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.
#1 by Bob S. - May 13th, 2008 at 14:04
Dwight,
Sorry to burst your bubble
But I have acknowledged that firearms in the hands of the victim may not have made a difference, several times I’ve stated that. I also stated that the current laws keep the majority of the people from possessing handguns that could have made a difference. Shouldn’t people have the chance?
Can you provide evidence for this? The current statistics on concealed carry does not support this
And more studies support this, please present your evidence to support your position.
As Cliff states
Could it be the real reason there is more violence is because there is less consequence for the behavior? Prison time for convicted felons is usually a joke, repeat offenders have dozens of convictions and yet they are on the streets. The criminals who killed the Philly cop had approximately 26 PAGES of arrests and convictions between them. Yet, they were on the streets to commit another crime. It’s not the fear of the victim’s gun, its the lack of consequences.
Again, unsupported statement. Please provide evidence. There are approximately 70 million gun owners reported and approximately 270 million firearms. What evidence do you have that shows owning a gun makes you more likely to die by a gun?
I agree that it is accurate but incomplete. I think firearms only empower those who are already willing to commit crimes. I and many others own firearms and I’ve never felt empowered to break the law. Again, the tool doesn’t exert a mystical force to break the law, but it may make the criminal feel more likely to get away with breaking the law. But why? Perhaps it is because the criminal knows having the firearm gives him or her an advantage. That advantage drops when the victim may be armed.
Statistic and studies tend to support this statement
Your sniper is a straw man argument. No would be able to stop someone with a B-52 bomber, but the muggings, rapes, assaults, and murders that happen frequently can be reduced.
Again, any evidence that shows your viewpoint to be true? The usual mass murder is stopped by a firearm, his own or someone else’s. How many people he kills depends on where the firearm is, on location or in the hands of law enforcement. Compare the shootings at Virginia Tech and the New Life Church. Jeanne Assam stopped the killer at the church with her personal firearm and didn’t kill or hurt anyone else.
If there are bystanders hurt in a shoot out, it’s usually the criminal or law enforcement that made that mistake. Not a knock on law enforcement, but the truth of their complex job.
I have repeatedly stated that we need to work on the cause of crime and not the tools. Improving human respect and responsibility education is great, but some will never
Kevlar and law enforcement solutions don’t prevent anything. Kevlar means you can usually survive a shooting and the law enforcement response means they get there quicker to write up the report. Again, not knocking law enforcement just emphasizing they can not and should not be everywhere all the time. Do you want to live in a police state? I don’t.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but this statement is wrong.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Congress not making a law is the contingency
.
Amendment II
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 first part, subject to many arguments is not setting the condition but a preamble to why the second part is important.
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Two contingencies in this amendment.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Two more contingencies….probably cause and oaths. It doesn’t say no warrants every, but sets the conditions or contingencies that must be met.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
I could go on, but I think the point is made. The 2nd amendment actually has the strongest protection stating this right shall not be infringed. No contingencies allowed.
You might want to study the history and requirements of the militia a little more. Usually able bodied men were required to have their own, individual, personal firearm. When the men joined the army, arms were issue to insure standardization. But personal firearms were required for militia use.
Arms are considered and defined in many places but the real question is about modern arms and their capabilities, right? Firearms capable of firing multiple shots existed or were planned even during the revolution, they just were very safe.
Arguing the Founding Fathers couldn’t imagine a modern machine gun is the same as arguing they couldn’t envision the internet. It is completely irrelevant. First amendment rights don’t stop at the internet, or the high speed printing press or tv or radio. Why should second amendment rights stop at glocks or sub machine guns?
#2 by Bob S. - May 13th, 2008 at 14:24
Cliff,
I edited a comment and foolishly didn’t save it after posting. Can it be retrieved from the spam filter?
#3 by Bob S. - May 13th, 2008 at 14:27
Albert,
I am disappointed in your response. It has been my experience, especially on this board, that it is not the pro-firearm crowd that gets hysterical.
I especially see the non-sense, name calling, hysterics from the anti-freedom crowd. I will admit you don’t give into that very much.
