Gun control legislation
As the nation prepares to debate gun control legislation, a recent (Nov. 14) report from the Congressional Research Service, the non-partisan investigative arm of Congress, should inform that discussion. It offers a wide-ranging review of guns in America, current laws, and issues likely to come before Congress.
December 17, 2012 - 11:40 AM
Sadly, I don’t think there’s going to be any substantive gun control legislation, for several reasons:
1: The NRA is one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington.
2: Gun “hobbyists” think the 2nd Amendment gives them the right to own as MANY guns as they want, of any KIND they want, and as MUCH ammunition as it takes to indulge them in their hobby.
3: How can you possibly have a rational conversation about gun violence with someone who thinks their right to have an arsenal is “God-given?”
NRA heavy hand is all over that one!
1 – Chuck, I ask the same question of you that I asked Sandi:
What gun control legislation would have prevented the Connecticut horror?
Sandi seems to think that if we had legislation denying access to guns of any household that has anyone that has been diagnosed with a mental illness and/or prescribed medications for same would work.
I don’t think that would have stopped Lanza, because he was so intent on obtaining firearms that he – after being denied a legal purchase – murdered his own mother to get the guns. A mere decree that there be no guns in the house wouldn’t have stopped him…would have just made him steal them elsewhere, probably killing someone else in the process. His behavior suggests this is exactly what would have happened.
Now, do I KNOW this would have happened? Well, without a parellel universe to test the hypothesis…no, I cannot say for 100 per cent certainty that he would not have just said, “Oh well, no guns here. Think I’ll go back to my video games. Too bad.” as Sandi seems to think would have happened. But I can be as certain as Sandi.
I’ll set aside my other objections to Sandi’s proposal for the moment. What do you think?
#1 – “How can you possibly have a rational conversation about gun violence with someone who thinks their right to have an arsenal is “God-given?””
While I don’t think having an “arsenal” is “God-given”, I do believe the right to protect yourself, your family, and your property is.
Go ahead and start the rational conversation…I’m all ears. Provided, of course, you are willing to change your mind. I know I am if presented with good enough reasons.
Meanwhile…
http://www.roanoke.com/news/breaking/wb/318031
Virginia Sen. Mark Warner says the massacre at a Connecticut elementary school has changed his supportive stand on assault weapons.
Since Lanza did not use “assault weapons” in his rampage, this makes no sense whatsoever. Put differently, a ban on “assault weapons” would not have saved a single life in Connecticut. But let’s go ahead and make a purely symbolic and useless gesture, allowing us to exploit this tragedy into perpetuity with the self-righteous stance that we’ve banned “assault weapons”…having no impact whatsoever.
Sheesh.
#1 Thank you.
#2 All over what?
#3 ‘Hoo, don’t hold your breath for a rational answer.
#4 Correct. Thank you.
#5 Amen.
When rational is defined as agreeing with you, no, do not ever expect that kind of “rational” answer from me.
You may not think it is rational to have a law that requires anyone to keep guns away from someone who is mentally ill. But that does not mean it isn’t.
You may think it is rational that no such precaution would have stopped this killer. Based on nothing more than an assumption that someone with his social impairment would still be able to get guns some other vague and unexplained way. But that does not mean that it is.
Having read your posts for many months now, Jim Lucas, please pardon me if I refuse your definition of rational.
At least I have offered some ideas and efforts at solutions instead of just laying in wait for others to post so I can insult them.
#7 And…..you use your own name! (You left that out, here).
#7 – “You may not think it is rational to have a law that requires anyone to keep guns away from someone who is mentally ill.”
I don’t think that’s irrational at all. By all means, keep guns away from the mentally ill. But taking guns away from others (which is the end goal of the Dems) is not the answer.
Michael…
I’m a Democrat and I don’t give two hoots in hell if you have guns or not. I have guns and have had them since I was 8 years old. What I do care about as I have stated in other threads on this blog is what people do with them when they are loaded and have fingers on the trigger.
I’d like to be damn sure they’re being used for sport rather than shooting 5 and 6 year old children.
But be certain my friend…there are a host of others from whose hands should be deprived of guns. Surely you’re not being that obtuse in your argument just for the sake of bashing a Democrat are you? If so…there’s a real problem with politics and reality here.
@4 Michael…
Why don’t you start a rational conversation as to why you have people using their guns to go on shooting sprees to kill innocent men, women and children rather than just standing behind the crutch do “I have my guns to protect me, my family and property”.
You’ve challenged others..I say time to put some thought into a real answer yourself.
#11 – Not bashing democrats at all, Will…simply pointing out a fact. Who ALWAYS goes after guns when given the chance?
Democrats.
And here’s a couple of answers: Take those who are mentally ill off of the streets. Instead of banning “assault wepaons”, ban violent video games that are teaching our childred about killing and the lack of respect for life. Ban “music” that condones and glorifies violence. Put the Ten Commandments back up on the wall at school.
But no…none of that will ever happen, nor even be considered.
I will have to agree that in any crisis, it is the Democrats who seek meaningful action and resolution. Many of the millions upon millions of guns in this nation are also owned by Democrats so, no, we are not “coming for your guns”. Clearly some folks should not have them though.
To “Take those who are mentally ill off of the streets” is no solution. And I find it funny that you literally decry taking anything from gun owners, while advising us to take video games and music away from “others”, and forcing one religion on everyone. That is all absolutely as useless as banning a particular gun.
