Sean Bell: Death By Many Handguns
I’ve heard quite a bit lately, “guns don’t kill, people do.”
This is of course just one example of the completely corrupt, pathetic logic used by the pro-killer device crowd. You know, the ones who spend their days trying to explain why they need to own and carry a pocket-sized murder weapon.
Ok, so lets say people kill. Why did an innocent unarmed (Sean Bell) man get 50 bullets pumped into him?
I’ll tell you why; because he was black and presumed to be carrying a gun. I’m not suggesting the cops are innocent when I say this but…
Given the number of handguns out there, and the ease with which you can get one, if I were a cop these days, I’d be scared shitless. I’d be shootin’ first askin’ later too!
GUNS don’t really kill people, but LOTS of guns definetly do.
April 25th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
How low can you go, and still make our point?
The cops were exonerated, and you wish to disarm the general population at the mercy of such that would shoot a person 50 times and then the authorities adjudicate in the states’ favor ?
They believed that he had a gun, and you mean to stretch what law enforcement did to then pass that off on legal private gun owners. What would you suggest to do with all the guns currently in possession in the hands people? Would you make having guns illegal and sic this crowd on them?
It isn’t that easy to get a legal handgun, and then the carry permit. It is however easy to be a criminal, obtain a gun illegally, and carry illegally, for the purposes of crime and protection therein.
No, the solution is worse than the current problem.
April 25th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Cliff,
Can you explain how inanimate objects are taking lives?
Regardless of the guilt or not of the law enforcement, the guns DID NOT kill anyone. The police officers shot Bell, would it make any difference if they had stabbed him or ran him over in a car?
I’m still waiting for a response from your previous post, what does my credentials or education have to do with the issues?
You’ve avoided most of the issues I’ve raised, care to address them?
April 25th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Lethal injections! Bitches.
50 ’shots’ oughta do, woon’t ya say?
April 25th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Does the Constitution of the United States of America have anything to do with an interrogater @ Guantanimo’s right to drug then drown someone to death, revive them and do it again and agian while pissing on his ‘holy-book’. I’m all for that if we get to the trooth! Ha.
Good-nite America…I have a date with a six-pack.
April 25th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Bob:
Food for thought. Marijuana, cocaine, heroin and the like are also inanimate objects. Your logic seems to suggest we deregulate those items, as well.
April 25th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Albert, the Libertarian would say of course.
We know they are only illegal as they make more money that way for the cartels, most run by elites. In the same manner these substances allow for differing consciousness, economy, which inhibits elite power. They wish the exclusive right to make money on both sides of the regulating of substances.
If it destroys social cohesion, so much the better. Selling is just the cash side. Incarceration, regulation, policing, social services, are the other side borne by the taxpayer. The whole affair is a business
So is the attempt being made to remove from the people, the devices, arms and training, that make the populous a fearsome threat to elite minorities that wish to rule outside our law, under Constitution.
They don’t have that right.
April 25th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Albert,
Yes, they should be deregulated. By the way, do the drugs pick themselves up, inject themselves in peoples veins, force themselves of noses? Of course not, it’s an individual choice to use and mis-use drugs.
The mis-use of them should carry heavy consequences or punishment, much like liquor is now, right?
The War on (some) drugs has produce what beneficial results for society? Has it reduced drug use? Made our streets safer? Decrease the tax burden?
Let’s not even discuss the cost to society on housing all the non-violent prisoners in jail for simple drug possession.
As I see it, the tendency is toward a nanny state, totalitarian government intruding on every aspect of our lives. Where is the personal responsibility and accountability for the social contract ? Do you want Bush and company dictating what you may or may not do in your life? Hillary Clinton or Obama doing the same? Sorry, but I choose none of the above and none of their business.
Has the firearms in my possession hurt anyone? Nope, why should the government care until that point?
April 25th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
As I have stated before, reasonable regulation is the best course of action.
April 26th, 2008 at 12:46 am
I said I thought that the high rate of gun violence in the US is a direct result of the anti-drug laws at the beginning of this gun debate we’re having, and you guys are really talking my language here. Thanks!
Decriminalizing marijuana would be a great starting point in getting back our constitutional rights. In case you didn’t know, a bill has just been introduced to do just that. I donate to NORML and got this message in my E-mail:
The thing that makes this a big problem despite the fact that most people know these marijuana laws are bunk, is that people will be afraid to call their congressman in support, fearing they will make themselves suspect. I hate to admit it, but the Democrats haven’t been much better on this issue then the Republicans.
April 26th, 2008 at 6:00 am
Albert,
I am going to keep asking the question because our definitions of reasonable restriction may differ.
What reasonable restriction would you put up with on your other constitutionally protected rights?
April 26th, 2008 at 7:41 am
The machinations of those in government to continue regulating drugs, and filling prisons with the aftermath, wasting the wealth of the citizenry, as the means to control, is all the more reason for the law abiding people to keep their arms without question.
An unarmed people at the the hands of this incipient tyrannical monster is just a plain bad idea. Keeping in mind that tyranny has never been removed at the ballot box. Any attempt to disarm the law abiding is the clue that the “thing” is upon itself to drown Liberty in the bathtub.
It happens every time the same way with a few variations.
April 26th, 2008 at 8:47 am
Bob S,
I appreciate your entreaty but there can be no useful end. Your interest is laid bare in your method. You clearly seek only validation of an idea long abandoned by ALL modern societies.
Libertarianism is long past over, a shallow and failed idea, abandoned forever by mainstream thought for lack of social merit. There may be a few remaining corners of the world where a man can live out this corrupt Utopian prayer, but alas, it would be a homestead far from anything resembling a healthy community, left alone in his fantasy, well-armed but dependent upon whatever finite bounty he might have preserved from a an earlier from his time in the modern world.
Bob, your questions are narrow and rhetorical. Any serious consideration of them requires dismissing the practical realities of a healthy society.
To be a libertarian today requires either the denial of our zoology, or a smirking hatred of larger society, and I imagine, one that is reciprocated.
Lets be real Bob, were it not for the Internet, you would have to navigate many a road, paved by the very people you detest, in order to find the few insignificant men who share your stubborn and corrupt view of the world.
April 26th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Straw man again Cliff. So good to see that in defeat you rally around yourself and fall to insults.
Libertarian ideals are far from abandoned and what you offer is the path rife with the trappings of fascism.
It is nonsense to think that you are right. In Germany and France if you have business to do so, you as a private person can be licensed to own and concealed carry a handgun. Just have to go through he hoops. That won’t happen here. The cause is bankrupt.
Libertarianism denies zoology? Care to elaborate? Calling others corrupt after the life you have entertained Cliff, is hypocritical, but hey that appears to be the style.
You are are quite small in the end. Libertarianism loves society enough to let it choose its own path, and not be regulated by those misguided fools that believe they are the only ones that know how to live.
It is pretty obvious you do not jive with the Bill of Rights, and I have an inkling that in your brave new world, the ends justify the means for you.
