Help Casey get on the NRA’s ‘Enemies List’ today!
Friday night I was browsing online when I came across this story about the National Rifle Association’s enemies list, which led me to the actual list.
Which, to my utter chagrin and distress, I am not on.
True, I’m not anti-gun, or even anti-Second Amendment. Anti-online concealed carry course? Check. Anti-concealed carry in bars? Check. I don’t own a gun, and I admit that, and I don’t derive enormous amounts of satisfaction from shooting them.
All of those traits are viewed by certain suspicious gunners as fundamental character flaws. They’re reason enough for legions to label me “anti-gun,” under the elegant analysis that I don’t agree with them 100 percent of the time.
Also, I favor universal background checks for gun buyers. Oddly, the NRA agreed with me on this, until President Obama tried to agree with them. Suddenly, they realized they were 100 percent opposed to expanded checks.
(This raises the tantalizing prospect that Obama could super-duper outfox them by proposing a complete lifting of all gun control, which would immediately force the NRA to insist on gun control for everybody, everywhere, all the time, and further expose their utter hypocrisy — but I digress).
I am most definitely anti-NRA.
If somebody forced me to opine on the lobbying organization in Washington that most resembles Satan, without question it would be the National Rifle Association. Its efforts have probably destroyed more lives than the North American Man-Boy Love Association’s. The tobacco lobby is evil, too. But at least most of its victims choose to put themselves at risk. Who chooses to get gunned down?
Besides that, the NRA cons members into joining for a fee, then spends that revenue ensuring gun manufacturers can keep selling NRA members their products. What other lobby works that way? People who like to dine out don’t join the National Restaurant Association. It smacks of a scam.
In addition to some links above, my anti-NRA credentials include.
- A January column sarcastically suggesting Patrick Henry High School be renamed after NRA CEO Wayne Lapierre.
- Lambasting NRA Board member Ted Nugent as “full-bore gun crazy.”
- Blasting the organization in a February 2012 post, The demenita and depravity of the National Rifle Association.
- Noting their hypocrisy in September 2010: The NRA turns state’s rights on its head?
- A May 2010 post titled The NRA backs terrorists’ gun rights (no kidding).
- Ridiculing them with a hilarious October 2009 post, Fearmongering, NRA-style.
And that’s just a sample. There’s plenty more stuff out there to prove Dan Casey is anti-NRA.
Alas, the NRA is not anti-Dan Casey. Not yet, anyway. They’ve got 37 journalists, mostly columnists and cartoonists, on their enemies list. But not me. And that’s what I need your help with.
I want you to nominate me to their enemies list. Here’s how you can do that: Click here. It takes you to the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action “contact us” page.
Follow the instructions on the form. Fill in your name, address, and so on.
For the subject line, I suggest you put simply: “I nominate Dan Casey to your enemies list” or “Stick this idiot columnist on your enemies list” or something like that.
There’s also a message window that (conveniently) seems to have no limit on the number of characters you can load into it. Please take full advantage of that. This is where you can get VERY creative, which I urge you to do.
On the odd chance that you’re tuckered out after a long day at the range, or from shooting rabbits and squirrels for sh*ts and giggles like lifetime NRA member Mitt Romney likes to do, you can simply cut and paste this entire post into that message window.
Please feel free to share via Facebook or Twitter or email the link to your pals, especially if they love guns, because that means chances are better they hate me.
I’m counting on you to help me get on the NRA’s enemies list.
Act today!
February 2, 2013 - 6:00 AM
You have the nerve to compare us Freedom Loving Americans that are with the NRA to the North American Man Boy Love Association? That tells me ALL I need to know about you.
I understand your journalism …..it stirs emotions and controversy. I for one, disagree with your “spewage” you write as if you are correct, but those that disagree with you are wrong and perhaps ignorant, you don’t even want debate.
I will not bite on your baited opinions as facts, but only as your personal points of view. Clearly, you are liberal, a Democrat and believe in yourself without ability to consider another point or perspective.
It is a sad position you put yourself in when only maybe half the readers agree with your hard stances, but that gets Presidents elected too. Best wishes with your closed mind. Eventually you may convince some, but they were probably sheep to begin with.
Dan, while it would be a great honor to get on the NRA’s enemy list, I would have to give them my contact information. I don’t want those bastards hounding me again. I used to be a member and dropped it when they became bat$h!t crazy. They still occasionally call the land line. Last time they called my wife answered and told them we divorced and she didn’t know where my sorry @$$ was living and to quit calling.
I’ll work to get you on the list if you will agree that if you get on the list you will put one of these signs in your front yard:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt1Zy_ASNyA
And by the way, I don’t *hate* you, I simply disagree with your stance on guns.
Just a hunch, but i think nobody joins the National Restaurant Association because nobody’s lobbying to significantly restrict our right to eat out.
No you’re going to go anti-hunting on us. Doesn’t matter if you are rich or poor, hunting is a national past time. If something happens to disrupt current order in this world (war, disaster, food shortage), you’ll want to find someone like Romney or many of the people around this area who have had the skills of hunting passed on to them and beg them to help you survive. The National Restaurant Association is not going to help you much in that situation either.
Yeah, I don’t want them calling me either Bill. But I gotta admit Dan, this bit is hilarious!
Rob, I’ve already tried to explain to you that most of us don’t junk up our yards with signs. Besides, Dan has already told the whole world he doesn’t have guns in his house. Why would he need a sign?
Good stuff Dan.
Eddie, do you use an assault rifle to hunt animals? Just asking.
#8…Once again, Gdad proves a point..`Dan has already told the whole world` ???? This site is the whole world ? Yours, no doubt. The `Dwellers of the Bubble`.
Gdad/May/left…would you put up a `This house is Gun-free` sign in your yard ? I think a new publication for convenience stores is in order….A compilation of photos of each anti-gun individual with their address posted.I mean heck, why make the criminals waste thier gas driving around looking for these signs ?
“Eddie, do you use an assault rifle to hunt animals? Just asking.”
Is that why the police need to have them? Are they huntin’ deer or something?
I love these “former NRA members” who claim the NRA went over the edge? Oh really? When was that? When did they radically change? 1976? I only remember them become a tad too liberal for a while and they lost a ton of members because of it. Hopefully they learned their lesson.
Hi Rob at 8:55 a.m.,
That’s a great link! I especially like the ones where the anit-gunners shy away from those signs because, …..”they don’t want to advertise”… that their home is …unprotected!
Those folks live at the summit of hypocrissy!
Eddie, do you use an assault rifle to hunt animals? Just asking.
Comment by ron may — February 2, 2013 @ 10:06 am
I do.
This – http://bit.ly/TqvWMO – has been one of the most successful (and one of the most accurate) deer rifles I’ve ever owned. It has put no less than a dozen deer in my freezer.
However, I do not blast rabbits and squirrels with it. .308 caliber is entirely too large and too dangerous (the bullet could continue FAR downrange) for hunting game such as that. I don’t eat squirrels because they’re just fuzzy tailed rats and I don’t eat rabbits because their populations are just now recovering from nearly being wiped out in my area by disease and coyotes.
I, unlike Eddie, realize that there’s still a “gatherer” part left on hunter-gatherer. Then again, I also realize that the cows that provide your grocery store beef are either electrocuted to death or bashed with a sledgehammer between the eyes before they’re worked up and packaged all pretty and neat for everyone.
——————
Dan: I’d like to help you out but I refuse to have anything to do with that organization any longer and I damned sure aren’t giving them any kind of contact information for me. I wish you luck, though.
gdad – I simply stated the conditions under which I would help him get on the NRA enemies list. If he doesn’t want to junk up his yard, fine. He’s not compelled to take my offer.
Eddie, do you use an assault rifle to hunt animals? Just asking.
Comment by ron may — February 2, 2013 @ 10:06 am
I doubt you can get a good clean animal with a fully automatic machine gun. Just saying.
It’s always interesting to see which threads attract people who’ve rarely or never posted before, like posts #1 & 2. Since this was not a column but only appeared here, it shows that they’ve either been lurkers or that this thread prompted some alarmed notifications among a segment of non-blog readers to come in and post. (e.g. in the case of radical gun fetishist Phil Van Cleave, whose posting only seems to occur when there’s something he’s apparently been alerted to).
I also love how the “Freedom Loving Americans that are with the NRA” (#1) all seem to label those with differing views as liberals and Democrats, which they obviously think is a damning epithet. The identity politics that has so closely bound the LaPierre NRA to the GOTP is becoming a set of concrete shoes for the exploiters of “conservative” identity, even though they seem not to realize it yet. Before you know it, it’ll be common to see the radical corners of “conservatism” all bound together at figurative gunpoint, yelling “Who would Jesus shoot to prevent tyannical government from increasing taxes on bullets to fund secular education?”
The stuff that could get you on this list could also turn you into a stay-at-home dad. This isn’t a good area to be a rabid anti-gun columnist. Too many of your predecessors know that now.
Plus you are more of a Party man than a liberal and even the Democrats are wary of this topic.
I’m on it! They just lumped all us folks with disabilities under our National Organization. Guess all those pesky people paralyzed by gun violence get under their skin.
“A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don’t have one, and you’ll probably never need one again.”
Poor little Danny…has no one been paying attention to a back-bench columnist trying desperately to be noticed lately?
Glad to oblige.
Dan, thanks for standing up and saying what so many people are thinking right now. Unfortunately, the press gives too much credence to the NRA, and their ridiculous lobbying efforts and lack of concern about gun violence. You’ve earned a lot of respect from me today. Especially because the Roanoke Times readership certainly isnt devoid of anti- gun control lunatics.
