Join the conversation [ADD A COMMENT]

View our commenting policy and standards | Commenting FAQ | Report a problem

1. John R | February 16, 2013 at 8:40 am

   The proposed “assault weapons” ban appeals to the ignorant and the liberals! That is those that have the “government knows best” mentality.

   The ban is based on cosmetics alone. The is no real difference between a semi-automatic hunting rifle and an “assault weapon” in mechanism, caliber, magazine, and firepower. The so called “assault weapon” just looks menacing to liberals!

   Such a ban would serve no useful purpose since a very small percentage of crimes involve the use of an “assault weapon”.

   An “assault weapons” ban will not pass Congress because it does not have enough Democrat support.

   Should such a ban pass, it is likely that the SCOTUS would strike it down under the “in common use clause” declared in Heller v. DC which states that the government cannot ban lawful guns in common use today. There are millions of so called “assault weapons” in common use today.

   Thank God and our Founding Fathers for the Bill of Rights!
2. Jim Lucas | February 16, 2013 at 1:31 pm

   #1 John R. “The ban is based on cosmetics alone. The is no real difference between a semi-automatic hunting rifle and an “assault weapon” in mechanism, caliber, magazine, and firepower. The so called “assault weapon” just looks menacing to liberals!”

   Actually you give too much credit here. The “assault weapon” cry is just the cause de jour.

   “High-powered” weapons, Sat night specials, cop-killer bullets, plastic guns, “undetectable” guns, all hand guns, hollow points…..etc., etc.
3. Jim Lucas | February 16, 2013 at 4:32 pm

   NEWSPEAK (continued)

   education…….from birth, universal, mandatory state indoctrination
4. Sandi Saunders | February 16, 2013 at 4:39 pm

   Kinda like crack vs cocaine, black kid vs white kid, poor vs rich, yeah cosmetics don’t matter, except that the cosmetics of the military styled guns “appeal” to mass shooters, anti-government “tyranny fighters”, and too darn many “bad guys”. Society has an interest in restricting or banning things that are just bad for so society. Gun makers, gun advocates and those who care about society, or just have to live in it like the rest of us, should realize this problem is not going away, and will in fact get worse. These “popular” guns are not necessary for self-defense, hunting, or “fun”. They do not need to look like a military weapon to be effective, but the more military or “gangster” they look (cosmetics) the more the bad guys like them. Banning or restricting them is just common decency IMO.
5. Jim Lucas | February 16, 2013 at 5:56 pm

   #4 Mrs. Saunders….in all sincerity, thank you very much.
6. John R | February 16, 2013 at 6:48 pm

   “Banning or restricting [assault weapons] is just common decency…” has no legal basis constitutionally.

   According to DC v. Heller, the government cannot abridge constitutionally protected rights simply to make a symbolic point or because it feels that something must be done.

   So called “assault weapons” may look sinister but they don’t differ from other common semi-automatic weapons in the firing mechanism, ammunition, and magazine size, so they present no greater threat to public safety. The government has no legitimate interest in banning guns that the liberals simply do not like.

   The “in common use clause” in Heller makes it clear that the the Second Amendment protects weapons that have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law abiding citizens.

   Semi-automatic rifles have not traditionally been banned and are in common use today, and are thus protected under Heller. It is estimated that there are over 2 million semi-automatic rifles in circulation in the US. That’s pretty common, I would say!

   The framers of the Constitution recognized that the right to bear arms already existed. The Second Amendment merely states that this pre-existing right cannot be “infringed”.

   The Bill of Rights does not grant the right have guns, it protects that right.
7. Jim Lucas | February 16, 2013 at 7:24 pm

   #6 Absolutely correct Mr. R.

   Including the reference to intrinsic rights, as per ‘Hoo day or two ago. Thank you gentlemen.
8. Sandi Saunders | February 16, 2013 at 7:52 pm

   Also according to Heller v DC, Scalia 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.”

   THAT is where I believe that common decency has a legal basis constitutionally.

   I submit that the military styled guns have been usurped for “sinister purposes” and that makes their common use a question for the legislature and the Supreme Court to decide once and for all. But I do not believe that has been decided or that anyone seriously believes it has.

