The Second Amendment is misunderstood, he writes
Nemo5576 | Wikimedia Commons | Altered by Dan
Your daily Letter to the Editor — Jan. 3, 2012
The Second Amendment was written in a time of muskets and by people who owned slaves. More recently, the National Rifle Association has interpreted the amendment as the right of the individual to bear arms, i.e. the right to own and use a firearm, even an assault weapon.
In 1991, Chief Justice Warren Burger said the NRA’s interpretation of the Amendment is “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public.”
The Second Amendment does not give every citizen the right to own and use a firearm any more than it gives a citizen the right to own and use an automobile. The Second Amendment was written so that we the people have a protective militia (an Army and Navy) for our defense and the defense of our country.
In short, the Second Amendment has nothing to do with our individual rights to own an assault weapon any more than it has to do with our rights to buy and drive an automobile.
What is needed is an amendment that closes gun-show loopholes, bans the sale of assault weapons and regulates the sales of guns to the mentally ill. The latter is no easy matter when it was learned that the weapons used in the Newtown massacre belonged to the assailant’s mother.
Jerry Gibbs
BLACKSBURG
January 3, 2013 - 3:02 PM
Just throwing this out there … as ratified, the 2nd amendment reads: “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.”
So, how many gun owners are also militia members? And does the verbiage there imply that one must belong to a militia to keep and bear arms?
Just kinda wondering…
Summary: The 2nd Amendment doesn’t say what it says.
BTW it says “the right to bear arms shall not be infringed”.
When the First Amendment was written, the Founding Fathers did not intend it to allow internet pornography and Honey Boo-Boo. #same_logic
I cannot believe this was even found worthy of posting. Classic example of low information liberal thinking. Read the Federalist papers and amend your post please.
On a side note, I think slaveowners drank water, so we better ban that too. Seriously, who teaches you libs to interject race into every topic not matter what it is?
Still pretending to be only opposed to concealed carry laws and nothing else about gun control? What a laugher…
I would encourage Mr. Gibbs to read the Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in the District of Columbia V. Heller case. He will find that in most of his arguments, he’s quite mistaken.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZO
@3 Eddie, who was talking about race??
Still, from the NY Times some information about race as it related to gun control.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/02/opinion/who-pays-for-the-right-to-bear-arms.html
Who Pays for the Right to Bear Arms?
more…..
The history of gun regulation is inextricably interwoven with race. Some of the nation’s most stringent gun laws emerged in the South after the Civil War, as Southern whites feared what newly freed slaves might do if armed. At the same time, Northerners saw the freed slaves’ right to bear arms as critical to protecting them from the Ku Klux Klan.
In the 1960s, Huey P. Newton and the Black Panther Party made the gun a central symbol of black power, claiming that “the gun is the only thing that will free us.” On May 2, 1967, taking advantage of California’s lax gun laws, several Panthers marched through the State Capitol in Sacramento carrying raised and loaded weapons, generating widespread news coverage.
The police could do nothing, as the Panthers broke no laws. But three months later, Gov. Ronald Reagan signed into law one of the strictest gun control laws in the country.
The urban riots of the late 1960s — combined with rising crime rates and a string of high-profile assassinations — spurred Congress to pass federal gun control laws, banning interstate commerce in guns except for federally licensed dealers and collectors; prohibiting sales to felons, the mentally ill, substance abusers and minors; and expanding licensing requirements.
more….
I believe the supreme court has spoken on this issue, I wonder if the writer thinks as little of the supreme courts other opinions ie obamacare, abortion?
Just read an interesting piece about homicides with rifles; it seems that more homicides are committed with blunt objects than with rifles; and four times as many homicides are committed with knives and almost 2 times as many homicides are committed with hands/fists/feet than with rifles.
if we really believe the “instrument” is the problem, wouldn’t we be better served to “ban” first handguns, then knives, then hands/feet?
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls
or maybe a more intelligent direction would be to consider what to do about the “nuts” that commit the crimes.
I am laughing my head off at the notion that we can’t discussion our nation’s history of slave ownership without someone whining about the race card.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/us/gun-plans-dont-conflict-with-justices-08-ruling.html?_r=0
“Legal experts say the decision in the case, District of Columbia v. Heller, has been of mainly symbolic importance so far. There have been more than 500 challenges to gun laws and gun prosecutions since Heller was decided, and vanishingly few of them have succeeded.”
Heller is acknowledged as leaving plenty of room for reasonable gun control. It is not the universal blanket dismissal of all gun control measures the gun people would have us think.
Gosh, Eddie, looks like YOU were the one to bring up race in this thread. And on this blog it’s right winger suzie who most often brings up race for no reason whatsoever.
Yawn… just another comment from a close minded liberal
“The Second Amendment was written in a time of muskets and by people who owned slaves.”
The First Amendment was written at the same time, is it just as invalid considering the founding fathers couldn’t foresee television and the internet? These modern communications give truth to the saying “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on”.
Every restriction put on those of us who choose to exercise our rights under the 2nd Amendment should be met with an equal restriction put on those who choose to exercise 1st Amendment rights.
Want to open a television station, radio station or internet site? Fine, get a license, get fingerprinted, have a background check, and oh by the way, your station or site must be restricted to the same speed as print availability.
Scott M – the author of the post did in the first line when he said the second amendment was written by people who owned slaves.
I understand the context in which the comment was used: changing times. But come on, just because we made the terrible mistake of slavery doesn’t mean we got everything wrong. That’s a weak argument intended to raise emotions.
We choose our own words. No one makes us post them.
The examples below are recent posts from a VCDL member:
Freedom is not bound by laws
Now that the first hundred plus years of gun control (better known as people control) has failed, they just want more…. and more and more and more. Don’t be fooled by any implication that they want any kind of compromise. They want confiscation.
Restoring our liberty is not creating chaos and the last 17 years have proven that.
there is a big problem with a (gun) registration scheme. It is nothing but a step toward confiscation.
My point is that…the gun grabbers don’t care about anything practical in this matter at all. They will delight in taking something from us for the sake of taking it. It’s not about saving lives or public safety. It’s all about using their iron fist of authority
The elite would have guns, though. Just the way they want it.
“(Too bad you have so little faith in your fellow Americans)…Sorry, but you’re right. I dont’.”
“I feel there is nothing good to be gained by society for giving away more liberty. We’ve had over 100 years of (gun) compromises that have not served us at all. It is much harder to restore liberty than to give it away and a compromise with those that want more restrictions and less liberty is simply a new “baseline” for the anti-liberty crowd to work from…So, the position I take is NO MORE GIVING AWAY LIBERTY
Compare them with these quotes:
“(of the federal government) tyrants whose blood had to be spilled to preserve liberty.” and “based on observations of the policies of my own government, I viewed this action as an acceptable option”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/oklahoma/bg/mcveigh.htm
Salient excerpts:
“McVeigh and Nichols were “hard into guns,” recalled Dilly. In long talks, they discovered both…believed warnings in gun magazines that the government would take away their weapons’
“He loved…carrying a gun. The co-worker, who asked not to be named, viewed McVeigh as gun-obsessed. He said he once came to work wearing bandoliers laden with deer slugs, “looking like Pancho Villa.” He owned a semiautomatic AR-15 rifle, handguns and a semiautomatic Desert Eagle”
“McVeigh also worked briefly as a gun salesman in Lockport”
‘Dilly once asked McVeigh what he did in his spare time. “Buy guns,” came the answer. According to Dilly, McVeigh had rifles, assault weapons and semiautomatic pistols but no revolvers — “he thought revolvers were too slow.”
