Using Fire Arms Against the Civil Rights of Others

[fightthegoodfightnow]

Another opinion on reality.

To Keep and Bear Arms
By Charles Lane
Saturday, March 22, 2008; Page A13

Nearly 135 years ago, the United States experienced what may have been the worst one-day slaughter of blacks by whites in its history. On April 13, 1873, in the tiny village of Colfax, La., white paramilitaries attacked a lightly armed force of freedmen assembled in a local courthouse. By the time the Colfax Massacre was over, more than 60 African American men lay shot, burned or stabbed to death. Most were killed after they had surrendered.

Though it caused a national sensation in post-Civil War America, this horrible incident has been largely overlooked by historians. It deserves fresh study today not only to illuminate the human cost of Reconstruction's defeat but also to enrich our understanding of constitutional history. Some of the most relevant lessons relate to the issue at the heart of District of Columbia v. Heller, the case on the D.C. gun control law currently before the Supreme Court: whether the Constitution guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms ..................................

Firearms pose threats to modern-day urban dwellers -- crime, suicide, accidents -- that may outweigh any self-defense they provide. Unlike 19th-century rural Americans, we can call on professional police.

In the D.C. gun case, the Supreme Court should find that local governments may enact reasonable and necessary restrictions on dangerous weapons. To be sure, if the justices also back an individual right to keep and bear arms, that will be harder for legislators to do. But as a matter of historical interpretation, the court would be correct.

For full column:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/21/AR2008032102540.html

[MaryCeleste]

1. Why do you keep warping titles to be more inflamatory?

The author points out that the racist gun control laws in this country prevent freed blacks from defending themselves. In 1870s many Jim Crowe laws were still in effect preventing freed slaves from protecting themselves against this kind of terror by whites. Southern states were ignoring the Federal laws relating to equal rights even thn

[fightthegoodfightnow]

2. Too Bad the Black Majority of DC Doesn't Agree with Your Assessment that YOU Know Better than They

...... do about what is in their interest.

[MaryCeleste]

3. If the public sentinment in DC was to ban abortion you would clearly back that too

[Name removed]

4. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

5. Would the People of DC have a Representative Voting on Who Sits on that Court?

Such is your selective reasoning for who has rights.

[MaryCeleste]

7. I was wondering when you were going to revert that that whine

Voting for a SCOTUS justice in no way impacts their vote

[fightthegoodfightnow]

8. Keep Telling Yourself That

Reality is who sits on the Court is decided by and with the consent of the US Senate of which the people of DC have no voting representation in.

I'll leave you to say there is no difference between justices on the SCOTUS who are nominated by Republicans and those nominated by Democrats.

I make no such argument.

[Indy Lurker]

11. That because the MAJORITY decided DC dosen't get a vote

Just like the DC gun ban, it was legally passed by properly elected officials.


As I understand it back in 1801 the Organic Act was legally passed by both the house and the senate, and it took away the right of DC citizens to be represented in Maryland or Virginia


Kinda sucks to be in the minority when comes to civil rights.


I am however surprised that you fight so hard to restore one civil right to the people of DC (voting) but not another (the right to keep and bear arms)

Personally, I hope both rights are restored to DC.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

12. Guns and DC

You write: 'I am however surprised that you fight so hard to restore one civil right to the people of DC (voting) but not another (the right to keep and bear arms). Personally, I hope both rights are restored to DC.'

Thank you for your support of DC civil rights. As for DC gun laws, I support them and the Second Amendment, which I believe DC is in compliance with. Obviously, you disagree. Of course, who sits on the Court was decided with the advice and consent of a Senate DC has no participation in.

[Boomer 50]

28. DC is not in compliance with the Constitution

They are depriving the option of the citizens to defend themselves. It is not DC's right to make self defense choices for their citizens, but the citizens right to choose for themselves. Should someone choose to use a shotgun, rifle or handgun for defense is that persons sole decision. Some people in DC are being deprived of the ability to use any kind of lethal defense because they may be physically unable to handle a rifle or shotgun. By prohibiting handguns, they are basically telling their citizens that their lives are meaningless. Fenty and company should be absolutely ashamed at how they are making decisions for the citizens of DC when they absolutely have not right to do so.

[zanne]

36. I don't know why gun people think they'll be happy with the SCOTUS decision...

The odds are, nobody will get exactly what they want out of it. I don't know why you're all on the edge of your seats for this one.

