Chelsea touts Hilliary's Gun Control ambitions, In MONTANA?!?!

[virginia mountainman]

http://www.montanasnewsstation.com/Global/story.asp?S=8393187&nav=LXow

WOW, just wow...I wonder what Montana's strong PRO-Civil Rights governor, whom IS a Democrat would have to say about that?!?!

Schweitzer, a lifetime NRA member, received an A rating from the NRA.

“I’m proud to have the endorsement of the NRA,” Schweitzer said, adding, “I’ve been a big supporter of Second Amendment rights. I believe that people have the right to bear arms.”

http://www.helenair.com/articles/2008/05/28/top/50st_080528_nra.txt

Now, for the 10,000 dollar question....Why is a representative of a NATIONAL Democratic Candidate, even bringing up Gun Control, in a state that absolutely abhors it???

[rosesaylavee]

1. Well, Chelsea misstepped there.

She's young and inexperienced in this sort of thing.

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. She was simply making a point that supporting gun control in NYC

does not equate to similar controls up-country.

Something all gun control advocates recognize, and all gun nuts (as opposed to gun owners) refuse to recognize.

There IS a difference between rural and urban gun ownership.

I would bet there is barely an inch of difference between Hillary and Obama on gun control.

[virginia mountainman]

3. Your right, BUT.... I am leery of Both.

She told a audience that... "Hillary would revisit gun control"....

THEN, the talk of NY, was pure back pedal.

[krispos42]

6. Is the divide between rural and urban gun ownership real?

I've often wondered about this.

I mean, yeah, in rural communities you're more likely to be around people that hunted, and can just go out on some piece of property and blaze away at some targets without bothering anybody. In other words, a gun is more like a tool in a toolbox.

And in urban communities, a gun is considered a GREAT BIG DEAL, LIKE OMG!!!

And certainly the types of guns typically owned would show variation.

But why would the requirements for gun ownership change as it relates to self-defense? Why is it okay for a rural person to have a semi-automatic rifle for home protection, but not an urban person? Why is it that the rural person can just go buy one and own it anonymously, but the urban person has to get a permit, wait for an arbitrary length of time to pass, register it, etc.?

I don't really understant that from a practical perspective. I understand it from other perspectives, such as "this isn't the Wild West, harumph harumph harumph", and from an establishment perspective, but not a practical perspective.

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. Well, I was going to ask when the last time was you had a drive-by

in Oberstar MN - then found out there ain't no such place - you listed your congresscritter as your city in your profile. So, taking HIS home town of Chisolm MN as yours by default (pop. @ 4600 in 2000 census) I would guess roughly never.

Population density makes a HUGE difference in attitudes towards guns. Get into cities and you're talking not just about gun ownership, but about career criminals, gangs, drug-ravaged communities AND well organized and well armed police forces. In rural communities there is far less crime, and a relatively higher liklihood that there will be no cop on the next block. What is legitimate for self defense in rural communities is an invitation to rampant violence in urban communities.

In rural communities, the police support keeping guns in the hands of citizens, knowing they may be a half-hour or more in responding to an urgent call. In cities, the police support keeping guns out of the hands of the gangs and criminals and known troublemakers, knowing that they can be there to intervene within minutes of an urgent call, but those few minutes will be futile if the perp is packing.

Yes, there IS a significant difference.

Another difference - even these days, in rural communities doors are left unlocked. In urban communities, locked doors are kicked in. And what is stolen, right after the TV, computer and jewelry, is guns. The fewer gun owners, the fewer stolen guns.

All I'm saying is that what is appropriate in one culture is not in another. And urban v rural are two distinctly differenct cultures, even if they both get the same TV shows, and both have McDonalds.

I've lived in urban communities almost all my life, and have never felt unprotected by not owning a gun.

[virginia mountainman]

8. Okay...

if City's and Rural areas, should have different levels of "gun control"....

Why is it discussed on a FEDERAL level?

Also, do the Bill of Rights apply more to those in rural areas, more than urban areas??

Dangerous "precedent setting" waters to be treading in...

[RaleighNCDUer]

9. IMO, the 2nd amendment refers to the right of states to maintain

militias.

Personal ownership of weapons would fall under the 10th amendment, to be regulated, or not, by the states.

[virginia mountainman]

15. The Supreme Court is chewing on that as we speak....NT

[SteveM]

17. Reference the "Standard Model" to describe Second Amendment scholarship...

The "standard model" refers to the great bulk of constitutional, legal, historical and political scholarship sees 2A an "individual right." Reference Laurence's Tribe's "coming around" on this, in addition to numerous other scholars.