“McVeigh…was vocal about his fear that government agents would try to seize his weapons, according to fellow soldiers.”
“McVeigh…was railing at virtually every aspect of American government,…as reflected in letters he wrote to the Lockport Union-Sun and Journal in February and March 1992. The first bewailed rising crime, “cataclysmic” taxes, politicians serving only themselves and the disappearance of the “American Dream”
“If McVeigh needed provocation to turn to violence, he did not lack for it…The militia movement sprang to life as Bill Clinton campaigned for president on a platform of gun control, which militia leaders called a prelude to tyranny. The National Rifle Association, to which he belonged, became increasingly incendiary in its attacks, although McVeigh dropped out in 1994, saying the group was soft on defending assault weapons.
“As an NRA solicitation letter put it recently: “Not too long ago, it was unthinkable for federal agents wearing Nazi bucket helmets and black storm trooper uniforms to attack law-abiding citizens. Not today.”
To this last one, we point out this recent blog comment by a VCDL member:
“you can dis the NRA, but they were right”
The VCDL will again be seeking to undo existing gun laws in the 2013 Virginia General Assembly, where their guns are useless.
I don’t agree with every Supreme Court decision. I don’t agree with their interpretation of the 2nd amendment. I’ll take it though as I own and shoot various assault style weapons and have a CHP.
Gdad – actually the post was written before my comment on the post.
Warren, I tend to agree with your points of view on many issues, but I must second Dan’s request that you significantly reduce the intensity of your posts regarding another regular poster. Your arguments carry more weight when they do not devolve into the personal.
Thank you Eddie. I missed that part. Damn bifocals!
Also The District of Columbia v Heller was a 5 – 4 decision. I guess I’m not the only one that disagrees. But like I said I can live with it.
This argument is exceptionally weak and Henry and Rob did a fine job of refuting it. I also don’t get the focus on the gun show loophole. Is there any data connecting guns sold at gun shows to any of these attacks or is it just a feel good measure? I look for limits on clip/magazine capacities and sales as a more useful restriction to stop mass murders. The term “assault weapon” means 10 different things to 10 different people, so I have no idea what a ban on them even means.
Boy I’m glad you started another gun thread (sarcasm). The other one is getting hard to find and too long to scroll through.
Kristen, re: 4:57
You are correct. Just like Heller does not mandate allowance of “nuclear weapons”; Roe v Wade does not mandate allowance of abortion “on demand”.
I am not sure of the “race card issue”, unless it is to highlight the fact that in our inner cities, blacks and immigrants are killing (first their own, and then the other) in an abominable rate.
It is a sad testament to a welfare state, where as opposed to “times past” when you were expected to work to have “something” now the “something” is expected.
If we give no “vision for a future” we can expect nothing but carnal existence.
The best “future” we can give our country is an understanding that they we to make our “future” ourself.
Warren, re: 5:31
I have read your post twice, and I admit sometimes I don’t “get it” but are you suggesting that mcveigh, committed his insanity because he had access to “guns”? or are you suggesting that he was a nut?
Wasn’t his “bomb” built on some kind of fertilizer?
Am I seriously missing some point?
How long has unabomb manifesto writer “Warren” been working on that hit piece, LOL. He makes great use of a limited context for all his snips, too, in his attempt to further defame me.
Perhaps “Warren” simply did not want to be outdone in his play for the most unreasonable BS on this thread, competing with the original post. Who knows. Who cares.
Mike Hutchison, Heller was decided in 2008. Up until that time, which is over 200 years, that was not the accepted law on the subject. And that 5-4 decision was hotly contested and left much to be determined. And it will.
Eddie, FYI, “Low information” has been proven to apply to right wingers but misinterpret that research as you like.
The dissenting opinion says “Specifically, there is no indication that
the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution“. Do you have any true evidence that this is not the case? You reference the Federalist Papers, be so kind as to enlighten us as to what they say.
In 1934, (Miller) the Supreme Court said: “… 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.
…The view of the Amendment we took in Miller—that it protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the Legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons—is both the most natural reading of the Amendment’s text and the interpretation most faithful to the history of its adoption.”
Do not be so freaking arrogant and dismissive of those who do not agree that everyone is entitled to mass killing weapons. It will only get you a drubbing with the truth that your argument is just that.
Heller did not decide once and for all that weapons could not be regulated, banned or restricted and it did not grant even him the right to have that gun outside of his home.
If you think the gun industry influences only federal policy think again.
http://www.nationofchange.org/gun-manufacturers-got-more-19-million-state-subsidies-1357222609
BTW, Scalia has been quoted as saying, “The Constitution that I interpret is not living, but dead”. Does anyone know how he reconciled that POV with his reinterpretation of over 200 years of law to read the Second Amendment as he wanted in Heler, instead of how it was written?
Mr. Gibbs is lost as last year’s Easter Egg. Has he even personally read the 2nd Amendment? What “people” does he think it is referring to?
“The VCDL will again be seeking to undo existing gun laws in the 2013 Virginia General Assembly, where their guns are useless.”
What is this supposed to mean?
Clearly Mr. Gibbs means the “people” of the “well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”. Wow, that was easy.
Mike O, my post, which took about twenty minutes to paste and post, was a comparison of quotes about the “tyrannical” U.S. government supposedly planning to confiscate guns, and some background on McVeigh’s immersion in the radical edge of U.S. gun culture. One set of quotes came from evil McVeigh, the other from a saner VCDL member who virulently opposes any and all massacre control steps that involve firearms, and has posted at least one apparently light hearted remark involving mass murder. I thought people would be interested in the comparison of mindsets.
The last sentence of the post, like the first, is self-explanatory.
sandi – I believe conservatives support a basic civic test before being allowed to vote for a reason.
Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 28:
“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government”
Keep in mind one of the main reasons for the second amendment, of which there are several, is to protect the citizens from tyranny. There was much debate during its adoption between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalist and the Anti-Federalists won. The debate came off the heels of our Revolution against a tyrannical government.
The meaning of the second amendment was settled long before the NRA. I believe we made some mistakes in the constitution, but we amended our mistakes. If you think the 2nd is a mistake, then amend it. But stop the self-centered interpretations of what our founding fathers intended.
I mostly ignore sandi’s posts as she has proven a shrill for the OWS liberals, but I must admit it funny that she conveniently accepts SCOTUS opinions when they agree with her and pleads the “minority” when they do not.
Ignorance of the “big picture” is often as astounding as it is educational in viewing one’s ability to see beyond their own bias.
Sandi, no need to respond, I know your pat answer, everyone who disagrees with you “hates obama”, no matter the conversation.
Sandi, I’ll be happy to quote the Federalist Papers to you. Alexander Hamilton was a military aide to Goerge Washington during the American Revolution, a delagate to the Constitutional Convention from New York, an ardent supporter of the Constitution, and one of the authors of the Federalist Papers. He wrote on pages 178-181 the following:
“The power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.” Then Hamilton wrote “It is observed that select corps may be formed, composed of the young and ardent, who may be rendered subservient to the views of arbitrary power.” Many people at the time, including our Founding Fathers, believed that a standing army or standing body of armed men at the order of an arbitrary government posed a danger to the liberties of the people.