April 26th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Ah Glenn,
Did you read a bit about yourself in my prose?
April 26th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Ban the tools,
Hear hear, excellent job!
Cliff,
You stated that the internet is wonderful because because unsupportable comments and the people who make them can be taken to task. You’ve been schooled Sir and you avoid the debate.
My questions are not narrow and rhetorical but an important part of the debate because folks like you do want to take away our rights, but only the rights you dislike.
The social contract described in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution for the United States is one of the finest, if not the finest, contract ever. All I ask is that the government is limited to those responsibilities and powers. It is the task of every citizen to insure the contract survives.
It is not a dream of Utopia to strive to insure that contract is followed, politics be damned. I don’t care if the Left or the Right is trying to abridge my rights, I will strive to wrong the situation.
Your call for more gun control is wrong, over and over again JD, Blink, I and others have shown that. We’ve shown it without you offering support for your views. Remember your own words, Unsupported comments and those who make them.
Your call earlier for my credentials was a way to avoid addressing the weakness of your argument. I offer my credentials here and now, they are the only credentials I ever need.
From the Declaration of Independence
April 26th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Ah Cliff, you don’t write prose, another clue to your clueless elitist nature, what you write is passable only in the the sycophant circles you fawn in.
My view of myself is identified in some part by your writings, and I know for certain, I am not imbued of you. Being like Rousseau, enamored of Liberty, you strike me as the kind of person that would rescind the Social Contract, and get on with machinery of building a fascist empire, in the image you truly believe in.
Be sure plenty will be there to meet you in disagreement. Bring more than paper, but then if your attempts are the mark of what we face as a threat, it has been demonstrated here in full, that Liberty is well served and manned.
Good luck with your agenda. Even legal success with it won’t change the reality.
and for the record, and to prove your elitist nature, and complete contempt for the Bill of Rights and the Freedom to pursue Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness…
There are no insignificant men.
April 26th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Harsh, elitist, shallow and boring. Or is that Ken name-stealing again?
April 26th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Oh Bob S,
It was only a matter of time before you pulled out the parrot. You think I am an elitist? Why? Because I went out of state for college? Or is it because I prefer progress over stale, fail policies supported by people who wish Ozzie and Harriet actually existed?
Come on Big Bad Bob, prove to me you are a man and not some “Bobby Jean” with bad breat,h, bad arguments and pink curlers in whats left of your hair.
April 26th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
“Come on Big Bad Bob, prove to me you are a man and not some “Bobby Jean†with bad breat,h, bad arguments and pink curlers in whats left of your hair”.
Are you inferring Bob is gay or a transsexual?
HAHAHAAHAH, like it would matter to how you have been, what is it the kids say?….PAWNED!!
hahhahaahahah, it goes to the verbal uncontrolled diatribe, beautiful, and right on time! The Tourettes’ directive right on schedule!
April 26th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
It ain’t Ken. Ken’s not a drinker.
April 26th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Cliff,
I think you are elitist because when the argument went against you, you tried to weasel out of by demanding my credentials.
You are still doing it, trying to distract from the focus of the subject by making his about me.
I don’t think about nor care where you went to college or if you did. I never demanded your credentials nor do I care.
I will prove nothing to you, I’ve stated it before; you must be very slow. Does it matter if I’m man or woman, college educated or not? No, it doesn’t
Show how my arguments are false.
You demanded Alan Korwin respond to you. He did and failed to act with integrity and address his response.
You try to hold people accountable for unsupported comments, but fail to support your own.
I’m not responsible for any other poster or posts than my own. If others are commenting, maybe they recognize the same avoidance that I do.
Care to address the issues or do you want to continue to attack me?
April 26th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
A little clarification perhaps: Is the subject, Guns (some more), Slavery, Extermination or Insulting Commenters? Or something else maybe I missed?
April 26th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
I still think my idea is best, and would start to end the gun problem.
April 27th, 2008 at 7:56 am
Larry, I hope you’re not suggesting Alice B. Toklas Brownies be made MANDATORY!
April 27th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Not at gunpoint, but they should be having “a little tea with Goldie.”
Now isn’t this nicer then screaming about weapons?
April 28th, 2008 at 1:53 am
I think that I’m gonna get my popcorn out for this one…
April 28th, 2008 at 5:53 am
To all,
Just to stir up the pot, here is a gun control measure I could support :)
April 28th, 2008 at 6:23 am
G’morning Bob. Surely you suspect…only my ‘cold dead fingers’ will allow COMPROMISE!
Now I’ll go read the link.
April 28th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Cliff? Were you ever able to admit that Kleck published in peer reviewed journals?
Did you ever admit that your interpretation of the Second Amendment as a State right would make the National Guard as currently constituted unconstitutional?
Did you ever present your credentials - to show us why our opinions should be cast aside in favor of yours?
Did you ever aplogize to Alan Korwin for attempting to publicly malign him?
April 28th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Bob S:
So you think that people who cannot control their emotions enough to engage in rational debate, have shaking hands, raised voices and no self-control should have guns huh?
Ted Nugent is going to blow you away, dude!
And what about that poor, vulnerable 20 year old who won’t be able to “bring the lord” to his well armed peers.
Cute article though.
April 28th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Larry,
It was posted with a firm tongue in cheek. I in no way want to engage in prior restraint on who should or should not be allowed to own/carry firearms.
I found it interesting that the author’s experience with the anti-gun side mirrored much of what is seen here and elsewhere.
April 28th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Larry, I had no idea that you were so angry.
Yikes.
Lemme guess, you took your girlfriend (or some girl you had a crush on) to a Nugent concert, and she got backstage and you didn’t - and you waited for her for something like 5 hours after the show, and when she showed up, she made you buy her some McNuggets before you dropped her off back at her place.
And the next day, she wouldn’t even talk to you….
I’m sorry, Larry. Therapy helps with this sort of thing. Drinking and screaming at people doesn’t.
April 28th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
I haven’t had a drink yet this year jd. I only drank because it was fun and will need no therapy, but thanks anyway.
I also don’t think that drinking precludes anyone from speaking their minds, just driving their car.
I stand behind every angry comment I made and I’m sure you can find lots more of them. Get to work bro!
Did you catch this one from that thread?
Now THAT’S anger! Maybe I can get a television show, huh?
April 28th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Bob S said:
Yeah, cutting people off with pejoratives is a terrible way to communicate, but thanks to Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Coulter, Liddy, O’ Reilly, Savage, Carlson, ect… That’s where we’re at in America. I hate it just as much as you do.
April 28th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Cliff,
Any response on JD’s questions or how about some of mine. I find it very disappointing that you are allowing unsupported comments to go this long.
How about I simplify and ask fewer questions at a time.
You’ve stated that you favor banning handguns and regulating rifles and shotguns.
Considering that Handguns are banned in Chicago, D.C., effectively in the U.K. etc, how do you think that banning handguns will reduce violence? Please address all violence, not just gun violence. See this article for information on violence in the U.K.
