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.

In spite of extensive recent discussion and much legislative action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of firearms, there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, are an ”individual rights” thesis whereby individuals are protected in ownership, possession, and transportation, and a ‘’states’ rights” thesis whereby it is said the purpose of the clause is to protect the States in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units.1

Further, you claim:

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.

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 –

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.

I commend you, too. Though, I don’t know whether to attribute it to your love of “reasoned discourse”, masochism or narcissism….

Good luck with that Cliff.

That the 2nd amendment is not about individual rights, is what you say, and it is a good thing that you have nothing to say.

The Supreme Court on the other hand has a sworn obligation to uphold and defend the Constitution, from all enemies foreign and domestic, and nincompoops that wish to interpret the law without addressing the spirit or historical context of the Bill of Rights.

If you had played this nonsense with any people in 1787, you would be laughed at, but anyway, that is happening now.

We have all the mentioned agencies charged with responsibilities, and we can well see the general incompetence with which they perform their duties.

Speaking of the churchy leadership, with civic minded “virtue”, former talk show host, and Catholic priest, Bernie Ward, is finally going to prison, 5 years, for sending and receiving internet child porn. This after a deal that kept him out for what would have been 20. To Federal prison goes Bernie, he might have quite a time of it in there.

This in the Federal jurisdiction of anything goes San Francisco, so he was so guilty, they couldn’t ignore it.

He used to host a Sunday morning radio show called “Godtalk”.

Nah, we can hope agencies will improve, but for the big bad stuff, The 2nd and the individual right will be far more effective in keeping criminals and tyrannical government where they belong. Away.

Cliff,

I’ve tried a couple of times to point out that violence is violence but I don’t think we agree on that.

So I’m honestly asking, how and why do you view handguns as being in a special class of weapons?

Read these things, and the traditions and rights granted must have eluded you.

Or you fear to possess them.

Cliff Lyon Says:

May 9th, 2008 at 7:04 am
Yo Cheeseberger,

I think you confirmed my point, “no definitive resolution.”

I think where you and Bobby Sue have your panties in a bunch is over the idea that SINCE the Supreme Court has not decided a case in favor of your novel interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, that you must therefore be right.

I think it means you are wrong. The 2nd amendment is not about individual rights. Thats all I’m trying to say.

You are correct. The Supreme Court hasn’t decided a case either way. But you’re moving the goalposts again. You said:

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.

And I pointed you to the Emerson and Parker decisions in the 5th and DC Circuits, respectively.

You’re moving the goalposts again, Cliff.

The Cheeseburger thing….that’s novel. I’ve never heard that before.

So, you’re arguments are so vacuous you’ve resorted to name calling?

FAIL

John of M.:

Not quite sure what the Burr/Hamilton duel has to do with this debate, but it’s always a fun story to read. But while we are discussing the duel, did it ever occur to you that the duel provides a great example of evolving societal norms? Or how about the fact that blacks were once considered property? Or how about a woman’s then-role in society – does it bother you that you cannot keep her barefoot and in the kitchen solely as a device for cooking and procreating? If you insist on a “strict-constructionist” read of the 2nd Amend. (assuming, arguendo, that your read is correct), then how do you reconcile these other matters? Are you going to deny that blacks and women have rights under the Bill of Rights, just because that is the way things once were?

I think you may want to reconsider your argument by bringing your head and mindset back to modern day America. Just a suggestion.

Albert,

I agree with the evolving social norms, but will ask “Is the evolution always in the right direction?”

One of the evolving trends I’ve noticed is the tendency to trend criminals better than the victims? Check out England for an example of this. People have been jailed for defending themselves against violent attackers, burglars, etc. Is this the evolving standard that you want?

Please understand, that I am fully working toward a society where the NEED to defend oneself doesn’t happen because there is no crime.

As I mentioned one of the evolving norms is a lack of accountability for a person’s actions. The Hamilton/Burr duel shows that the Founding Fathers took that accountability seriously, wouldn’t you agree?
So, I believe it also points out the attitudes and beliefs of the Founding Fathers. It would be difficult to say they didn’t believe in an individual right to keep and bear arms if the Vice-President of the country wasn’t prosecuted or shunned by his contemporaries, right?