Thank you for this blog and the links to help us get you added. Here is the text of the message I sent on your behalf:
Today’s Roanoke Times (your CEO’s hometown) has a blog by Dan Casey that addresses your enemy list and the fact that Mr. Casey is not on it. He makes a compelling argument to be added (especially since you have other journalists and cartoonists on it). Even though I have never considered joining nor do I support or endorse the NRA, I respectfully request that you update your list and ensure that it fully represent all those anti-NRA journalists, bloggers, and social networkers that oppose your organization and it’s gun culture agenda.
In that vein, please also add me to the list. I’ll do my best to live up to the standards that others on the list have set. Even though it is a required field to contact you, please do not infer that you have my permission to contact me on anything except this request.
Thank you!
Nothing gets your post count up like a good old fashioned anti-gun thread. I doubt the NRA would consider you and your merry band of liberal bloggers relevant enough to make their enemy list…but at least you have aspirations.
Hi, Mr. Casey. With all due respect, your full bore craziness is showing here. Your “super duper” liberal ballon is somewhat over inflated with this story. I do appreciate it though. As some others implied, you have no common decency or respect for law abiding Americans simply because you do not agree with their Constitutional rights. I don’t own a gun either but I support both the 1st and 2nd Amendments thus you do have the right to spew your opinions just as others have a right to their guns. I think you may have an over inflated ego also if you consider yourself a journalist of enough importance to make anyone’s enemies list. That’s just too funny.
They do have that persecuted mindset. Never mind the carnage that has to pay for their rights, their rights are truly all that matter to them. Having the sad distinction of being a “guest” on a gun advocate website, it is an eerie honor being hated and ridiculed by people you did not choose to converse with.
Write enough about their dirty deeds and manipulation and you will make the list.
J.M. White, what makes that gun an assault rifle? Does it have a collapsible stock and do you look as comical as I picture it with that hand grip up to your face as you sight?
Having been around hunters and gun collectors all my life, I have seen some magnificent guns and I personally think that dumb ass hand grip is among the ugliest inventions ever added to a “hunting” rifle. It has military applications that fit perfectly with not needing to “aim” and to fire freely. But I find it ridiculous for what I have always considered hunting.
BTW, I am with you, when you blow to pieces whatever you are “hunting”, you are not a hunter, you are an indiscriminate killer of animals, not a hunter.
Send Dan the sign Rob, he will send it to me and I will put it in my yard.
BTW Rob, what is it you “advertise” in your yard? You all want everyone who disagrees with you to advertise their convictions. Do you?
Dan, though I seldom ever agree with you on anything I’ve often appreciated your sense of humor in your columns and this is one of them. Thanks for the morning laugh! “Shooting rabbits and squirrels for sh%ts and giggles”…….that’s a gem!
And at this rate, I think you’ll get there soon enough without enlisting the help of all your bloggers. The comparison to NAMBLA should be worth a couple more steps toward yor goal of making their enemy list!
On that note however….although I’m not a NRA member and don’t otherwise support them, I sincerely hope that the NRA will always have more political clout in DC than that freak show. Please tell me NAMBLA doesn’t REALLY have a lobby organization in Washington and that was just a part of your attempt at humor .
Sandi,
A collapsible stock does not an assault rifle make. You’re smarter than that.
Just out of curiosity, if I removed the stock completely from my AK-47, would that make it somehow less dangerous now that it has neither a folding or collapsible stock?
I would think Rob probably puts up signs that say “I have guns in my house.” If not, I wonder why he doesn’t.
Applewood, stop being dopey and talking out of the wrong orifice; you obviously have no idea what your blabbering on about. My house has been broken into twice and each time I wasn’t in it. What do you think they were searching for when they ransacked my nightstand, sock and underwear drawers, closet, attic, medicine cabinet, freezer and flipped my bed over for, a butterfly collection? I got well over $2000 in easily fenceable high end electronics right in my living room and over $10,000 in high end bikes in my house that’s never been molested. I guarantee you that if I had a sign saying there were no guns in the house it would be is the single greatest theft deterrent in the country with the possible exception of a Rottweiler barking into a megaphone turned up to 10.
Now stop playing on the internets and saying dopey stuff before I really give you something to whine about!
J.M. White, what makes that gun an assault rifle?
Mine’s semi-automatic, has a 30-round clip (though I never deer hunt with more than three) and I still have the collapsible stock for it, though I use a full one. As far as the pistol grip, Olympic shooters use pistol grip stocks. The unnatural wrist position classical stocks have can throw your aim off. The pistol grip also makes it easier to acquire your target.
I love my HK when hunting. The tactical sling I use allows me to carry with the barrel always pointed at the ground, too, which is safer than most shoulder slings.
Dan, I apologize, I though you were the biggest idiot in Virginia, but I see now that Sandi has inherited the crown (don’t worry, I’m sure you’ll write something soon that will reclaim the title). I assume you both can read, why don’t you read about the NRA, how and when it was formed, and why, and what it has done for American law enforcement and safety. I’m not a member but I do contribute to them, so they can continue to lobby congress in favor of the constitution. Remember, there are only about 80 million law-abiding, legal gun owners in the US and the number is growing every day. Probably the reason the NRA isn’t paying attention to you is you are too insignificant to bother with. Is that what bothers you?
Holy crap. The ignorance on display here is staggering. Sandi, do you really think soldiers don’t need to aim and just blaze away with reckless abandon?
Dan, the reason people who don’t favor the repeal of the 2nd Amendment find your motives circumspect is your failure to be honest about them. You constantly state you are not anti-gun, usually immediately before you launch into an anti-gun tirade. That’s why people think liberals have an ulterior motive where guns are concerned. You won’t be up front about your own beliefs.
Dan,
Big Pharma injects more money into lobbyist and their products continue to be sold even though they have been pushed through the FDA with out proper testing.
Look up and see how many people have expired because of these drugs.
Then you can look up the number of companies that have lobbyist.NRA not the only one!
You are absolutely wasting your time trying to explain facts about guns to people who don’t want facts. They want raw emotion and the political propaganda that they have been sold. Every good liberal knows that a collapsible stock makes a gun more deadly. Don’t try to explain length of pull to them. You’ll just cloud the issue with facts.
Yes, I saw that thing that the “olympic shooter” used and I must say, it too was an ugly sumwitch IMO. We possess the ability to make a projectile dispensing system for just about every whim but they are still ugly IMO and far from what “a gun” has traditionally been. Those awful looking handguns that are sometimes displayed give guns a bad name in more ways than one.
I get it that the gun rights crowd will have their way and doubt we get any legislation much less meaningful legislation but I have to wonder, at what point will most of them concede “enough is enough”? Blaming mental illness not proven, straw buyers, lax laws, bad judges, black markets, parents, schools, lack of God and liberals has gotten them this far for some really odd reasons I do not understand but is there a point when recognition dawns that the price of having what you want is too high?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/02/gun-debate_n_2606331.html
I wonder if this guy has turned on the news in the past 100 years.
“I don’t have an automatic weapon. I don’t want an automatic weapon. But the citizens need to have guns that are equal to the guns that the government has,” said Roger Rist, a 69-year-old business owner from Meredith. “I certainly hope I don’t have to take up arms against the government. Might we have to? Yeah.”
Oddly, my only “assault weapon” is a historical piece. It’s a 7.62×39 and uses a strip clip so it is useless as a scary gun.
My son has a 7.62×54 and it will shoot through a convent.
Henry, the NRA went over the edge when Bush Sr was President. Bush resigned his NRA Life Member status over crazy stuff LaPierre and gang were saying.
Huntersdad,
NAMBLA was an attempt at outrageous humor. I don’t think they have a registered lobbyist in DC (tho I haven’t checked).
Bubba, the Big Pharma lobby doesn’t scam consumers by urging them to join the lobby and then taking their money and using it to lobby Congress for laws to help sell them more pharmaceuticals.
The NRA does.
Some folks in the past have pointed out that the AARP does operate kind of like the NRA, and they may have a point.
gdad – I have a static cling on the glass beside my door that says “Protected by Smith & Wesson”.
Again, no one is FORCING Dan to put up a sign or anything else. He asked for our help in getting on the NRA enemies list. I simply stated the conditions under which I would help. He, you or anyone else is free to reject my conditions.
I fully agree with you on the aesthetic issues. Traditional rifles and shotguns are works of art, with hand-carved stocks and intricate work. I don’t really like the stamped plastics and composites (also why I own revolvers and 1911-style pistols), but can’t knock their functionality and durability.
I’m actually in the middle of carving a thumbhole stock and forearm for my HK out of Burma Teak. Alas, it probably only make it marginally prettier, and likely not at all in your eyes.
I don’t know what the answers are, Sandi. This is a multifaceted problem and requires a multifaceted approach. That means we must prioritize which changes will bring the most effective and immediate changes. We know that there’s no quick fix to this. The violence culture, mental health, registrations… everything needs to be addressed. That takes due process and due time. Hopefully we can get effective, meaningful changes and significantly reduce gun deaths, and hopefully it won’t get worse before it gets better.
One thing is for sure, digging in and refusing to budge on either side will never get it done. I feel our concentration should be focused on getting our respective sides out of the trenches and onto a common ground (IMO gun deaths, in general). This cannot be a war, figurative or literal, or we will all lose in the end. Diplomacy is the only way either or both sides will be satisfied.
Thanks for clearing that up for me Dan. I was thinking another sign of the apocalypse was upon us.
Dan backstroking about his belief that people who support their 2nd amendment rights are worse than pedophiles like NAMBLA is sad.
Another example of a liberal caught in a difficult position, who immediately chalks it up to “a joke”. Sometimes it works for the sheeple… sometimes it doesn’t.
It didn’t pan out for Anthony Weiner; will it pan out for democrat Sen. Menendez and his penchant for 12 y/o prostitutes?
Maybe Dan thinks that too is ok; it may not be young boys but young girls. Heck, the guy is a senator, not a priest.