Hamilton went on and said “To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.” Notice that Hamilton is not talking about a standing, full-time Militis or National Guard, but of average, law-abiding citizens who own their own guns.
Hamilton further stated “This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.” Notice once again that Hamilton refers to average citizens owning their own guns in defense of THEIR OWN rights, and also the rights of their fellow citizens.
I could go on with more quotes, but this is already long enough. One thing you should ponder though – The Bill of Rights were written to SECURE THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS against the arbitrary power of the government – or the possibility of a majority trampling the rights of a minority of citizens. In each of the original 10 Amendments (the Bill of Rights), the intent of each amendment, INCLUDING the 2nd Amendment – is to secure the rights of each and every citizen – “the people”.
If the Heller decision’s strained decoupling of the 2A’s militia language freed anyone from feeling the need to be part of the paranoid militia movement to indulge their gun fetish, then that’s an upside.
But it’s both sad and funny to see those who decry “legislating from the bench” try to pretend that Heller respected stare decisis.
A longer post would be needed to explain the gun lobby’s longer term strategy to use Heller as their Roe v. Wade. The essence is that they hope that, similarly to the key privacy right inferred in Roe, an all purpose durable individual right to any and all guns can be created using Heller. But both because of the limits noted in the decision and Scalia’s contortions necessary to find for Heller, it can’t.
Comment by Sandi Saunders at 7:20 p.m. Very well said, Sandi!
Quote from article posted by Kristen: ““Legal experts say the decision in the case, District of Columbia v. Heller, has been of mainly symbolic importance so far. There have been more than 500 challenges to gun laws and gun prosecutions since Heller was decided, and vanishingly few of them have succeeded.””
Chicago’s gun ban being declared unconstitutional is a pretty significant one.
Every restriction put on those of us who choose to exercise our rights under the 2nd Amendment should be met with an equal restriction put on those who choose to exercise 1st Amendment rights.
Comment by Rob — January 3, 2013 @ 5:18 pm
I agree. It should also be applied to Fourth and Fifth Amendments, too. The Fourth shouldn’t protect from unreasonable searches of your computer, mobile phone, car, etc… because those things did not exist when the Amendment was written.
Also, you should not be able to exercise your Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination if you are being charged with a crime that did not exist when the Fifth Amendment was written. Any computer-related crime or music piracy would be good examples.
I look for limits on clip/magazine capacities and sales as a more useful restriction to stop mass murders. The term “assault weapon” means 10 different things to 10 different people, so I have no idea what a ban on them even means.
Comment by wilbert — January 3, 2013 @ 6:10 pm
Wilbert,
I’m happy to help. Restricting magazine size to ten rounds, means that with three ten round magazines versus a single thirty round magazine, it would take a skilled shooter approximately two additional seconds to fire thirty rounds.
Those two seconds, which would come as two one second pauses in shooting, would be used to bum rush the shooter and beat him up.
As far as a ban on “assault weapons,” that just means that scary looking or black firearms would be banned unless you:
A) paid the government $200, in which you would get to keep the “assault weapon”; or
B) are a criminal, in which case you get to keep the “assault weapon” and your $200.
More people are killed by blunt force trauma (clubs, bats, etc) than with rifles.
So what is the point again?
The author quoted CJ Burger in his letter to the editor. I will do the same to prove him uninformed. Note Burger even mentions machine guns (fully automatic) as protected and states the right to bare arms is settled law, he just argues the need for registration of non recreational weapons such as machine guns.x.
By Warren E. Burger, Chief Justice of the United States (1969-86)
Parade Magazine, January 14, 1990, page 4
“Americans also have a right to defend their homes, and we need not challenge that. Nor does anyone seriously question that the Constitution protects the right of hunters to own and keep sporting guns for hunting game any more than anyone would challenge the right to own and keep fishing rods and other equipment for fishing — or to own automobiles. To “keep and bear arms” for hunting today is essentially a recreational activity and not an imperative of survival, as it was 200 years ago; “Saturday night specials” and machine guns are not recreational weapons and surely are as much in need of regulation as motor vehicles.”
@33 Didn’t Alexander Hamilton die by gunshot in a silly duel?
I bet he probably had a change of heart regarding gun ownership while he bled out.
“…closes gun-show loopholes, bans the sale of assault weapons and regulates the sales of guns to the mentally ill.” 1,2,3. So easy, simple and reasonable.
I’d say Mr. Gibbs has done a great job with his post measured only by the howling and machinations of the Gunners who want NO restrictions what so ever on their private arsenals.
#15 I’m sorry, Eddie, I missed the slave reference when I made my post, but of course part of the reason for the 2nd was fear of armed insurrection, including possible revolt by slaves.
Right winger suzie is still the most likely on this blog to bring up race for no reason.
Here’s what I know. You can’t stop evil. You can’t predict crazy. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. New gun laws will make feel safe. But people will still die from gun violence.
“Saturday night specials” and machine guns are not recreational weapons and surely are as much in need of regulation as motor.”
How does this make our writer “ignorant”. Burger supports his position.
The gunshow “loophole” is about as misunderstood by non-gun owners as the difference between semi-automatic and automatic firearms. The loophole is this simple: private owners do not have to perform background checks. Licensed dealers still do. I think most people think you can go to a gun show and buy from anyone and not need a bgc. I personally would not sale a gun to someone I didn’t know. I think that’s irresponsible. I’m for everything that keeps guns out of the hands they don’t belong and therefore I agree with the final point made in the letter to the editor.
#42 – I agree our nation argued against gun ownership by slaves for fear of insurrection. Just one in many injustices they endured as part of the larger slavery issue.
I was upset the author used “The Second Amendment was written in a time of muskets and by people who owned slaves. ” instead of “The Second Amendment was written in a time of muskets and when people owned slaves.” Maybe I’m barking up the wrong tree, but my gut tells me there was a reason it was written the way it was (i.e. bad people wrote the 2nd Ad, therefore it was bad).
Thanks Geoff Liebrandt, and what in that offering says that our laws cannot ban guns deemed “assault rifles” and magazines that hold 30 or more bullets? What in that, or anything else, EVER has said that there would be no restrictions on whatever arms anyone wanted to have? What in that says possession of arms has nothing to do with a militia?
“To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.”
…”Excuse me, sir, I finish this letter giving you a key to all this history. Ago analogy General Governments & the characters of all the Thirteen States, but it was not until the debate and the war began in Massachusetts Bay, the largest Province of New England, the primitive institutions made their first effect. Four of these institutions should be well studied extensively examined by anyone & would Knowingly write on this subject, because they have produced a decisive effect not only in the premieres determinations debates in the Public Councils, and the premieres resolutions to resist by arms, but by the influence they had on the minds of other colonies by giving the example to adopt more or less the same institutions & similar measures.
The four institutions mentioned are
1. Towns or Districts
2. Churches.
3. Schools.
4. Militia.
…”The militia consists of all the people. Loix Under every male inhabitant of the country between 16 and 60 years, enrolled in a Company & Regiment of Militia, fully equipped with all his officers. He is forced to stand still in his house & at his own expense, a musket in good order, a powder horn, a pound of this powder, twelve flints, twenty four lead bullets, a canister boête, & a knapsack. So all Contrée is ready to walk in his defense at the first signal. Regiments & Companies are required to assemble at a certain time of the year, on the orders of their officers, for the visitation of their arms and ammunition, and to make their maneuvers.