I do not doubt that violent video games and violent movies and violent music and violent online forums might make a mentally unstable person act out a fantasy or their hate, but millions of kids and adults play those games, watch those movies and listen to that music and never do anything remotely violent or offensive in real life. Same for the claims of religious need. Millions of atheists and agnostics exist and do not go off and become violent or offensive to anyone.
What video game, music or movie did Ed Gein, Howard Unruh, Charles Starkweather, Hitler, Idi Amin and a myriad of other serial killers and mass murderers watch or listen too?
I would love to see violent imagery banned and certainly not allowed for anyone under 18, but that is not the cause for these tragedies. Remember when we had this conversation after the Tucson shooting of Gabby Giffords among others? Violent imagery, even in political talk was no excuse then and it is no excuse now.
I can support the rationale for a ban on assault weapons, large magazines and “polar bear” hand guns (with a caveat for permitted ownership). I can support laws against guns being within access for the mentally ill, even if that means more of them must be “adjudicated” as such. I do not support trying the impossible of banning guns or blaming guns alone for any tragedy.
13 – it’s not meaningful if it:
A) Doesn’t work (gun bans);
B) Creates a whole new class of felonies (restricting one group of people or another from access to guns…a double whammy because it’s also a gun ban that doesn’t work); and/or
C) Creates a whole new set of victims (prohibiting one group of people or another the legal means to protect themselves…a triple whammy).
But hey, symbolism is grand.
IMO I found the following to be a good, useful write-up. The police makes sense wrt to the 30 round clip or magazine available for the rifle.
“There is an allure to this weapon that makes it unusually attractive,” says a police chief and gun expert. “The way it looks, the way it handles—it screams assault weapon.” It is, hands down, “a combat weapon,” he says.
It’s known for being easy to handle, accurate, and quick to get off a lot of rounds. Police say Adam Lanza used multiple 30-round rifle magazines; though it’s not clear whether the expired 2004 federal assault weapons ban would have prohibited the gun, it certainly would have banned the 30-round magazines, USA Today points out. “There’s a reason why these types of weapons are useful for the military,” says a gun control advocate. “They have the capacity to massacre large numbers of human beings in a short amount of time. There is little or no use for these weapons for people who want to use them for self-protection or sport.“
Where did Lanza get the 30-round magazines?
#15 – “There is little or no use for these weapons for people who want to use them for self-protection…”
Absolutely false.
When the need for self protection presents itself, it’s not up to someone else to tell you what you are limited to.
#15 – “There is little or no use for these weapons for people who want to use them for self-protection…”
Sure, if the police can guarantee thugs entering your home have less powerful weapons. A gun ban should take care of that, right? They always work.
@15
Gary,
So, if these guns and magazines are only useful to the military because they can “massacre large numbers of human beings”, why were all the police responding to the scene (looked like well over a 100) all carrying them and at least 10 loaded 30 round magazines ? Surely our police are not in the business of massacres ? why do a 100 (conservatively) cops need a 100 of the same gun and over 3,000 rounds of ammo…PLUS their GLOCK (in calibres bigger than Lanzaa’s 9mm) sidearms with at least 15 rounds if not 18 loaded in those, plus a few more spare pistol mags each (100 pistols and another 1,00 rounds of ammo) to take on 1 bad guy ???????????
I disagree that there are laws being discussed that meet the criteria you claim 89Hoo #14, but in truth, yes, “symbolism is grand”. It is important as a parent, as a member of society and as a leader to lead by example. Symbolism is very important on several levels. That is not however, what this reaction is about.
I think there are rational (as presented in Gary’s #15) well reasoned points to consider in possibly banning “assault weapons”. For certain sure, they are part of the allure for the gun culture especially teens and crazed mass shooters apparently. Why is it that does not matter to you?
I am totally not buying the idea that you cannot defend yourself or your home when the world collapses without an “assault weapon” of this sort.
20 – mere symbolism leads to a false sense of security, Sandi, disappointment when it is found that is IS merely symbolic and not effective at all, and inevitably leads to more draconian measures…which move beyond mere symbolism and into infringement of rights.
They are, in short, more harmful than doing nothing.
If the police can guarantee that the homeowner who chooses to protect himself with a six-shot .38-caliber revolver will never have to face an intruder armed with a semi-automatic 1911 colt, or a sawed-off shotgun, or an AR-15, or two six-shot .38-caliber revolvers, then Gary’s post in #15 might have some merit.
Can the police guarantee that? How will they secure that guarantee?
As to the world collapsing, I guess it depends on what you mean by that. Most people (NB: I am neither a gun owner, nor a member of the NRA, so I am guessing here) are more concerned about the creep that comes into his home to steal his belongings, or assault his wife or daughter, or steal something to parlay into drug money than about Armageddon (if that’s what you meant).
I suspect the victims, families and survivors of the massacre in Connecticut have pretty much felt their world has collapsed…and an armed school official might – might – have prevented or at least mitigated that.
#20 – “I am totally not buying the idea that you cannot defend yourself or your home when the world collapses without an “assault weapon” of this sort.”
Based on your training and experience in defensive tactics, right Sandi?
Because John Kemp, with all manner of arms available to people, they do not know what they will encounter.