No matter, in Dan’s opinion… just “outrageous humor”…
Chuck, you and Walt can hide in the safety of internet anonymity and attack me as you please. Big and bad of you both. I am sorry you do not know enough to be aware that often times the hand grip and full auto of military guns (M16) are good for shoulder or hip-fire as needed. It is not my “ignorance on display here” or the ignorance that “is staggering”.
Also, no one, myself included has said it is the “collapsible stock” that “makes a gun more deadly”. You made that crap up to pretend you have an issue to beat us up over. A collapsible or folding stock DOES make a rifle easier to hide and carry.
If all you have is lies, stop posting.
Dan, re”big pharma”
Are you trying to convince your “believers” that “Pharma” does not try to influence congress???
I may be incorrect, but something tells me that you have a “connection” with Pharma.
I think the last 5 (maybe even 30) years have proven that diplomacy and trying to compromise is as useless as anything else.
When the NRA decides they cannot even back universal background checks and stronger efforts to keep guns out of the wrong hands that tells me that they have no intention of working on anything but strengthening their position on more guns in more places. The hideous shooting machines that continue to pass for guns, bullets that do increasing damage and their proliferation, even at high prices prove that this nation has made its choice and it is to accept the carnage. I do not know how law enforcement can bear it.
The only thing in my own realm of experience that I can compare this too is the issue of abortion. I support a woman’s right to choose her path, but I hate abortion. Because of my realization that abortion ends a potential innocent, precious life, I am vocal and supportive of comprehensive sex education, espouse support for free sterilization and prophylactics, government support for mothers and children in any way needed. I do not scream ONLY about rights and privacy (which I fervently believe in). I see the entirety of the problem and the ways that the carnage can be minimized, not just fight to keep it going regardless of how many abortions happen.
I do not see that awareness or caring from the NRA or any such awareness from most gun owners. Most are not like you, they are the applewood, walt, Jack, John Wilburn, Dave Hicks “no prior restraint” folks, some just more vicious than others. The bottom line remains that without some level of “prior restraint” the carnage will continue and worsen. What makes a gun easy for you or me, makes it the same easy for “the bad guys”. That is the reality of the field we are playing on. Some of us are tired of that assist and not ready to live in armed camps.
Hey Sandi, when you turn 18, give us a call. In the meantime, don’t try to discuss things you don’t understand. Now, pay attention: I own several firearms, and I own semi-auto rifles and handguns so I can kill anyone that threatens my life or the lives of my family. Not wound them or scare them. Take a minute while you browse the internet for your next cause, and google the name Amanda Collins.
Rob,
What are the dimensions of your static cling? I’d be happy to put a “Not protected by Smith & Wesson” static cling of the same size in my window.
If you want me to put up a lawn sign that my house has no guns, well, then we will have to up the ante just to be fair, right?
I would expect you to put up a same-sized lawn size that says, “Attention burglars: This house has guns!”
Surely you’ll agree with me that what’s good for the gander is good for the goose. Right?
Yes walt, we are all well aware that guns and internet anonymity make you a big man. At least in your eyes.
Another random thought: I believe Congressmen should have to wear uniforms like the NASCAR drivers do. That would help to identify what corporations and labor unions they work for. The President should too… Obama would look great in a SEIU ball cap Occupy Washington blazer.
I have no anonymity, Sandi. I am everyman. Simply because you cannot argue a topic because of your flawed logic, like every other member of the lunatic fringe, you must try to redirect the conversation. Yes, I am a man. What, exactly, are you?
walt, you are anonymous, and you’re everyman-in-your-own-mind.
walt: with every comment you make, you’re doing our cause no good. Either come to the table with reasonable solutions to the problem and less animosity or sit in the gallery and be silent, please. This is NOT an issue where yelling the loudest and being the ugliest will solve a damned thing, and you should be mature enough to realize that.
Not so, Daniel. In fact, I am a columnist for several national magazines, a writer for outdoor publications since 1990. But I am curious, if you will allow me this one question, just exactly what does it matter (thanks, Hillary!) what my name is? Does that influence the conversation? Lets get back to what the line of this pathetic blog is, that of being anti-gun. Why try to redirect the topic, is it not yours to begin with? The subject is the NRA, and why you want to be opposed to their views. I don’t agree with everything the NRA says, but I do acknowledge that they have done great good for the United States citizens, especially those in law enforcement, and for gun safety. Are you opposed to gun safety? Are you opposed to law enforcement? Don’t try to defend Sandi, she’s not worth your ink. If you are opposed to the NRA, tell me about them; when and who started the NRA, what they spend their money on (everybody knows they spent 10 million on the last election), what organizations they are affiliated with (Boy Scouts of America–are you also opposed to them?). Don’t lower yourself to petty attacks on me, debate the issue, if you dare.
Probably the reason the NRA isn’t paying attention to you is you are too insignificant to bother with. Is that what bothers you?
Comment by walt — February 2, 2013 @ 4:06 pm
Nailed it! Ding, Ding, Ding! Winner, Winner. . .Chicken Dinner!
When the NRA decides they cannot even back universal background checks and stronger efforts to keep guns out of the wrong hands that tells me that they have no intention of working on anything but strengthening their position on more guns in more places. The hideous shooting machines that continue to pass for guns, bullets that do increasing damage and their proliferation, even at high prices prove that this nation has made its choice and it is to accept the carnage. I do not know how law enforcement can bear it.
Comment by Sandi at 7:35 p.m.
Sadly, Sandi, you are spot on with this comment. That said, I am encouraged by the number of gun owners who recognize the extremism proferred by the NRA. Many of those folks understand that the current initiatives are not a first step in confiscating all guns. Lots of hunters and sport shooters see the value in common sense restrictions. The
paranoid fringe is shrinking. Keep up the straight talk, Sandi!
If all you have is lies, stop posting.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 2, 2013 @ 7:01 pm
Pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeee; take your own advice.
Any political differences aside, SO GOOD to see you at the conference, Dan. Your class was awesome. You have my vote for Public enemy of NRA. I’ll pass the word. I might even picket the Times if you think it’ll help your cause.
“A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don’t have one, and you’ll probably never need one again.”
Comment by Another Chuck — February 2, 2013 @ 1:22 pm
Good gun control: Hit what you aim at!
Dan,
It’s an octagonal shape, but roughly 5″ x 5″. I have no problems putting up an equivalent sign though, but my homeowner’s association might.
They train policemen constantly to fire a weapon. They train the military constantly to fire a weapon. Yet, we can go to Walmart and buy a high powered semi-automatic rifle with an extra large clip and have the clerk show you how to load it and off you go. You can now protect your home from some imaginary criminal that should he actually exist will shoot you before you have the time to pick up the weapon and the odds are, he will use your new weapon either on you or someone else after he has taken it from you.
Besides the paranoia that the gun nuts present here, it is their machismo that is unbearable. They really believe they are Rambo once they own a weapon.
The sad part is, Obama merely wants to make a reasonable change to slow down access to weapons that are being used in mass murders. No one is trying to take Rambo’s guns. Reason left the right wing and it will be generations before it returns if ever.
Jason, I have been heartened by the comments of gun advocates like J.M. White and others who do see the madness too. I never had much hope for Congress but the nation needs not to lose it’s mind.
Seriously, what is in a brain that thinks you could “take on” the government? Some of these “gun nuts” are really scary human beings.
Leon, you may not like what I say but that does not give you the right to call me a liar. Certainly not without proving it. Again, the safety of your anonymity makes you bold, it does not make you right.
53.I think the last 5 (maybe even 30) years have proven that diplomacy and trying to compromise is as useless as anything else….
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 2, 2013 @ 7:35 pm
————————–
Sandi, by “diplomacy and compromise” do you mean publishing law-abiding gun owners names and addresses who passed background checks to get their concealed carry permits in the newspaper? And creating a website with a MAP to those people’s houses? That has already been admittedly used by more than one criminal to target? Exactly how is that diplomacy and trying to compromise? That seems to me like you’re trying to put MORE guns in the hands of criminals.
How about let’s publish the names and addresses of CRIMINALS when they are released from jail? Oh, I’m sorry, that’s illegal. How about we publish the name and address of everyone that gets an abortion?
Your idea of diplomacy and compromise are severely disfigured.
Typical, walt likes to “lower” himself “to petty attacks on me” but he decries getting the same. Gee where have we heard that before. What is it you think you are “debating” walt? What is it you think you are representing? Sad what “several national magazines”, and “outdoor publications” have been reduced to.
Sandi, the uninformed stupidity of your last post is staggering. Obviously you have never read any of the published positions of the NRA. Take an hour, read their positions, and then get back on the keyboard. All told, state by state and nationally, there are over 20,000 gun laws on the books. the NRA has repeatedly called for strict enforcement of those laws. A lot of good those laws did those kids in Sandy Hook (where, by the way, the school system is currently putting armed security in the schools, which was recommended by the NRA).
The truth is, Jason, a gun is a gun, period. It does not matter what color it is painted or how many do-dads are on it, a gun is a gun. Further restrictions on this or that gun, because of what it looks like or how it operates, are useless, and will only apply to those that want to legally own a firearm; the true issue is the issue of violence and criminal behavior, not the inanimate object in the hand of the criminal. Look only to Chicago or New York City to see the effectiveness of strict gun laws; the criminal doesn’t care how many laws are on the books. Get back on topic, why does Dan want to be an enemy of the NRA? State one thing, written or said, that can be verified, that the NRA has done to warrant such hatred?
“slow down access to weapons that are being used in mass murders.”
You mean weapons accessible to Aspergers kids who gun down children in elementary schools and colleges?
When are we going to have common sense laws to lock away these dangerous people?
“Seriously, what is in a brain that thinks you could “take on” the government? Some of these “gun nuts” are really scary human beings.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 2, 2013 @ 9:12 pm”
===========================================================
History is replete with examples of people who think they can take on the government….among others, The Maquis (French resistance in WW2) against the Nazis, the Mujahiddin in Afghanistan against the Soviets (in the early days, armed with WW1 era Enfield rifles), the Taliban against the US (they’ve hung on and will be right back once we leave and the Viet Cong who withstood the vastly superior firepower of the US (and against whom I have much experience).