What additional regulations would you place on rifles and shotguns?
April 28th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Sorry Bob,
I’ve been pretty busy and haven’t had a chance to read all your comments, but I certainly appreciate the ones I do read.
For the record, I am not an expert on gun control policy, so your asking the wrong guy.
I AM however, the bullshit police.
Why did you link me to an article that concludes, “Gun crime remains rare and we will continue to do whatever we can to keep weapons off our streets.â€
THATS a great way to lose a fight. You DO need a gun.
April 29th, 2008 at 5:33 am
Cliff,
Maybe I linked to the article for comments like this
Or
Or
Or maybe especially this
An island country with a long history of gun control and an almost complete ban on firearms STILL can not stop gun related crimes. I thought that bans were effective in reducing crime. It certainly does not seem to be that effective in Britain.
Gun related crime, due to the long history of gun control in Britain, has always been lower. But I specifically asked you to address how banning handguns would reduce violence in general. Does it look like a handgun ban has reduced crime and violence in England, No. It’s has not been effective.
And these are only the reported crimes.
Again, how will a handgun ban reduce violence and crime, if the victims are forced to try and match physical strength only with the criminal?
April 29th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Please also keep in mind that British statistics do not include “terrorism” related incidents. - So- a UVF guy walks into an O’Kelly’s and shoots up the place, that gets relegated to the the Terrorism bin and doesn’t get reported on the Crime roster.
On the other hand - American statistics include every kind of murder and manslaughter. See, Monckkonen, “Diverging Homicide Rates: England and the United States” in T. Gurr, VIOLENCE IN AMERICA v. 1 at 81 (1989)
April 30th, 2008 at 5:25 am
JD,
What was the previous post you made?
*****Crickets*****?
Sorry forgot to sign in
Bob S.
April 30th, 2008 at 6:14 am
To all,
Another great article, recommended reading.
Headline
A Look beyond the Handgun Ban
Chicago outlawed handgun sales in 1981. In the past week, there have been 40 shootings…
April 30th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Sounds like Internal Affairs should get involved with this one, Cliff….
Interesting tidbit about Chicago and its handgun ban - and how gun laws can make instant criminals out of normally law abiding folks.
My friend’s grandmother lives in Chicago. Her husband was a Security guy at one of the steel mills back in the 30s. They issued him a pistol. No big whoop - back then you could buy a gun mail-order or at your local A&P.
In 1968 Chicago decided that guns had to be registered. Since they didn’t know who had guns, they asked folks to voluntarily register them. Lots didn’t - either because they didn’t want to or because they didn’t know that they had to.
My friend’s grandfather registered his gun. Chicago then decided that handgun owners had to re-register their guns - as with any bureaucracy, the task of keeping over 700,000 paper records in an organized fashion was probably too much work.
Further, if a gun wasn’t registered this second time it could never be registered. This was 1982. My friend’s grandfather was dead. His wife never thought to register the guns. Why should she? She wasn’t up on gun laws, didn’t follow gun politics….
Of course, ignorance of the law isn’t an excuse - so, in 1983 she became a felon (though she didn’t know it).
What was her crime? Really? How did she threaten the State or her community? What was it that was so heinous that she could be convicted of a felony and stripped of her civil rights?
That is the true disgrace behind these gun bans and gun control schemes. Not so much that they don’t work because criminals aren’t (by definition) inclined to follow the law in the first place - but that they sweep up and affect innocents. They punish people already inclined to follow the law.
April 30th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Please, Dear *BULLSHIT POLICE, can’t we all get along?
* purveyor of bovine excrement.
April 30th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
“That is the true disgrace behind these gun bans and gun control schemes. Not so much that they don’t work because criminals aren’t (by definition) inclined to follow the law in the first place - but that they sweep up and affect innocents. They punish people already inclined to follow the law”.
So what would be your problem with that?
Salutations; your fascist friends.
April 30th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Ooohh! Someone called me a fascist…. - ouch.
Are you somehow saying that support of and individualist interpretation of the Second Amendment is somehow compatible with fascism?
Dude.
You were supposed to pay attention in class, not eat the peeling paint on the walls.
May 1st, 2008 at 10:15 am
You missed it, not calling you a fascist, but the punishing people already inclined to follow the law is a fascist sentiment. Those liberals that would ban the legal right to the law abiding are “your fascist friends”.
May 1st, 2008 at 10:55 am
My apologies, then.
However, respect for the Bill of Rights isn’t a liberal/conservative issue. There are plenty of “Liberals” who respect the right to bear arms. Just not Cliff….
May 2nd, 2008 at 10:11 am
Cliff,
Care to comment on your ban the handgun proposition?
Will you ban handguns for law enforcement and the military or will they be the “only ones*” authorized to keep their handguns?
How about what additional regulations would be needed that you propose? Keep in mind, there are already 20,000 plus laws, regulations and ordinances on the books about firearms.
Would like to discuss this with you, but you seem to be avoiding your own postings. Can’t be that you must just be very busy, right
If Cliff is too busy, anyone else want to address the issue? Richard, Larry, Albert, etc?
May 2nd, 2008 at 11:59 am
Hi Bob,
I’m back (from SF) and very much appreciate your patience.
With the caveat that I am not an policy expert on this issue, I will tell what I think.
I think we should have strong and thoughtful federal guidelines which support thoughtful state-level policy and laws.
In order to do that successfully, I think we need to ban public advocacy and interest groups who support a misguided interpretation of the second amendment to pressure politicians to make Machiavellian choices which contradict scientific evidence and common sense.
You cannot truly balance public safety against political expedience. The pressure on policy makers brought by the NRA on top of corrupt and misleading propaganda further perpetuated by people like Alan Korwin who is NOT an expert on public policy or Constitutional law, has produced an environment in which common sense has been abandoned.
You would never argue that you have the right to drive your car at any speed you choose or store toxic waste on you private property, you cannot argue that in the case of things designed to kill people, there is no overriding public interest.
The gun lobby position is that the individual right in the case of guns simply trumps public interest. Thats why you have so many “little” laws. These are “below-the-radar” statute and regulations the adoption of which does not threaten anyone’s political career.
re: Your question about Military. You must think I have some sort of bleeding heart tree-hugging absolutist.
The role of the military within domestic American society, both by law and by history, has been carefully constrained.
So I think your question is not really relevant. As far as law enforcement goes, this is a tricky issue. Are you familiar with other countries laws and policy on that subject?
Did you know that prison guards may not carry loaded weapons very dangerous situations within the prison? What do you suppose the logic is there, and how might that apply to public policy?
Thanks for your thoughts.
Cliff
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:16 pm
People do argue the any speed rule, they used to Montana, and they still do in Germany.
The right to carry doesn’t trump the public interest, it IS the public interest. It has already been decided, a very long time ago. Remember the 2nd amendment being in the Bill of Rights and all.
By now Cliff your aging SUV must be leaking oil, it is very likely a toxic waste pile stored in your driveway. Any oil stored in your garage is toxic waste too. Include aging computing equipment laying about the home.