No, based on my reading comprehension and ability to listen Michael. Oh, and my incredulity that sane people believe it will happen and actually want to prepare for it.
Again 89Hoo, YOU are the one insisting anything is “mere symbolism”. I do not see this as any such thing.
As for harping on the rights aspect, I cannot believe the Founders would have stood by as the gun culture and mass shooting massacres started to occur with such weapons. I do not believe offense was foremost in their minds.
So you want “guarantees” from the police and law makers but expect us to accept your speculation on what an armed principal could have done? Really?
@23
Sandi,
YOU PICKED THE #1 ANSWER !
Exactly,just as I,or any law abiding citizen would not/will not know what or how many we will encounter when criminals break into our homes or we are assaulted(and we don’t even get the benefit of a “gun free” zone). We get the chance to be prepared.
#24 – “No, based on my reading comprehension and ability to listen Michael.”
Book-learning and second-hand knowledge doesn’t equal actual training and experience.
I truly hope you are never put in a life-or-death situation where you need to defend yourself.
Now John Kemp, seriously, when was the last time any home invasion was as heavily armed and outfitted as the police or one of these mass shooting criminals?
So now Obama will support new gun laws. As if anyone should be surprised.
Oh, well, Dems and criminals will be glad to hear it.
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/12/white-house-obama-would-support-new-gun-laws-152297.html
@John P Kemp #19 I’m pretty sure the police chief in unintentionally omitted that the rifle is also used by the police and several law inforcement agencies; he’s certainly forgiven by me.
@89HOO #16 “Where did Lanza get the 30-round magazines?”
If I read correctly I’m willing to bet his Mom, who he shot to death, got them legally in CT. I also read that the NRA and gun advocates put heavy pressure on the CT state legislature not to approve,
“A proposal in March 2011 would have made it a felony to possess magazines with more than 10 bullets and required owners to surrender them to law enforcement or remove them from the state.”
And now the good Governor wants to talk about arming school officials. How predictable was that?
Way to go governor….Is that the best solution you can come up with? The very last sentence of his statement says “but we’ve got to go back and have another discussion about mental health and public safety and how those intersect.” Really, that’s the last thing you would say?
Sweet Jesus…are we that lazy that people don’t want to tackle the tough issues first?
Aw, Sandi, I was explaining why merely symbolic gestures actually do more harm than doing nothing…this in response to impassioned plea that we need more purely symbolic measures:
“…in truth, yes, “symbolism is grand”. It is important as a parent, as a member of society and as a leader to lead by example. Symbolism is very important on several levels..”
I get that you think that a measure that will prevent no one from getting guns is more than mere symbolism, but it really doesn’t matter to you. As you’ve made clear you would support it on the grounds of being merely symbolic. So effectiveness really means nothing (even though that’s not the issue here).
I can’t speak for everyone, but I an unimpressed by laws that are merely symbolic…it does not give me comfort as a parent or as a member of society. I think even less of a leader who claims to lead by example by leading through symbolism, and I don’t know how any rational person could support someone who merely leads symbolically. Even if it were the issue. Which its not. But it could be. So it doesn’t matter.
#33 – “Sweet Jesus…are we that lazy that people don’t want to tackle the tough issues first?”
OK, here ya go: These atrocities have all been performed by someone with mental health problems.
Let’s put anyone with mental health problems into institutions until they are better.
Does that work for ya, Will?
@29
Sandi…….really ? That is your solution ? My Family is asleep upstairs and I have to hope and pray for home invasion light so you and the progressive intelligentsia can boast about a wepaons ban ????????????? Maybe I should just put a “gun free zone” sign in the front yard as well ? Would you change your mind if I have a 6 or 7 year old on the premises or does that only matter when they are in a school ???
A casual search show a lot of of home invasions just in Virginia in 2012 and almost all involve multiple armed intruders, including one in Roanoke two months ago.
@34…Michael…
I guess that’s all you’re prepared to bring to the discussion and given your propensity to protecting any alterations to the availability or use of what you describe as assault type weapons…that must be a tremendous leap for you.
Congratulations.
#10 Will, who can argue with your first paragraph? As to the second:
“I’d like to be damn sure they’re being used for sport rather than shooting 5 and 6 year old children.” Well, once again…who can argue?
However, the 2nd Amendment is not about “sport”, and, those who realize this have no more desire to see dead children than you. Thanks.
#15 Gary, ask your “a police chief and gun expert”, aside from the “way it looks” (seriously? Unfortunately yes)….if this weapon was/is so “accurate” etc., and Lanza had so many high-capacity magazines…,why some many more are not dead.
One more time….a semi-automatic rifle. 100+ year old technology.
The ant-gun crowd will create mis-placed symbolism based on the opportunity. Saturday night specials, plastic guns, cop-killer bullets…..assault weapons.
What capacity is “acceptable” in a magazine? 30? 20? 10? 5? (Perhaps only single action, single shot).
Are you or your expert aware of the complete failure of the Clinton “assault weapons” ban to reduce violent crime? Of the percentage of such crime committed by (so-called) assualt weapons?
Gary….let’s be honet. The anti-gun bunch, IMO with some knee-jerk progressive socially engineered utopia POV…wishes to (somehow) create a gun free society.
They will exploit every opportunity toward this vision. The fact that these same people IMO & observation see a growing federal government & control of our lives as good, is of great concern to me.
