) you're going to need a few armored tank divisions, an Air Force and hundreds of thousands of citizens who are totally committed to giving up their lives toward overthrowing the country. Pea shooters will have little effect.

[JayS]

199. I thought they are a small fringe group... n/t

n/t

[tom_paine]

213. You are not alone. The Busheviks have made MILLIONS of anti-gun folks

reconsider their stance on the 2nd Amendment.

Nothing like staring "kinder and gentler" Hitler in the eyes to make one apprecaite a nation with an armed citizenry...

[Zen]

221. I know my opinion will be lost in this long thread - but I bought a gun

the minute I moved from the city to the country. I don't think the people living close together in the city, with all the unstable nuts that live there (at least in my neighborhood) should all be toting guns. However, I think having a rifle is fun - target shooting is fun and I can do it on my own property without bothering anybody.

Now Bush is acting like a madman who is unable to admit he's wrong and who hides what he's doing and is surrounded by crazies. I'm with the author, if that knucklehead gets reelected somehow, the very next day I am going out and buying something a little more useful for self-defense than a rifle. I'm not afraid crime will increase with Bush (though it probably will), I need to protect myself from his kind of dictatorship and his jack-booted thugs. Fact of life - Bush is creating more fear and this will lead to more violence in the end. Hopefully it won't happen at my house, but the odds of more violence will increase exponentially as he does his best to divide our nation and pitt us against each other.

[stavka]

259. Good for you -

I don't think there is much of a chance of my house catching on fire, and I doubt there is little I could do to put it out, but practically speaking - I still have a small fire extinguisher in both my bedroom (where I and my sweetie sleep) and my kitchen (where it's FAR more likely a fire might erupt). Strange, I don't feel either pro-fire or pro-fire suppression

[taxidriver]

260. interesting how all of the people who are flaming this guy probably

havent been mugged, molested, robbed, or burglarized, or assaulted.

i am all for personal defense firearms. and i can still be a dem.
period.

[Zen]

262. Either my Aspergers Syndrome makes it hard for me to understand the

significance of your analogy, or I just don't see the significance of your post.

[TWiley]

267. The US Military is powerful enough for global conquest.

I doubt that a malitia group would have much luck against the military. I say this because there would likely be an equal number of people with guns willing to defend this administration.

You would wind up with the US military supervising and assisting a large portion of the population against a smaller group. The mayhem and bloodshed would probably be greater than it was during the Civil War.

There has to be a better way to solve conflicts; I feel that the NRA is a very bad solution. Most Malitia members are extreme conservatives, and nearly all are religious with many being fundamentalist. They listen to Jack Van Impe, Rush Limbaugh, Pat Bucanan, and Dr Pierce. They support GWB and the conservative cause.

When W stole the last election, the founder of the Michigan Malitia, Norm Oleson, had a letter printed in the Northern Express.

He announced that he was ordering the malitia to "stand down" because their man was in office.

Do not forget Mc Viegh. He is a clear voice for the majority of folks who support the NRA

[Renew Deal]

290. I think you are over-generalizing.

How do you know most militia members are extreme conservatives? And how do you know they support GWB and the pukes? According to this thread, there are DUers in the NRA. There are minority DUers that think the NRA is a great organization. You can't say that about the RNC.

And what are you talking about with the stand down thing? I did a search on the net and couldn't find anything. Do you have a link?

McVeigh was a psycho. I doubt that even the NRA would condone what he did.

[TWiley]

292. It is true that I could be guilty

of over-generalizing; it is impossible that I could know all, or even most members well enough to understand their beliefs.

It is also true that I do have some understanding of some of their members convictions.

Malitia and paramilitary groups are fringe members of a much larger organization known as the NRA. I consider them important in this discussion because I feel that they would be the most likely NRA supporters to respond with force of arms.

Like many organizations, sizable portions of the group are likely to exhibit certain traits. Issues like Ruby Ridge, Waco, and the Mc Veigh case are common. So is distrust of the UN. Some have threatened zoning boards with Malitia-supported defense of their property, or built earth - bermed firing ranges to practice shooting rifles and cannons at night, and driving their neighbors to legal action.