Correct, officers in prison may not carry lethal force because the people they are to control, are all convicted felons. It is a special circumstance environment where EVERYONE incarcerated has the history of being dangerous. Be sure, that right behind the glass, bars are the mace spray, tazers, handguns, and shotguns, that will be there in a hurry should things get out of hand. The decision of who carries into the melee , or is even allowed the attempt, is made long before an incident.
This bears no relationship to carrying lawful arms by law abiding people.
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Cliff,
I need to take this section by section to make sure I address everything. I am not a policy expert or constitutional scholar either, but I’ll do my best.
First, you say
So in this statement are you advocating the repeal of the 1st amendment right to freedom of speech by banning advocacy groups? Glad to know you are consistent in your disregard for the Bill of Rights. Banning the advocacy & interests groups would also mean restrictions on the right to assembly peacefully, wouldn’t it?
Then you go on
Would you provide links to the scientific evidence that could support your case for violating my civil rights? What sort of scientific data supports your proposal?
This statement I can agree with, but from a different perspective
I truly believe that gun control laws are the political expediency, it’s easier and faster to implement laws that don’t address the causes of the problems, but the tools. It makes it appear the politicians have accomplished something but nothing that creates the reasons for the crimes has been resolved. It’s only made it “illegaler” to do the crime.
Chicago is a great example of this and the project that I linked to earlier. The handgun ban has not stopped violence there, but the social program changing how conflicts are resolved is making progress.
Then we go on to
I would actually argue that I do have the right to drive my car at any speed that I choose. I can buy property and build a track, I can rent a facility, I can even speed on public roads. In each of those cases, I have the right to drive as fast as I want to; I just have to accept the consequences of that decision, right? If I speed on public roads and get caught, the law provides the defined consequences. What are you proposing is akin to requiring every vehicle to have a governor installed preventing it going faster then the legal limits. Can you say prior restraint?
I also accept that if I drive on public roads I have a responsibility to do so in a way that doesn’t endanger my fellow drivers. This is the responsibility that concealed carry license holders accept. Can you show evidence that those who carry concealed are breaking the laws at rates that endanger the public?
Glenn addressed this point
But again, I do have that right and do store toxic waste on my property, so do you and everyone else. I have that right but I don’t have the right to dispose of that toxic waste in a manner that threatens public safety. Again it for every right, I have a corresponding responsibility to look out for my well being and that of my community.
If there is no overriding public interest in “things designed to kill people” why do we arm the military…hmm. let’s see what was that phrase from my oath decades ago?
…To defend against all enemies, foreign or domestic. I believe that oath is still given to everyone who enlists in the military.
Are you claiming that there is no overriding public interest in preventing, stopping or capturing criminals? The police use handguns for those purposes, promoting the welfare of the people, isn’t that an overriding purpose?
Also, why do 48 states allow some form of concealed carry if the individual right to self defense is not protected by the Second Amendment. Surely the court system would support banning handguns in all those states, not just a few.
The recent comments by the Supreme Court Justices in Heller v D.C. seem to indicate that a couple of them see the individual right also.
I’m not clear on your answer, should the police have handguns or not?
You mistook my question on the military. I’m not asking if the military should be used domestically. I’m asking should the military be allowed to possess handguns. You stated that you would ban handguns, how extensive is that ban?
As far as prison guards go, not all firearms are banned within the prison. Guards in many cases do carry, just not in situations where they can be overpowered or out numbered. Many prison walls are manned by guards equipped with firearms.
I would state that the individual right is public interest, not trumping it. Does every person have a responsibility to actively prevent crime? To help someone when a crime is being committed? Probably not a legal responsibility (lawyers, please chime in) but I would definitely state there is a moral obligation.
Wouldn’t you want me to help out if you were being mugged or beaten? I think yes.
I believe the attitude of letting the government take care of the problem has weakened the social compact that existed and was expressed so eloquently as
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”
May 2nd, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Wow. That’s a pretty incredible statement, Cliff.
Thanks for making your position clear.
May 2nd, 2008 at 2:41 pm
The above is what is known as Fascism, with a capital F.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Who then will be watching the watchers Cliff?
It is of great comfort Cliff, that the unarmed make less than able Fascists.
May 3rd, 2008 at 5:53 am
Bob,
I must admonish you for this comment about the percentages in England are relevant.
It think everyone here knows that tactic already.
25% increase can mean from four to 5.
May 3rd, 2008 at 6:01 am
Cliff,
Admonish away but it doesn’t change the fact that the cry of the gun banners is that it will reduce crime rates.
I posted evidence showing the gun ban doesn’t work, post information showing that it does or retract your unsupported comments.
Care to address the issues in my last response?
May 3rd, 2008 at 7:20 am
Come on Bob, you posted evidence of absolutely nothing. That article provides at best a few morsels of uncorrelated PERCENTAGES that might fool a 3rd grader into believing the fantasy that more guns = fewers deaths by guns.
You force me to remind you that the ONLY and all data taken seriously by the experts demonstrate a strong unmistakable correlation between the number of guns and the number of deaths by guns.
You can’t possible ask an intelligent person to look at your little percentages and ignore the overwhelming data across the planet that says the opposite of what you would like everyone to believe.
Does it not bother you that the article you linked does not mention EVEN ONE NUMBER above zero? Are you asking me play dumb or just insisting I be stupid just long enough to ignore the insanity of your suggestion?
May 3rd, 2008 at 8:36 am
Cliff,
This is getting to be a little old. You challenge the numbers and supporting documentation that I post, but you only offer UNSUPPORTED comments. Isn’t this a little hypocritical?
I’m not ignoring, I can’t find it. Where is the data then? Provide the links.
You challenged Mr. Korwin to support his claim and he did, you have yet to support the claims you’ve made despite repeated requests. If firearm bans are so successful providing the information should be easy, right?
I’ve posted factual numbers previously, Here is one, and another
Comparing Washington D.C against National Crime rate article here or Chicago
I or others can cite this type of data all day long, why won’t you support your comments?
Moving on, you stated that you would ban advocacy and interest groups. Do you support the violation of people’s right to free speech, Yes or No?
Do you support the violation of people’s rights to peaceably assemble, Yes or No?
Does your proposed handgun ban apply to the law enforcement agencies, Yes or No?
Does your proposed handgun ban apply to the military, Yes or No?
May 3rd, 2008 at 8:47 am
Cliff,
By the way, you have also been either proven wrong or you didn’t read the article completely
The most common violent deaths last year came from use of sharp instruments – up from 201 in 1998-99 to 258 in 2006-07. Second was hitting or kicking, with 140 deaths.
Care to correct your statement?
May 3rd, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Gun laws or martial Law?
Blackwater is the question! Corporations use fake names too.
May 3rd, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Woops. I was wrong.
May 4th, 2008 at 1:26 am
And on the 1st Amendment issue?