This concern is the very basis of the 2nd Amendment.
A great editorial in today’s Newport News Daily Press
Editorial: Isn’t it past time to talk?
http://www.dailypress.com/news/opinion/dp-edt-guncontrols-editorial-1218-20121217,0,6874361.story
Don’t want to read it, how about the start of this paragraph
“One way to begin this discussion might be to recognize that the Second Amendment, which has enshrined the right to gun ownership, is an antiquated relic of a very different time, when militias were armed with muskets and shot pellets….”
or,
“The most hard-core gun rights supporters, led by the National Rifle Association, are fond of saying “guns don’t kill people, people do.” And it is true that mental illness, the general deterioration of religion and morality in our lives, and a violence-glorifying popular culture all play a role in the apparent growth of violence in America.”
Who can argue with this?
“Does a hunter, or a single woman worried about self defense, really need anything more sophisticated than a Remington rifle or a pistol to kill a deer or frighten away an intruder? We think not, which leads to the natural conclusion that we should ban the sale of semi automatics, 9mm Glocks and the exotic military-grade ammunition that has found its way into civilian hands…”
We must seriously consider the amount of deadly force each citizen really needs
#36 – Actually, Will, I’m prepared to bring plenty to the table.
I’ve brought up plenty of reasons that I think contribute to this mess we’re in. Have you addressed any of them?
No.
Instead you go on the attack of my defense of a weapon that your fellow Libs are quick to pounce on instead of looking at the root of the problem.
And I see you failed to respond to my question. I guess that shows how serious you want to “tackle the tough issues”.
“We need to have rational discussions…”
Yep, it’s rational as long as people agree with the nonsense being spouted by the media and the Libs.
What a joke…
@Jim Lucas #38 Gosh, how flattered I am to her from a “real” expert. I guess I better watch my posts from now on.
#25 “….harping on the rights aspect…”
Mrs. Saunders, can you possibly be serious? “Harping” on rights? Might say it all. This from the progressive civil warrior.
Guess there are rights….and rights. (Means & ends).
I do agree, the founding fathers did not want to shoot school children.
I wondered how long it would take before someone who thinks I am nuts, makes no bones about it, lambastes me on a regular basis for every opinion I dare to express would come out with “I truly hope you are never put in a life-or-death situation where you need to defend yourself“. Do you imagine for one split second I believe that was sincere? Or necessary? I have managed to live 54 years without ever touching a firearm and I am fully prepared to die without ever having done so too. Even if that means facing an armed person intent on doing me harm. I do not ask you to respect that, but I am asking that you refrain from “wishing” me anything. I hate it when the gun advocates throw that one out there like it will magically change my mind. It never has.
89Hoo, again, it is YOUR point that banning assault weapons and large magazines is “mere symbolism” not mine and why you feel the need to parse my posts and restate my position is starting to border on ridiculous. I am speaking English, certainly better than some, worse than others and I believe I make myself clear. It is condescending in the extreme the way you keep restating my POV to make it what you want it to be or say.
I said that symbolism is a part of every action that a leader takes and it is important, I did not make “clear” that I “would support it on the grounds of being merely symbolic“. I did not say that and I so not mean that. Of course efficacy and results matter. Can you not grasp the point and quit parsing the words?
I can’t speak for everyone either, but I am wholly unimpressed by people who need to dismiss what everyone says and then pretend they have had a conversation. We spend too much time parsing, picking and trying to cleverly insult each other and too little time actually discussing the issues. An issue this important only makes that more obvious.
I do not know what “laws that are merely symbolic” you speak of, but you have not had the tragedy that some families have experienced and some cannot get past this time so maybe you could try to understand someone else’s POV.
You may be right that banning a gun or type of gun, magazines of certain sizes and any other gun control effort, but you know what, you do not convince me of that by browbeating my and dismissing my concerns. Make YOUR case, and leave mine alone.
I believe we are very clear on what you and Michael and Jim Lucas and Herb think of Obama, Democrats, liberals and progressive thinkers and ideas. That alone does not make us wrong. I don’t know how any rational person could support anything offered with the disdain and insult so often found here.
John Kemp, make your case, it is not me that you need to convince. I do not think the safety of your family will be considered in the case against the mass shooting weapon of choice, but I believe you are free to try and convince us all. So far, even with my limited knowledge of guns and crime, I am not.
Do you believe that only the “progressive intelligentsia” live without guns? How did you survive when the assault weapons ban was in effect? This is not about anyone being able to “boast about a wepaons ban” but thanks for the insult. Maybe you should put up an “I have an arsenal, would you like to pick your pain” sign.
I raised two children and never needed a gun, so no, the ages of your children would not make me agree you need an “assault weapon” in your home to defend them.
Actual research shows we are all unlikely to ever be in any such situation as needing an “assault weapon” to defend ourselves or property.
knee-jerk progressive socially engineered utopia POV…
Jim Lucas, I do not believe for a moment that fearing the established government was or is “the very basis of the 2nd Amendment“. In fact, that kind of paranoia scares me. I believe that in the event, they “come for us”, they will “get us” handily. I never even give that a moment’s consideration. I believe in the entire Constitution and a nation of laws though.
@40…Michael
Lock up anyone who has mental health disorder. Ok.
Now how do you go about identifying the disorders before the individual demonstrates what might be called destructive behavior and goes on a rampage?
