VPC scared that SCOTUS will follow the US Constitution in Chicago gun case

[virginia mountainman]

Can't make this stuff up...

She observed that the Supreme Court in both Heller and now in McDonald is examining the issue solely as a question of constitutional law “and not in terms of the deadly effect on citizens of gun violence.”

ROFLMAO!! They are the gift that keeps on giving... With that sentence, the VPC admits, that they, are in effect, against the US Constitution.

Actually, that who article is full of BS is will make your head spin.. Like the talk of "gun bans being the most effective measure to prevent handgun violence" LOL!! I did not realize Chicago was a hand gun free utopia...With its sky high crime rates. Also

http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=11978

[derby378]

1. The law! Never mind the law! Toorn him oot, toorn him oot!

I am shaking my head in disbelief, trying to stop the laughter. If this is the best that Rand can do, VPC is in big trouble.

[Old Codger]

5. Gun laws don't work

If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying — that they must sweep under the rug the southern attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939 period, the attempts at both Federal and State levels in 1965-1976 — establishes the repeated, complete and inevitable failure of gun laws to control serious crime.


www.GunFacts.info

[Euromutt]

35. The only thing keeping the VPC going is Joyce Foundation money

The VPC consists of, what, five or six people? And in practice, Sugarmann and Rand are the only two who create the organization's output, with the remainder being administrative support. The amount of publicity the VPC gets is entirely out of proportion to what it is, which is a sinecure; without Joyce Foundation money to pay for office space, support staff, printing and web hosting costs and freeing Sugarmann and Rand from having to get real jobs, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the VPC and the "Gun Guys" blog.

[Demit]

2. The Constitution used to sanction slavery too. And barred women from voting. It ain't always sacred.

And it ain't always right. My other observation is, glad you find handgun violence so goddamned funny.

[msongs]

3. the righteous killings are wonderful if a gun is used crowd disagree with you nt

[rrneck]

14. Do you think you could manage a complete sentence? nt

[rd_kent]

26. As usual, you make no sense whatsoever, and are inflammatory.

Which is against the rules. You have been reported.

[metalbot]

4. Right, and the constitution was amended in those cases

But for some reason, no "gun control" group seems to be making any effort to repeal or rewrite the second amendment, they'd just like to ignore it.

[rfranklin]

6. Oh, the solution is to arm everyone because the good guys always win...

Just like those four cops in Washington state who were killed last week.

[derby378]

8. Friendly advice...

Please don't drag those four cops into this. It is disrespectful to them and their families.

[Walk away]

10. What? Police all over the country are at the mercy of every Goober who owns a gun.

Wife beaters, drunks and red neck a-holes have the ability to stop a cop whenever they feel a little paranoid. Frankly I think people who need to own death sticks to feel safe are paranoid to begin with.

I think these officer's families have been disrespected enough by having their husbands shot by another member of the "well armed militia".

Guns don't kill people...people with guns kill people.

[armueller2001]

11. Frankly I think people

who need to wear seat belts are paranoid to begin with... just like those psycho survivalists who like to keep 72 hours worth of supplies on hand incase of a natural disaster. Scaredy cats!

They should just be NORMAL and leave their family's safety and security to chance!

[derby378]

12. You obviously don't remember that the shooter was a convicted felon

Please do some research on the assailant before commenting any further.

[benEzra]

13. Ummm, shootings of police officers are near all-time lows...

...and have dropped even more since 2005.

I don't personally own any "death sticks", but my wife and I do own several guns, lawfully and responsibly.

[eqfan592]

17. Wow, walk away, just wow

That was spoken like a true irational and ignorant zealot.

[paulsby]

23. possibly the most offensive post i have ever

read. don't tell me who i am "at the mercy of" because i know from 20+ yrs of law enforcement experience, and having my best friend shot and killed on duty, that we are NOT at the mercy of LAWFUL gun owners. they are a benefit to us, more than a harm. i can't recall going to ANY unlawful shooting where the shooter was a lawful gun owner (they happen, but thye are very rare). i have a partner who literally is alive today because some store owner with a legal gun plugged an armed robber who had attacked her and gotten her gun out of the holster.

i live in the pacific NW, and we have all been affected by this murder in lakewood. i don't know ANY officer who believes that taking away a law abiding citizen's right to carry is the solution. this fuckstick was a multiple repeat felon.

this asshole was not a member of the "well REGULATED milita" (here's a hint. regulated = well TRAINED), since he was prohibited from carrying a firearm AT ALL

and of course the 2nd doesn't refer to a right of the militia. it refers to a right of the PEOPLE

[beevul]

24. And there ya have it.

The word of an actual police officer.