May 4th, 2008 at 5:14 am
Cliff,
Supporting documentation, evidence or studies for your comments or a retraction?
May 4th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Here ya go Bob S,
K Bob? You can find lots of little events, changes in law, etc then choose some number of something and TRY to relate it to that event, but in the end. The data is really clear. Fewer guns mean fewer deaths and fewer injuries. Less gun violence. More peace and tranquility.
May 4th, 2008 at 8:59 am
More REAL FACTS about hand guns with peer reviewed scientific references.
Seen enough Bob, or do you need more. Does it hurt your feelings that serious honest professionals accuse the NRA of “dubious methodologies” and creating “wildly inflated numbers supposedly showing handguns to be an effective means of self defense”
May 4th, 2008 at 9:02 am
Hey Bob S,
Heres some more reality surround your fantasy NRA talking points.
May 4th, 2008 at 9:11 am
There are enough available examinations of methodological flaws in studies often cited by pro-gun advocates to satisfy any truth seeker.
Here’s and excerpt of just one. I’m sure Bob you can appreciate why there are not hundreds of professional statisticians and researchers wasting their time performing redundant research that confirms the useless studies put forth by gun advocates who care nothing for accuracy. There is no NRA for professional statisticians and researchers that pays these people to dig up the truth, because it is already so obvious to anyone who cares about TRUTH.
Guns kill people. Many Guns kill many people.
May 4th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Surely Cliff, since you seem to be angling for a grant from the Joyce Foundation, you know that Mr. Hemenway is paid by them for his research.
Gosh, Cliff. $700,000 can really go a long way to purchasing whatever statistics - umm…TRUTH - the buyer might be interested in…
May 5th, 2008 at 7:00 am
Cliff,
Just wanted to post to let you know I’m not ignoring your response. I had an incredibly full day yesterday and it looks to continue today.
In the mean time, care to address your willingness to violate other Constitutionally protected rights?
Your statement
seems to violate people’s right to free speech and right to peacefully assemble.
Is it everyone’s rights you want to curtail or just those who don’t agree with your politics?
Man, I hate waking up on Mondays. Always forget to log in.
Bob S.
May 5th, 2008 at 8:29 am
I agree Bob. I does raise constitutional questions.
Isn’t there away around it if gun advocates find themselves advocating for something illegal?
May 5th, 2008 at 9:44 am
Jberger,
Could you be any more shrill and disingenuous? The JoyceFoundation is a 501c3.
What is the NRA?
You are apples and oranges when it serves you and, color blind when its convenient.
So your proved my point:
May 5th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
The NRA is also a 501(c)3. The NRA/ILA is not. What’s your point?
Cliff? Did or did not the Joyce Foundation give $700,000 to Dr. Hemenway to fund “research”? Doesn’t that massive infusion of cash cause you to suspect Dr. Hemenway’s motives?
Why the sudden defensiveness regarding the Joyce Foundation? I didn’t see you on their list of grantees (yet)? Also, they are pretty focused on the MidWest (with the exception of LCAV here in San Francisco). You might be SOL in Utah - the possible good news being that they always appreciate a good polemicist. Look at all the money Mark Karlin got from them! He’s got a full-on cottage industry going there.
I guess that it beats working for a living, huh?
Finally, that wasn’t “shrill”, Cliff. Shrill might be something like when you or Larry threaten to shoot people….. ‘member that?
May 6th, 2008 at 7:15 am
Jberger,
The NRA is a 501c4. I can see why you prefer to ignore that fact.
I should have warned you. The average OneUtah reader is a bit more sophisticated than you realize. Perhaps you really don’t know or care about the substantive difference between a 501c3 and a 501c4. If you really don’t know the diff (and I believe you DO) just ask.
Have you per chance been deducting your contributions to the NRA from your taxes?
Jberger, I know everyone here appreciates your earnest participation in this debate. And as you know, it is on the permanent record. But I must tell you, your skivvies are showing. This isn’t an NRA meeting. No one checks their brains at the door and drinks the Kool Aid on demand.
Even Glenn knows better than to try suggest some sort of equivalencey between NRA and Joyce funded research.
BTW: No one threatened to shoot anyone. At least for me, I used the hypothetical. Don’t go all Fox News on us here. You ain’t in Kansas anymore sweetheart.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:45 am
My mistake - the NRA Foundation is a 501(c)3.
It’s a big organization. There are a lot of divisions.
Strangely enough, the NRA doesn’t fund a lot of research. Nor does it put on “policy discussions” that are admittedly one sided. Please don’t insult our intelligence by pretending that Joyce isn’t an advocacy organization. 5 seconds looking at the positions of their grantees, the VPC, LCAV, Gun Guys lays waste to that assertion.
Follow the link. Therein lie the facts, Cliff. Just like the other links. Hopefully you won’t ignore these, too.
I guess, life would be easier if you could just ban all this pesky “free expression” from groups like the NRA and have a monopoly on what people can read…….
May 6th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Cliff,
I’m not sure what happened but I lost my reply post. Is there a moderation or save feature that the blog author can access?
I wrote the reply and hit submit. Normally I see the post almost immediately, but I’m not sure what happened this time.
I can recreate the post but was wondering if there was anything to retrieve.
May 6th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
jdberger:
Only people who don’t live in the “reality based community” could turn a statement about thick skulls into a death threat, but I guess that’s where we’re at after decades of Limbaugh and Liddy.
Bob S:
You should always save your comments just in case. There is definitely a problem with the spam software here.
You guys don’t care about mercenary military operations in America or the fact that our constitution is being destroyed by a Republican president, but what about gaming the voting systems in our free country.
May 6th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Cliff, you fit the mold of a liberal progressive so well, it is impossible, for you, to make any points(as they are generally weak) without falling to some personal invective.
The average oneutah participant is usually nothing more than a strand on this progressive mop.
May 6th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Larry,
I appreciate the advice, I think I included too many links for the spam filter. Hopefully it can be retrieved.
But Larry, you aren’t a mind reader! You don’t know what I or others care about. I can’t fight all the battles, I choose to debate the Second Amendment issues because that is where I feel I can have a great deal of impact among others. I do actively care about the constitution, etc.
As far as the mercenary operations in America, IF I see something illegal I’ll be concerned about it. So far your issues with Blackwater haven’t reached that level.
Gaming the voting system? That’s funny, when did it become against the rules to do what the rules allow?
Let’s keep the focus on the issues raised by Mr. Lyon. He has stated that he is willing to void the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms, the right to free speech, the right to peaceable assembly. By implication, if guns are banned; the seizure of private property, etc.
How do you feel about these issues?
May 6th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Exactly, Larry. The reason you are being ignored, is that your posts have only a tenuous connection to the Second Amendment.
You want to talk about Eric Prince and Blackwater, the Steele Foundation, Triple Canopy, Sandline, Executive Outcomes and the rest of those organizations, start your own thread.