Is the gun crazed comment a professional opinion or just more distraction from the facts?
#4 by Bob S. - May 13th, 2008 at 18:43
Dwight,
Your statement is inaccurate in a couple of points
I have acknowledged, several times, that firearms may or may not have saved the victim. It depends on a great many factors, but even a casual scan of the news will show where defensive use of firearms have saved the victim or prevented the crime. I linked to one in Fort Worth in an
earlier post.
Second, while the firearms may or may not have saved the victim, it is abundantly clear that the current laws restrict the victims from carrying firearms. The costs, training, administrative and legal hurdles prevent may people from even having the capability of defending themselves.
I fairly new to this argument, do you have any support for this statement? It sounds counter intuitive so I would like to see the research. I do know that when concealed carry laws are relaxed, crime rates decrease.
There are a great many other research studies that prove this. I recommend John Lott’s “More guns, less crime”.
This could be a factor, but isn’t it more likely that the criminals don’t fear the victims or the consequences. A lack of respect for human life, including their own, and a lack of severe consequences mean the criminals are free to commit heinous acts with near impunity. Fewer states with death penalties, a revolving door justice system that puts violent offenders back on the street repeatedly is a more likely culprit, don’t you think?
The criminals that killed the Philly cop had 26 PAGES, not arrests/convictions, but PAGES of arrests and convictions between them. Why should they fear being caught when they know they will be out again quickly.
Sorry, waving a disbelief flag on this one. How about some supporting evidence. As Cliff says.
See my earlier posts showing the gun death rate may be high, but murder rates, assault rates and overall crime rates are higher for other countries, including those with more restrictive gun control laws. See my comments on England.
I disagree with it’s accuracy, closer but still not enough. Guns aren’t magical talismans that empower anyone, no more than baseball bats empower ex-spouses to kill their ex. See my earlier posts. The criminal intent has to be there. The guns may give the criminal a perceived advantage because they rightly figure their victims will be disarmed. Take away that advantage and crooks will not be as bold.
Your sniper argument is a straw man. Most handguns wouldn’t stop a sniper, but there aren’t very many sniper attacks. But if you want to go there, consider the University of Texas sniper decades ago. In that case the police recruited civilians with their personal firearms to help.
Machine guns have been and will probably still be highly regulated and inaccessable for a time to come, but that doesn’t affect the situation as much as you might think. A skilled person can change magazines almost as quickly, usually 2 seconds or less. Having someone with a firearm at the location of a mass murder has been the most effective way to stop or limit the number of victims. Jeanne Assam is a good example of this, google the name.
Show the evidence that concealed carry, not law enforcement, are shooting bystanders. Law enforcement by the complex nature of their job are more likely to hit bystanders than concealed carry holders. How about linking to some data showing this is a problem?
I have posted many times that liberalizing the firearm laws by itself wouldn’t be enough. My post earlier about the changes in the laws should point that out. But who says we don’t care and try to improve issues with human respect and responsibility education. This an area where we agree, but it can’t be the only approach.
There must be severe consequences for criminals not respecting human life, wouldn’t you agree? Knowing they may die if they violate another’s rights is a good way to instill that human respect.
Law enforcement response times is another area where we agree, but law enforcement is a reactive response to a crime that HAS happened usually. The standing line about why I have a firearm is because a cop is too heavy to carry. No knock on law enforcement, they are doing a good job, but they can not and should not be everywhere all the time. Do you want to live in a nation where the police are ever present?
This is inaccurate. In the 1st amendment, the contingency is that “Congress shall make no law”. In the 3rd amendment, there are two contingencies - consent of the owner in peace time and a manner prescribed by law. In the 4th, warrants must have “probable cause” a contingency and must be supported by a “sworn oath” another contingency. I could keep going but the point has been made.
Again another inaccurate statement
There are still militias
Sorry but that wasn’t the primary use of the militia and it still isnt. The militia supports and supplements the army, but is not used as the draft.