No Symbols, I do not consider that diplomacy and trying to compromise. I consider that and most of the off the wall comments by idiots like walt to be the result of the lack of diplomacy and trying to compromise. When we have a dysfunctional, greedy, self-righteous and dishonest Congress how can we have a “better” behaving society? There are no Thomas Jeffersons or James Madisons in DC.
You folks seem so quick to assume anyone who is pro-gun is not liberal, just like pro-gun folks assume anyone that is anti-gun is liberal. Most far right conservatives would call me a liberal with the exception of one or two things (firearms being one of them).
My immediate family is multi-ethnic and multi-cultural. I have quite a few gay friends and do things socially with them and their partners. I’m not, but hey, whatever floats your boat. On the abortion subject, I don’t think it is right so I won’t have one. If you do, that’s between you and your maker and not up to me to judge. I was strongly opposed to the US going to war and the Gestapo legislation pushed by the war on terror. Marijuana, while I don’t drink or do drugs, I say lets legalize it and tax the living snot out of it. And on a personal note, when I’m not at work all I wear is tie-dye and I drive a 1962 VW Bug with flowers and peace signs hand painted by me ALL over it. So, most folks assume I’m one of those liberal hippies.
About the only things that I’m not liberal about are I own guns, I carry guns, and I strongly support the 2nd Amendment not being disected into oblivian. I also believe that social safety nets should be nets and not a hammock…a hand up, not a hand out. The land of the FREE was referring to We The People and ALL of our liberties under the Bill of Rights…not the land of FREE STUFF.
So, attached are a couple of links to articles written by LIBERALS. They are very interesting and informative reads. Some of this helped me understand the enigma of my seemingly conflicting views, which I came to realize were not really conflicting at all. I hope you take the time to read them:
http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/why-not-renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/
http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?p=7586269
I wouldn’t object to a yard sign that clearly indicated that my house was guarded by baseball bats and English Bulldogs.
Dan has pictures of my recent batting practices. 
hey beason,
Your post at 9:11 is full of hyperbolic tripe. Do you REALLY believe that the gun owners on this blog think they are “Rambo”, just because they have a gun?
Do you think that the lady in Georgia thought herself a “Rambo-ette” because she owned a gun, and used it to save herself and her kids from a home-invader?
73.No Symbols, I do not consider that diplomacy and trying to compromise. I consider that and most of the off the wall comments by idiots like walt to be the result of the lack of diplomacy and trying to compromise. When we have a dysfunctional, greedy, self-righteous and dishonest Congress how can we have a “better” behaving society? There are no Thomas Jeffersons or James Madisons in DC.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 2, 2013 @ 9:40 pm
———————–
I have to agree with you completely here. I would even buy you a beer (or whatever beverage of your choice) for that one.
Thanks for the kind words, Gina.
There was a long lag on approving comments on this blog today, folks, because I was at the Roanoke Regional Writers Conference. I led a presentation on storytelling. Gina, who’s a successful novelist and quite the storyteller herself, and who I wrote about in this column, honored me with her presence in the class.
There, I told a story I published here on this blog awhile back, “My strange and hilarious brush with the Church of Scientology.” Then we analyzed what made it a good story. The class was active and fun, and they gave me a great reception.
The Roanoke Writers Conference is a lot of fun . . . and highly recommended. You can learn a lot there and meet many interesting folks.
Dan, I think you are a MORON!!! Just my opinion..Sandi, I think you are as nutty as the “Gun Nuts” you call them and I’m not sure exactly what your agenda is, but I think you just want someone to talk to..
78 – Frank – I believe the lady in question is probably sick of you guys using her one case to support guns. I also believe you think you are Rambo.
“How about we publish the name and address of everyone that gets an abortion?”
Are there permits and licenses required for this? Perhaps we need a registry of everyone who gets their wisdom teeth out.
” The Maquis (French resistance in WW2) against the Nazis, the Mujahiddin in Afghanistan against the Soviets (in the early days, armed with WW1 era Enfield rifles), the Taliban against the US (they’ve hung on and will be right back once we leave and the Viet Cong who withstood the vastly superior firepower of the US (and against whom I have much experience).”
Not one of these cases is an example of a population taking on an established government. Not even one. You should be embarrassed to have even posted this.
“Now, pay attention: I own several firearms, and I own semi-auto rifles and handguns so I can kill anyone that threatens my life or the lives of my family. Not wound them or scare them.”
How terribly masculine.
“Not so, Daniel. In fact, I am a columnist for several national magazines, a writer for outdoor publications since 1990. But I am curious, if you will allow me this one question, just exactly what does it matter (thanks, Hillary!) what my name is? Does that influence the conversation? Lets get back to what the line of this pathetic blog is, that of being anti-gun. Why try to redirect the topic, is it not yours to begin with? The subject is the NRA, and why you want to be opposed to their views. I don’t agree with everything the NRA says, but I do acknowledge that they have done great good for the United States citizens, especially those in law enforcement, and for gun safety. Are you opposed to gun safety? Are you opposed to law enforcement? Don’t try to defend Sandi, she’s not worth your ink. If you are opposed to the NRA, tell me about them; when and who started the NRA, what they spend their money on (everybody knows they spent 10 million on the last election), what organizations they are affiliated with (Boy Scouts of America–are you also opposed to them?). Don’t lower yourself to petty attacks on me, debate the issue, if you dare.”
–Comment by walt
walt, you are anonymous here on this blog. That doesn’t matter at all to me, except that sounds silly to claim you are not anonymous. I have not personally attacked you. I have disputed your claim to be “everyman.” I said you might believe that, but that doesn’t make it so.
Congratulations on your career. And thank you for spending your valuable time on this “pathetic blog.”
I’m not opposed to gun safety, and I’m not opposed to law enforcement, and I’m not opposed to the Boy Scouts, walt. I’m opposed to the NRA, and whatever involvement they have in those things is merely window-dressing to their chief goal: Making sure the flow of guns continues in the United States.
Fyi, the streets where Mafia dons live are relatively crime free. The mafiosos help ensure they stay that way. Does that mean you support the Mafia, too?
“” The Maquis (French resistance in WW2) against the Nazis, the Mujahiddin in Afghanistan against the Soviets (in the early days, armed with WW1 era Enfield rifles), the Taliban against the US (they’ve hung on and will be right back once we leave and the Viet Cong who withstood the vastly superior firepower of the US (and against whom I have much experience).”
Not one of these cases is an example of a population taking on an established government. Not even one. You should be embarrassed to have even posted this.
Comment by Kristen — February 2, 2013 @ 9:55 pm”
=======================================================
Really?
The Maquis – Fought against the established government of Vichy France and the established government of the Germans.
The Mujahideen in Afghanistan – fought against the established Afghanistan Communist government and their Soviet allies.
The Taliban – fighting against the established government of Afghanistan and (fading) superpower US.
The Viet Cong – fought against the established government of South Vietnam and the US.
I’m not embarrassed, I’m correct.
#37:”The ignorance on display here is staggering. Sandi, do you really think soldiers don’t need to aim and just blaze away with reckless abandon?”
Dismissive insult coupled with a question by Chuck, suggesting that assault weapons weren’t really designed as offensive weapons requiring less precise aim offset by an increased rate of fire.
Chuck:
I don’t believe you are more of an expert than the guy who wrote a definitive history of small arms, because you’re not. So I believe him, and here’s what he had to say. Bear in mind that you said soldiers generally, not snipers, and be sure you take note of this part: “the research found that aiming was not a major factor in causing casualties. Instead, the number one predictor of casualties was the total number of bullets fired.”
(From Ezell, Edward Clinton (1983). Small Arms of the World. New York: Stackpole Books. ISBN 978-0-88029-601-4):
In 1948, the U.S. Army organized the civilian Operations Research Office…Over 3 million battlefield reports from World War I and World War II were analyzed and over the next few years they released a series of reports on their findings.
The conclusion was that most combat takes place at short range. In a highly mobile war, combat teams ran into each other largely by surprise; and the team with the higher firepower tended to win. They also found that the chance of being hit in combat was essentially random; accurate “aiming” made little difference because the targets no longer sat still. The number one predictor of casualties was the total number of bullets fired.
Several things were learned which applied directly to personal weapon design. Perhaps most important, research found that most combat casualties caused by small-arms fire took place at short range. So the long range and accuracy of the standard rifle was, in a real sense, wasted. Second, the research found that aiming was not a major factor in causing casualties. Instead, the number one predictor of casualties was the total number of bullets fired.
Chuck, since the ignorance on display was not Sandi’s, and was made worse by the faux-authoritarian tone used to deliver it, you might want to consider how your post to her reflects on other massacre weapon defenders besides yourself.
I am fairly certain that arguing with anonymous bloggers would classify anyone as “nutty”. Not supporting or agreeing with the NRA would not.
“Established government of Vichy France.”? The very temporary and short term collaborative French contruct of Vichy was far from “established”. It was a fleeting and -MOST IMPORTANTLY – not internationally accepted bandage. Wrong.
The Soviets never succeeded in establishing a government in Afghanistan. They were, at best (like the Nazis in France) a temporary institution. Wrong again.
The VC were exactly as we’ll established as the US puppets in S Vietnam. Fail again.
Every single example was wrong. You aren’t even close to correct.
Rob, how about just a bumper sticker on your car that says “I’m not home at (your address) right now, but my guns are”?
You’re sure guns in a home make it less likely to be robbed, so that will be an extra margin of safety, right?
“Collaborative” was the wrong word. “Collaborationist” is correct.