More personal interaction with young people and less reliance on social devices?
You talked about placing the Ten Commandments back in schools. I can tell you that when I was in primary, elementary, jr high and high school, the Ten Commandments were on display in my church, not in the schools. The teachers were actually responsible for teaching and not baby sitting to a standardized test.
Kids were taught at home to say yes ma’am an no ma’am/ yes sir and no sir. They were taught to be respectful of others at home and at school. The town I grew up in looked out for all the kids there. If you did something wrong and it was observed by a member of the community, that person called your parents to let them know. There were indeed consequences for bad behavior.
Probably most important though is that my mother was at home instead of being at a job. That doesn’t mean she didn’t work because running a home is indeed work. The main difference with my parents ten and a lot of parents today is that they decided to have kids when the could afford to care for them in that manner.
In so many cases today, it appears that people have kids and then try to figure out how to support them. The cart before the horse if you will. Perhaps parents need to let kids know that it is ok not to have the latest electronic device or the latest fashions or the fanciest cars or to go on the spring break trip to whatever exotic destination you can think of.
The underlying thread to all of that is to spend more time with your kids and if you see a problem, get help. Make sure that programs are funded to help you if you can’t afford the help yourself.
And for god sakes, if there are indeed mental health issues that lead you to be fearful of your child’s behavior, get help quickly. Don’t live your life in fear of your child as I have read so many parents seem to do these days. And do all you can to prevent weapons access by the children.
Is that a good star for you, Michael? And yes, at the same time, control the types do weapons that are available to ordinary individuals. It’s got to be a combination of both…not just one against the other.
You are so right Jim Lucas! I should not have said “…harping on the rights…”. I should have said, harping on the rights aspect that not all Americans even agree with you on might not be the strong suit you expect. The acclaimed Heller decision was 5-4 and Scalia has said that more remains to be decided. Being among those aforementioned Americans, I cannot believe the Founders would have stood by as the gun culture and mass shooting massacres started to occur with such weapons. I do not believe that offense was ever foremost in their minds and I believe the wording makes it clear they expected a citizen militia to come to the defense of the nation not serve anarchy when people did not like the government.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-segall/supreme-interference-the-_b_2307295.html
#32 Will, though you apparently disagree, I find it refreshing & dead on correct that our governor is more interested in protecteing the children that the state mandates be in certain places at certain times…..rather than deprive citizins of their Constitutional rights.
Gary….(#2? Post italics?) Do you have a point here, or just frustrated?
I’m curious about how people parse the second amendment;
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Does this mean that anyone who keeps and bears arms can be called on to be a part of the militia in order to protect the country from adversaries?
Militia defined by Miriam Webster:
a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military service
c
: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
It was in 08 and 10 that the Supreme Court decided to expand the expand the amendment beyond what the founding fathers intended.
Interesting reading to say the least.
And if you think Eric Segall is alone, think again.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment.html
“For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.”
His point about the right’s ability to accept a “living Constitution” is not to be missed either.
“Conservatives often embrace “originalism,” the idea that the meaning of the Constitution was fixed when it was ratified, in 1787. They mock the so-called liberal idea of a “living” constitution, whose meaning changes with the values of the country at large. But there is no better example of the living Constitution than the conservative re-casting of the Second Amendment in the last few decades of the twentieth century.”
I maintain that reason and rational thought are not as far out at some claim.
#43 – “Do you imagine for one split second I believe that was sincere?”
Yes, Sandi, was was being VERY sincere.
I have no intention of trying to change your mind about anything. You’ve stated time and time again how you never will, so why should anyone bother trying?
And how about: “I can’t speak for everyone either, but I am wholly unimpressed by people who need to dismiss what everyone says and then pretend they have had a conversation. ”
You dismiss anything said by anyone who disagrees with you, then write something like this? Really?
#44 – It is a good start, Will. You touched on many of the points I already brought up.
@Jim Lucas #8 Everything since just before 6 pm is displayed in italics. Comments after #39 are now numbered 1, 2, and your comment at 7:24pm is #7. In fact that comment you reference my #2.
I can’t answer the question Re: italics.
@46… Jim Lucas
What I find disturbing about the governor is that in his remarks, he waited until the very last sentence of his comments to bring up the need to include mental health issues as a part of the discussion.
I have not landed on whether I think that school administrators should also be charged with the responsibility of knowing how and when to use weapons in a school. We have a police officer in the financial institution in which I work…so perhaps on some level, armed professionals might be a viable idea. More secure doors, locks, windows with auto locking mechanisms in the event of an emergency might also be a solution although there are challenges with those as well.
I am saddened at the notion that kids must be exposed to that at such an early age. I’m sorry that they won’t get to fully enjoy the age of innocence that I was fortunate enough to enjoy.
There is no cure and it seems to be spreading. I believe it is a form of mental illness to believe that the 2nd Amendment is or was ever about insurrection, sedition and the anarchy of taking on our own government.
54 – then you need to learn about the Founding Fathers, the Virginians, particularly Jefferson. I don’t believe he was being merely symbolic, but why should that matter?
The Second Congress went to lengths to define a militia, even specifying the guns and the ammunition. They were clearly for the defense of the state not the insurrection of it.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=394
“every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia…[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
…that from and after five years from the passing of this act, muskets for arming the militia as herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound.”