This is still being argued here, but there are a couple of quick points. The right to self defense exists before the Constitution and apart from it. Also the wording was a compromise, review many states constitutions spell it out more explicitly. The Bill of rights doesn’t say anything about the right to breathe, but you assume you have that right, don’t you?
Your next statement about the need for the states I can agree with but wasn’t the only reason for the adoption of the 2nd amendment. What provoked the actually fighting in the Revolutionary war was the British trying to confiscate personal arms.
This is a common straw man argument for your next statment
Missile are in a direct line of descent from rockets cannons, etc that existed; so yes they could imagine them. There were also firearms that fired more than one shot per trigger pull even back than, so yes they could imagine them.
Also the internet, high speed printing presses, radio, television didn’t exist at the time. Would you argue the Bill of rights don’t pertain to those inventions? Please it’s ridiculous to say. It’s the principles of the rights that apply, isn’t it?
This is often as an excuse to look at other countries laws and say we should match them. I disagree with the reasons and the needs for this. The Constitution is probably the finest governing document ever created. Which country would you want to emulate, England, Australia, Mexico? Check out the crime rates that I posted earlier.
Funny I was about to make the same statement to the gun grabbers like you. Cliff, our humble host, has already stated that he is willing to violate many of the constitutionally protected rights. Which ones are you willing to violate?
#5 by jdberger - May 13th, 2008 at 20:59
Bob,
Dwight’s statement is inaccurate on SO MANY points, it’s difficult to know were to begin.
Should we begin with the contradictory statements? The outright fallacies? The logical fallacies? Myths? Non-sequiteurs?
It brings to mind the old lawyer axiom…
If the facts are against you, argue the law.
If the law is against you, argue the facts.
If the facts and the law are against you, pound on the table and scream like hell.
The last applies to Dwight’s rant.
Hey Cliff!?
Did you place an order? Did you put your money where your mouth is? Do you really have the courage of your convictions?
C’mon, Cliff, if, as you assert, the Supreme Court decides that DC’s handgun ban IS constitutional you have the opportunity to make 90 cents on the dollar.
Here’s the link again, in case you missed it.
http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/contractSearch/
#6 by Bob S. - May 14th, 2008 at 07:20
Cliff
Please stop accusing me of doing something, then turning around and doing the exact same thing.
Gee, you see signs in 1 town and don’t call it anecdotal. I list 3 examples of why handguns shouldn’t be banned, clearly identifying them as examples. Do we need to define that word for you?
I believe a long time ago, in parts or most of the country, slavery was supported by many people. Was that good public policy also? Just because many people support something doesn’t make it right.
Gee, I keep asking for links to all the “really smart people who study the issue” and I don’t see any from you. I don’t see any links showing the effectiveness of the gun bans, etc.
But wait, I think I remember a quote from you earlier
“appreciate why there are not hundreds of professional statisticians and researchers wasting their time performing redundant research that confirms the useless studies put forth”
So which is it Cliff, Are they really a lot of smart people studying the issue? Or perhaps these are the same type of people who didn’t want to take the time to refute the studies showing the world was round, that the earth revolved around the sun. Surefire ideas that were so obvious not a lot of people spent time on studying them, but those ideas were wrong, just like the effectiveness of gun control.
If gun bans work so well, please simply explain the crime and violence rates in cities in Washington D.C. and Chicago, the increasing crime rates in Britain?
P.S. I was the anon poster on May 13th, 2008 at 11:02 am
#7 by jdberger - May 14th, 2008 at 09:59
Bob,
The truth of the matter is that Cliff has no desire to educate himself on the subject. The material representing both sides of the issue has been made available to him on multiple occasions. He’s too stubborn to bother to read it.
To Albert’s credit, he at least explored some of the literature.
Cliff seems to prefer to get his information from yard signs.
#8 by jdberger - May 14th, 2008 at 10:07
An amusing quote from Dwight…
An examplar of Dwight Sheldon Adams’s skills as an editorialist.
#9 by Bob S. - May 14th, 2008 at 10:45
JD,
I realize there is little chance of changing Cliff’s mind, but I’m okay with risking the improbable.