Marijuana, while I don’t drink or do drugs, I say lets legalize it and tax the living snot out of it.
comment by bugeyed
bugeyed, is that because you want to discourage the use of marijuana? If so, you’ll presumably agree with keeping legal and taxing the living snot out of the guns that have the least justification for uses other than rapid mass violence, yes?
Ha ha! So Rob won’t put the sign in the yard because of his homeowner’s association. So much for rugged individualism. Yer such a cowboy.
http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/man-shot-near-martin-luther-king-jr-high-school-in-detroit Here’s one I agree with.
The desire and ability to protect our families and ourselves is not given to us by God or the government, it is based on our most innate desire…survival The liberal anti-gun stance lacks common sense, because it assumes that criminals will cease to use banned weapons. Frankly, that assumption is just ignorant. Seriously, the only way to stop an insane person that is willing to die to carry out his carnage, is to have a good guy in the same area with equal or superior weapons on hand.
Remember the old Republican Party? The one that was good-government, pro-civil rights, and pro-business? The GOP that didn’t consider the National Highway Act an unconstitutional federal intrusion, but a great boon for national commerce? The GOP of the conservationists, who created the National Park System? The GOP that proposed the Environmental Protection Agency, because the party’s poohbahs had respect for clean air and water?
Yeah . . . that is all by the wayside now. The GOP used to be an honorable bunch who had the best interests of this country at heart. In much more recent years it’s been taken over by right-wing extremists who give the Republicans of old a bad name.
Pretty much the same is true of the National Rifle Association.
Back in 1932, the NRA was one of the chief proponents of the Washington, D.C. firearms ban. They helped enact that bill, and NRA President Karl T. Frederick testified on behalf of it.
Two years later, Congress enacted the National Firearms Act of 1934, which was a virtual ban on machine guns, suppressors and sawed off shotguns. The $200 tax on machine guns (which hasn’t changed a dime) made them prohibitively expensive in their day (when machine guns could be had for $100). And this is what Frederick said when testifying before Congress on that bill:
“I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I seldom carry one. … I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.”
The point is, both the GOP and the NRA used to be responsible mainstream organizations. And they’ve both been hijacked by lunatic extremists.
My how things have changed!
81…I led a presentation on storytelling…
Comment by Dan Casey — February 2, 2013 @ 9:47 pm
——————–
You certainly tell stories with the best of ‘em. Does your nose grow when you do it or does it just come naturally to you?
Thanks Warren, and Chuck if you would like to read up on military weapons, I found this website for you and they mention that whole fire from the hip thingy a couple times. If you do not believe that is part of the pistol grip on their rifles, that is your problem, not my ignorance.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/armyweapons/l/aainfantry1.htm
And this arrogant guy “shooting” down “our lies” about the pistol grip, manages to admit that in the military automatic guns that “spray fire” from the hip is correct and the addition of the pistol grip to the semi-auto is “cosmetic”, IOW to make the macho boys feel like soldiers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V57pXlS65V8
And WE are the “nuts”? Nope.
84.“How about we publish the name and address of everyone that gets an abortion?”
Are there permits and licenses required for this? Perhaps we need a registry of everyone who gets their wisdom teeth out.
Comment by Kristen — February 2, 2013 @ 9:52 pm
———————–
Not yet, but that’s a great idea you have there. Let’s push for Universal Background Checks, permits, fees, limits, etc. on abortions. Since the US spent $542 Million in TAX money to Planned Parenthood last year, then there should be some required paperwork and a registry. They’re not guaranteed under the Bill of Rights, so why not? It’s not a right, but a privilege…it’s high time it is treated like one.
Don’t let all of your liberal friends find out you proposed this…I’m going out on a limb here, but my guess is they won’t like it nor support it.
Dan, you’ve attracted one crazy-ass dude in walt.
Yeah, boy, that Rob guy really stands up to that homeowners organization. No free speech for him.
OMG Chuck, how on God’s earth did people protect their families and themselves before these semi auto macho machines were for sale? Did no one have a “man-card” before they came along?
94.Marijuana, while I don’t drink or do drugs, I say lets legalize it and tax the living snot out of it.
comment by bugeyed
bugeyed, is that because you want to discourage the use of marijuana? If so, you’ll presumably agree with keeping legal and taxing the living snot out of the guns that have the least justification for uses other than rapid mass violence, yes?
Comment by Warren — February 2, 2013 @ 10:38 pm
———————–
No, it is because I accept the fact that drugs being illegal has somehow not kept it out of the hands of those determined to do it. It has created an international black market that has fuelled billions of money to criminal enterprizes. I also believe pot is less dangerous than crack, meth, and bath salts. So if we make pot legal and easier to obtain than these other cheap dangerous drugs and the US decriminalizes pot, not only do we save tax dollars not chasing, arresting, and housing low-end doober smokers the US gets income from the tax on it. And it takes at least ONE drug out of the mix for international criminal enterprizes.
You know, the same criminal enterprizes that would flourish and get more money in the black market trade if we criminalized otherwise law-abiding citizens by placing ridiculous bans and limits on certain styles and capacities of firearms.
Rob, so you REALLY believe that the gun nuts would a) rise up as one and b) succeed against the US government? Really? We did that once…
What is one drug among many and a few guns among hundreds?
The 2A is ONE of your civil liberties among all of them in the Bill of Rights. It is no more reasonable to tax this one than it is the rest of them…unless you are proposing a tax in order to speak (not-so) freely, practice your religion of choice, assemble peasably, etc. That sounds a lot like an aristocracy where only the people who can afford it are free.
The difference here is I see our civil liberties as ONE, a collective GROUP, whereas you will vociferously defend your rights under all of them BUT the 2nd. To me they are all or nothing. I do not subscribe to picking and choosing.
Sandi, OMG, we adapt. Originally, we used our fists or sticks or rocks. Then clubs, bow and arrows, etc..I think you get my point. It all comes down to which hands the guns are in, not the type of weapon or size of the magazine. I especially love the politicians and Hollywood characters that preach to us with their armed security at their sides. Believe it or not, our lives are just as important!
Last one Dan. Since you can only come up with 80 year old NRA positions (do we need to take a look at Democratic Party stances on race, civil rights and gender from that time period?), and you seem to say now that you are opposed to the NRA for backing certain gun laws, I will end my participation here. Why is it that you so much want the NRA to validate you? You don’t like guns or gun ownership, I get it, but I really don’t care. Obviously the NRA doesn’t care what you like either. I’m not going to try to persuade you one way or the other, I’m just tired of people like you taking on subjects above your ability level. Legal gun ownership is a fact of American life, like free speech and religious choice. No further idiotic restrictions on guns based on their appearance will be tolerated by legal, law abiding gun owners, or by any legal citizen of our country that values the Bill of Rights. Obama may not have to face another election, but congress members do. I feel sure that the NRA would be glad if you considered yourself their enemy. If you really are serious about reducing crime, and want to know where gun ownership falls in the discussion, I recommend you read the letter written by 1100 current and former members of the US Army Special Forces, the link is
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/30/read-the-letter-1100-green-berets-signed-for-protection-of-the-2nd-amendment/
You and Sandi, have a nice day.
Walt
Bugeyed, you didn’t answer my question at all. Please answer it: given your rationale about taxing marijuana you’ll presumably agree with keeping legal and taxing the living snot out of those guns that have the least justification for uses other than rapid mass violence, yes?
Walt,
Do you believe a political party is merely a political party, or is it the people in it?
There’s no question that the Democratic Party has a horrid and ignominious past. The difference between it and the NRA (and the GOP, too, for that matter) is that the Democrats have moved in the direction of right and good and justice and progress, while the other two have moved in the exact opposite direction.
(And all the people who had been former old-style Democrats, many of whom also are NRA members, have moved to the GOP).
Finally, walt, I don’t have a big problem with gun ownership. I have a problem with granting concealed carry permits to people who have never touched a handgun. I have a problem with people who demand that concealed carry be allowed in bars, especially in states that grants CC permits to people who have never touched a handgun — like Virginia does. And I have problem with never-budge jackasses who will never accept that there is a problem with the gun culture in this society and are unable to take reasonable steps to curb violence. The NRA was for expanded background checks up to Newton, walt. Then suddenly they were against them when Obama agree with them! That’s policymaking by reaction. It’s dumb, walt, and I don’t understand how you cannot comprehend that.
Warren, the answer is there in my post. None are as blind as those who refuse to see. Marijuana is not protected under the bill of rights. We tax alcohol, cigarettes, gasoline, groceries…I guess you are proposing we not tax those things either? Has anyone mentioned we pay sales tax when we buy guns and ammo?
Now answer MY question. Do you support taxing ALL of your civil liberties protected under the Bill of Rights or just this one? Or just some of them? Which ones and why? Why should ANY civil liberty only be granted to those who can afford to pay a tax? That doesn’t sound like freedom to me.
Recall what happened to other societies that traded individual liberties for perceived safety? Didn’t work out so well for the individuals.
57.Another random thought: I believe Congressmen should have to wear uniforms like the NASCAR drivers do. That would help to identify what corporations and labor unions they work for. The President should too… Obama would look great in a SEIU ball cap Occupy Washington blazer.
Comment by Another Chuck — February 2, 2013 @ 7:54 pm
Not so random and certainly not original Another Chuck. I’ve received the same email about a half a dozen times now from the two or three right wing extremists who continue to send me trash. I could block their emails
but it amuses me to see just how deluded they have become.
How about a litmus test for gun proposals. Any such limit, restriction, ban, permit, tax, or fee that is proposed for any ONE existing civil liberty has to be applied to ALL civil liberties.
You can own a gun at home, but have to buy a permit to carry it in public. OK, you can speak freely at home but if you want to speak in public you have to buy a permit (and you’re limitied to 7 words at a time). Want to assemble at home, fine. In public, buy a permit (that actually happens now in some places). Want to practice your religion at home, free to do so. To do it in public and you have to get a permit and it will cost you.