Anyone want to bet that those with opposing views will ignore it utterly and completely?

[Walk away]

25. Sorry, I was working....where do you think all of these guns that shoot people come from?

I don't expect to here anything rational coming from the gun forum. I am sure you love your guns to death. In cities like NYC and DC, law enforcement are for stricter gun laws and hand gun bans.

Answer me this question. How many guns used in crimes were once legally owned? How many guns used in the murder of police officers were once legal?

Let's see that graff!

[beevul]

28. Of course you don't.

"I don't expect to here anything rational coming from the gun forum."

Of course you don't. Because nothing short of the strictest control and/or bans is rational to people with your worldview. People like you have spent decades poisoning the entire subject, painting those that disagree with you as irrational, illogical, "unreasonable", "gun huggers" "gun lovers" Etc etc etc. And it still goes on, every.single.day. Where has that gotten you, btw?

"where do you think all of these guns that shoot people come from?"

Of course you ask that question. The fact that you do shines the light on you and your ideology quite brightly. That and the fact that you aren't asking "where do the people that willfully mnisuse firearms come from". They aren't the problem, in your mind. The guns are. In spite of the fact that there are some 300 MILLION firearms in America, and 15 thousand-ish firearm homicides, which shows that the great many, 99 percent of them, are not being used to kill people. You don't care, its about the guns to you. Just admit it.

"How many guns used in crimes were once legally owned? How many guns used in the murder of police officers were once legal?"

Just about all of them, I'm sure. So what? That does not change the fact that 99 percent of the guns in America AREN'T being used to kill cops or anyone else.

"In cities like NYC and DC, law enforcement are for stricter gun laws and hand gun bans."

Ahh yes. Cities where people are exposed to a lifetime of the anti-gun mindset contain police who conform to that mindset. I'm shocked. Not. Fortunately, this isn't "The united States of New York" , or "The united States of D.C.". And it never will be. Deal with it.

"I am sure you love your guns to death."

Typical. I haven't touched any of the firearms I own, in a couple months. Literally. I love my SO, love my daughters, and even love my dogs, but don't love firearms. I suspect the reason you would say such a thing, is that its a sort of reverse projection to conceal the fact that you hate guns.

Maybe I'm wrong, and maybe I'm not. But I'm fairly certain you HATE those that actively work to ensure your views on the subject aren't forced on everyone.

[eqfan592]

33. Well said, beevul. Well said. (nt)

[paulsby]

34. not so sure

***"In cities like NYC and DC, law enforcement are for stricter gun laws and hand gun bans."

Ahh yes. Cities where people are exposed to a lifetime of the anti-gun mindset contain police who conform to that mindset. I'm shocked. Not. Fortunately, this isn't "The united States of New York" , or "The united States of D.C.". And it never will be. Deal with it.***

not so sure of this. usually, when people claim that law enforcemednt (in general or in an area) is against CCW or RKBA, they are referring to such groups as the IACP which is NOT representative of cops, it's an organization of politicians iow police CHIEFS.

it MAY be true that the majority of LINE COPS (ie real cops who are on the street fighting crime) in DC or NY are against RKBA. MAYBE. i'd like to see the polling data, because ime the VAST majority of cops i have met (line cops) are FOR CCW's.

granted, i was never a cop in NYC or DC, but i'd need to see the actual polling data

[Old Codger]

45. You ask

A lot of questions designed to sound deeply profound, the answers are out there but you will never research them because you may know or be afraid that the answers will prove them to be opposite what you believe...So you carry on in ignorance rather than argue from a position of facts and figures, as stated many many times over many different discussions, you are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts. Answer your own questions with a little research then, return and argue with proven facts not fallacious misleading erroneous statements.

[rd_kent]

29. Its spelled GRAPH, not graff.

And you can get ALL of those stats from the DOJ website. You will find that nearly all crims are committed with an ILLEGALLY OBTAINED GUN.


You should really just follow your own advice, and walk away.