I am actually more concerned about the folks like Albert, Utah Mom, Utah Dad, Richard Warnick, etc. The folks that haven’t really been exposed to 2nd amendment issues with the supporting facts and data. I may never change their minds either, but why not try.
Thanks for all the work you do for the same cause.
Besides, it is fun and I get a chuckle in de-constructing some of the posts, especially one’s like Dwight’s.
#10 by jdberger - May 14th, 2008 at 11:17
Dwight Sheldon Adams is just hurling spaghetti at the wall.
#11 by Utah Mom - May 14th, 2008 at 11:37
Bob S. I appreciate your taking such an interest in my education on the 2nd Amendment. Your assumption that I don’t agree with you because I haven’t “been exposed to 2nd amendment issues with the supporting facts and data†is an extremely egotistical statement. I would expect nothing less from you. Interestingly enough, I am extremely familiar with the 2nd Amendment and all of the issues surrounding it and I still choose to disagree with you. Imagine that. You can sleep easy and worry no longer about my edification on the subject. Your work is done here.
For once Dwight Sheldon Adams actually makes some very cogent comments.
#12 by Bob S. - May 14th, 2008 at 12:12
Utah Mom,
Sorry you misunderstood my post or I wasn’t very clear. I never assume about someone’s education but respond to their posts. I was trying to convey that I would like to convince or change the minds of folks. Also the comment clearly stated with the supporting facts and data; from the anti-freedom side, I have seen a dearth of supporting evidence, facts and research.
Dwight’s comments were cogent, just wrong on the majority of them. If you, being familiar with the 2nd amendment disagree with my assessment, please let me know what I have wrong. I don’t claim to be extremely familiar with all the issues surrounding the 2nd amendment, but I’m willing to learn.
As far as the egotistical aspect, do you call Cliff down when he demands people’s credentials before continuing to debate them? Do you address the disparaging remarks made about pro-2nd amendment rights?
I think the bible mentioned something about planks and splinters that covers this.
I am also sorry but I can’t sleep easy because my work isn’t done. As long as people like Cliff who has stated he is willing to violate my civil rights are posting, I will try my best to counter them.
How do you feel about Cliff clearly and distinctly stating that he is willing to violate people’s rights to free speech, freedom to peaceful assembly if he had his way on the 2nd amendment?
#13 by Utah Mom - May 14th, 2008 at 12:56
Bob S.
You pose a lot of very good questions in your response to me. I really don’t wish to debate issues with you. As much as I appreciate your position you need to appreciate mine. I feel the way I do because I do and whether or not we agree is irrelevant. I will not and cannot compromise my decision regarding gun control.
Regarding Cliff–quite a complicated subject. Cliff is extremely well educated and very well versed in more subjects than I’ll ever understand in my life time. However, I also know Cliff loves a good debate, a good controversy and a lot of traffic on OneUtah – which this post has clearly demonstrated. I don’t think Cliff wants to violate anyone’s civil rights, maybe it’s possible he just interprets the 2nd Amendment differently than you…possible? Maybe.
I can’t answer for why Cliff demands credentials – does it really matter? Cliff can demand all he wants but that’s all it is. Blow him off. As much as I respect Cliff, remember, it’s just Cliff.
#14 by Cliff Lyon - May 15th, 2008 at 09:39
Thanks Mom!
#15 by Bob S. - May 15th, 2008 at 10:14
Cliff,
So others will know, were you joking, using hyperbole, or serious when you suggested infringing on people’s constitutionally protected rights?
I fully understand we disagree on the 2nd amendment, but in regards rights to free speech, peacefully assemble, due process that you suggested trampling, etc; how do you stand?
#16 by Cliff Lyon - May 15th, 2008 at 11:04
Hi Bob,
I couldn’t find where I “suggested infringing on people’s constitutionally protected rights?”
It easiest for me if you grab the link so I know what you are talking about?