See how this works?
I also propose a new amendment. Whatever laws the Federal and/or State governments subject the citizens to the government has to also abide. That would mean the legislators would be subject to the same provisions of social security laws, healthcare laws, and gun laws. No more aristocrats getting special treatment.
Bugeyed, you’re going down a silly road that no one else is. No one proposes taxes on the exercise of civil liberties. They’d be patently unconstitutional. But taxes on massacre weapons and ammo are no different than existing taxes on many other things that facilitate those civil liberties: sales taxes on pens and spray paint and copies of “Dianetics” and magazines, just to pick a few from the 1A, and knives, pepper spray and tasers from the 2A. Guns are just implements, not a right in and of themselves, of course, so they can be taxed as we the people, in order to insure domestic Tranquility and promote the general Welfare, see fit.
>>>>Seriously, what is in a brain that thinks you could “take on” the government? Some of these “gun nuts” are really scary human beings.-Sandi
——
In defense of the gun lunatics, it did happen when the south became treasonous when told that slavery is uncool and has to stop.
Sandi, the uninformed stupidity of your last post is staggering. Obviously you have never read any of the published positions of the NRA. Take an hour, read their positions, and then get back on the keyboard. All told, state by state and nationally, there are over 20,000 gun laws on the books. the NRA has repeatedly called for strict enforcement of those laws. A lot of good those laws did those kids in Sandy Hook (where, by the way, the school system is currently putting armed security in the schools, which was recommended by the NRA).
The truth is, Jason, a gun is a gun, period. It does not matter what color it is painted or how many do-dads are on it, a gun is a gun. Further restrictions on this or that gun, because of what it looks like or how it operates, are useless, and will only apply to those that want to legally own a firearm; the true issue is the issue of violence and criminal behavior, not the inanimate object in the hand of the criminal. Look only to Chicago or New York City to see the effectiveness of strict gun laws; the criminal doesn’t care how many laws are on the books. Get back on topic, why does Dan want to be an enemy of the NRA? State one thing, written or said, that can be verified, that the NRA has done to warrant such hatred?
Comment by walt — February 2, 2013 @ 9:28 pm
Walt, I have no issue with gun ownership and the 2nd Amendment. I fully understand the culture of hunting and sporting use of guns, and I support your right to protect yourself, especially in your own home. So, I guess we agree on the basics. We part company at the point you interpret the 2nd Amendment to mean that citizens have an absolute right to possess any gun, anytime, anywhere, without restriction. I don’t think the 2nd Amendment says that, and I don’t think case law supports such absolutism. Therefore, I find reason in proposals to ban assault rifles, reduce magazine size to a max of 8-10 rounds, and institute universal background checks for all gun sales. I also strongly favor a critical review of our mental health services and what can be done to somehow identify those who might be predisposed to mass violence. Perhaps longer periods of hospitalization for some is in order, but this will require a major commitment from insurance providers. No easy answers here. Finally, our state and federal lawmakers must prosecute laws regulating the sale, possession, and use of guns. A word of warning here, however. Such vigorous prosecutions will result in higher numbers of gun owners going to jail. That’s my stand.
As to your invitation for me to find something repugnant said by the NRA, I pick Wayne LaPierre’s incendiary comments surrounding the Oklahoma City bombing. Those comments led to President George W. Bush’s public resignation from the NRA because of the NRA’s silence on LaPierre’s comments. Moreover, Mr. LaPierre remains the face of the NRA, and he well represents the attitude of more guns everywhere all the time as a solution to all violence in this country. I find such a position to be largely responsible for ill-advised “stand your ground” laws that are leading down a path of vigilantism unbecoming of a civil society.
sanid, the word IS NOT ‘succeed’ dearie, (something at which liberals aren’t very good)..the word is ‘secede’
sandi, sorry for incorrectly spelled name…..
Rob – I remain perplexed by those of you who somehow believe the 2nd Amendment allows you to collect weapons to rebel against our federal government. Just because we have expanded the interpretation of our freedoms since the 1960s does not mean we have freedoms that the Constitution nor the Courts have ever granted. We have the right to vote to change our government. The Constitution, history, and certainly the Civil War make certain that you do not have the right to take up violence against our government.
Your only defense for maintaining weapons is sport and self defense. Neither require nor should have multi-round clips with semiautomatic rifles. They take the sport out of hunting and they only spray bullets by inept holders in cases of violence. If indeed you are a weapons expert as you should be to carry a weapon, you certainly do not need a 100 rounds to protect yourself.
116 – Jason – well stated.
Dan, I would think your mission is accomplished.
We part company at the point you interpret the 2nd Amendment to mean that citizens have an absolute right to possess any gun, anytime, anywhere, without restriction. I don’t think the 2nd Amendment says that, and I don’t think case law supports such absolutism. Therefore, I find reason in proposals to ban assault rifles, reduce magazine size to a max of 8-10 rounds, and institute universal background checks for all gun sales.
Comment by Jason Perdue — February 3, 2013 @ 7:41 am
——————
In United States vs. Miller 307 U.S.174 (1939) Attorneys for the United States argued this point:
“The Second Amendment protects ONLY the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.”
On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion by Justice McReynolds:
“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”
“The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ‘A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.’ And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”
At this point in time, 80% of all firearms commonly used today hold more than 7 shots; therefore a gun holding only 7 shots would be considered UNCOMMON and not falling within the SCOTUS opinion above. And more importantly, if a person is to bring their own arms to a militia it is to be one of common use as to make the militia efficient in terms of facing their opponent. If the opponent has commonly used arms holding 15, 20, 30 rounds and the people, called upon, show up with their 7 shooters they are not going to be very efficient with their limited capacity arms.
Supreme Court Justices that have ruled on cases interpreting and referencing the 2A in 1939, 1972, 1980, and 1997. ALL of which had the full knowledge of law enforcement, military, military weapons, and semi-automatic weapons being in common use when they came to their conclusions.
Once and for all, for all of you who are obviously `asleep at the wheel`, gun-control has absolutely NOTHING to do with creating a safe environment for the citizens, but has EVERYTHING to do with the COMPLETE CONTROL of its `subjects`. If you want to turn a blind eye to that FACT, so be it. We, as gun owners will not. The majority of this Nation rallied against a massive Health=Care overhaul for years and years….and now, look what slithered in the back door. Don`t get your hopes up though, we WON`T be giving up our guns.
OK, I posted this on the wrong thread (although it WAS on a gun thread). Sorry for the double, but this is where I wanted it. (Dan, you are more than welcome to delete the other one).
Folks, we’ve had gun lovers here snidely ask for an example of a shooting at a gun range or similar place. Never happens, they said. Careful what you wish for. And this guy wasn’t just some amateur, he was a sniper who bragged about his kills. The suspect is possibly a guy suffering from PTSD who these two took on an outing to help him with his problems. Wait? Take a guy with PTSD to a gun range??? Are you kidding me??
“Chris Kyle, a retired Navy SEAL and the U.S. military’s most lethal sniper, was fatally shot Saturday along with another man on the gun range of Rough Creek Lodge, a posh resort just west of Glen Rose, Erath County Sheriff Tommy Bryant said.
A suspect was arrested about five hours later in Lancaster, southeast of Dallas, more than 70 miles from the scene, Bryant said.
Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/02/02/4596024/militarys-deadliest-sniper-killed.html#storylink=cpy”
I also like how the people who own the gun range apparently didn’t call the sheriff’s department until more than two hours after the shooting. That’s some good citizenship.
Are there permits and licenses required for this? Perhaps we need a registry of everyone who gets their wisdom teeth out.
Comment by Kristen — February 2, 2013 @ 9:52 pm
Kristen, after reading this whole thread, I’m convinced there are many here who have never had any wisdom teeth to extract.
“Once and for all, for all of you who are obviously `asleep at the wheel`, gun-control has absolutely NOTHING to do with creating a safe environment for the citizens, but has EVERYTHING to do with the COMPLETE CONTROL of its `subjects`.
–applewood
How then, applewood, do you explain the fact that there are democracies all over the world that have restrictive gun controls (far more restrictive than the president is proposing) that do not have COMPLETE CONTROL of their subjects?
Don`t get your hopes up though, we WON`T be giving up our guns.
Comment by applewood — February 3, 2013 @ 9:28 am
Yes, you will (if it comes to that) and you won’t fire a single shot, either, unless it’s to put one in your own head.
♫ Like a keyboard cowboy ♫
♫ He’s a badass man ’til that knockin’ comes at his door ♫
Comment by (o\ ! /o) — February 3, 2013 @ 9:20 am
Not sure how what you posted firgures into this discussion. The Heller decision holds in part:
(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The
Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
This suggests to me that regulation of firearms is perfectly permissible. I am curious about the concept of firearms in common use. Would you go into battle with the weapons in your arsenal, or would you rather have weapons provided by the military? Most all the gun advocates on this blog tout the benign firepower of the AR type weapon commonly sold in the US. Is that a military worthy gun.
pammala, thanks everso for the supposed “correction”, and from YOU no less! I said succeed and I meant succeed. Some of the gun nuts may well “rise up”. They will not succeed and I cannot fathom what makes them think they would.
I am sick of the idiots who think being for gun control or even an assault weapon ban means we want to take your (or our own) damn guns!
Get over your ignorance before you decry mine!
Heres a story about a tough guy like applewood who went to Kroger and was trying to be a smartass about the government taking his AR from his cold, dead hands;
“Girard says he tagged along about 20 feet behind the guy, deciding on whether or not to continue the conversation, when five police cruisers responded to the situation. Girard witnessed a tense stand-off between the man and the officers, who had their guns drawn and were pointing them at the young man’s head as he tried to explain what he was doing with the gun. The young man slowly lowered the rifle and placed it on the ground, like we’ve all seen in numerous cop shows, stepping 10 steps back, kneeling and then lying on the ground.”
http://www.readthehook.com/109067/open-carry-man-confronts-gun-toting-kroger-shopper?quicktabs_1=0
I bet applewood would fold like an accordion just like this clown did when the po po rolled up on him.