[zanne]

35. Off topic. Nice try. nt

[L1A1Rocker]

47. But an accurate analogy. I see why you won't respond to it. LOL

[selador]

10. rights

aren't about what the majority wants. they are about protecting the minorities (usually) from majorities.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

16. Minorities in DC Support DC's Gun Laws

But what do you know about DC or the people of DC.

Nothing.

[selador]

18. unsubstantiated assertion noted

you have no idea what i know or don't know about DC, whether or not i have lived in DC, etc.

regardless, you still miss the point

constitutional rights are not subject to what the majority or the minority or the plurality WANTS.

we recognize rights to protect (often) the minority from a majority or plurality, although sometimes the opposite is true (see: women's rights. women are the majority)

assume for the sake of argument that 90% of DC people do not support the 2nd amendment

last i checked, whites were a minority in DC, so assume that 90% of them did not support the 2nd amendment either.

so what?

i don't care if 99% of the population doesn't support a constitutional right.

that's irrelevant. until the consitution is amended so as not to recognize that civil right, the civil right takes precedence over what the majority wants

we recognize rights specifically to deter a tyranny of the majority.

[zanne]

37. And if we disagree about what the Second Amendment says...

YOU win? How is that in keeping with what you just posted? Today's SCOTUS will not rule in a way that the 1970's SCOTUS would, simply because today we have a majority of conservative justices. It won't be a decision based on rights or the true meaning of the Second Amendment; it will be a political decision.

[beevul]

42. But your not interested in rights or the true meaning of the second amendment.

"Today's SCOTUS will not rule in a way that the 1970's SCOTUS would, simply because today we have a majority of conservative justices. It won't be a decision based on rights or the true meaning of the Second Amendment; it will be a political decision."


You aren't interested in the true meaning of the second amendment, or what rights it might protect. You want a political decision... its just that you happen to want one that agrees with your prejudices and misconceptions.

You can say all you like that you disagree with others about what the second amendment says, but the facts is, I don't see you engaging in debate about it, which says alot about the defensability of your interpretation of it.


If you want to debate the meaning of the second amendment, by all means, just say so and well start a thread for that purpose.


Go ahead. We'll wait right here.

[MaryCeleste]

22. Minority in this case have nothing to do with race or gender

it has to do with position taken. As many other here besides my self have pointed out a majority vote can not expunge a right.

[L1A1Rocker]

27. What I know about democracy. . .

We do not live in an absolute democracy. Never have, never will. A true democracy can vote away another's god given civil rights.

True democracy = two dogs and a sheep discussing what's for dinner.
Democracy with human rights = an armed sheep contesting the vote.

[L1A1Rocker]

26. My responce

We do not live in an absolute democracy. Never have, never will. A true democracy can vote away another's god given civil rights.

True democracy = two dogs and a sheep discussing what's for dinner.
Democracy with human rights = an armed sheep contesting the vote.

[L1A1Rocker]

6. One person's civil rights ends where my nose begins. Would you dispute that?

We do not live in an absolute democracy. Never have, never will. A true democracy can vote away another's god given civil rights.

True democracy = two dogs and a sheep discussing what's for dinner.
Democracy with human rights = an armed sheep contesting the vote.

[beevul]

9. The conservative (and racist) roots of gun control...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x134977

[fightthegoodfightnow]

13. Too Bad Facts Don't Back that Up

Pity.

[SteveM]

14. Read the Heller brief submitted by georgiacarry.

www.georgiacarry.org
Then scroll down to the brief in Heller case. There you will read a very well-written summation of the racist history of gun control. Very hard and clear facts.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

15. Yes...... I Read it the First Time You Posted It

I always give Georgia's arguments regarding the issue of race the consideration it deserves.

[L1A1Rocker]

17. Too bad

you didn't learn anything from it. It was very informative to progressive forward thinkers with an open mind.

[sergeiAK]

19. And you utterly failed to refute a single thing in it -nt

[SteveM]

30. So, what did you think of their arguments? (nt)

[iverglas]

32. oh look

http://www.georgiacarry.org/cms/about/endorsements-of-georgiacarryorg/

Endorsements of GCO

“GCO has done more the last year than any other gun organizations have done in ten years. They are definitely a group to be reckoned with, and I am proud to be a member.”