[metalbot]

43. Don't blame him

I'm pretty sure it's his keyboard that misspelled the word. The introduction of keyboards has contributed ENORMOUSLY to misspelling. Before keyboards, you still had pencils and pens that would sometimes misspell words, but with semi-automatic keyboards that put a letter on the screen with EVERY SINGLE CLICK OF THE KEY, words are being slaughtered left and right. Sure, computer manufacturers have put in some token "safety features" like spell checking, but are they really saving spelling the way they should? If we could only regulate keyboards more - make sure that people take proper typing classes, get permits for keyboards, and ensure that they don't buy more than one keyboard per month, I think we could make some good progress in fighting the spelling war. Isn't this just common sense?

[ManiacJoe]

30. There are two options for that problem.

(1) Remove all firearms from the whole civilian population, or
(2) When a gun is found in illegal possession, investigate the ownership chain and prosecute the illegal links.

You seem to want option #1, which is not desirable to most people and not physically possible regardless of the political climate.

#2 is rarely done; you would need to ask the government why that is.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

38. Why do you guys always run away?

[Euromutt]

40. It doesn't matter, because demand will find a supply

You're exhibiting the same flawed thinking that proponents of the "War on Drugs" do: you think that you can eradicate the problem by shutting down the current source and avenue of supply, while neglecting to address the demand. The problem is that, as long as the demand continues to exist, a supply will rise to meet that demand.

Look at the UK; private ownership of handguns was completely outlawed in 1997, but over the next ten years, firearm crimes doubled. From 2000 to 2008, the number of shootings--fatal and nonfatal--almost tripled. This in spite of the absence of a supply of legally owned handguns to be stolen or trafficked. Note that I'm not suggesting that the British handgun ban caused the increase in firearms crime, but it indisputably did absolutely nothing to prevent it. Very simply, the criminal element--particularly the casual criminal element--wanted guns, and some enterprising sparks decided to supply the guns to meet that demand, smuggling them in from overseas, or smuggling in tear gas and starter's pistols that could be converted to fire live ammunition, and converting them in illicit workshops in the UK.

People with criminal intentions in mainland western Europe have little to no difficulty acquiring whatever they want via illicit means, whether they're organized criminals or amateurs. Volkert van der Graaf, the guy who murdered Dutch populist politician Pim Fortuyn in 2002 (thereby committing the first political assassination in the Netherlands in over 400 years), bought his gun off some guy in a bar in a provincial town. In September 2008, a comparatively small-time marijuana grower/dealer named Hans van Geenen was murdered near Nijmegen; his killers used an automatic weapon to riddle the car he was traveling in with at least 70 bullets. And he was just one a series of "liquidations" of marijuana traffickers in the Netherlands (possession of marijuana may be decriminalized in the Netherlands, but cultivation and trafficking--stupidly--is not, which results in the supply being firmly in the hands of the criminal circuit). In the second quarter of this year, there were almost thirty shooting incidents in Amsterdam South-East. This in spite of the fact that private possession of firearms has been tightly regulated in the Netherlands since 1919, and practically no crimes have been known to be committed with a firearm that was ever legally in private hands while in the Netherlands.

The lesson we can draw from this is that, even if you were to close off sales of firearms to private citizens in United States, and even if you could prevent every gun in legal private ownership from being stolen or trafficked, American criminals would simply find another source. Literally tons of cocaine, heroin, marijuana and meth are smuggled into the US every year, as are possibly thousands of trafficked human beings. Why should it be impossible to smuggle in firearms and ammunition from abroad?

[beevul]

42. Off topic...but...

That picture of "snowflake" on your website...is he/she an american eskimo dog?


He/she is very pretty in any case. I ask because we have an american eskimo dog that is the spitting image of him/her.

[Old Codger]

44. How About

The actual factthat the stricter the gun laws in a city the higher the gun related crimes rate.