No one proposes taxes on the exercise of civil liberties. They’d be patently unconstitutional.
Comment by Warren — February 3, 2013 @ 1:03 am
I thought I saw someone here the other day talking about a 2-cent per round tax on ammunition.
Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
———————–
In the case of Miller, it was a sawwed off shotgun with a barrel less tha 18″. It was considered uncommon and not a military style weapon. The semi-auto AR15 and AK47 (and similar variants) are some of the MOST common firearms in the US. They are also VERY commonly used by law enforcement. Full auto weapons are uncommon in terms of police or citizens (although they are not banned, these uncommon weapons can be owned by citizens under the terms of the NFA 1939).
The regulation of firearms under this opinion are ones that are uncommon or not fitting a purpose that enables a militia to be efficient or effective. One could hardly make that argument of the higly common high capacity semi-automatic rifles and handguns.
In essence, many anti-gun advocates argue that the second amendment ONLY applies to muskets since that was the only thing known at the time. Under this opinion, one could argue that muskets are uncommon and inefficient for a current militia and are actually NOT protected by the 2A.
Would you go into battle with the weapons in your arsenal, or would you rather have weapons provided by the military? Most all the gun advocates on this blog tout the benign firepower of the AR type weapon commonly sold in the US. Is that a military worthy gun.
————————
In Miller 1939 (and referred to in other SC cases in 1972, 1980, and 1997) part of the opinion states:
” And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”
So, yes, I would.
gdad@126
Remember crazy LaPierre saying “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” ?
How does that play out at a gun range? Two “good guys” dead and one “bad guy” still alive…
So applying LaPierre’s deranged philosophy, there wasn’t at least ONE other armed good guy at a FIRING RANGE to stop the killing [shooting] by the “bad guy”.
So much for the baloney about these gun types being able to react quickly and end a bad situation – which is the delusional scenario they play out in their heads and post here on Dan’s blog. Anyone see not only the tragedy of this situation, but the irony as well?
The only thing that stops a bag guy with a gun is keeping him from having the gun in the first place.
The only thing that stops a bag guy with a gun is keeping him from having the gun in the first place.
Shoppers, beware the crazed bag guy with a gun.
The only thing that stops a bag lady with a gun is keeping her from having the gun in the first place! (Does she keep it in her bag?)
That was moderately funny, Suzie. In the interest of behavior modification, I will try to be more diligent in the future about letting you know when one of your posts doesn’t completely suck.
Shoppers, beware the crazed bag guy with a gun.
Comment by Suzie — February 3, 2013 @ 3:24 pm
lol. Well played.
He said the only thing that CAN stop them, not WILL stop them. There are NO guarantees in this life. Carrying or having a gun is no Guarantee. Wearing body armour will not guarantee a person won’t cut your throat from behind. You cannot eliminate all possibilities.
If I were to ever have to face a lunatic with a gun, I’d prefer to be armed rather than unarmed curled up in the fetal position begging a lunatic not to kill me. I still may end up dead either way.
I’m glad you are all basking in this person’s death and the irony you see in it. He was a highly decorated Navy Seal that risked his life in battle many times to protect your rights…including the ones protected under the second amendment.
Comment by (o\ ! /o) — February 3, 2013 @ 1:55 pm
You are focused heavily on the Miller case. Do you think Heller is flawed and does not give the federal government or states the right to pass restrictions on dangerous weapons or pass legislation requiring background checks on all gun transactions? Given Miller, how were we able to pass the assault weapons ban in the early 1990s?
The previous AWB expired and was not renewed prior to any subsequent Circuit Court opinions making their way to and the SCOTUS ever agreeing to hear them.
This is also STRAIGHT out of Heller:
(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster.
——-
As we see above, banning an entire class of weapon that Americans overwhelmingly choose for lawful purpose would fail constitutional muster.
——-
Here are three additional 2A cases that reference Miller and incorporate the findings from Miller in their conclusion:
Adams v. Williams (1972); (dissenting opinion of Douglas, joined by Marshall)
The Second Amendment, it was held, “must be interpreted and applied” with the view of maintaining a “militia.”
“The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia – civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.” Id., at 178-179. Critics say that proposals like this water down the Second Amendment. Our decisions belie that argument, for the Second Amendment, as noted, was designed to keep alive the militia.
Lewis v. United States (1980); Footnote 8
(the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”); United States v. Three Winchester 30-30 Caliber Lever Action Carbines, 504 F.2d 1288, 1290, n. 5 (CA7 1974); United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548 (CA4 1974); Cody v. United States, 460 F.2d 34 (CA8), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1010 (1972) (the latter three cases holding, respectively, that 1202 (a) (1), 922 (g), and 922 (a) (6) do not violate the Second Amendment).
Printz v. United States (1997) (concurring opinion of Thomas)
Our most recent treatment of the Second Amendment occurred in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), in which we reversed the District Court’s invalidation of the National Firearms Act, enacted in 1934. In Miller, we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen’s right to possess a sawed off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be “ordinary military equipment” that could “contribute to the common defense.” Id., at 178. The Court did not, however, attempt to define, or otherwise construe, the substantive right protected by the Second Amendment.
Comment by (o\ ! /o) — February 3, 2013 @ 7:43 pm
You are, in fact, wrong.
Justice Scalia stated in his majority opinion in the Heller case:
“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. [United States v.Miller] said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”
Let’s stop pretending Heller doesn’t exist in this context:
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within
the home.
(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right iS NOT UNLIMITED.
It is NOT a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
We should invent a drinking game called “Heller”.
Given Miller, how were we able to pass the assault weapons ban in the early 1990s?
Comment by Jason Perdue — February 3, 2013 @ 6:24 pm
In my opinion, the 1994 “AW”B was just as unconstitutional as the one currently being proposed.
Hillary, go back and read all of my posts and you’ll start getting a feel for where the SCOTUS would go with a ban on semi-auto rifles or limits on magazine capacity. Any legislator can propose it, if Congress passes it, then it is challenged in court, appealed, yada, yada, yada it ends up years later in the SCOTUS. This is where it would also end. The SCOTUS has on multiple occasions ruled that the 2A DOES protect weapons in common use at the time, military in type, to cause militia to be efficient, and commonly used for lawful purpose. So YES, there have been limits imposed by law since 1939 on guns that are deemed uncommon and not military in nature or not to cause efficiency of a militia. It seems to protect the very thing you desire to be limited. Military-style weapons.
You are ignoring the fact that Heller also says:
“The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster.”
Semi-auto rifles (aka “Assault Rifles”) and handguns are the most common of all firearms used by civiians and police in the US. As for magazine limits, according to Constitional Law experts debating at Cornell Law School (one of which is a currently serving Judge), they would NOT hold up in SCOTUS and be deemed unconstitional. Of course, what does he know…he was just one of the attorneys in the Heller case.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQ0IX74oSuY
watch the whole debate here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fp7aiom9R9M
Comment by (o\ ! /o) — February 3, 2013 @ 11:46 pm
148.Hillary, go back and read all of my posts
Hillary is meticulous in her research but I doubt if she is a glutton for
punishment.
Hillary, go back and read all of my posts and you’ll start getting a feel for where the SCOTUS would go with a ban on semi-auto rifles or limits on magazine capacity.
Comment by (o\ ! /o) — February 3, 2013 @ 11:46 pm
No need to review all your posts. They all say the say the same thing. It is clear you think the Supreme Court would overturn any ban on assault weapons and magazine restrictions. Fair enough, though I don’t share your interpretation. The Supreme Court fairly surprised everyone in its opinion on the Affordable Care Act.
And they shocked a lot of people when they ruled the DC and Chicago firearms bans unconstitutional…which directly relate to the 2A we are discussing. If you take the time to watch the Cornell Law School debate with the Constitutional Law Attorney, Gupta, who was personally involved in those cases you will learn a lot of background basis for those decisions…which lead me to my opinion. In any event, it’s not up to me to decide. It will eventually work it’s way to the SCOTUS just like the Chicago and DC bans did. It may take a while, but it will get there.
Hopefully you will make the NRA Enemies List. At nearly 78 I’m tried of listening to WHY AMERICANS NEED GUNS TO PROTECT THEMSELVES. I lost a member of my family 28 yr. old shot in the head with 4 other employees of a Pizza business in New Orleans so 4 men could divide $2,000 cash in the register. Two got the death penalty and 2 received life sentences. It took 3 years for trial and the two that received death penalty are still alive!!!! They 5 were shot 10 years ago.
Well, I’m back.
Looks as if you folk had fun shill I was away for an extended weekend.
Well, done (o\!/o)
Re: the role of Heller, I hope that some day soon Heller is looked back on as an early stepping stone from the brink of a disastrous Prohibition back to the sanity of a fully restored Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Then it will be the (o\!/o) of the world who are recognized as the leaders in this great Civil Rights struggle.
*** Auto spell checker road kill alert ***
My last comment should have been, “Looks as if you folk had fun while I was away for an extended weekend.”
Re: Restoring rights — Or rather stopping the “camel’s nose” strategy from getting farther into the tent of freedom:
http://tinyurl.com/a2rm78v
**
Universal background checks would strip 18-20 year olds of handgun rights
February 3, 2013
By: Mike Stollenwerk
Lost amidst the clamor for universal back ground checks are a lot of important details. One of those details, besides the issues of who will pay for universal background checks, and how will such checks be precluded from turning into a registration scheme, is the fact that simply making firearm background checks “universal” would have to effect of denying the right of 18-20 year olds to own a handgun, even in their home.
In 2008 the US Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” At issue in Heller was the District of Columbia’s statute which forbid the keeping of handguns at home, and the Court said that
“the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upper-body strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.”