“Here, sir, a little sketch of the four main sources of wisdom in this advice, this skill, this brave soldier, who produced the American Revolution, and who, I hope, be kept holy as the foundation of the freedom, happiness & prosperity of the people. If other features which I can give you the information, you will do me the kindness to tell me know.”
(John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States [1787-1788])
Eddie, you can argue as you choose, but it is readily apparent that “leaders” who considered slavery acceptable, and even practiced it, considered it moral for human beings counting as 3/5 for some purposes, women treated as chattel, voting restrictions and civil rights being only for the wealthy or their chosen would seem to color EVERYTHING else they did and said.
Kristen – Burger supports his position? How? The writter says “The Second Amendment does not give every citizen the right to own and use a firearm any more than it gives a citizen the right to own and use an automobile.” Burger says we need to “register” machine guns, not ban them. No need to register them if we can’t own them. Just because they both used the word automobile doesn’t mean they support each others claim. So the writer read enough about Burger for a quick meaningless quote that reffers to nothing but then took the oppiste view as him on an indivual’s right to bare arms. That’s tells me he’s uninformed. Also – since you put it in quotation, show me where I called him “ignorant”.
Eddie, some have vehemently argued here recently that registration is tantamount to a ban, even that registration is only a trojan horse for eventual confiscation. And Burger’s opinions that carry the most weight are those that he incorporated in SCOTUS rulings.
Sandi Saunders @ 11:12 pm – not sure of your point. I said the founding fathers got some things right and some wrong. The 2nd was one they got right which is why we haven’t had to change it over 200 plus years.
Rob @ 5:18 – do you mind if I use your comment with my friends and pretend I came up with that? That’s laying down some serious smack.
I don’t understand America’s obsession with guns. I grew up in a family of country folk who hunted because they needed to eat the squirrels and rabbits. When they no longer needed to hunt, they stopped because high powered rifles and alcohol made it too dangerous, even on our private farm, during hunting season. My granddaddy kept one rifle to kill bears or rabid animals if we were ever threatened in the orchard. Bars love ripe peaches. As kids, we had BB guns, but it never, ever occurred to us to point them at a person, even after watching Bonanza. The times are different now. Nine out of ten times when we see guns, they are shooting people in horrifically graphic ways. People are desensitized to violence, lacking empathy, and mental illness abounds. We must evolve as a country. When the society changes, laws must change in response. This is not the 1950s anymore. The people who seem least capable of responsibly owning guns are the ones who seem the most determined to own the most dangerous weapons. The NRA and gun companies feed paranoia against our government. We used to call that treason. Peopleof reason have to take a stand or our country will be lost forever to a culture of increasing gun violence. It should not take the murders of suburban, upper class, white children to wake us up. Children die on the southside of Chicago daily and we just ignore it.
Comment by Geoff Liebrandt — January 3, 2013 @ 8:34 pm
This is the most accurate post (in maybe a year) as to how the vast majority of the founding fathers viewed the right to bear arms. (And note, Hamilton would be classified as a Federalist.)
In short, the founders were almost as unified on this topic as they were on a free press and free speech.
I’m not saying I completely agree with exactly how this right is handled today, over 2 centuries later, (nor did he, for that matter), but individual rights, by definition, include this right, too.
This guy is a nitwit you missed this part the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
…some have vehemently argued here recently that registration is tantamount to a ban…
Comment by Warren — January 4, 2013 @ 12:18 am
Registration is not the same as a ban. Registration, however, has historically always led to confiscation.
In any case, the ban Feinstein proposes is a ban for poor people.
I don’t understand America’s obsession with guns.
Comment by Teresa — January 4, 2013 @ 1:53 am
I know. The Revolutionary War was won simply by poking the British soldiers with sticks. I don’t know why we think it is necessary to have guns.
The Federalist papers, while intereresting, aren’t relevant. Who cares what Hamilton personally thought? As has already been pointed out, these were men who considered other men to be property, and women little better. The verbiage is the verbiage, and to expect gun control advocates to just join in the gunners fantasy in which they ignore the militia clause is wishful thinking. Every word in the Constitution and Bill of Rights was labored over extensively….it’s silly to just pretend that that “militia” bit just landed there accidentally.
The FF personal thoughts and feelings…,historically interesting but not a basis for law 250 years later.
In a nation of over 300 million people, the majority often tramples on the rights of a minority of citizens, it has happened since the day the Bill of Rights was written. Sometimes it is even a very large minority. Who thinks the colonial and post Revolutionary America was a hotbed of individualism and freedom? For whom? I really suspect that some of you are too naïve to realize that those are just words on paper for millions upon millions of people who have been “trampled” for various reasons throughout our history.
They did not even give us the Constitutional right to vote in this representative republic after all. They had even less confidence in the ability, stability and morality of this nation than I do.
MAJORITY RULES SANDI, EVER HEARD OF THAT..EVEN IN FIXED PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS DEARIE DOO
pammalala exhibits her standard complete lack of civics education. The “majority” most certainly does not rule. Not in this country, anyway.
hey you libs!
not for nuthin’, but the lib newspaper in New York which published the names and addresses of thousands of folks who own guns in New York….ostensibly to do…., just what, exactly? Oh, yeah, it was to passive-aggressively threaten those law-abiding folks into submission and shame.
well, it didn’t work……….just like it FAILED when the Roanoke Time’s good ol’ dan radmacher did the SAME THING back in March, 2007, when he published on the RT’s website the names and addresses of all legally obtained concealed-carry permit holders in Virginia. What a farce!
Ol’ dan radmacher and his legion of poison-pen libs care not one bit about the folks who have ILLEGAL guns, or, conceal-carry guns …ILLEGALLY! Nope, to their way of thinking, “let’s tar and feather the ones who follow the law”. Sheesh.
The greatest danger to our society is the poison-pen in the hands of lawlessness-protecting libs.
Frank,
It was Christian Trejbal that did it, not Dan Radmacher.
Maybe a good discussion could be had over whether the Bill of Rights is truly about “individual citizen” rights or just the rights of “the people”. We have seen historically and still that individuals are “caught”, adjudicated and stripped of virtually every God-given and Constitutional right up to and including losing their life for what we deem as crime and punishment. We write new laws daily it seems. Certainly someone lobbies for one daily.
We also see, in the institutional functions of most systems, from schools, to police, to the courts, to the safety nets, to the retail and industrial world effective controls, restrictions, oppression, tracking and even spying on individuals and “the people”.
Frankly, a Constitutional or God-given right is just not the be all and end all that anyone claims. It wasn’t then and it is not now.
Speaking of the publication of gun owner names or concealed carry permit holders, has anyone ever established what the purpose IS? I know Frank’s brilliant analysis is without doubt correct, but what is their stated “goal”?
Another point of history on the 2nd Amendment – and the importance of the word “militia” in the clause.
The 2nd Amendment reflected some of the FF’s aversion to a “standing army”. They had seen many times in Europe what happens when an army becomes more powerful than a nation’s governing body – whether king, tzar or emperor. As such, the compromise between advocates for a standing army, and those who feared it, was the 2nd Amendment’s “militia” clause – anticipating a challenge to the newly formed republic, citizens could be called up whenever the need arose, and therefore it was common sense to require citizens to be armed, and at the ready, to protect the newly recognized United States of America.