The NRA does defend a portion of the constitution, which is a good thing. So does the ACLU. The ACLU is not likely to respond with bloodshed. I feel the latter would be a better choice.

Check record-eagle.com. The story about Norm Oleson asking the Maltia to stand down might have appeared in that newspaper. I believe it might have been on the front page, and it would have been before 9 / 11 and after his inauguration. I do not have a link handy, but I am sure the article did appear in print. If I get a chance, I will try to find it. The words "stand down" were used.

Thanks for the reply

[Renew Deal]

299. I have been doing some work on this Olson guy

He's a nut. I was not familiar with his organization. He is one of the Veitcong against Kerry guys. His last name is spelled Olson and he did tell his people to stand down. It looks like it had something to do with a march to Montana. He thinks that he will be one of the commanders if there is another civil war. Scary stuff either way. Thanks for all of your info.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=%22norm+olson%22+%2B+%22stand+down%22

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=%22norm+olson%22+%2B+michigan&spell=1

[TWiley]

378. Norm is also a fundamentalist preacher.

He also believes in Armageddon. Many of his followers put up huge bags of flour, corn, and rice while preparing for 1/1/2000. You can count the generic brand of survivalists among their numbers.

This organization may be controversial:
http://mediafilter.org/MFF/S36/S36.MILITIA.html

This organization should be considered a bit more mainstream.
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/96will.pdf

When you begin to be able to identify their words and beliefs, you will hear it all over right wing broadcasts. Check out the
religious aspects under Christian identity, or the Neo-confederates.

Even the SPLC has a folder with lawsuits concerning Norm. Thanks for the reply, and sorry for the delayed response. I did not know that you posted another one.

[DoNotRefill]

307. The Black Panthers were a militia group....

I must have missed the meme about their being ultra-conservatives...

[library_max]

313. The Black Panthers were not a militia group.

Where do you get that noise?

[Renew Deal]

317. I found something about a Black Panther Militia.

http://www.adl.org/learn/Ext_US/Black_Panther.asp?xpicked=3&item=Black_Panther

But they created a militia in 1990.

[library_max]

329. But this is not the original Black Panthers group at all.

And it also appears not to exist at present (the Black Panther Militia). Apparently just a short-lived phase.

[OnionPatch]

300. I agree with you!

My very liberal, peace-loving mother never owned a gun but always argued with me that we needed to keep our gun rights safe for the same reasons you stated. She says it's nice to have dreams that the world is going to become a peaceful utopia where no one would ever dream of using a gun, (and this is something we should work toward) but the reality is that people have needed to rise up against their own governments since civilization began. Tyranny has been the rule rather than the exception and an armed populace generally fairs better and is harder to control. So, I've always been supporter of gun rights and especially lately more so. The NRA, however, seem like a bunch of assholes to me. I can own my guns without the likes of those morons.

[hansberrym]

301. If not the NRA, who? Certainly you are not relying on the ACLU to

protect the second amendment? It would be nice if they, or some other progressive organization did, then there would be choice of which Pro-second amendment group to support.


Take some time to read anti-individual rights opinions such as
Silveira (9th Circuit), or the more recent DC ciruit case (Judge Reggie Walton) and you might have a change of opinion on whether you will be able legally to keep your guns without the aid of some lobbying group to defend your rights.

Even if you don't like the present management of the NRA, you might consider that sometimes the enemy of your enemy can be your friend.
(sort of like the Allies temporarily embracing "Uncle Joe" Stalin in order to defeat the more pressing foes Hitler/Musolini/Hirohito)

[Renew Deal]

302. Are you saying that the NRA is the enemy of the gov't?

Or of the Bush admin?

[OnionPatch]

303. I couldn't support the NRA

No matter what....they put the right to own ANY type of gun way, way ahead of every other issue by their unwavering support for Republicans. IMO there are so many more important issues. Republican policies are RUINING our country in more ways than one and yet the NRA will promote and defend them to the end. I do wish some liberal organization would understand that we need to defend ALL of the amendments. That's why I participate in these types of discussions. We need more dialog about this. But support the NRA? No way.