—Timothy J. Bearden, State Representative, District 68

http://www.votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=31980

Representative Timothy J. Bearden (GA)

Current Office: State House
Current District: 68
Party: Republican

<where "x" beside statements indicates his agreement, and no "x" indicates his disagreement>

Indicate which principles you support (if any) regarding abortion.

a) Abortions should always be illegal.
b) Abortions should always be legal.
c) Abortions should be legal only within the first trimester of pregnancy.
X d) Abortions should be legal when the pregnancy resulted from incest or rape.
X e) Abortions should be legal when the life of the woman is endangered.
X f) Prohibit public funding of abortions and to organizations that advocate or perform abortions.
X g) Require clinics to give parental notification before performing abortions on minors.
h) Other or expanded principles

Somebody needs to tell these REPUBLICANS that abortions are just like guns!!!!!!!

And somebody needs to tell this one he's suppose to at least look like he gives a shit about African-Americans, no??? --

Employment and Affirmative Action Issues

Employment: Indicate which principles you support (if any) regarding employment.

a) Increase funding for state job-training programs that retrain displaced workers and teach skills needed in today’s job market.
X b) Reduce state government regulations on the private sector in order to encourage investment and economic expansion.
X c) Provide low interest loans and tax credits for starting, expanding, or relocating businesses.
X d) Provide tax credits for businesses that provide child care for children in low-income working families.
e) Increase state funds to provide child care for children in low-income working families.
f) Include sexual orientation in Georgia's anti-discrimination laws.
g) Increase the state minimum wage.
h) Other or expanded principles

Affirmative Action: Should race, ethnicity or gender be taken into account in state agencies’ decisions on:
No a) Public employment
No b) State college and university admissions
No c) State contracting

How come georgiacarry is accepting endorsements from such obvious right-wing scum???

How come all I ever see is REPUBLICANS???

[L1A1Rocker]

34. Your point is irrelevant.

It's called bipartisanship.

[iverglas]

50. stop, you're killing me

"It's called bipartisanship." Please. I can't breathe ...

[L1A1Rocker]

51. Glad you agree, thank you for conceding the point.

[zanne]

38. Because the gun lobbies are the Republicans' masters.

There are also more Republican gun nuts than Democratic gun nuts. It's largely a conservative obssession.

[L1A1Rocker]

53. There are many on this board that would disagree with that.

And before you ask for figures you'll need to supply your own.

[iverglas]

33. more charming bedfellows

Doesn't anyone here ever wake up, look at the face on the pillow beside him/her, and, like, puke?

http://www.georgiacarry.org/cms/about/the-leadership-of-gco/

GCO’s Board of Directors:
James Camp
John Corry
Kelly Kennett
Matt Knighten
Dean Mallis
Mike Menkus
John Monroe
Ed Stone

Corporate Officers:
President - Ed Stone (Contact)
Vice President - John Monroe (Contact)
Treasurer - Mike Menkus (Contact)
Secretary - Matt Knighten (Contact)

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/06/why-immigration-bill-failed.html

Mike Menkus was at the Atlanta rally on Thursday and sends this report:

... The Pro-Illegal protestors were brought to the site in the Spanish Radio Station vans in the photos. No others joined them. The guy with the bullhorn spoke good english and had his lines down (Thank you Senators for supporting families ... We all are Americans ... Thank you America for your kindness ... We are making America great ... Who will do the dirty jobs?) He seemed like a professional protestor.

... Like all liberal protestors, they tried to drown out the speakers on our side with sirens and the guy speaking with the bullhorn. He was especially rude when the woman in the Wheelchair spoke about her son who was killed by an illegal and when the wife of slain Cobb County Law Enforcement officer spoke. Both were killed by illegals.

Even an elected Republican isn't right-wing enough for this racist scum. And yes, yes, people who consistently call other people "illegals" (even if they can't spell it -- check the pre-printed signs at the event) and carry signs saying things like "English Official" and "Stop the Invasion" are racist scum.


http://truthlaidbear.com/thenrscpledge/showresults.php?start=13000

36,112 people have signed The Pledge thus far. Will you?

If the United States Senate passes a resolution, non-binding or otherwise, that criticizes the commitment of additional troops to Iraq that General Petraeus has asked for and that the president has pledged, and if the Senate does so after the testimony of General Petraeus on January 23 that such a resolution will be an encouragement to the enemy, I will not contribute to any Republican senator who voted for the resolution. Further, if any Republican senator who votes for such a resolution is a candidate for re-election in 2008, I will not contribute to the National Republican Senatorial Committee unless the Chairman of that Committee, Senator Ensign, commits in writing that none of the funds of the NRSC will go to support the re-election of any senator supporting the non-binding resolution.

... Mike Menkus MARIETTA, GA

Why would ANYONE believe that this kind of piece of shit gives a damn about African-Americans?