#17 by Bob S. - May 15th, 2008 at 11:22
Cliff,
Happy to oblige from your post- May 2nd, 2008 at 11:59 am
And
May 5th, 2008 at 8:29 am
And also, currently handguns are constitutionally protected (reference the 21 court cases I listed earlier) from your post May 9th, 2008 at 7:13 am
#18 by Cliff Lyon - May 15th, 2008 at 12:46
Sorry Bob, I still don’t see where I said, ““suggested infringing on people’s constitutionally protected rights?â€
What am I missing?
#19 by Bob S. - May 15th, 2008 at 13:45
Cliff,
You want to ban people who disagree with you on the 2nd amendment from being able to form an advocacy group — freedom to peacefully assemble.
You want to ban people who disagree with you on the 2nd amendment from being able to lobby for their beliefs — freedom of speech.
You want to bans handguns right? So how does that happen; do not you have to take handguns from legal owners that haven’t committed a crime ? doing so violates the protection from seizures of property without a specific warrant or a “probable cause” to believe a crime has been committed. - Fourth Amendment
If you don’t pay for the handguns siezed, - Fifth amendment - seizing property without just compensation.
#20 by Cliff - May 15th, 2008 at 14:10
Ok, now I understand Bob.
You refer to a comment which assumes SCOTUS does not uphold individual right to hand guns and we manage to pass laws banning them.
Just as you could cannot advocate for rape and murder, in an ideal world, we could ban YOU!
#21 by Cliff - May 15th, 2008 at 14:28
Bob S,
In practice, your right to fee assembly, habeas, speech and others were taken away in 1999.
It is very likely –if you are paying attention to politics — that hand gun possession will end up like DWB (driving while black).
I’ll bet you had no idea about this.
#22 by jdberger - May 15th, 2008 at 14:49
So, do you think organizations like the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws should also be banned?
Marijuana is a Schedule 1 drug. It is not legal ANYWHERE in the US.
#23 by Bob S. - May 15th, 2008 at 14:54
Cliff,
To answer your post in reverse order,
I actually was aware of and have been following the Sean Bell case closely. I and many other bloggers find the actions of the law enforcement highly questionable in this case. I haven’t seen the evidence presented, so I don’t to claim it was unfair. I will say I’m not sure the right verdict was reached. I will also say I think many changes need to be made to how law enforcement is handled.
That is one of the reasons statements like yours concern me, creating more laws seems to affect the law abiding more than the criminals. Would you agree with that statement?
Check out a blog I read daily The War on Guns. Mr. Codrea has a regular feature he calls “the only ones”.
I agree with you that we’ve lost many of our rights. I’m not sure why you picked 1999 unless it’s Bush Derangement syndrome
I think it’s actually both parties, both branches of government and some of the judiciary that is removing our rights. Get the government out of our business, lives, bedrooms, etc.
Before I posted on this board, I looked at the organizations you supported. I was glad to see that you are taking the approach I prefer. People, individually and as groups getting together to resolve problems. I think the government should stick to those items spelled out in the Constitution, don’t you?
To me a line must be drawn and drawn soon before we lose everything. Check out how England and much of Europe are losing their freedoms. The strongest issue should be with the 1st and 2nd amendment rights. Curtailing any infringement on those leaves us unable to protest the lose of the others.
Wouldn’t you challenge me, if I stated I wanted to ban your advocacy or interest groups?
#24 by jdberger - May 16th, 2008 at 14:55
The dreaded “Gun Lobby”….
a 69 year old grandmother….
#25 by Cliff Lyon - May 17th, 2008 at 06:25
……dripping with blood.
#26 by cav - May 17th, 2008 at 09:38
Really, when you look at all the bullets, make and expended, 50 isn’t THAT many. It’s possible that the fiftieth shot was the one that put Sean out of his ‘misery’.
#27 by cav - May 17th, 2008 at 13:14
Forgive me…that’s maDe and expended…Shees! And btb Shaun, RIP.
#28 by Larry Bergan - May 17th, 2008 at 14:19
Cav:
To keep with the “One Percent Solution”, Mr. Bell should have been shot 99 times. No sense in taking any chances.
#29 by cav - May 17th, 2008 at 18:34
99 is cruel and unusual. What was his ‘Crime’ again?