[FeebMaster]

304. They put the right to own ANY type of gun ahead of every

other issue? Well, they are a gun rights organization. :eyes:

[DoNotRefill]

308. imagine that....God Damn the AARP for not supporting Head Start...

oh, wait, they're an organization for retired people....

[library_max]

312. So halleluiah and praise the Lord for Republican organizations.

Guns, obviously, come first with us Gungeonites too. To hell with progressivism and the Democratic Party. I mean, it's not like we're discussing this on DemocraticUnderground or anything.

:dunce:

[JayS]

316. The NRA is not a Republican organization. They will support...

...any candidate that supports the rights of firearm owners. If we ever quit beating the same dead horse we always do and support a brand of gun control that focuses on those causing problems we will get their support also.

[Renew Deal]

323. They aren't exactly sympathetic to the dems.

They also don't lean to the left. I remember reading stories about them mocking the dems at meetings. A dem at a NRA conference is like a black person at a KKK rally.

[JayS]

325. Nope, they have not had much of a reason to support us in...

...a long time. Last I checked, they still support one of my favorite politicians, Rep. Dingell, but the pickings are pretty slim at the national level.

[library_max]

326. They give millions to Republicans, zippo to Democrats.

They support Republican candidates for office, not Democrats.

Wake up and smell the fascism. RKBA is not a progressive issue.

[JayS]

327. I respect your opinion but neither of us wrote the manual for...

...what is and what is not a progressive issue.

[library_max]

315. Throughout history, the populace has been able to arm itself

comparably with the armed forces of the government. In fact, a significant part of those armed forces in times of war was a citizen militia, right up to and including World War I. No more. The US military has fighters, bombers, missiles, artillery, tanks, shells, biologicals, gas, and nukes. It is ludicrous to think that an armed populace could "rise up" against the US government.

It's particularly ludicrous when you consider that fewer than half of the eligible population votes in any given election. If you really want to save the US from the forces of fascism, VOTE!!!!

[UNIXcock]

319. I am but a humble vote, however ...

... The right to keep and bear arms is where I draw the line with our Party.

… Believe it or not, we have some common ground with the repukes here. There is nothing more fundamental than the preservation of my family’s existence and my ability to defend their honor if I had to.

[Renew Deal]

321. Defend it from who?

Who are you going to shoot? I have heard of good reasons to have a gun. That doesn't sound like one.

[bluestateguy]

320. I am pro-gun, and anti-NRA

I'm not ready to join the NRA. They seem all to happy to let this Administration piss all over the other 9 amendments of the Bill of Rights, so long as the Second Amendment is respected. Sorry, but that's not how I play in politics.

I often get the feeling that many of their ilk would be content if only white male conservtaives were allowed to own guns, and guns were restricted or confiscated from blacks, Hispanics and especially Arabs.

[DaveSZ]

322. We'll see how much the NRA is worth if they endorse Bush again

If they endorse him after he's shredded the constitution, the NRA is mostly a useless and partisan organization.

If they however stand on principle and withhold their endorsement of Bush because of the unPatriot Act and other matters (of course they won't endorse Kerry), then I will have a degree of respect for them.

And yes liberals should own guns or else only crazed KKK members and Fundies would have them.

[library_max]

328. "Liberals should own guns or else . . ."

There's an old saying I can't find the source of: "Do not hunt demons, lest a demon ye become." The meaning is, when you oppose evil people with their own means, you eventually become just like them. It applies to the "War on Terror," but it also applies to guns. First the gun itself, then the willingness to use the gun, and pretty soon what's the difference between us and them? No more than the difference between the Crips and the Bloods, or the Hatfields and the McCoys.

[Mountainman]

332. I guess the sides will be even when the US military attacks the home grown

militias.

It is complete fantacy, asinine thinking to believe that the gun owners of this country can protect themselves against a "well trained militia".

[JayS]

333. It is doubtful that they would have to do it themselves. The...

...military is composed of citizens. They would not blindly follow someone telling them to attack their countrymen.