Stephen Halbrook refers to the origins of the 14th Amendment and the central role of the individual right to keep and bear arms in the passage of this 1868 Amendment. (There was uniform recognition that blacks in the South were subject to arrest, beatings, killings and "regulation" by state-sanctioned militias, and therefore blacks should be protected in their 2A rights through the 14th Amendment's privileges and immunities clause.) See: www.georgiacarry.org and scroll to Heller brief.

The New York Times' (and others') attempts to torture grammar aside, there is comparatively little to show for the proposition that 2A does not protect an individual right. The preeminent language is "the right of the people...shall not be infringed." Militia is but one reason to protect that right. Further, well-regulated in those days seems to refer to the quality of ordnance and not day-to-day training. (I think the language is also mute recognition of the quality of arms and extent of firearms ownership among citizens, as opposed to the threadbare resources of many states.) BTW, there are some states who use this sentence structure to secure the "First Amendment rights via a "press" or some such. Who would doubt these rights were not individual?

Your take on the 10th Amendment is substantially to do the same for the Second at state level that which many seek at the national: a right which is granted by government. At the national level, the "right of the people" is somehow converted to community, an institution, when such meaning is not implied in other amendments using the same language, and becomes uniquely dead letter. At the state level, "personal" ownership would "fall under" the 10th "to be regulated, or not." Your wording suggests what kind of right that would be.

When is a right not a right? How can we expect a right to be such if a Chief Compass of New Orleans issues a fiat (after Katrina) to confiscate all firearms in citizen possession and gives orders to a hodge-podge of law enforcement groups (some out of state, some private) to go about doing just that? Of what meaning is this "right?" To hunt squirrels?

I notice you did not choose "personal" ownership to "fall under" the 9th Amendment.

[RaleighNCDUer]

24. It is not torturing the grammar to read what it really says.

(Subject) A well regulated Militia, - this is the subject of the amendment, obviously, as it begins the statement - (secondary clause) being necessary to the security of a free State, - this defines the rationale for a militia - (secondary clause) the right of the people to keep and bear arms, - this defines the militia; it should be noted that it says "the people" not "persons" - the people is a collective designation of the citizenry and when the constitution is speaking of individuals it uses "persons" - (conclusion) shall not be infringed.

In any standard grammar, removing the secondary clauses reveals the statement of the sentence - A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed.

This was not cobbled together by a bunch of numbskulls - these were some of the most well educated men of their time. They knew what they were writing.

Your 14th amendment reference supports this - it begins "All persons..." It is clearly laying out the recognition that the "persons" are an integral part of the American people "...are citizens of the United States..."; and it goes on to say "nor shall any state deprive any person..." - not "nor shall any state deprive the people". That would be a nonsensical statement because the state IS the people.

Of course, the 9th amendment also refers to "the people", not to individuals.

Therefore, while there is no individual right to keep and bear arms, the populace as a whole cannot be disarmed. This allows for the states and the communities within the states to regulate arms as they see fit for their own circumstances (as specified in the 10th amendment, and the 9th amendment).

If the intent of the 2nd amendment was to protect individual rights, there would be no need to mention the Militia - it would have stated, with great clarity, "The right of persons to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Since it doesn't say that, that is NOT what they meant to say.

Of course, if it DID say that we would have no legal means to take guns away from criminal or the insane because that would infringe on their rights. Fortunately, "the people" is not "persons".

[SteveM]

26. And so many scholars disagree with your position...

Frankly, I have read only a few pieces of grammatical criticism (notoriously but completely expected in the New York Times) which come up with your take. Certainly, study of the Founders' intent clears up any grammar ("men of their time") problems. In fact, "militia" was inserted as a political compromise with some states who feared national standing armies; hardly primary stuff when compared with the intent of recognizing the individual right to keep and bear arms.

Your "people/persons" distinction is entirely unconvincing. "The people" is used in the First Amendment; yet individuals in their individual actions have benefited from its protections, most notably in matters of art. The same for the Fourth which only delineates "person" from "houses, papers, and effects." Indeed, the Founders were not numbskulls: they use "people" and "persons" in the same Amendment, to show how this right "of the people" has a teleological flow to a "person," "papers," "effects."

Was it not true that the "old" South passed a complex of laws to keep blacks from arming themselves? If this is the case, were they operating within U.S. Constitutional constraints or individual state constitutional constraints? If a Southern state were today to pass a law barring blacks from owning guns, and this somehow (as in Florida in the 1940s) passed that state's constitutional muster, would blacks have recourse under the U.S. Constitution?

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V121/N56/col56craig.56c.html This link sums up my arguments, but I read it after the fact.