I just do not think there is any question of their actual intent.
@55…89Hoo
Are you saying that the likes of Jefferson, et al were supportive of insurrection, anarchy and sedition of the government they had worked so hard to forge?
I find that difficult to see. Perhaps the insurrection and anarchy from the British rule pre 1776 but somehow I don’t think afterward. Just my take on what the old boys meant.
57 – Will (and Sandi) – the Founding Fathers had just defeated – through an armed citizenry – a tyranny, and knew first hand how important it was for the citizenry to be able to protect themselves against a government run amok. In that sense, yes, Jefferson was very much in support of citizens mounting insurrection (not to be confused with anarchy or sedition…they are not synonymous) against tyrannies. His challenge to the new government, and the reasons for the structure of the Constitution, was to ensure, as much as possible, that the new government did not become tyrannical. Jefferson was very distrustful of the state and the potential power it could wield…even of the government he’d just help forge (he was well aware of its imperfections).
(The other half of the equation is that the Founding Fathers opposed a standing army of any great size, which would make an armed revolution, if necessary, possible. Until WWI we had no standing army of more than a few hundred soldiers (the Civil War was fought totally with volunteers and conscripts); the imperialism of post WWII, which most who call themselves conservative eagerly support, actually hurts the 2nd Amendment cause…but that’s a topic for a different day.)
Knowing there are no guarantees that a government would not become tyrannical, of course, and that crap always flows downhill, the Founding Fathers wisely amended the Constitution to include (among other things) provisions to protect protesting citizens from the charge of sedition (the 1st Amendment), and to be able to protect themselves against an overreaching government leviathan.
Remember, in the Republic the Founding Fathers established, the power of the government is derived from the people (either directly or through elected representatives); unlike in the rest of the western world, where the monarchs claimed their power was derived from God.
So any thing that diminishes the power of the people (such as denying them the ability to defend themselves against an overreaching state) increases the power of the government.
It should be noted that tyrannies disarming citizens is not a new thing. Medieval lords prohibited their serfs from learning how to fight with swords and lances, meaning pitchfork-bearing peasants in sackcloth had a tough fight against destrier-mounted, sword-wielding, armored knights (who were usually much better fed, to boot).
And remember where the British in Lexington and Concord were going: to the armories to gather the weapons to prevent the citizens from arming and defending themselves.
All this was fresh in the memories of the Founding Fathers.
Jefferson (these are from Wiki, by the way, if you want to see for yourself, but here is a sampling):
The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, … or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press. (Letter to Major John Cartwright, 5 June 1824)
James Madison:
In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions. (Federalist 51)
George Mason:
[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually. (At Virginia’s U.S. Constitution ratification convention (June 14, 1788)
Patrick Henry (my personal favorite of the Virginians):
[W]here and when did freedom exist when the power of the sword and purse were given up from the people? (Virginia’s U.S. Constitution ratification convention (June 9, 1788)
Noah WebsterL
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. (writing under the nom de plume of “A Citizen of America), An Examination Into the Leading Principles of the Constitution (October 17, 1787)
89Hoo, I totally agree that “the reasons for the structure of the Constitution, was to ensure, as much as possible, that the new government did not become tyrannical”. I do not agree that they ever envisioned the arming of the people to be a check on our government. Being “distrustful of the state and the potential power it could wield” means they put in checks and balances and machination that are triggered by over stepping, it does not mean ‘take your guns to town when aggrieved’. There is no “imperfection” that warrants armed insurrection and whether you like it or not, that is what many are implying their guns are for.
If they “opposed a standing army of any great size, which would make an armed revolution”, does that not negate their support of such insurrection?
You say “there are no guarantees that a government would not become tyrannical”, but I believe that was the very purpose of the government, representation and the Constitution. This was not set up to be a Monarchy for that reason too. The Constitution does not protect protesting citizens from legitimate charges of sedition. And nowhere does it say keep arms “to be able to protect themselves against an overreaching government leviathan”.
Maybe it is you who need to “Remember, in the Republic the Founding Fathers established, the power of the government is derived from the people (either directly or through elected representatives); unlike in the rest of the western world, where the monarchs claimed their power was derived from God”. That difference is crucial in their opinion of tyranny and rebellion. It is key. The Constitution was our protector from tyranny. Our representative government was our defender from tyranny. The government IS us.
I disagree vehemently that they intended arms to be in relation to “any thing that diminishes the power of the people” or that they meant arms to be used when we felt the state was “denying them the ability to defend themselves against an overreaching state”. Increases in the power of the government were and are inevitable, that is not a cause for rebellion, insurrection or sedition. Don’t you think the words “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes” means that YOUR gripe with government tyranny may well not be mine? I reject completely that the rebellion against a Monarchy is the same as taking arms against a government instituted by a Constitution, with “equal” representation and redress, due process, and the myriad recourse available.
Tyrannies do not exist in nations with strong Constitutions, representative government, free elections and laws. Not beyond the petty personal whining of tyranny in any case.
Comparing the United States to historical tyranny is ludicrous IMO.
Not to mention bad boys, that whatcha gonna do when they come for you is a well documented fact.
59 – Sandi, I’m not sure how you reconcile your feelings with the very words the Founders wrote about an armed populace protecting its freedoms from an overreaching government. They either meant what they said or they didn’t; is it your position that they lied?