#30 by jdberger - May 18th, 2008 at 01:59
No, Cliff. It’s you that is dripping with blood.
You that seek to convince people that it is immoral to defend yourself.
You that encourages a welfare system that saps the hope from people.
You that prefers that people be dependent upon their “betters” or those “properly credentialed”.
You that projects your fears of being unable to control your rage upon others.
You that seeks to deny the means of defense to the lumpen-proletariat.
You that owns guns, but sees them as too dangerous for the plebes.
As much as you wash at midnight, you cannot rid yourself of that damned spot - one you’ve created and allowed to grow by surrendering to the criminals, the corrupt, the powerful.
You, Cliff Lyon, and your insistence of forcing your ovine attitudes upon others are responsible for the millions of deaths committed by Pol Pot, Uncle Joe, Mao, the Great Leader and assorted other despots. Because of YOU, Cliff Lyon, people were unable to resist.
Congratulations.
Put your money where you mouth is, yet? Or are you just full of crap, as well as being dangerous?
I don’t think you have the courage of your convictions, Cliff Lyon.
I think that you’re a blowhard. A keyboard commando.
You’re pathetic.
Kiss that Joyce money bye-bye, Cliff Lyon.
#31 by cav - May 18th, 2008 at 06:06
Well, JD, don’t hold back. Tell us how you really feel.
#32 by Cliff - May 18th, 2008 at 09:45
Ok Mister JD Berger. LOCK AND LOAD good buddy. You’ve sucked me in and now I’m lookin for bear.
From now on, its Mr. Lyon to you.
I’m a gonna slap you so hard you’ll have to pull down your socks to see. All them nasty things you said… I’m madder ‘na long-tailed cat in a room full a rockin chairs.
You callin me an ELITIST? Is that what yer trying to say mister?
Boy, I’m gonna rain so much crap down on you, you’ll have to turn into algae to eat your way out!
Googling you now…just you wait Bluster Buster.
btw: I found your website…NRA for Kids
#33 by jdberger - May 19th, 2008 at 10:46
Gee, Cliff - with all of your threats of violence, should I get a restraining order?
And no, I didn’t call you an ELITIST. I called you an effete elitist, dangerous, full of crap and a blowhard. I forgot fascist for your desire to supress opinions contrary to your own.
#34 by Cliff Lyon - May 19th, 2008 at 11:08
JD Berger,
I’m a gonna come down on you like a ton ‘o bricks boy!
But first, please provide any supporting evidence you have that I “supress opinions contrary to your own.”
This blog is the as open and un-moderated as IS possible on the Internet. I even have conservative contributing authors.
I am only one voice on this blog.
So go blow it out your AK-47. Oooops! How did I know you have an AK-47?
BECAUSE YOU’VE ANNOUNCED IT ALL OVER THE INTERNETS!
Gimme another day or so to see what the Internet washes ashore.
#35 by jdberger - May 19th, 2008 at 11:21
Actually, Cliff - I don’t own an AK-47. I never have owned an AK-47. Those guns are banned by name in the state in which I live. Your Google-fu sucks.
And I said that you have the “desire to suppress opinions contrary to your own” - which you’ve clearly stated when you mentioned wanting to ban advocacy groups you don’t agree with.
#36 by Cliff Lyon - May 19th, 2008 at 11:31
Mister Berger,
I think you’ve over-generalized a statement I made about banning pro-gun advocay groups. It was a hypothetical in which SCOTUS rules that their is no individual right to own a handgun, and so the states could ban them all together, which would mean the states could enforce laws advocating for something illegal.
In all my years of learnin and thinking about free speech, its never occurred to me that promoting illegal weapons that are used only for killing people might fall within the scope of protected speech.
Hmm. Maybe another SCOTUS case huh?
#37 by jdberger - May 19th, 2008 at 11:49
I did? I over generalized this quote?
Perhaps I missed the part where you set up the hypothetical involving SCOTUS and the Heller case. Could you point it out to me?
#38 by Anonymous - June 22nd, 2008 at 08:38
I am sure if you were ever scared shitless.the shit would come out of your ears !