   The right to have a gun is not the right to have any gun.
9. Sandi Saunders | February 16, 2013 at 7:56 pm

   IMO, the Constitution is all about a society having the right to decide what is “intrinsic” to the promotion of what is best for the whole, not the individual. While protecting individual rights is enshrined, it does not ask for sacrifice of the safety, the greater good or the sanctity of personal freedom for those affected by those rights.
10. Jim Lucas | February 16, 2013 at 9:40 pm

    #9 Thank you again.
11. Al | February 16, 2013 at 11:32 pm

    Sandi….”Society has an interest in restricting or banning things that are just bad for so society”. Who gets to decide? Are Big Gulps bad for society and deserve banning?…yes according to New York mayor Bloomberg…styrofoam…yes. How about cigarettes? Lets ban then instead of subsidizing them. Are you OK will allowing this president and the next (could be conservative) president sole authority?

    And that “common decency” thing. Who makes those rules?

    Lets ban rap music. It is indecent.
12. Herb | February 17, 2013 at 6:13 am

    For all the ones that wanted Obama care take this. Home depot announced it is highering 80, 000 part time employees not to exceed 28 hrs a week at the same time cutting full time. Also a letter was sent out by sherwin williams corp that if any part time employee works more then 28 hrs a week the manager would be terminated immd. The same is happening is happening in our state govt. No part time employee will exceed 29 hrs a week.
    So thanks to all obamacare supporters this is just the beginning.
13. Bubba Greene | February 17, 2013 at 7:50 am

    In citing the Heller case, “The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions…” people are forgetting what the rest of that quote is saying. It is saying that the decision does NOT OVERTURN rulings in which prohibitions have been found constitutional or potentially even untested. For example. The Heller decision does not permit guns in Virginia schools nor guns in city council meetings, nor guns in court rooms. What it does NOT say is that the court may/does find in this case any reason to EXTEND the prohibition in any manner whatsoever which is a reaffirmation of the citizens rights under the 2nd. Furthermore, what is a military style weapon? The history of firearms essentially traces ALL modern weapons back to their military roots and very clear examples of this can be seen if one were to view the program “History of the Gun”. An excellent example of a military feature today is the laser sight first used by the military and now available to everyone. There are scores of weapons in the military today which are not (yet) in the hands of the public and I’m not talking about atomic bombs, missles, tanks, etc. I’m talking about sidearms and rifles with features and characteristics unlike anything used by or available to JQ Public.

    There is a clear parting of opinions also demonstrated here. One looks to find “the greater good” and another looks for personal freedom, liberty and responsibility as is found WITHIN the context of the law. If I have lots of money, plenty of food, a big car and house, servants to clean and cook what is to say the greater good may not be served by the govt moving in and taking it all to give to those who have less or none at all? (Actually, they already are doing that as I just completed a draft of my 2012 tax return.)
14. Scott M. | February 17, 2013 at 10:57 am

    This is one fight I hope Planned Parenthood wins because if they win, we all win!

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2013/02/17/planned-parenthood-goes-after-cuccinelli/

    Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is the Republican front runner to be the next Virginia governor, but not if Planned Parenthood has anything to say about it. They’ve launched a new website, keepkenout.org, to document his support for stridently anti-woman policies like mandatory invasive ultrasounds.

    “If the November election taught us anything, it’s that voters are sick and tired of politicians like Cuccinelli who want to insert themselves into our personal medical decisions. Cuccinelli’s ongoing attacks on women’s health and economic security should be a warning to us all: women’s health will be on the Virginia ballot in 2013,” said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund.

    The current Virginia governor, Bob McDonnell, is bad enough. He’s a graduate of Pat Robertson’s Regent University and has all the repulsive beliefs you would predict. But Cuccinelli would be even worse.
15. 89Hoo | February 17, 2013 at 12:37 pm

    14 – well, all win except for the dead babies.
16. John R | February 17, 2013 at 1:38 pm

    The concept “in common use” verses the “dangerous and unusual weapons” was decided in DC v. Heller. The government cannot prohibit lawful guns in common use.

    Furthermore, requiring trigger locks, requiring guns be disassembled, requiring insurance coverage, or holding the original lawful gun owner responsible for criminal acts involving a stolen gun, are all unconstitutional.

    Semi-automatic rifles are in common use and this category includes lawful, so called “assault weapons” style, semi-automatic weapons currently available to the public. Such weapons are not any more dangerous and unusual than conventional semi-automatic hunting rifles.