And Sandi, please quote me completely. What I said, completely, was: …the Founding Fathers opposed a standing army of any great size, which would make an armed revolution, if necessary, possible… You conveniently left off the bold-faced portion. If you want clarification, I’ll provide it…but don’t misquote me. Clarification: the Founding Fathers opposed a standing army…which means an armed revolution would have had a chance of succeeding, and that was by design.
I agree, the US is not a tyranny, and one of the reasons is that an armed citizenry has prevented the national government from overreaching. Let’s keep it that way. Remove that check, and the landscape changes.
Sandi, the Soviet Union had a strong constitution, held elections, and they had plenty of laws. Hitler rose to power in a country with a constitution, elections, and plenty of laws. What they lacked was an armed citizenry.
Is it your contention that they were not tyrannies?
60 – ‘pon further review, Sandi, I think I may see your confusion. The Founding Fathers were generally opposed to a standing professional army, such as the King of England had, and such as we have today. They did not envision or consider a well-armed citizenry to be a standing professional army, rather the bulwark against the overreaching state.
Apologies on the quotation misstep, I took that whole thing in another direction. I think however, where we diverge is the notion that not having a standing army somehow meant that a few, even one aggrieved citizen was thereby free to take up arms against the government and that is ludicrous. I further think that you thinking that this nation would EVER come together as a monolith and take up arms against our government is literally a fantasy version of the one person doing so. It is not in the United States DNA, it is NOT what has kept us free. It not what has kept our government functioning or in fear of us and it is just plain weird to me that anyone would claim it is.
YOUR opinion of an overreaching state and that actually being the case for the millions upon millions of people it would take to “overthrow” the government is like “Planet of the Apes” to me. Our “bulwark against the overreaching state” is our vote, our representative government, our laws, our Constitution, our history and yes, our decency. It is NOT going to happen and I do not pity the fool who sets out to prove their might or their right with armed insurrection in mind.
63 – well, they did fight a civil war because enough people felt grieved enough to take up arms against the government. After enough extra-constitutional abuses on the part of Lincoln – and 600,000 dead Americans – that was put down. THAT is NOT what the Founding Fathers envisioned.
Would that happen today? Not likely; for one thing, the standing army (which did not exist in the 1860s) is the biggest detriment…making Jefferson’s (and Mason’s, and Henry’s) concerns a reality.
I think that “concern” is weighted by the senseless toll of the Civil War and even then, they could not achieve their goal now could they? It is a useless and deadly, destructive and awful choice for anyone or any group to make and to keep speaking of it as some viable or reasonable reason to be armed is just ridiculous and I cannot credit any sanity to such thought. I just cannot. IMO, that is all rhetoric, sad rhetoric at that.
That’s pretty much what the Brits thought of the colonists, Sandi.
Why does Obama want our guns? Why do “progressives” fear an armed citizinry?
Why do those who advocate more (and more) federal power, and less & less individual freedom want our guns?
The founding fathers had it right, the 2nd Amendment is all about keeping any federal government in check.
Otherwise the Constitution is toothless. Which is exactly what many wish.
Saw a great sign today:
You don’t like guns. Fine…that’s your choice.
You don’t believe in God. Again…that’s your choice.
But I’m willin’ to bet when someone is breaking into your house you’ll call someone with a gun and pray they get there quick.
Why is it you all believe we have laws?
“the 2nd Amendment is all about keeping any federal government in check.”
Major fail, Jim. This may have been true in 1776, but your popgun is a bean-shooter compared to modern military firepower. Besides, if Obama really wanted to ban importation of assault weapons he could do it with the stroke of a pen.
Tell us how the Whiskey Insurrection turned out?
“The Whiskey Rebellion demonstrated that the new national government had the willingness and ability to suppress violent resistance to its laws.” In 1791, led by George Washington no less, who was, I believe considered a “Founding Father.
You are just flat wrong and you know it. Not that I am surprised you believe political rhetoric even from that long ago. They may well have “said” they supported armed citizens, but they damn well knew they would not be subject to them. Not then, and most assuredly not now. Who is it you are trying to fool with that meme? Why do you claim to respect the Constitution and still hold that armed rebellion is a viable form of “redress”?
70 – modern military firepower is based more on the presence of the standing professional army – and the military-industrial complex that feeds it – than on anything else. Again, the Founding Fathers opposed a standing professional army on the grounds that it would pose a barrier to armed citizenry. Put differently, the standing professional army posed a barrier to the right of the people to overthrow and choose their own government (especially in the spirit of Jeffersonian federalism).
71 – the Whiskey Rebellion accomplished exactly what the Whiskey Boys set out to do, Sandi. It was a revolt over whiskey and property taxes imposed by Alexander Hamilton (Sec of Treasury) under Washington. The taxes were ultimately repealed…and the rebellion itself cost no lives, and in fact there was not even a confrontation. About twenty folks were arrested, but were ultimately acquitted.
So what do we learn from that? Well, the armed protest achieved its goal – repeal of the taxes.
And we know that the Founding Fathers were not monolithic in their views…the southerners, lead by the Virginians I mentioned earlier, were more (though not totally) Jeffersonian federalists; the northerners, including Hamilton, were more, well, Hamiltonian federalists.