[beevul]

28. It may not be "torturing the grammar", but it IS ignoring the explicitly stated context.

(Subject) A well regulated Militia, - this is the subject of the amendment, obviously, as it begins the statement - (secondary clause) being necessary to the security of a free State, - this defines the rationale for a militia - (secondary clause) the right of the people to keep and bear arms, - this defines the militia; it should be noted that it says "the people" not "persons" - the people is a collective designation of the citizenry and when the constitution is speaking of individuals it uses "persons" - (conclusion) shall not be infringed.

In any standard grammar, removing the secondary clauses reveals the statement of the sentence - A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed.

This was not cobbled together by a bunch of numbskulls - these were some of the most well educated men of their time. They knew what they were writing.

Your 14th amendment reference supports this - it begins "All persons..." It is clearly laying out the recognition that the "persons" are an integral part of the American people "...are citizens of the United States..."; and it goes on to say "nor shall any state deprive any person..." - not "nor shall any state deprive the people". That would be a nonsensical statement because the state IS the people.

Of course, the 9th amendment also refers to "the people", not to individuals.

Therefore, while there is no individual right to keep and bear arms, the populace as a whole cannot be disarmed. This allows for the states and the communities within the states to regulate arms as they see fit for their own circumstances (as specified in the 10th amendment, and the 9th amendment).

If the intent of the 2nd amendment was to protect individual rights, there would be no need to mention the Militia - it would have stated, with great clarity, "The right of persons to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Since it doesn't say that, that is NOT what they meant to say.

Of course, if it DID say that we would have no legal means to take guns away from criminal or the insane because that would infringe on their rights. Fortunately, "the people" is not "persons".

Your reading leaves out the context. The context I speak of is located at the beginning of the bill of rights itself:

The First 10 Amendments to the
Constitution as Ratified by the States
December 15, 1791
Preamble
Congress OF THE United States
begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday
the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

www.billofrights.org


A reading of the second amendment in that context makes clear that it is a "restrictive clause" as is referenced in the preamble, with the operative restriction being "shall not be infringed". It is the right of the people to keep and bear arms, that shall not be infringed, because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

Of course, such a restriction would cover militia use and possession of arms in the collective sense, but it would also clearly protect individual possession of arms as well.

No distinction is made either way, so it therefore covers both. An interesting side note, a militia can not function without the individuals in that militia being in possession of arms.

The intent of the second amendment, was right along the same lines as the first amendment - an enumerated "hands off" restrictive clause, to keep the governments mitts off something, but you need to read it in the proper and more importantly intended context, to read it that way.



As to the legal means of taking guns away from criminal or the insane, thats one of those justifiable interferences with the rights of an individual, which is done to many other rights as well.

[SteveM]

35. Additional material...

http://www.adl.org/MWD/faq3.asp#3.29

3.29 Some sections from the 1792 Uniform Militia Act
The entire Act is less than four pages long.
"Section 1. MILITIA HOW AND BY WHOM TO BE ENROLLED - HOW TO BE ARMED AND ACCOUTRED

That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia by the captain or commanding officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizens shall reside, and that within 12 months of the passing of this act. ...That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within 6 months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a and a knapsack ... and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service..and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets for arming the militia as herein required shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound. And every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes."

(SteveM's comments)
Here, one can see that all citizens (by contemporary standards) are in the militia except as exempted, and clearly they are to report to duty having "...provid(ed) himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements required..." The sequence begins with every citizen (person?) taking responsibility to arm him/her self. One cannot do this without a private or non-government sphere which exists a priori to any notion of militia.

[benEzra]

12. So would you oppose new Federal gun bans, then, and leave it to the states? (n/t)

[RaleighNCDUer]

25. Generally speaking, yes.

I believe that firearms ownership should be regulated by the will of the citizens affected - which makes it a local matter. It should be a 10th amendment deal, not a 2nd amendment.

What is suitable for one community may not be for another.

[benEzra]

27. Thank you.

I wish the people still pushing the "assault weapon ban" hobby horse at the Federal level would grasp that.

[Irreverend IX]

13. There's one easy way to take care of many problems you list...

Legalize drugs. That will eliminate the root cause of much urban crime, while the antigun strategy only focuses on one symptom of the problem. And gun control will never eliminate gun crime in cities; there are thousands, perhaps millions, of cheap handguns already in circulation among criminals, and even the super-strict gun control in places like Chicago and DC does nothing to stop it. It's interesting to note that Minneapolis and Seattle, two major urban areas with some of the country's most permissive gun laws, have very low violent crime rates.