[library_max]

335. Then what's the problem?

If the military wouldn't follow orders and attack the citizenry, then what do you need the guns for? See, any way you work out the scenario, the guns are either useless or unnecessary.

[FeebMaster]

338. So did you ever figure out how to get guns banned

in the US or are you still working on that?

[JayS]

339. Well, I don't think they would follow orders to attack but I am...

...not even going to guess on where they would stand as far as helping. I seriously doubt that it will ever come to that. If things got that bad there would no longer be an organized military to worry about. You are much more likely to need firearms in the event of a natural disaster, riot, criminal act, etc.

[library_max]

343. Likely to need firearms in the event of a natural disaster?

What, like shooting it out with a tornado or a flood?

We get natural disasters all the time in this country, and we'll be getting more with global warming. So please explain how the presence of privately-owned firearms makes a natural disaster better?

[JayS]

345. You ever live through a major hurricane? You are on your...

...own until things get back into some sort of order.

[library_max]

349. Why yes, thank you, I have.

A hurricane hit Orange, Texas while I was living there. The whole town was evacuated. People who couldn't get out ended up sleeping in the high school gymnasium. Power was out for four days. Uprooted trees and other property damage was considerable. Neighbors had to help each other out a lot, and local government, churches, and other entities were very helpful too.

Didn't have a gun. Didn't need a gun. No one else needed a gun, either. I'm sure some of them had guns, but fortunately they kept them at home and didn't wave them around trying to impose "order."

[JayS]

352. Aside from living in Orange, you were lucky that there were...

...resources available to help. We mostly had to worry about looters until the National Guard arrived.

[library_max]

355. Were there any?

Or did worrying about them keep them away? Or maybe the "Proud supporter of the NRA" sign in your yard kept them away. Or maybe they were imaginary.

[JayS]

358. No one was stupid enough to cause much trouble. When the...

...National Guard took over they would have really been stupid to try anything.

[library_max]

362. So again, where's the need for the guns? /nt

[JayS]

363. Well, guess one reason why no one caused much trouble.

[library_max]

366. I think you were just keeping the elephants away.

A: Why are you whistling like that?
B: I'm keeping the elephants away.
A: There isn't an elephant within a thousand miles of here.
B: See how well it works?

[JayS]

367. We had our share of people that would not think much of taking...

...what was left of other's property and I am sure that these folks were aware that they would face some sort of violence if they took advantage of the opportunity to steal.

[library_max]

368. So the evidence for your argument is that you think so?

Compelling.

[JayS]

369. There can be no evidence if nothing happened. This is the same...

...case in my neighborhood. One would have to be stupid to do a hot robbery there, and it isn't because a bunch of soccer moms would annoy the robbers.

[library_max]

370. Elephants. /nt

[JayS]

371. I was there; you were not.

[library_max]

375. As I pointed out, I had a similar situation.

You guys are fighting boogeymen. Keeping the elephants away. This is why John Lott, et al, have to make up purely fictional statistics to try to support the idea that the presence of guns protects people.

[JayS]

376. Like I said, I was there. I'm a much better judge of the attitudes...

...towards looters the people took and how widely this attitude was known. The warnings that the National Guard gave when you were admitted past the roadblocks reinforced this view.

I doubt Lott could ever do as good a job pushing guns for defense as what a few scenes of the L.A. riots could do. That was a disaster without the normal good will that follows a natural one.

[library_max]

377. Oh, yes, the LA riots.

The presence of lots of privately owned guns sure did make the LA riots turn out better, didn't it?

[JayS]

379. For those that had them and were willing to display them, it did.

For example, the Koreans that stood atop the roofs of their stores with weapons did not have their businesses burned. (If I remember correctly, most of these weapons were actually toys) One rioter stated it best when talking to a reporter who was asking why the looters did not proceed to the wealthier areas and he said "They will shoot us there" as his excuse; I am sure they would have been.

I am generally against the use of deadly force to prevent a loss of property. In the case of riots I am not totally against it. My insurance does not cover riots and if I am going to lose all that I have worked for because of some idiot with a torch then that is just the way it goes.