But the Whiskey Rebellion achieved its objective, without loss of life. Would that have happened without a unified, armed resistance against the marshal serving the writs? No.
One other side effect, Sandi, of the proposal to remove all guns from those diagnosed with, or medicated for, medical illness…extended black markets in guns and/or medications.
If you make prescribing medication contingent on one thing or another, a good number of those requiring help will seek it through “underground” channels, both for the doctor’s visit and for the treatment.
73 – I should add to the final paragraph:
“If you make prescribing medication contingent on one thing or another, a good number of those requiring help will seek it through “underground” channels, both for the doctor’s visit and for the treatment.
Or not seek treatment at all.
Yes, I remember the lesson: “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction”. I don’t “like” any of the answers and I do not feel I have any better. It is, as they say, a bummer.
75 – “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction”…well, sort of.
No, there are no perfect answers…if there were, we wouldn’t need laws. But I am absolutely convinced:
– that what hasn’t worked in the past will again not work in the future; banning things – such as alcohol, drugs, etc. – have not only failed in the past (and present), they have failed spectacularly, both in terms of intended and unintended outcomes.
– that acts of mere symbolism do more harm than good in that they create a false sense of security, and inevitably lead to more draconian action.
– digging a deeper hole will only put you in the hole deeper.
It’s Human Action in action. Let’s try allowing people to exercise the freedoms guaranteed them by the Constitution.
So you believe that if drugs were not banned there would be no increase in use? No more abuse, no more destruction from their use?
Laws that not all people obey remain “mere symbolism” and only “create a false sense of security”?
And you think any law related to gun control is only “digging a deeper hole”?
Maybe it is too late for connections, but that fatalistic rant is just not cutting it on any level for me.
#70 Mr. Hill you are incorrect in all regards.
1. You don’t question the valitity of the claimed essence for the 2nd Amendment (and the rest of the Constitution, especially the first ten amendments). All of such are most assuredly designed to limit the federal government, and protect the rights of citizins from an abusive federal gavernment. Period.
2. Practically speaking, the glee of your submission notwithstanding, 100 million armed citizins might be a bit more formidable than you think.
3. Depending on the circumstances, IMO our military would be reluctant to fire upon our own citizins. Mr. Hill….are you aware of what each & every member of our military swear an oath to defend? The country? The president? No. Each & every member of our armed forces swears an oath to protect the Constitution of the United States. From all enemies, foreign & domestic. I know, I took it.
The ban on drugs had no impact on user at all Sandi. But they did create a whole new wave of crime and criminal.More harm than good.
Yes, laws that are merely symbolic create a false sense of security, among other ills. More harm than good.
And more symbolism on top of more symbolism…well, you know…
Oh for the day when 100 million Americans agree on anything!
“the glee of your submission notwithstanding”
There is no “glee” in my submission, I am a proud gun owner and merely state facts. By your own admission the Constitution has failed to protect the citizens from an abusive government. It is a centuries old document that means what nine elderly judges in black robes say it means. Do you deny the president has the power to ban the importation of assault weapons and high capacity magazines by executive order? Where do you get your “100 million armed citizens” figure? Having served yourself you should know there is little room in the military for personal ideologies. And finally, you should turn on the light when you are typing.
#78 I side with Art. Mobilizing 100 million citizens might be a bit more formidable than you think. I suppose Kent State has been forgotten. Incidentally, I certainly did not admire David Koresh, Randy Weaver, Timothy McVeigh and any others of their caliber. Let’s not forget McVeigh saying,
“When guns are outlawed, I will become an outlaw.” He told a student reporter:
The government is afraid of the guns people have because they have to have control of the people at all times. Once you take away the guns, you can do anything to the people. You give them an inch and they take a mile. I believe we are slowly turning into a socialist government. The government is continually growing bigger and more powerful and the people need to prepare to defend themselves against government control.”
Btw I admire George H.W. Bush’s 1995 resignation from the NRA; he gave them very good reasons, too!
#81 Mr. Hill, honestly not trying to parse, but it sounds like you are explicitly submitting….but denying the “glee”.
Your cynical but sometimes accurate view of the Constitution is IMO sad. As if you admit defeat (minus the glee).
By the way, those “nine elderly judges in black robes” have only just recently provided two landmark rulings reference the 2nd Amendment. Heller, affirming the individual right of arms vis-a-vis the federal government, and McDonald extending such to all government(s).
Since, many victories, just a week ago in Illinois.
The 100 million figure is conservative, and includes only legally owned, acknowledged ownership.
As to typing & light….I am neither the best speller or typist. I do not have spell check, I have an old computer with a sometimes faulty keyboard.
There is dim light….and dim light.
#81 Additionally, Mr. Hill, believe me, I am well aware that; “there is little room in the military for personal ideologies”.
That doesn’t mean they would fire on American citizins.
“There is dim light….and dim light.”
It is proven here everyday. Merry Christmas, Mr. Lucas.
#85 Mr. Hill, you forgot to note; emphasis added. Were you typing in the dark? (It’s a silly game, isn’t it? I have used (sic) in past posts reference other posts, but only to point to conceptual error….and no longer do so).
I know many people who post here, whose opinions I disagree with, but whose intelligence I acknowledge & respect, who are at times atrocious in their grammer &/or spelling.
I try to not be lazy in my posts….but do consider content manifest.
Merry Christmas to you, Sir…and yours.