The United States Code (the laws of Congress) states in 10 USC 311(a) that, “The Militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age…”
The US Supreme Court ruled in US v. Miller that when called into action the militia was to show up “bearing arms supplied by themselves…”
Black’s Law Dictionary defines militia as, “The body of citizens in a state” and not the “regular troops of a standing army.” The militia is distinctly different from the National Guard or the US military forces.
James Madison advocated for a “militia” and against a “standing army”:
” In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.”
[my italics for emphasis]
I personally think one must read these documents from an18th century perspective as to the intent, instead of thinking in a 21st century mindset.
Has anyone else noticed how in the news that the ferver over the Conneticut shooting is quickly waining? I know there have been stories about all the funerals, the kids there starting back to school, the debate over what kind of new gun legislation that needs to be passed, etc….but it seems to be nothing being said only three weeks after this massacre about what should be done to help prevent the next one. Not only the absence of a discussion about it, but what’s even worse no immediate action on it. Meanwhile literally hundreds of thousands of school children all across the nation in our schools and universities are literally sitting ducks for the next nut who decides to take out their rage on them.
And the discussion here on this blog reflects that. You all can discuss and argue till you’re all blue in the face about the 2nd amendment, assault weapons, gun registration/confiscation, multiround clips, new legislation and on and on and on….but what about the kids? Seems to me the discussion here on Dan’s humble blog and every where else has lost it’s proper focus. Like the man and his organization or not, La Pierre had it right, the only way to stop the bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. And admit it or not the placement of armed, trained officers in every school in the nation is the only immediate way to take these schools off the list of gun free soft targets that these types of nuts are looking for. IMHO, this needs to be done sooner than later, and then we can get back to the debate of how to repair America’s so called gun culture to acceptable levels. And I for one don’t care how much it costs us as tax payers to do so, what price tag are we willing to put on our children’s next breath? All the crooked, self serving polititians in DC (on both sides of the isle by the way) know how to find millions in funds for their favorite projects and supporters, don’t tell me they can’t find the money to get this done….now. If it’s not, it’s only a matter of time before the good guys with guns are cleaning up the carnage of the next unacceptable massacre of innocent children. As of right now that’s their only job in these scenarios, tape off the crime scene and start collecting evidence.
And the band plays on……….
I might be recalling incorrectly, but I seem to recall that CT said since it was FOIA available, they did it because they wanted to highlight the open-ness of government. It was part of a Trejbal column, but Dan R. made the sign-off on publishing the list.
One of the most bone-headed moves I’ve ever witnessed. I’m just glad I got my CHP after that point.
But as to why the CHP list was chosen as the publication maerial…I don’t think his true intentions will ever be revealed, but it sure can be inferred from his (and the paper’s) legacy of published materials through the years.
I managed to dig up the original column, and CT wrote this gem:
As a Sunshine Week gift, The Roanoke Times has placed the entire database, mistakes and all, online at http://www.roanoke.com/gunpermits. You can search to find out if neighbors, carpool partners, elected officials or anyone else has permission to carry a gun.
So basically, he tipped his hand that his purpose was to allow people to search for gun owners like they would sex offenders.
If you doubt that, there was this other gem:
Local celebrities generally don’t carry, but at least a half dozen elected officials do. I’ll leave it to readers to figure out which ones so you can avoid annoying them at meetings.
One would have to assume that the goal is to ‘out’ gun owners who have a permit…while ignoring the safety implications of pulling such a stunt.
One of the most bone-headed moves I’ve ever witnessed. I’m just glad I got my CHP after that point.
Comment by Other John — January 4, 2013 @ 12:12 pm
I had moved and the data the state police had was my old address. My name was obviously on there, but the address was completely wrong.
hey you libs,
lest you forget, here’s one to remember from June, 2008:
“IF THEY BRING A KNIFE TO THE FIGHT, WE’LL BRING A GUN” – barack obama
Well I think you could certainly argue that his publication of that database did indeed open the argument about what is or should be openly available for public information in a way few other database sharings would have. Living in this area and knowing the gun advocacy, it would not take a lot of thought to provoke them, which is also a sad thought.
How about this one Frank: “If ballots don’t work, bullets will.” At least Obama’s point has a frame of reference for all the Sean Connery fans.
Jack, do you have to notify anyone with the CCP database when you move?
Sandi, if he were simply trying to make that point, his column did that adequately without the database publication. The simple fact that he proved how easy (albeit a little pricey) it was to contact the VSP and obtain a complete listing of every CHP permitee in the state was quite enough to prove the point about how open things were, and to open the debate about perhaps what information should not be made public.
Publishing the database was simply an aggressive move against permit holders, or some weird form of grandstanding by CT and Dan R to show that they could do it to aggravate permit holders, whose politics generally are at odds with those of the editorial staff of the RT.
I am, however, thankful that the RT’s stunt resulted in the swift closure of the database from public access…something that should never have been an accessible public record anyway.
hey sandi,
Are you serious? You dismiss an atrociously aggressive, violently-themed, gun-oriented comment made by barack obama, by comparing it to some hollywood movie?
That is sooo typical-lib, sandi.
Hey J.M., didja notice, no excessive dots!
“If ballots don’t work, bullets will.”
Hmmmm……Obama’s Homeland Defense reserved 1.4 billion rounds of ammunition.
Gun column coming Sunday! First one in awhile!
Hey J.M.: [did you] notice[?] [N]o excessive dots!
Comment by Frank — January 4, 2013 @ 1:32 pm
So close.
J.M.,
hey, you noticed! thanks!
i gotta learn to do the little things first…(oops), kinda like learning to block and tackle before learning to kick a touchdown, ya know?
can’t wait for Sunday’s gun column, dan.
Hunterdad, if you’re waiting for the nation to take direction from arms industry whore LaPierre, you’re in for a long wait.
If the point of owning a weapon is to scare off potential threats, how does advertising the fact that you’re armed do anything to interfere with that? Wouldn’t knowing the location of people with gun permits make criminals LESS inclined towards home invasion, or whatever the heck else is the fear?
Frank, seriously, is “did you” so much more burdensome than “didja”? At your age, what the heck else do you have to do than type one more character.
Actual conversation I had:
Him:”You don’t need a 30 round magazine to hunt. They should be banned completely”.
Me:”Even from the police?”
Him:”No, they need to have them ”
Me:”To hunt?”
Him:”No, to protect us and themselves from criminals”
Me: “Criminals with 30 round magazines?”
Him: “Perhaps”
Me: “Don’t we need to protect ourselves from those same criminals?”
Him: Yeah but you don’t need an assault weapon to do it”
Me: “Then why do the police need one?”.
Why YOU should oppose Gun Control! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhG8PjgvgFY
Frank, I “dismiss an atrociously aggressive, violently-themed, gun-oriented comment” about as often as you do. It WAS a reference to a movie many of us are well aware of. His being a Chicago Senator, it was as appropo as any comment and only people like you saw it as “an atrociously aggressive, violently-themed, gun-oriented comment”. Much like the right saw little wrong with the gun imagery comments from their own after the Tuscon shootings. It does have a lot to do with trusting you know the motivation of the speaker. Like John Wilburn advising someone to “go jump off a bridge”. Rhetorical happens.
Jack, do you have to notify anyone with the CCP database when you move?
Comment by Sandi Saunders — January 4, 2013 @ 1:22 pm
You do not. However, you cannot use it as a form of ID for the purposes of purchasing a gun if the address is no longer correct. You may, if you choose, go to the clerk of the court at your new Virginia address and for a small fee they will issue you a new one with the new address after you have provided them proof of your new address.