[library_max]

380. Urban legends. /nt

[JayS]

382. These stories were reported while the riot was in progress. If...

...any of these stories later became urban legends I am not aware of it.

[library_max]

383. Cite, please, preferably not from a gun propaganda site.

Not that I doubt your word or anything, but . . .

And in the spirit of reciprocity-in-advance, here is a site from the Rand Corp. detailing some of the trouble the police had with rioters and gang members shooting at them.
http://www.rand.org/publications/CF/CF148/CF148.appd.pdf

[JayS]

384. The video was from CNN and to my knowledge was not...

...archived when they started their web site. I'm trying to remember the name of a documentary of sorts that includes the footage showing the armed Koreans on the rooftops. There is one AP photo of them shot from ground level that I will pull when I go to the library to get the story on the Ok City bombing / Bin Laden family evacuations that I can't find anywhere now except on sites that are less than questionable. The toy guns story I still find doubtful as I cannot imagine someone being brave (stupid?) enough to face down a mob with little more than a stage prop.

The LA Riots are a good case study of the fragile nature of civilized society and what can happen when the needs of an underclass are, for the large part, ignored.

Thanks for the link also. That is an interesting read and I'll add it to my collection.

[Alex146]

340. if I can say 'fuck'

then fuck the NRA. They don't care about gun rights, they care about the Republican party.

[Renew Deal]

341. Someone made a good point somewhere around here recently.

They said that their opinion of the NRA will be shaped by whether they endorse Bush* or not. They felt that Bush has done so much harm to the NRA cause that the only way they will endorse him is if they are extremely partisan.

I think they would endorse him anyway and say that Kerry will be worse on guns than Bush will ever be.

[JayS]

346. I do wonder if they will endorse him. He hasn't really done...

...anything to lose their endorsement, aside from snipping at a red herring or two; in this regards he has been really bad for them as no controversy means no money flowing into the NRA coffers. Now the Patriot Act......

I am sure they will not endorse Kerry, especially as how they are rating his voting record as a perfect zero at the moment; the Brady Bunch rates him at 100 percent.

Maybe they will endorse Nadir...

[Renew Deal]

372. Do you think that they are waiting on the result of the AWB?

Will they not endorse him if he renews it?

[MrBenchley]

373. Consider that their rancid "radio news" is slandering Kerry now

and that in 2000 they couldn't come out from under their sheet and endorse the Chimp because of the revulsion most Americans feel for this repulisve group of crazies.

It's an arm of the Republican party, and not a very well concealed arm either. Grover Norquist's on their board, for Chrissakes.

"PITTSBURGH -- A man whose son was killed in the Columbine High School shootings literally walked in his child's shoes to the National Rifle Association convention, where he hoped Vice President Dick Cheney would address the federal assault weapons ban set to expire in September.
Tom Mauser, whose son Daniel was killed with an assault weapon in the Littleton, Colo., killings five years ago Tuesday, said continuing the ban is common sense.
Assault weapons "are the weapons of gangs, drug lords and sick people," Mauser said before his three-block march to the convention, which runs through Sunday. "It is a weapon of war and we don't want this war on our streets."
Mauser entered the convention hall where the NRA was meeting, but was turned away by a security guard as several conventioneers applauded. A couple of conventioneers yelled "Get a life" and "Vote for Bush." "

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/3015989/detail.html

[JayS]

374. I think they made a statement to that effect, but I may be wrong.

Since both candidates have made statements against the AWB, I think they will go with Bush. The AWB is more of a philosophy issue than a gun control one as you can buy new firearms that are pretty much the same as what is banned. The gun control measure pushed by the current administration has been popular in areas where it has been introduced and is certainly popular with gun owners and this should be enough for the NRA to endorse Bush.

[Renew Deal]

381. It's official

This thread will live forever. Hey Mods, leave it open. It might die someday. I don't know when, but whatever. I have the bandwidth.

[JayS]

385. Let's get it to 999 + 1. I want to see if 1000 posts can be displayed.

[Renew Deal]

386. It can and it has.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=244916