Why would ANYONE think that a piece of "research" by this kind of piece of shit was a credible presentation of the relevant facts about ANYTHING, and not just a self-serving assemblage of anything he could think of to deceive someone into believing something that is not true? -- i.e. that firearms control in the modern world, including the US, is synonymous with historical efforts to oppress minority populations.

The real question, of course, is: why would anyone think that anyone else is stupid enough to fall for any of this shit?

[L1A1Rocker]

48. So when the facts do not support your argument you

attack the credibility of the witnesses. Yeah, OK.

You wouldn't happen to be a defense attorney would you?

[iverglas]

49. what facts? what argument??

What witnesses???

What are you smoking????


"Gun rights" is the biggest, smelliest, filthiest piece of racist, misogynist, imperialist right-wing shit to have landed on earth since, oh, well, it's hard to think of anything parallel. Fortunately. Maybe "manifest destiny"?

[L1A1Rocker]

52. Thank you for clarifying your position on gun rights BUT

you said absolutely nothing in response to the argument.

[chunkstyle5]

21. Prove it.

Or are you good for nothing but blowing hot gas?

[MaryCeleste]

23. Actually they do, and its pretty scary. It wasn't just the deep south

[beevul]

25. Sez you. Tis noteworthy you don't refute any of it.

Pity.

[iverglas]

31. the right-wing and racist roots of "gun rights"

Looks like yours ... except it happens to be true.

[L1A1Rocker]

57. The Heller brief disputes your claim with lots of evidence. Do you have any proof

of you assertion?

[Popol Vuh]

20. Constitution Does Not Grant Right To Keep & Bare Arms

It just affirms the HUMAN RIGHT to keep & bare arms which existed prior to the constitution. The Supreme Court already so ruled a long time ago.

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence..

Some people here I've noticed have a problem with certain civil and human rights. Besides being what I think is anti-freedom, I think its a shame.

[zanne]

39. God didn't endow people with the right to carry guns.

That is the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. You guys all get your talking points from the same places, obviously, because I read this all the time.

[L1A1Rocker]

43. He has said that there is a time to kill.

[L1A1Rocker]

44. As the old axiom says

God made some men big and some men small but Sam Colt made all men equal.

[zanne]

40. I'd like to be free from a society with a gun obssession.

But I know you think that my liberties and freedoms don't count.

[L1A1Rocker]

45. I'd like to be free from a society of crime and evil people.

Until that day I will remain every vigilant. . . .and armed.

[EricTeri]

54. In this particular case no, they dont count.

You're more than welcome to move to any of the multitude of countries in which it is illegal for private citizens to be armed and the state holds a monopoly on force.

In the United States, our right to be armed as free men is protected by the core founding documents of the nation.

In short - if that's what you want, get the hell out. We'll both be a lot happier.

[L1A1Rocker]

56. LOL. Good post

In short - if that's what you want, get the hell out. We'll both be a lot happier.


Cannot agree with that more!!!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

24. Why don't you make a substantive response to any of the above comments?

There are a lot of valid arguments posted in response to your initial post, you dismiss them all out of hand. I have enjoyed good discussions with you and I know you are capable.

David

[zanne]

41. Because you don't accept responses that you don't agree with. nt

[L1A1Rocker]

46. Laughing! I think you just made his point.

[Indy Lurker]

29. Calling the police

You quote from the article:


"Firearms pose threats to modern-day urban dwellers -- crime, suicide, accidents -- that may outweigh any self-defense they provide. Unlike 19th-century rural Americans, we can call on professional police."



Unfortunately it take the police an average of over 7 minutes to respond to a "priority 1 call" such as shots fired.



and that's if you don't get put on hold:


from: http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1237,q,547620,mpdcNav_GID,1554.asp

"What happens if I am put on hold?

The goal is to answer all 911 calls within 5 seconds, and the call center is meeting that goal for the vast majority of calls. During periods of particularly heavy call volume, however, there is a chance you might get a recording when you call 911. Calls put on hold will be answered as quickly as possible, in the order in which they were received. If you get put on hold, do not hang up and call back. This is likely to result in your call being pushed farther back in the call-answering queue and further delays in receiving service."




Even more telling is that the police only solved 50% of homicides from last year.

So of the 181 homicides the police failed to prevent in 2007, the police have failed to arrest anyone for 90 of them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021503604.html


How can this be acceptable.

[Tejas]

55. that writer is just another fool

Another fool that bets his life (and the lives of his loved ones) on 911 and insists that everyone else should do the same.

Where do they find these people?