[krispos42]

23. I'm in his district

Which is close enough for an anonymous internet discussion board :-)

Population density makes a HUGE difference in attitudes towards guns. Get into cities and you're talking not just about gun ownership, but about career criminals, gangs, drug-ravaged communities AND well organized and well armed police forces.

Exactly. There is a greater need for self-defense in cities. Yet by and large these are also the areas that have the strictest gun-control laws and the prevelent "ew, guns are filthy" mentality.

In rural communities, the police support keeping guns in the hands of citizens, knowing they may be a half-hour or more in responding to an urgent call. In cities, the police support keeping guns out of the hands of the gangs and criminals and known troublemakers, knowing that they can be there to intervene within minutes of an urgent call, but those few minutes will be futile if the perp is packing.

Police response time can be a half-hour in urban communities as well. This is assuming that you have time to call the police and give them your address and a description of what's happening.

However, keep in mind that even in "rural" areas, most of the population lives in some sort of community. In fact, South Dakota's ten largest cities hold 42% of the state's population and those are all above 10,000 people or so, with Sioux Falls being the biggest at 140,000.

I used to live in Beadle Country, South Dakota. 1,265 square miles with about 16,000 people living on them. However, the county seat, Huron, has a population of 11,000 living in 8 square miles. So even in a rural state like South Dakota, most of the population is living within a town with blocks of houses, stores, malls, factories, etc. Response time of the Huron PD was only a couple of minutes.

So even in rural states, most of the population lives in a community with a police department patrolling the streets.

Another difference - even these days, in rural communities doors are left unlocked. In urban communities, locked doors are kicked in. And what is stolen, right after the TV, computer and jewelry, is guns. The fewer gun owners, the fewer stolen guns.

There are a couple of problems with that. One, you're punishing people for the actions of others. Two, the fewer gun owners, the more likely so-called "hot" (occupied dwelling) burglaries and home invasions are. I don't recall the location of an article that was posted here in the Gungeon a few weeks ago, maybe a few months ago, but I believe it was comparing US to UK "hot" burglaries and home invasions, and the UK rate was something like three times the US rate. Something like 40% of UK burglaries are on occupied homes and only 13% of US burglaries are. But that's just me trying to remember what some article said, and I hate comparing different countries' crime states because of methodology problems, so I'm not going to put a whole lot of emphasis on it unless somebody knows where the article is.

But my point is that if "hot" burglaries go up, that will mean more assaults, kidnappings, violence, sexual assault, and even murders per 100,000 burglaries, and it might even increase the burglary rate.

Third, even in crime-ridden cities, violent career criminals are only a tiny fraction of the population, and they use guns a smallish minority of the time. The gun ownership rates of any urban area would have to take a very drastic and very long-term drop before there was even any hope of maybe drying up the the circle of guns in criminal hands a little.

Fourth, I really don't buy the "you have to give up some of your rights to be safe" talking-point. I don't buy it from the Repubs when they rape my electronic privacy away to fight 'terrah! terrah! terrah!' (or habeas corpus, or right to an attorney, or right to a trial, or right to face your accusers, or right to see the evidence against you, etc.). And I don't buy it from the Dems when they say that to make me safer I have to give up my guns.

Well, not give them up, but face arbitrary restrictions on what I can buy or deal with regulations that are about making politician look and feel good about themselves.

A huge chunk of the problems that people are trying to tackle vial gun control can be solved faster and more completely by pushing our traditional American, liberal values. Fair trade, not free trade. A tariff-based trade policy. Stronger unions. Returning manufacturing to America. A truly progressive income tax that would balance the budget and pay off the national debt. Univeral single-payer health care. Legalization of recreational drugs. Weening us off of the oil economy. And better schools.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

29. I live in a medium sized city in the southeast with a good sized police dept.

The average response time to a felony in progress call is over 8 minutes. So I'm not sure where we would fit in that mix.

David

[benEzra]

11. HRC is not running for NYC office, she is running for Federal office...

and promised only last month to outlaw the most popular rifles in America, at the Federal level. It's like she is trying to make herself look worse than Obama on the gun issue.

It was the DLC that made new Federal gun bans Priority One in the '90s, too.

Hopefully, Obama will be savvy enough to leave the issue to the states. HRC apparently isn't.

[T4RSR5]

33. Obama Savvy on Gun Control?

I know the pro-gun folks really want to believe that Obama isn't an all out gun-grabber, but he is probably the most anti-gun presidential nominee in history.