I am, however, thankful that the RT’s stunt resulted in the swift closure of the database from public access…something that should never have been an accessible public record anyway.
Comment by Other John — January 4, 2013 @ 1:31 pm
They are still public records. You can look them up online, but it doesn’t show you all of the information. However, if you go to the court, you can see the original applications. I just don’t think you can request them in bulk any more… it’s a little more work now.
I was just reading about that DHS contract. My understanding of it is that it’s a 5-year contract, with a maximum potential for 450 million rounds. DHS has 135,000 officials with sidearms, so that equates to about 650 rounds per person, per year.
In a typical range day for me, I’ll go through 100 rounds of 9mm, and 250 rounds of 22LR. I make it to the range 3-4 times a year, usually.
If those officers spend time at a range on a regular basis, suddenly, the order doesn’t seem so nefarious.
Wouldn’t knowing the location of people with gun permits make criminals LESS inclined towards home invasion, or whatever the heck else is the fear?
Comment by Kristen — January 4, 2013 @ 3:02 pm
That is actually a very good question, especially if you haven’t put much thought into it before. However, many people who have concealed handgun permits have been victims of domestic violence in the past, etc and actually prefer not to have their locations broadcast how to those who may wish to do them harm and they are attempting to flee from.
Henry,
That’s a pretty funny conversation, of course, but you lost me at:
Him:”No, to protect us and themselves from criminals”
The police actually have no duty to protect us from criminals. See DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services and Warren v. District of Columbia.
Has anyone actually bothered to research the origins of the 2nd Amendment?
Here’s George Mason’s 13th article of the VA Declaration of Rights (which led directly to the Bill of Rights):
“That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power.”
This was preceded by Mason’s Fairfax County Militia Plan:
“A well-regulated militia, composed of the Gentlemen, Freeholders, and other Freemen was necessary to protect our ancient laws and liberty from the standing army…and we do each of us, for ourselves respectively, promise and engage to keep a good Fire-lock in proper Order & to furnish Ourselves as soon as possible with, & always keep by us, one Pound of Gunpowder four Pounds of Lead, one Dozen Gun Flints, and a pair of Bullet Moulds, with a Cartouch box, or powder horn, and Bag for Balls.”
I’ve been hunting for over 30 years, but I left the NRA long ago…they weren’t looking out for anything but their own personal interests (and bank accounts).
Kristen, re: 3:02:
This is an interesting take from a former criminal. Basically he states (and logic dictates) that a criminal not looking for armed confrontation will avoid the house with a gun and rob the neighbor; and the more violent and aggressive (might I add stupid) criminal will use this as a list of places to go in an attempt to steal weapons.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/04/ex-burglars-say-newspapers-gun-map-wouldve-made-job-easier-safer/?intcmp=trending
Most gun pols I have met are simply interested in banning guns for everyone else. The people with the guns and gold make the rules.
Mutually assured victimhood ensures a docile populace that is dependent on the people in control, whether they be politicians or criminals.
Frank,
For you to quote anything from the president, that degrades his angelic persona is racist and makes you an obama hater. (just trying to save sandi some typing).
For those of you who might be interested in some new guns. I’m sure these will be available online soon.
http://wtkr.com/2013/01/03/nearly-10000-worth-of-weapons-stolen-from-virginia-beach-home/
mike o at 4:31: So it sounds like you’re making the case for having gun owner information public, is that correct?
Kristen, (#83) sadly, you are 100% correct in that long wait. And sadder yet, it’s the best idea that I’ve personally heard so far, here or anywhere else. It’s just where we are as a nation right now, and I fear that more of that same horror is to come. I know it would be complicated, costly and with unforeseen pitfalls but has anyone got a better solution as far as our school children are concerned? Im all ears.
Ron, re: 5:16
A bit scary, if a criminal broke into my gun safe they would probably get more than that in actual value as I have some “historic guns” as well as more modern.
Sadly, these are people that are “breaking the law” as opposed to those who abide by the law.
I’m well aware of that mikeo.
My brother has a gun safe in his house with all the “historic” guns that have survived and been passed down in our family. Included are several long barrel single and double barrel shotguns dating to the 1880s. Also included are my grandad’s service revolver from WWI and my dad’s service revolver from WWII.
Jack, I did think about it. And if I’m an abusive husband or stalker, finding out that my target has a weapon handy isn’t going to make me more likely to show up at the door.
Yeah, I am going to trust armed folks in schools: NOT!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QjZY3WiO9s
Here is “Part Two”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLN6_s66wTg
Sorry, I am just not buying that a “good guy with a gun” is going to stop “a bad guy with a gun” as often as some people think.
http://www.vpc.org/studies/unincont.htm
hey sandi at 3:22 p.m. today,
Thanks for bringing up the fact that obama was in the Ill. Senate a little while ago….during a time when the tragic killings were atrociously bad. Of course, since he left his time in the state senate behind, what was his legacy concerning any effort to curb the wanton klillings of the brothers and sisters of chi-town? Eh? What bill did he propse to ward off the violence? What bill did he actually vote for which led to a reduction in the wanton killings? Why, with his fundamental beliefs rooted in community organizing, did he fail to do anything about the killings?
And, let’s review what’s happened regarding Chicago-land’s killings since he left his fair city, and took his community-organizing talents to Washington, DC. I’ll save you, and steve c, from having to do any, ahh, research, ’cause the killings have grown unabated. All while obama has done nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
Now, maybe he’ll follow the lead of his henchman, Rahm, who has managed to plead with Chicago-land gangsta’s to “just shoot each other”, and leave the others alone….or, something like that.
“Ex-Burglars Say Newspaper’s Gun Map Would’ve Made the Job Easier, Safer”
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/04/ex-burglars-say-newspapers-gun-map-wouldve-made-job-easier-safer/#ixzz2H3ygUUJs
Sandi Saunders:
“Frankly, a Constitutional or God-given right is just not the be all and end all that anyone claims.”
So what trumps a right bestowed by God in Sandi’s book?
“Speaking of the publication of gun owner names or concealed carry permit holders, has anyone ever established what the purpose IS? I know Frank’s brilliant analysis is without doubt correct, but what is their stated “goal”?
To spit on gun owners.
Other John:
“I am, however, thankful that the RT’s stunt resulted in the swift closure of the database from public access…something that should never have been an accessible public record anyway.”
Not really. The info is still public record. Driver’s licenses aren’t public record. Why are CHPs?
Frank:
“kinda like learning to block and tackle before learning to kick a touchdown, ya know?”
Kicking touchdowns would be the most marketable skill EVER!
Sandi Saunders:
“It does have a lot to do with trusting you know the motivation of the speaker. Like John Wilburn advising someone to “go jump off a bridge”. Rhetorical happens.”
Like when that anonymous blog entity’s motivation is to malign me with 2/3 of it’s posts. Sure, why not?
Hey, Frank, do you EVER bother checking facts before you post?
Henry, you have proven over and over that facts, reality and truth have no bearing on your opinion so why would your opinion on what gun control advocates want be any different? There is no legitimate, substantial or real effort to “ban” all guns or self defense with guns. You know this, like you know a simple majority is not “control” of Congress but you cannot admit it.
hey sandi,
your comment concerning John Wilburn and some person jumping off a bridge being a rhetorical truism is pretty lame, even for a lib. If a conservative had posted what you did, I’d bet it never would have seen the light of day on this blog.
and John, yeah, rhetorically speaking, kicking touchdowns would be a good thing!
sooo, gdad, what DID obama do for gun control in Chicago, when he was community-organizing and voting “present”. I say he did, well, ahhh, nothin’. And, the slaughter continued un-abated while he was there, elected to represent Chicagoans in the state senate…and it rolls on, even after his side-kick became mayor, even after his buddy Daly did nothing for like, decades.