    Justice Scalia would agree that the government can prohibit the sell of the full automatic military M-16 to the public but you would be mistaken that he would support a ban on the civilian semi-automatic AR-15 just because it resembles the military M-16 cosmetically.

    However the point is moot anyway because there are not enough votes in Congress to pass a ban on so called “assault weapons”.
17. John R | February 17, 2013 at 2:00 pm

    The trend currently in the polls is not good for either the VA Dems or Planned Parenthood!

    A Roanoke College poll taken last month found Republican Cuccinelli (33%) leading Democrat Terry McAuliffe (26%) in the race for governor.

    A Gallup poll last May found more Americans tilt “pro-life” by a 9 point margin, 50% to 41%.

    The 41% of Americans who now identify themselves as “pro-choice” is down from 47% in July 2011 and is one percentage point below the previous record low in Gallup polls recorded in May 2009.
18. Sandi Saunders | February 17, 2013 at 8:23 pm

    Are these the same polls that showed Romney winning?
19. Bubba Greene | February 17, 2013 at 8:58 pm

    John R. Good stuff, with one possible exception. You know we have three and maybe even four, Justices who are very likely to retire or die in the next four years and if my memory is right two of the three or four are reasonably strong supporters of the 2nd and were on the side of the majority in the Heller case. Should they be replaced by BO you know what the consequences will be when future cases come before the court. Congress may not have the votes to change the law. But a Supreme court decision by a left leaning court will change the law and there will be no recourse. BTW, the Heller case, I think, was one vote away from going in the opposite direction. It’s a pretty thin line we have here!

    And just one other comment; as I talked this topic over with my associate today, she reminded me of a few better examples of common firearms in use today with a direct “military past”. Take the Springfield trapdoor which evolved into a big bore big game rifle. Big bore guns similar are used today in big game hunts. The bolt action Springfields of WW1 are the model for many current bolt action hunting rifles. The 1911 was developed specifically for the military and pretty much has evolved into the standard for many law enforcement agencies and for personal defense. The 38 Special was a solution to law enforcement incl. the militray at being out gunned by the criminals and the enemy and thus the need for a more powerful round. The black plastic guns, while having numerous mechanical differences are nothing but a variation on the 1911. Names like Mauser, Glock, Beretta and CZ all were hatched as military firearms and all are common in civilian use today. BTW, I read and enjoyed the opinion expressed in the paper today by Heather Brown (Horizon section). I know she and I would have different opinions on many things but it is very much refreshing to see someone with such a logical level headed view of the “gun problem”. It gives me hope. If there are “liberals” with this much common sense then we should have the ability to make progress in offering solutions to many of our other “problems”.
20. Name Withheld | February 17, 2013 at 11:29 pm

    #17 polls are not elections. surveys are not laws. majority rule is not absolute.
21. John R | February 17, 2013 at 11:31 pm

    The conservative Justices Thomas, Roberts, Scalia, Alito, and Kennedy are unlikely to retire in the next four years.

    The liberal Justices Ginsburg and Breyer are likely to retire due to age and/or infirmity.

    Obama could only replace liberal Justices with new liberal Justices. That would continue the status quo.

    If the GOP should regain control of the Senate in ’14, then Obama would have to nominate more moderate justices. We can only hope!

    Remember that the GOP controlled the WH and Congress ’04-’06 and and we thought liberalism was dead.

    From ’08 till ’10 the Dems controlled the WH and Congress and they thought conservatism was dead.

    Then the tea party movement regained the House in ’10 and put the brakes on the Obama agenda to a large degree.

    Now we are on the verge of another recession and the midterm elections may not be so kind to the Dems. The party in power always suffers the most. It ain’t over till it’s over!
22. Sandi Saunders | February 18, 2013 at 3:14 pm

    I am so sorry this has to continue as an “us” against “them” nation. Regardless of whatever it is you believe you will achieve (and I doubt that your optimism is warranted), the division and the “one-up” attitude is destroying this nation.

    The Supreme Court is not supposed to be so predictable and certainly not partisan. Some days I seriously question what we have wrought with all this hate and destructive political rhetoric.
23. Bubba Greene | February 18, 2013 at 7:10 pm

    John R: Kennedy and Scalia were both with the majority of the Heller decision. Both are 77 years old. While there may be no specific indication that either will retire when age is considered they sort of stand out there as highly likely. Just saying….