[Howzit]

21. Those cops weren't robbed, they were executed.

They tried the same stunt with this pizza deliverer, but he survived:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5y44CdrBsfs&feature=player_embedded#

[paulsby]

22. strawman

nobody says the good guys always win.

we say the good guys should have the CHOICE to arm themselves. a seatbelt isn't a guarantee. seatbelted drivers don't "always win" either.

it's a personal choice to make to empower oneself to take responsibility for one's own safety.

choice. it's what's for dinner

[rd_kent]

27. Did anyone say that? No, just you!

And please point out who says that.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

32. If only anyone had ever proposed that as a solution.

[beyond cynical]

7. If you don't like the Constitution--change it.

[Old Codger]

9. Strange

That you attempt to steer the discussion away from the discussions main point by misstating the constitution .. no mention of slavery in the original un-amended constitution, nor are voting rights mentioned anywhere in it.... If you choose to be against any provisions of the constitution and wish it amended then fight for that movement and get it amended, but try to use facts rather than opinions... Anti gun laws have never cut crime, concealed carry laws have.


http://www.gunfacts.info/index.html

[slackmaster]

15. Neither of your points are correct

The original Constitution and Bill of Rights were silent on both subjects.

[PavePusher]

16. The Constitution has had precisely ONE amendment nullified....

Ironicly, we recinded the ban on a substance in common use, that causes many more deaths each year than firearms murders.

You are welcome to try a Constitutional Amendment if you so desire. At least that would be intellectualy honest...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

31. Feel free to try and Amend the Constitution.

My other observation is whaaaaa! Get over yourself.

[SteveM]

37. Given the history of gun control, your example of slavery is more than ironic...

The very first models of gun control are to be found in the South, both antebellum and Jim Crow eras. Mainstream media, then as now, supported disarmament -- of blacks. Seems ol' Jim Crow caught a train and headed North, too.

The bulwark of the Civil Rights era, both in terms of both federal laws passed and court rulings made, was the 14th Amendment with its definition of citizenship and its barring of a state's efforts to deny the privileges and immunities of a citizen of the United States. This amendment was passed in 1868, and the debate is replete with Congress' concern that "Negroes" in the South were being systematically barred from bearing arms by Southern white gangs, local law enforcement and, yes, even various militia. It should be comforting to know that this bulwark of civil rights came about largely as a defense of the Second Amendment rights of blacks.

[X_Digger]

18. Man what misdirection..

In the meantime, states with bad records of gun violence continue to allow gun show loopholes to remain open. The implications of the killing of 33 people at Virginia Tech in 2007 by a mentally deranged man who had no difficulty obtaining his weapons has faded too quickly from public memory. Virginia legislators who are once more resisting plugging the gun show loophole for private sales seem also to have forgotten.

Except that Cho didn't get his guns from a gun show. He went to a federally licensed dealer and underwent a background check. Virginia's failure to report his involuntary commitment in a timely manner had nothing to do with any so-called 'gun show loophole'.

[Hoopla Phil]

19. Why let facts get in the way of a little demagoguery?

[spin]

20. K&R (n/t)

[TPaine7]

36. Outrageous!

The idea that Supreme Court justices consider a case "solely as a question of constitutional law" and "not in terms of the deadly effect on citizens of gun violence" is intolerable. This actually has the effect of holding the people's will as expressed in the supreme law of the land (and in recent polls) as superior to the will of the VPC.

How long can we put up with this nonsense--representative democracy, constitutionalism, rule of law, government by the people?

[Tejas]

41. "How long can we put up with this_government by the people?" Don't worry, VPC will fix that! LOL!

Sorry, couldn't resist :)

[GreenStormCloud]

39. Read the comments to the article.

Nine comments as of this posting. Eight are against the article, one of the nine is midly in favor of it.

Comment number one is so good that I am copying it to here.

The constant drumbeat over the decades of gun control's US history is that this population or that was incapable of responsible gun ownership, that a blood bath would ensue if guns were liberalized. Others stated that gun ownership would be helpful to reducing crime.

Over time, gun laws have been substantially liberalized in most states over the past couple of decades. The experiment has been run. The results are in. There has been no bloodbath in liberalizing districts. It is irresponsible to ignore the data.

Without those blood baths in liberalizing jurisdictions, there is no suicide pact, no acceptable reason to deny disproportionately minority urban populations the same rights that their suburban and rural fellow americans have. All that is left is prejudice and bigotry, the genesis of much of early gun control legislation which was often explicitly aimed at keeping blacks unarmed, the better to be frightened by the Klan.

I condemn illegal acts by sellers. Felons should not be armed in general and most pro-gun groups are quite strong on enforcement measures. Enforcing current federal law would have no relationship to the gun control regime of any state or locality. Have the Jesuits stopped teaching logic? This editorial is unworthy.

[rd_kent]

46. That IS a great comment.