Frank, I have some compassion for those incapable of complex thought, but President Obama is not some all powerful god. Try to accept it.
Seriously frank, just shut up.
John Wilburn, if you didn’t understand my post #63 @ 11:30 am, you should have just asked for clarification. You demean your own intelligence by claiming it has anything to do with “what trumps a right bestowed by God in Sandi’s book“. I was not speaking for myself or from my own POV so much as from the often bitter reality of what was and still is.
Since you apparently want to know, I personally do not believe that God or the Constitution, not even the Bill of Rights is overtly about an individual person’s rights over that of society. Over and over and over again in the Bible we are admonished to subjugate ourselves, sacrifice, even suffer for others. Certainly from the very beginnings of this nation, even before the Revolution, individuals were just so much chattel in any kind of discussion of “rights” (if such much existed). As I have mentioned, the founders did not even trust us to democratically elect our Senators and President. Much of their efforts were aimed at taming our individualism and personal pursuits in the name of bettering and strengthening the nation as a whole.
I get it that you do not like that truth, especially coming from me, but it remains the reality of then and the reality of now. I did not make it up just to annoy you.
http://www.amazon.com/A-Renegade-History-United-States/dp/B004VD3YZA
Frankly Frank, I do not understand what it is you object to in what I said, but then, I do not understand what it is you are saying more than half the time. Your hatred for President Obama, I get that in triplicate, but beyond that you appear to be a one trick pony on any topic. What is it that should not have been allowed in Frank’s mind? Do tell.
“sooo, gdad, what DID obama do for gun control in Chicago,”
Hey, Frank, I don’t know and I don’t care. Why ask me?
gee, Kristen,
you sound alot like my dumb older sister. seriously! sheesh.
Warren, re: 5:30
Only if the goal is to give hardened criminals a list of places to find weapons, and the less aggressive a list of places where they would not be confronted with a gun.
That poor, poor woman!
Dear lord. Your sistsef is the dumb one?
Sister. No idea what that was.
“gee, Kristen,
you sound alot like my dumb older sister. seriously! sheesh.”
Hey, Frank, when you attempt to insult somebody’s intelligence, you should use real words (as well as caps and punctuation). “Alot” is NOT a word any more than “aton” or “awholelot” is a word.
And insulting your sister, even though we have no idea who she is, on the blog as part of an attack on another blog poster is just beyond tacky and imbecilic.
Sandi, just got around to reading the content from your January 4 links at 7:29 p.m. and 8:12 p.m. The real and potential consequences of arming citizens in or out of the school setting are sobering. I have been through simunition training like that portrayed in the news report, and it is indeed eyeopening. Great posts!
Jason, that Violence Policy Center (gun control advocacy group) video is not realistic for several reasons. I have a nice write-up responding to that somewhere that I’ll share if I want to dig for it, but none of them were experienced CARRIERS. Shooting experience and carry experience are two different things. Also, people who carry everyday don’t wear robe-length shirts with their carry rigs, ever as that interferes with the draw and don’t just stick someone else’s holster on, either. Holsters are like shoes, man. Individually sized for the gun and located and styled for the wearer. Also, the chaos created would not necessarily simulate real life, IMO. The environment was too on-cue for everybody but the carrier. I believe the results that the simulation wanted we’re planned for and obtained.
JW, I used to be involved with defensive tactics training, both scenario and simunition exercises, so I do have a frame of reference here. I thought the staged scenario was as realistic and reasonable as you can make such a training exercise. The conclusion I gleaned both from the video and the article was that the everyday citizen carrying a handgun is decidedly untrained for what they are likely to face in a real situation. Some will be successful, most will not. Collateral damage is a very real, very tragic consequence in self-defense situations.
I do agree with you, sort of, on one point. Using a long shirt as concealment is impractical, but I’ve seen expereinced carriers do it. A blazer or loose jacket with something weighty in the pocket over my holster was my preference.
JohnW, has any group anywhere ever made any argument for expanded gun control that was “realistic” or didn’t “miss the mark” in your opinion? Even one?
Jason Perdue:
“I thought the staged scenario was as realistic and reasonable as you can make such a training exercise.”
Except in real life, the shooter and the room full of victims aren’t in on it together, like they were here. Of course, the shooter knew the student was carrying and that made the student an instant target. Training where the neither the shooter, nor the students, know what the setup is, is better.
“The conclusion I gleaned both from the video and the article was that the everyday citizen carrying a handgun is decidedly untrained for what they are likely to face in a real situation.”
That was exactly the conclusion they wanted you come to. Mission accomplished. Also remember that the average carrying experience of the “everyday citizen” is exponentially more than the few hours expereince these people had.
So why did you carry?
Kristen:
“JohnW, has any group anywhere ever made any argument for expanded gun control that was “realistic” or didn’t “miss the mark” in your opinion? Even one?”
I’ve seen good cases made for why people should seek training. I’ve seen good cases for why people should invest in a gun safe. I have not seen a good case for expanded gun control.
So in what area do you think gun rights should be restored?
There were no problems from airport terminal carry, but it was taken away. Do you support restoring that?
There are no problems from the machine guns already registered, but we aren’t allowed to own one made after May 18th 1986. Do you support this silly measure?
Do you support Washington DC’s incarceration of the person who had a couple rounds of unregistered ammo in his backpack?
Why aren’t you demanding that David Gregory of NBC be arrested for knowingly and willfully violating DC’s ban and having a standard AR-15 magazine on Meet the Press? NOTE: NONE of you answered this when I asked it earlier. I asked you, Sandi, Warren, Shrillary, and Dan. And unless I missed it somewhere, not one you wanted to touch it!
A person can carry within 1,000 feet of a K-12 school in a state which issued him/her a CHP, but cannot carry within 1,000 feet of a K-12 in another state. If the school itself is on 40 acres, that could be 219 acres in which someone could become a felon inadvertently, merely by carrying across a corner somewhere. Would you support geting rid of this nonsense?
Please tell me where there are needless restrictions on guns, Kristen.
Training isn’t gun control, and a gun safe is no more “gun control” any more than putting a car in the garage implies careful driving. So no,you see no role for gun control measures, ever. Which is fine, but why bother with the long arcane explanations? You will never agree with any gun control measures, ever, for any reason. It’s much simpler.
I see nothing in need of restoration, in fact I have no idea what you’re taking about. As for poor gun owners having to join the rest of the population in following the local laws…..waaahhh. Cry me a river.
JW: My understanding is that David Gregory, after intitially seeking and being denied by the DCPD, had the ATF give approval, and with D.C.’s federal status, jursidictional authority to approve his display of the empty magazine was unclear. Given that the highly public display of the empty magazine could not facilitate violence, what is clear is that it’s only a transgression on the scale of hiding a loaded weapon in the minds of massacre control opponents.
I carried during a former career. The minute I retired, I turned in the firearm and declined the opportunity to get a concealed carry permit. Despite all the professional training, carrying never made me feel safer. I made a rational decision not to carry past the end of my career based on my professional expereinces and my personal beliefs.