So how in the heck would the introduction of “universal background checks” strip 18-21 20 year olds of their constitutional right to own a handgun in their home? That’s easy – because believe it or not, the Gun Control Act of 1968 requires 18-20 year olds to buy handguns privately.
SNIP
Philip Van Cleave, President of the Virginia Citizens Defense League warns that “this push for ‘universal background checks’ is just a Trojan Horse effort to restrict Second Amendment rights. At 18 you can vote and you can fight for your country. It would be unthinkable to make it so they don’t have their Second Amendment rights as well.”
If these politicians “are truly honest about their motives, they would show us the language in the bill” that will ensure 18-20 years olds can buy handguns through background checks too, added Van Cleave.
SNIP
**
Dave Hicks,
Did the VCDL this year push for a bill that would allow concealed carry permits to people 18 and up?
New convenience store coming to the neighborhood? Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana, Firearms and Explosives Express?
http://tinyurl.com/acjhwzv
**
Bills to remove federal ban, tax pot
By KEVIN ROBILLARD | 2/4/13 2:46 PM EST
Two Democratic congressman will introduce legislation Tuesday to legalize marijuana on the federal level and tax the drug.
Reps. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) and Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) will introduce two separate bills similar to ones backed in past Congresses by former representatives Ron Paul of Texas and Barney Frank of Massachusetts. Polis’ measure would regulate marijuana the same way the federal government regulates alcohol sales, shifting responsibility from the Drug Enforcement Administration to the freshly-renamed Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana, Firearms and Explosives. Blumenauer’s bill would tax marijuana.
SNIP
**
Re: Dan Casey @ 6:57 pm
Nope.
You can follow VCDL’s lobbying here: http:
//www2.vcdl.org/webapps/vcdl/2013leg.html
Welcome back Dave Hicks!
Comment by (o\ ! /o) — February 3, 2013 @ 11:46 pm
Thanks for the suggestion, but, umm…no. I read the Heller decision which is [un]clear enough without reviewing every court case or your posts.
The banning of guns in the various cities [which had, by the way, serious gun crimes] was found unconstitutional. Fair enough. However in Heller, Justice Scalia left the door WIDE open for some restrictions – whether the banning of specific weapons or magazines.
His finding that the Second Amendment protects the right of an average person to have a typical firearm for protection is a clue to what may be the demise of the assault weapons like the AR-15, the Bushmaster et al.
No one in their right mind typically keeps those weapons under their pillow in the event of a break-in, despite the crazy testimony of Gayle Trotter that “An assault weapon in the hands of a young woman defending her babies at her home becomes a defense weapon.”
Oh yeah – we all keep an assault weapon in the diaper bag….
I presume that at some point we will see challenges by NRA front men and women to any of limitations enacted in the coming year.
So as a society our leaders are pushing to limit our enumerated constitutional right to utilize weapons in common use to defend ourselves and at the same time pushing to legalize pot. And they think our priorities are messed up?
FWIW, I actually support legalizing marijuana. I accept the fact that making it illegal has somehow not kept it out of the hands of potheads and Junior High kids across the nation. It has created a black market in which international crime organizations have flourished to the tune of Billions of Dollars. The same way they would if semi-auto rifles and NORMAL capacity magazines are banned.
The fact that you didn’t bother to read the posts, details of the cases, details of the opinions, or watch the video explains why you are clueless. It appears the legislative and political leaders pushing for these things haven’t bothered studying it either. I’m not concerned either way. It won’t get through, and if by some miracle it does, the information available strongly suggests that it won’t survive in the eventual SCOTUS opinion.
I think that Symbols and Dave Hicks are simply wrong about the SC and the “ban” they held unconstitutional was not limited. I think Scalia himself has left the door open to support gun control measures, including banning some weapons.
http://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleader/archives/2012/12/18/scaliathe-last-word-in-gun-control
http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/why-liberals-should-thank-justice-scalia-for-gun-control-20130119
http://www.examiner.com/article/scalia-s-gun-remarks-outrage-conservatives
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/07/scalia-gun-restrictions-could-be-constitutional/1#.URBfFR27OPo
“Scalia told Fox News that the Second Amendment “undoubtedly” permits some restrictions on firearms.
Look at the syllabus of the Court’s brief that he wrote:
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. [United States v.] Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.“
Re: Sandi Saunders @ 8:49 pm
Where have I ever said that SCOTUS had opined that 2A was not limited — Heller or elsewhere?
I did not say you “said” it, I think you and Symbols are implying you believe the SC has closed some door to a limited ban and if that is not what you think you mean, what is it you do mean? No one has said they would uphold a complete ban so that cannot be what you are saying.
**
Bills to remove federal ban, tax pot
By KEVIN ROBILLARD | 2/4/13 2:46 PM EST
Two Democratic congressman will introduce legislation Tuesday to legalize marijuana on the federal level and tax the drug.
Reps. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) and Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) will introduce two separate bills similar to ones backed in past Congresses by former representatives Ron Paul of Texas and Barney Frank of Massachusetts. Polis’ measure would regulate marijuana the same way the federal government regulates alcohol sales, shifting responsibility from the Drug Enforcement Administration to the freshly-renamed Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana, Firearms and Explosives. Blumenauer’s bill would tax marijuana.
SNIP
**
Comment by Dave Hicks — February 4, 2013 @ 7:05 pm
I support this one, Dave Hicks! Makes a lot of sense socially, economically, and judicially. It will be very interesting to see how the bill progresses.
If the GCA of 1968 (partially supported by the NRA) limits sales of handguns to 18-20 years to private transactions, I have no problem with proposed legislation allowing this age group to purchase handguns with a background check. This shouldn’t be a roadblock to sensible legislation.
When did the NRA drop it’s support of universal background checks? I seem to remember Wayne LaPierre on TV stating that the NRA supported universal background checks.
Sandi Saunders 9:14 pm
Where have I implied that I believe that SCOTUS has permanently closed some door to any limited ban?
FWIIW, I do think that the “of the kind in common use” (see: Heller) is a strong limitation of some bans (at this time). However, IMHO, that does not preclude that some limited ban (no matter how unwise) might not pass muster — even with the current SCOTUS.
SCOTUS’s opining is always been a work-in-progress — in that they tend to decide on the narrowest grounds available for the issues presented and the attorneys presenting cases tend to present very narrowly focused questions. Add to that the historical evolution of opinion, over time (w/ successive POTUS’s appointments), and I would never opine that there are ever any doors permanently closed. Hence, the need of eternal vigilance as protection against authoritarians — be it intrusions into the womb, into the bedroom, into the boardroom or into the RKBA.
“Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.” — Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4,1777
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” — Edmund Burke
“The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes.” — Thomas Paine
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” — Edmund Burke
“Yawn” – Dave Hicks, when asked about the victims of gun slaughter in the U.S.
Re: Jason Perdue @ 9:50 pm
I certainly do not speak for the NRA.
However, it is my understanding that, following the Columbine tragedy, the NRA did try to find some compromise on background checks on sales at gun-shows — with concessions to be made by both sides (the keys to any “compromise”).
IIRC, the NRA was not talking about all transfers ( e.g., bequest of your firearms in your will, individual personal sales in other settings, etc.) — hence not a “universal background check” system.
Again IIRC, the NRA also wanted a legal definition of “a gun show” that would not include single estate auctions, individual yard sales, etc. And I do believe they were talking about some other concessions — e.g., the speed of the process, the cost checks, increased investigation prosecute people who attempted to buy guns and were rejected, etc.
Then, like now, the pro-more-restriction crowd thought that they had a slam-dunk because of the high emotions and they quit playing their normal “camel’s nose” strategy. They went for the whole enchilada — assuming they didn’t need to compromise.
The NRA rank & file reacted to the NRA’s leadership’s “Be Reasonable” campaign with, “See we told you so….”
I woulod like to be on that list. Tere is medication for La Pierre’s paranoia.
170 guns posts on the 19th gun thread of the year. Somebody give me some toothpicks so I can stick them in my eyeballs.
172.170 guns posts on the 19th gun thread of the year. Somebody give me some toothpicks so I can stick them in my eyeballs.
Comment by Suzie — February 4, 2013 @ 11:51 pm
For once you and I agree on something.
wayne and Suzie,
We have non gun threads every day.
Gladly Suzie, do you like the peppery kind?
“Somebody give me some toothpicks so I can stick them in my eyeballs.”
Or, you could just not read the blog. What a concept!!
Miller case indeed upheld a restriction. The same ones in place since 1935 that have been upheld in every case since. The consistent reference is “in common use at the time” and even military in nature causing a militia to be efficient. It also relates to lawful common purpose. An RPG is not common or otherwise useful in common lawful purpose.
So, yes, I recognize the nature of the 2A limits in the SCOTUS opinions. I also see their opinions supporting common arms of the time. The limits are applied to unusual weapons not in common use for lawful purposes.
Man!
Which part of the phrase “shall not be infringed” does the Supreme Court not understand?!
Don’t know. But it seems the part they DO understand is as it applies to in common use for lawful purpose of a nature to support efficient militia.
“Call this a govment! A man can’t get his rights in a govment like this. Sometimes I’ve a mighty notion to just leave the country for good and all. Yes, and I told ‘em so. Lots of ‘em heard me, and can tell what I said. Says I, for two cents I’d leave the blamed country and never come a-near it agin. Them’s the very words. Oh, yes, this is a wonderful govment, wonderful.”
Dan, it seems like things haven’t changed much in this country with the gun issue since Mark Twain wrote these words from Pap in “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.” But then, the above could be a preamble for most any complaint the Tea Party and their perpetually contrary associates have about having to share this country with anyone else.
I’d be happy to help you get on the NRA enemy list, but I’m too busy trying to get on it myself!
My fellow American,
You are an idiot.
Cause u know the NRA is hella tight.