You want to discuss Ohio and Diebold and the Florida Supreme Court and David Boies (who wore white tennis shoes into the US Supreme Court). Great! Start your own thread. You probably won’t get much more than a few unh-huhs from the choir though because this issue has been beat to death on DD and DU and DK and HP…
Though Mr. Lyon is admittedly seeking publicity on this issue, at least he’s sticking to the general scope of the debate. You, Larry are bouncing off in random directions and just cluttering the forum.
May 6th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Jdberger,
Pay attention! The NRA is a 501(c)(4) NOT a 501(c)(3).
You should find out the difference so we can have an intelligent discussion.
David Hardy is trying to accuse a public policy foundation of advocacy because they don’t include an someone who advocates for individual rights in the context of public policy to reduce violence?
Firstly, just because a bunch of lay people decided the 2nd amendment is an individual right, does not mean its a legitimate discussion or that anyone gives a shit except for NRA freaks.
Secondly, what on earth does gun advocacy have to do with public policy?
Lastly, who the hell is David Hardy to ascribe bias to anyone? He is a for profit business man.
May 6th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Cliff, please keep the 2nd amendment and its intent in the historical context of how it was arrived upon.
A simple view of where weapons were kept before and after the founding of this Nation is well enough to determine the intent of the founders. Any idea that a citizen does not have a right to a personal arm, or that is allowed only in the context of militia is just ridiculous. They were kept in the home, as the “army” had not the weapons to supply all men anyway. No such idea of arms not being possessed personally was even imagined until far into the future. The 2nd though will preserve it, I am confident of that. It has now for 230 years.
For example, upon John Starks’ thrashing of the Hessians under British command at the Battle of Bennington, he happily returned to his homestead, and presented to his dear wife Molly one of the spoils of the war in his personal possession. A 4 pounder military field piece which she kept, at their house, until she gave it back to the defense of the Country. Up until then it was hers.
In addition, John was never commissioned as an officer in the Continental Army, and the cannon belonged to Molly, and she was neither commissioned or part of the militia. It was her personal weapon. No one gave a moments thought of questioning that either. Of course she had little use for it other than to dry laundry upon, and gave it to the purpose it was created. It was cast in Paris, captured at Quebec City by Wolfe, taken by John, then taken back by the British, and then finally taken back by Americans in the war of 1812. A great story of the personal arm, that had to pushed on wheels.
It would be a hoot to explain to a man like John Stark, that he had no right to his personal weapons after using them often enough to create the very country we are currently arguing in.
We are entertaining your ignorance of the historical context of personal arms as a Constitutional Right under the 2nd amendment, as a layman. We give you all the latitude of the 1st amendment to display for all to see, for eternity, as you like to say, on the record, of how little you know, or how little the facts matter to you.
I figure upon the latter, and this can borne out for your apparent contempt for a number of the postulates, in the Bill of Rights, that you have made clear here, on your own blog.
May 6th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Cliff,
A little elitist here are you?
So who gets to decide what is a legitimate discussion or not? You, those with the proper credentials? Come on, I’m sure the same of reasoning was used in discussions about slavery, equal rights, abortion, etc. It didn’t fly then and it doesn’t fly now.
It is the lay people, as you so arrogantly describe us, that do decide what is a legitimate right or not and what is a legitimate discussion point.
It was the lay people of America that decided taxation without representation was worth fighting about, thus a representative government is a right decided by the lay people.
It was the lay people of America that decided the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right thus when the British tried to seize their firearms, it was the start of the war. This is a lesson it would do well to remember.
It’s We the people that is enshrined in our most important documents, not “We the liberal or We the conservative or We the educated. Simply the people.
Secondly, Gun advocacy has everything to do with public policy, if my firearms are taken away who is to protect me from tthe criminals or how am I to protect myself from the government.
It’s public policy to discuss what is an individual right and what is not, it’s public policy to talk about self reliance. And at the core of the issue, that is what it boils down to in my opinion. Those who want to ban guns do not want people to rely on themselves for their protection.
Both sides of this debate wants to reduce violence, it is simply how that will be done that is up for debate. Isn’t that public policy?
Lastly, David Hardy is the person to ascribe bias because he has that right, remember that freedom of speech you want to restrict. You are free to disagree and post your own opinion. Mr. Hardy was noting the facts in the case and supplying his opinion. Shouldn’t people have the right to post their opinion, Mr Lyon?
Unless each of us leads a life of poverty, aren’t we all in it for profit?
May 6th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Doesn’t look like anyone of us here are on our knees and wearing a habit with any vows to penury.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Well writ, Bob S. and John of Manchester. Thanks again.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:12 am
Another reason for gun control:
http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=3239977
May 7th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Are you kidding me, Cliff?
What credentials do YOU carry that gives you the right to disparage the law degrees, tenured professorships and lifetimes of research of people like Mr. Hardy, Mr. Kleck, Mr. Levinson and Mr. Kates?
You’ve continually attacked the seriousness of their work. First insisting that they weren’t experts. When proved wrong, you insisted that their work wasn’t peer reviewed. When AGAIN proved wrong you open up another thread and call them “laymen”?
Disagree with them if you like, but don’t disparage thier position or their work because you are too lazy to take a look at their CVs.
Seriously, Cliff? Have you not been paying attention? Have you not yet realized that you are not debating with 3rd graders? We’ve done our research. We’ve backed up our opinions with facts and cites. We’ve even provided the links to make it easy for you.
Finally, Cliff, you aren’t paying attention. I acknowledged that the NRA was a ‘(c)4. But, the NRA Foundation is a ‘(c)3.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:34 am
From the Joyce Foundation website:
Nope…no advocacy here…..please move along….
May 7th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Right, Albert. Incompetence by the Chief should dictate public policy. Hello! Rule #1. A gun is ALWAYS loaded.
It’s like banning cars for being too dangerous when the old lady on the freeway shifts into “P” to pass….
May 7th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Cliff,
It seems that my reply was zapped by the spam filter, so I’ll try again.
Let’s talk about your first reply (May 4th, 8:50 am)
First your entire quote was lifted from the Violence Policy Center without citation or accreditation, shame on you.
Second. you say
Get that, choose some number of something and try to relate it. That is exactly what you did sir. The debate is on the effectiveness of gun bans and you post 1 statistic on the rate of gun deaths. Wow, pot calling kettle here.
Let’s look at some other numbers (all stats are from the nationmasterDOTcom website) I think the number of links is reason messages aren’t going through.
Assaults per Capita
Burglaries per capita
Where is the USA? #17 United States: 7.09996 per 1,000 people
How about gun violence?
Gun violence > Homicides > Firearm homicide rate > per 100,000 pop. (most recent) by country
Yes, USA is # 8, but Mexico with stricter gun laws is #7. England is not shown on the list.
How about murders in general, is the USA the most violent country?
Not even in the top 10. Where is it? #24, note that Mexico again is #6. England apparently is not a very fatal country- it’s way down at #46.
Does that mean England is a safe or crime free country?
Total Crimes per Capita
Look at that…England at #6 and the USA #8.