I very sincerely believe that introducing guns into the school setting is a recipe for disaster for precisely the reasons illustrated in the video posted by Sandi. Proficiency with a handgun takes hours and hours of training. Introduce factors such as distance (past about 15 yards, handguns can be very inaccurate), complicated by a moving target that may be shooting back, complicated by the presence of bystanders, complicated by your own body’s adrenaline rush, all combine to produce a recipe for disaster. That is how I view it.
I understand that you see things differently, as do other bloggers here who favor gun rights. Ultimately, you have to make the call about gun ownership and concealed carry. I presume you have considered the pros and cons, and you are fully willing to accept any and all responsibility for actions you undertake with you firearm. I did the same analysis. I hope that we both made good decisions.
yes, Kristen, my older sister’s 2 younger brothers still take it easy on her during family gatherings. we set things up so she “thinks” she wins the discussions…and being a lib, she happily and cluelessly goes right along thinking we admire her, ah, “smartness”. haha!
hey sandi. we keep her, ah, “happy”.
Warren:
“My understanding is that David Gregory, after intitially seeking and being denied by the DCPD, had the ATF give approval, and with D.C.’s federal status, jursidictional authority to approve his display of the empty magazine was unclear.”
Then, shouldn’t he be arrested and either sitting in jail or free on bond while that is sorted out? That’s what common people would experience.
“Given that the highly public display of the empty magazine could not facilitate violence….”
And a few “unregistered” rounds of ammo in a backpack could not facilitate violence either.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/1/two-systems-of-justice/
Was Mr. Meckler treated fairly?
Kristen? Anyone?
To add to John Wilburn’s 7:30 pm comment:
“Except in real life, the shooter and the room full of victims aren’t in on it together, like they were here. Of course, the shooter knew the student was carrying and that made the student an instant target. Training where the neither the shooter, nor the students, know what the setup is, is better.
SNIP
That was exactly the conclusion they wanted you come to. Mission accomplished. Also remember that the average carrying experience of the “everyday citizen” is exponentially more than the few hours expereince these people had.
——————
The “shooter” was a highly trained force-on-force, active-shooter SWAT trainer. Average Joe v. a SWAT force trainer — the Joe will lose most of the time.
The “Joes” and “Jills” were set one at a time front-and-center in the same seat so that the highly skilled SWAT force trainer knew that he only had one target to take out and exactly where that one target was planted for him.
The “Joes” and “Jills” were incumbered with a long, clingy, relatively tight, knit shirts — to inhibit (discourage from free or spontaneous) drawing. I know a large number of discreet carriers. I have been in the presence of hundreds of discreet carriers. I cannot remember ever seeing any thing like that. It runs against all common sense and training.
The “Joes” and “Jills” were also incumbered with retention holsters. Very few discreet carriers use them and those that do practice regularly to develop and maintain “muscle memory.”
JW is right. You came to exactly the conclusion they programed you come to.
If it weren’t rigged, they would have had one of the other “Joes” and “Jills” play the role of the “shooter”, so as to be more in line with real life examples of what was alleged being replicated — IMHO.
Re: Warren @ 8:44 pm
Source citation for your “understanding” re: ATF giving approval, please.
Dave Hicks, my understanding came from multiple sources in the fact based media. Here’s's one succinct one:
http://www.tmz.com/2012/12/26/meet-the-press-david-gregory-dc-police-atf-gun-magazine/
Note that it says he may have gotten two answers, thus I noted that given D.C. ‘s federal status, jurisdictional authority in this instance was unclear. So my conclusion stands:
Given that the highly public display of the empty magazine could not facilitate violence, what is clear is that it’s only a transgression on the scale of hiding a loaded weapon in the minds of massacre control opponents.
a story on
John Wilburn, you poor put upon man! I truly do not know how anyone so burdened manages to live and work. My sincere sympathy.
When highly trained, even former military trained police officers stop getting killed while carrying, I will consider your opinion on citizen carry John Wilburn and Dave Hicks. Until then, I think the experiments and what I hear from others less staunchly pro gun carry on the subject are very worthy of consideration.
Sandi, life’s tough when you need to carry multiple firearms all the time.
John Wilburn, please tell me you did not just complain about restrictions on “machine guns” in a discussion about banning military styled semi-automatic weapons?
JW is right. You came to exactly the conclusion they programed you come to.
Comment by Dave Hicks — January 6, 2013 @ 9:59 pm
Interesting choice of terms, Dave Hicks, stating that I was programed. Was there no room here for my own rational interpretation of what I saw? What I saw, DH, matched my experience. Experience I gained over 26 years or so. Your conclusions about what you observed are yours, and I won’t demean your observations by trying to tell you what “really” happened in the scenario.
Look, Dave, I am by no means an expert in this realm, and you and JW have invested way more study into firearms than I ever will. But, I do have a measure of experience, over a fair bit of time, that informs the opinions I have. To suggest that I was programed by this one video reveals a condescension common among the gun rights advocates on this blog. So be it. I have a position on the issue, and I have so stated. Consider its merits and learn from it or dismiss it as poor programing.
Sandi, please tell why the last machine gun made at quittin’ time on May 18th 1986 is perfectly legal to own, but the next identical one on the assembly line made first thing in the morning on May 19th 1986 is not.
It’s stupid and arbitrary.
Sandi Saunders:
“When highly trained, even former military trained police officers stop getting killed while carrying, I will consider your opinion on citizen carry John Wilburn and Dave Hicks.”
When people stop getting killed in “gun free zones”, I will consider your opinion that supports their existence.
“yes, Kristen, my older sister’s 2 younger brothers still take it easy on her during family gatherings. we set things up so she “thinks” she wins the discussions…and being a lib, she happily and cluelessly goes right along thinking we admire her, ah, “smartness”. haha!”
–Comment by Frank
Translation: “Her command of the facts is better than ours, so we can’t argue with her on that basis. So we just roll our eyes, give each other the secret Rush-and-Glenn wink, and quit arguing because we’re losing so badly.”
Jason Perdue:
“Introduce factors such as distance (past about 15 yards, handguns can be very inaccurate), complicated by a moving target that may be shooting back, complicated by the presence of bystanders, complicated by your own body’s adrenaline rush, all combine to produce a recipe for disaster. That is how I view it.”
33 dead in Norris Hall, hundreds dead on 9-11, and 27 dead at Sandy Hook ARE the worst possible outcome. Even in the scenario you present, no amount of missing one’s target could have possibly resulted in any more death and carnage. That is how I view it.
Duh… I was thinking about the 300+ firemen who died in the twin towers. Yes, there were thousands who died overall.
Terrorists with box cutters don’t hijack armed pilots.
Frank, I know you think your little story is humorous, but most people find it disrespectful. I have a conservative uncle who has never met an anti-liberal, anti-Obama email that he doesn’t believe. I discovered last year that even other conservative members of the family disregard the silliness he sends, yet none of us disrespect him at family gatherings.
Yes Frank, we’ve been treated to your subtle wit plenty on this blog. How fortunate for your sister that you “take it easy on her”.
Frank’s family also uses made-up words like “alot” around his sister, and when they write to her they don’t use caps or proper punctuation. It gives them a false sense of superiority.
Can you imagine how miserable it would be to have a brother like Frank?
And then, Dan, Frank’s sister goes home and has a great laugh rerunning memories of her family’s antediluvian antics.