Some accounting from the Joyce Foundation. You of course know he was on the board, and considered leading it.
http://www.joycefdn.org/programs/gunviolence/GrantList.aspx

He has repeatedly called for bans of ALL semi-automatic firearms. This would be pistols, shotguns, rifles. This would ban a remington duck shotgun. It would ban a 22 LR plinker. It would ban your antique 1911, it would ban your M1 Garand. This man is no friend to gun owners. To see anything different is to just close your eyes, plug your ears, and yell nah nah nah, hope and change!

Vote for him on his social policies, vote for him on his healthcare policies, just don't believe he recognizes your 2nd Amendment rights. IMO, if he had the votes, he would ban all guns outright, on day one of his presidency. If your 2nd Amendment rights are important to you, He is not your man. There are libertarians out there.

Hillary is anti-second amendment, but truly is almost a gun NUT when compared to Obama.

[kevinmc]

4. I know people that live in Montana .... not what they like to hear. ....

the people I know also believe hunting season is year round. They will hunt Deer anytime of the year.... pitch a tent over it and dress it out.

[amerikat]

5. Gun control should be off the table for Dem's.

There are too many one issue voters, and the gun folks are one issue voters.
I enjoy target shooting. I don't hunt I just shoot paper targets. We could win many converts if we just lay off the gun issue.

[SteveM]

19. From all of me to most of you...

I agree there are too many issues, but don't lump all 2A defenders into the "one-issue" category. Perhaps it is true that the NRA membership is the largest single-issue voting bloc in the U.S.; but they account for only 5 million folks and there are perhaps 80 million gun-owners, 30 per cent of whom describe themselves as Democrats. You are reading posts by very progressive people who have long voted Democratic.

[amerikat]

31. It's the other 70% that are repugs, independents and others

That worry me. I have worked with people that won't vote Dem because they are afraid the Dem's will take there guns away.

[SteveM]

34. That's the group with whom we can make progress...

I'm not even proposing most of this 70%, but only a portion. This kind of view of Democrats didn't happen in a vacuum nor overnight. We should be able to chip off a third to half of the independents and a few points of the GOP; next election, we chip off more. I'm around these people everyday as well, and many are deer-in-the-headlights disillusioned with Bush and the GOP (one reason there has been a resurgence in the Libertarian Party). Jody, in another post, suggested Obama take this stand: "I will veto every bill that comes to me as president that infringes upon the natural, inherent, inalienable right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense".

This is the proper role for the federal government, a much less aggressive force which views the Constitution in a "negativist" way. The beauty of this idea is that it leaves the battle over guns at the state level where both sides can slug it out in the courts.

I suggest we Democratic advocates of the Second Amendment should be able to reel off the names and action of Republicans who have taken hostile stands against the Second. Like Sarah Brady, Alberto Gonzalez, Charles Kruthammer, William Bennett (rumored to have authored key components of the AWB), etc.

[beevul]

10. Failed Triangulation...

To put it mildly.

[jody]

14. HC's history re gun-grabbers will not easily go away and neither will BO's unless they promise

"I will veto every bill that comes to me as president that infringes upon the natural, inherent, inalienable right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense".

No excuses for past statements, or votes, or association with people/groups that want to ban handguns, semiautomatic firearms, or all guns.

Just a simple, unconditional promise to veto such bills!

That would immediately gain them several million votes from the 80 million gun owners among the over 200 million electorate.

[RaleighNCDUer]

16. And lose them several million more, of those who have lost

loved ones to gun violence.

[jody]

18. Perhaps you are correct so HC and BO should call for bans on automobiles since they cause the most

accidental deaths.

[SteveM]

21. I sympathize with those who have lost friends & family to violence...

violence in some way touches us all. I don't think, should Obama or Clinton subscribe to Jody's make-sense proposition, there will be an outpouring of voters against them. There are some single-issues which won't hold up given the sweep of choices, and increasingly we see that the gun-control movement has little mile-deep constituency, save for MSM.

[maxidivine]

30. Several million? Really?

[beevul]

32. Lose them to what party?

They would vote for who exactly instead of Democrats?

[radioburning]

37. Several million? Are we counting since America was discovered? n/t

[SteveM]

20. I'll go with that. And it doesn't even address state & local action. (nt)

[NickTX]

22. I bet...

She and mom had a little talk after that.

Personally I don't even know if I will be voting this time around as I have lost pretty much all faith in our system of government. However out of the two Democrat candidates I think Obama is the better person for the job.

[SteveM]

36. What do you think of Jody's proposal in #14 above?...

This would delimit the role of the Federal government in this matter, and frankly should appeal to those who view the Federal government's role more conservatively. Any battles over 2A rights at the state/local level could be hashed out in the courts where (ironically) some conservative justices might have to decide on the role of the 14th Amendment's "privileges and immunities clause" in this issue. That would be a sight to see!

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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