So, does banning guns make one safer? No
Even the CDC found no evidence to the effectiveness of gun laws
So did your post address the effectiveness of gun bans? No.
Did you do exactly what you accused me of doing? Yes.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Cliff,
Let’s talk about your second post on May 4th, this one at 8:59am.
Again lifted straight from the VPC but with a link.
Who is the VPC and where do they get their money.
From Wikipedia (no link to beat the spam filter)
An advocacy group, should we ban all the advocacy groups or just the ones you don’t agree with?
Where do they get their money?
Get that, Joyce Foundation funds and controls several gun control groups.
So is the VPC an unbiased source of information?
Here is one link showing that that number is completely debunked.
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel013101.shtml
The ratio of everything but justifiable homicide was 43 to 1. Suicide is the major component in that ratio.
How credible is that source of information if this is the type of information they publish?
How does this address the effectiveness of gun bans? Not very well.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Cliff,
Let’s keep moving on. Your next post at 9:02am provides a telling piece of information, came with spin.
30 years of federal gun control legislation and still it is ineffective. Does the local, county, state and federal legislation fail to address any major aspects of criminal activity? I wouldn’t think so, but yet we still have crimes being committed with firearms.
Why?
Because, surprise, criminals don’t obey the law ! Passing more laws to make already illegal act to make it more illegaler. Does that make sense?
I like this little trick of the PR business. Take two areas, combine them and present the problem together to make it sound as if both are equally big.
Again, let’s find some data
For all homicides 1976 to 2005
Wow, only 15% of homicides victims are actually related to the attacker.
32% consists of other acquaintance; what does that mean?
from the web site
It could be the co-worker you barely know, the neighbor you just met, your boss. Hey, could it be possibly the criminal acquaintance of someone? I can post that research also but I think the point is that VPC is spinning the data.
Also, what does Relationship undetermined which makes up the largest percentage? Could that also mean criminal associates? Possible.
Again, spin and misdirection running here.
The selling of guns at a gun show by Federal Firearm Licensed((FFL) dealers follows the same protocol as if it was at their store. Hardly unregulated. Same with over the internet. FFLs are by law prohibited from shipping across state lines directly to someone without a license. The majority of shipments are sent to another dealer in the state, applicable regulations such as background checks are accomplished then the firearm is allowed to be picked up by the buyer. Unregulated?
The only areas “unregulated” are private individuals who aren’t dealers that sell guns at the show. This is the same as a person selling a car at a auto swap meet. Again, there are laws dealing with who can purchase a firearm even in this situation. Unregulated?
Credible source for information on the effectiveness of gun bans?
May 7th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Bob S,
Apparently it will mean whatever you want it to mean. Maybe thats why the PROFESSIONALS don’t invite gun freaks to their seminars.
May 7th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Cliff,
Do you always call names and make diversionary attacks instead of addressing the issues?
You want to ban handguns, I’ve cited information showing gun bans aren’t successful.
You posted information about the crimes committed with firearms. I’ve posted information showing that it is biased and presented by an advocacy group that distorted the factual data.
You posted information trying to make firearms seem to be dangerous to anyone and everyone. I posted information showing the bias in that claim.
You posted information on the accuracy of defensive gun uses, JD and I posted information supporting Mr. Korwin’s statements and Kleck’s claims.
I haven’t seen any information justifying your proposal to ban advocacy groups that you don’t agree with, but I do see you using information from advocacy groups on the other side of the issue.
I have not seen any information or data that shows lawful owners of firearms are such a danger to society that their rights have to be severely curtailed.
What possible justification, based on evidence or supported data, can you make for the ideas you’ve proposed?
I’m willing to change my opinion, but there has to be a over-riding need to abridge the freedoms that generations for to obtain and maintain. So far I have seen that case being made.
May 7th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Cliff,
Another link showing the failure of gun bans
The whole article is worth reading.
May 8th, 2008 at 5:53 am
Bob S,
You want to argue that because a mishmash of gun laws are ineffective and therefore…
The reason I don’t go down that road is because I don’t feel like explaining to you what is so obvious to people who are willing to be objective.
And if did take the time to explain it to you, you would just throw out another erroneous figure.
One can look at the failure of gun laws as a reason to have fewer broader laws.
One can look at the failure of gun laws as a failure of law enforcement.
So if I don’t accept you conclusion, how can we debate effectively?
May 8th, 2008 at 6:12 am
Cliff,
I can accept the reasoning, but I don’t have to agree with the conclusion anymore than you have to agree with mine. But that isn’t what you’ve done. You’ve posted personal attacks and diversions.
Please show where my figures have been erroneous. I am, like you, willing to admit when I’ve made a mistake, but you haven’t shown that any figures I’ve posted are wrong.
I didn’t even claim your post was wrong on gun deaths, just that it was an incomplete picture.
You say it should be obvious that the mishmash of laws is ineffective and I counter that England, Mexico, even Australia are all operating under coherent gun control laws. Would you agree to that?
Did the information I posted on the crime rates in other countries show that violence and overall crime was not reduced by gun bans? I thought so.
I’ve asked about what laws and tried to get details on your ideas or proposal for broader gun laws. I actually agree that the patchwork, mish mash of laws is ineffective and creates more problems than it solves. I just don’t agree with the direction you want to take those laws.
There is a blog meme going around about if you were supreme ruler what would you do. So let’s do that with gun laws, what would you propose?
I also agree that enforcement of the laws is creating a problem. I feel that criminal should be in jail, serving their full sentence. I don’t agree with current laws on drug use. Those laws are crowding the jails and not reducing violent crime. So what should the consequences for violating the new laws be?
Cliff, you have kept the board open and discussion going when many anti-gun sites have closed comments. For that I do commend you. I and others appreciate your willingness to host these types of debates.
May 8th, 2008 at 6:12 am
Bob S,
How and WHY should I debate someone willing to make statements that they know are patently false;
Where would you like me to begin? Should we distinguish between the mass murderers or legal gun owners who kill one person at a time?
i.e Virgnia Tech to Marvin Gaye’s father.
Seriously Bob. I am much more interested in a discussion about how many people have died needlessly due to the immoral, corrupt information being spread throughout our society by the NRA, it members, and carpet-bagger opportunists like you and Alan Korwin, and David Hardy.
…and how to stop you in your tracks, take your guns away, and let you think about the insanity of your hysterical behavior.
May 8th, 2008 at 6:57 am
John of Manchester,
Thank you for the anecdotal and lovely tales of early American weapons possession.
Unfortunately, they bear little influence on the negotiation surrounding the second amendment. And even if they did (and they don’t), whether you take the Constitution as a living document OR you are a strict constructionist…either way, the idea that the second amendment, today, should justify letting everybody arm themselves to the teeth is absurd AND YOU KNOW IT.
There is a dependent clause (this is a COMMON grammatical convention). It is of course the 2nd half; “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed..
That clause is dependent the first part of the SAME sentence; “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,…”
This perfectly reasonable reading of the 2nd Amendment has never even changed throughout our judicial history. If you were a law student, and you were being tested on the Constitution, there is only ONE right answer describing its original intent.
This comes from FindLaw, the most popular, unbiased, authoritative source on the Internet.
Now Bob S, of course will argue that this is somehow biased. But I think Bob calls anything and anyone biased that proves he is dead wrong.
I think if Bob wanted to defend smoking, he would accuse of bias the scientists who say smoking is bad for your health, and the policy makers who do research to find solutions.
If I may, once again, comment on the disconnect here. You guys are not interested in the objective evidence. Your intent is only to validate your desire to keep your guns. The problem with that, is the strategy. The NRA has you convinced that the only way to insure you can keep your guns is to go all the way and in the process, say anything regardless of how wrong or reckless.
Alan Korwin’s statement was wrong and reckless. So I’m not really interested in discussing fantasy Consitutional interpretation or fantasy staistics with rediculous conclusions.
I am more interested in discussing you guys personally and psychologically. How DOES an otherwise good law abiding citizen justify the selfish participation in the perpetuation of death, violence, and murder? What of you conscience.
I mean really, people are dying everyday because of hand guns. How does one go through life saying, “Gee, I’m so sorry so and so got killed, but its not my fault, I did not pull the trigger.” Sounds kinda like a drug dealer’s excuse doesn’t it.
When you say the 2nd amendment guarantees and individuals right to own a gun, you are simply lying. There is not and never has been ANY federal court decision that says that. The NRA and Chuck Heston have been lying to you. That makes you accessories to a lie and maybe murder.
You don’t get to say, “well Mr. Heston said it, so it must be true. ”
If you guys have an ounce of Christian in you, you would consider giving up your guns and possible risking a robbery or two in order to save thousands of lives each year….IF you were REAL Christians.
May 8th, 2008 at 8:10 am
Cliff,
My comment was
Please note the highlighted words. Are my rights restricted regarding guns? Yes, they are.
No one can make a person obey the law, thus additional restrictions do not make sense. There are moral obligations that I voluntarily obey to keep the social compact. Those who commit murder or violence with their firearms are violating the laws and social compact. Nothing, absolutely nothing we can do will stop someone who decides to break the law. All we can do is change the tool used. You say that guns are too dangerous; looking only at the crime rates discounting the positive uses of firearms.
Are people being killed every day by lawful owners of automobiles?
Yes, Should the actions of a minority of owners SEVERELY restrict the rights of the majority? Do you argue that nobody should be allowed to own cars?
How about people being killed with knives? Do you advocate that we restrict the ownership of knives to a few chosen people?
Libel is committed in newspapers and in blogs- Should we implement severe restrictions on the freedom of Speech? Oh, I forgot you actually recommend that.
Freedom isn’t easy, liberty comes at a price. But there are some costs that shouldn’t be paid, giving up firearms is one. That road leads to a totalitarian government, the worst kind is the one you propose. A government that takes aways the citizens’ rights “for their own good”.
I’ll use your own words but again we approach it differently.
By advocating the disarmament of citizens, you perpetuate a culture of physical violence.
Is all death and violence equal? I say no; there is predatory violence and there is violence used for protection. Would you hurt someone who was about to kill a family member or friend? Is that morally and ethically equal to the violence of the criminal? NO, rape, assault, murder is wrong, but killing in self-defense is right.
Cliff, this statement boarders on the sublimely ridiculous. Even if I give up my guns, how are you going to get the criminals to give up their guns? You can’t and they won’t. Chicago, Washington D.C. England; all have gun bans, All still have criminals with guns. The genie can’t be put back in the bottle. Again, the vast majority of guns aren’t used in crimes. Removing those guns just mean that the people are less able to defend themselves.
Also, even with firearms I risk robbery. I don’t believe that firearms are a magic talisman that keeps crime away, but just another tool to be used in case something happens.
And it’s not just the robberies people risk, but rape, assault and murder. Since you believe in a “gun free” existence, do you live it? Do you keep firearms in your house? Do you advertise in front of your house that you have no guns? That criminals are free to rob you without free of the dreaded “gun violence”?
Your slur that I’m not a real Christian is so off base that I am not offended. Just more of your personal attacks that will not work.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Bob S,
You are sooo cute, I just want to pinch your little rosy cheeks! Do you have rosy cheeks?
Let me be an elitist about this. Yes, I think myself unqualified to debate someone who equates ownership of cars and knives to Hand Guns.
You’re making me punch-drunk swinging all those dead on syllogisms.
Please dear Bob. Have some mercy.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:29 am
Cliff,
Avoiding the issue again I see.
May 8th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Cliff,
It seems like we have better results when I make it very simple for you, so here we go.
1. Do you advocate banning all weapons & items that could be used as weapons or just firearms?
2. Once firearms, or all weapons, are banned; how will the existing supply be removed from society?
3. Who will be responsible for the safety of the members of society from those willing to prey on them?
Those who agree with Cliff, please feel free to chime in. Cliff, Answer this and then try the same format and I’ll answer clearly to your questions. Okay?
May 8th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Cliff,
Two things - First you cite the FindLaw site as the “most popular, unbiased, authoritative source on the Internet.” But you only included the part about the 2nd Amendment not being incorporated against the states (which is true - so far). But you selectively failed to include the beginning of FindLaw’s analysis of the 2nd Amendment.
Further, you claim:
If this is true, why would the District of Columbia appeal the Parker decision to the US Supreme Court? What about the Emerson decision in the 5th Circuit. Aren’t both the DC and 5th Circuits Federal Courts?
Oh, and in regards to this -
I commend you, too. Though, I don’t know whether to attribute it to your love of “reasoned discourse”, masochism or narcissism…. ;-)
May 8th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Wrong, without the People having the means to defend themselves, tyranny is emboldened.
All law is based on precedent in the West, and as such the historical context is all that really matters. That you don’t like the reality of the Country we are is your own tough luck. We do not force you to arm yourself, which is required in places like Israel and Switzerland. Maybe we should be like those two Nations. We have every bit as much to protect as citizens as they do.
Totally stupid. The concept that the 2nd doesn’t grant personal gun ownership is just plain ridiculous. If it was meant as some form of qualifying act, why has it been that people have been able to own guns, pistols, HP, shotguns, even machine guns upon Federal license in their homes in an UNINTERRUPTED fashion for well over 230 years?
You certainly either ignore, or are ignorant of, the founders in unanimity completely distrusting an armed government that could enforce its will upon an unarmed populace. It is what the British did to Boston, and before they were entirely successful, those with a clue hid their personal weapons out amongst sympathizers in the country. This is undeniable and unequivical American history.
Any reasonable reading of the founders fears of government with an advantage of arms, will lead directly to the precedent, proven over 230 years, that the peoples right to own and possess, and carry personal arms, shall not be infringed.
For instance, when the Mormons were threatened with murder in Missouri, disarmed Mormons were given guns