As far as the other matters, society even then wasn’t homogeneous. Some favored abolishing slavery, expanding rights for women, non land owners, etc. Thus the compromises in the Constitution. But again, is self defense a right that will or should ever evolve to the point it’s unacceptable to defend yourself?

I asked Cliff who would defend society against the predators and his answer was

Educational system, public policy, community and civic organizations, Church people, law enforcement and judicial system…not guns.

We’ve had civilization for thousands of years and we still haven’t reached the point of being able to prevent the predators. What do we do in the meantime between now and achievement of Utopia?
We still need people willing to take responsibility for their own protection to counter the predators. Law enforcement can’t be everyone, the judicial system punishes those caught. Schools, Churches, community all try but there will always be the outlaws, those who prey upon the weak. I choose to be hopeful that I would never need my firearms for defense, but I don’t want to need them and not have them.

Would you want to have a criminal standing in your house or in front of you in public and your only means of defense is 911?

cav Says:

May 9th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
I see the problem as one, not of the mythical ‘individual rights’, rather, that if any and all can carry and conceal this deadly force, (I do not see legal reason why not), what’s it going to be like when everyone, including those not as rational as we here, have guns? The Drinkers, nutcakes, neocon-symps, nazis, fearful, etc. Then, when the lead is-a-flyin’ we’ll be wishing we’d drawn up a few constraining rules and / or done more talking. Done more to ratchet down the rhetoric and felt need.

Let’s be careful about restricting the rights of people we don’t agree with, eh?

Unless, like Cliff, you want to jettison the First Amendment along with the Second.

Aanon, I would not restrict the rights of the indivual, but the god ‘loving’ neocon feels diFferently. They’ll signing-statement the Constitution right down the toilet.

How are we to deal with THAT? A worthy battle?

Bob S, Good morning. May your sense of hopefulness be spot-on. Time will tell.

Coffee calls.

The point of the Hamilton Burr duel was to point out to Cliff the simple fact that personal arms have been an individual right, and have been owned and used in extremis, since long before anyone wished you couldn’t personally own and use them.

Alberto, you are now back to straw manning your way out of the rather obvious fact that is law and practise, that the personal right to arms is longstanding, and has been utilized by American citizens in a lawful way, and within societal norms, since the Nation was founded.

As for the straw man societal evolution argument, as you duck and grind. Society has advanced, dueling of any sort, is now expressly illegal. Though the right to bear arms, own pistols, has carried through as it shall, it being after a part of the Bills of Rights.

Besides your attempted logic is backwards. Once a right is granted is quite unlikely that we are going back on it. We will not return to slavery, nor deny women the right to vote, nor will we deny the People the right to bear arms. It is quite telling that before all other amendments besides the 1st, the founders make it clear in words, and in historical context, what is meant by the 2nd.

This is why the ban won’t hold up, and should have never been enacted in the first place. These bans are un-Constitutional, as would be attempting to re-instate slavery or any other decision the Supreme Court has made. Alcohol prohibition is as far as the US ever came to playing with this fire, and of course, we witnessed the folly, and the return to the right to use alcohol. Like it or not, guns are here to stay.

The right to assembly and free speech is the primary right in the Bill of Rights, perhaps that is why it is #1. Well, to anyone familiar with how tyranny works, #1 means a whole lot of nothing when under assault, unless #2 is an available option to confront oppressors. To wit, there will be no “storage” requirements of weapons other than where you the owner, sees fit.

This issue is a slam dunk. 230 years of concurrent history ensure that.

Here is something to stew on, is the weapon our current vice president used to shoot his lawyer buddy by accident, a personal arm? Not only did he field it, use it, and shoot his buddy with it, he suffered no repercussions at criminal law for incompetence, no intent, and he still has his firearms.

I’ll bet that is troublesome to some progressives. Maybe even a few lawyers. The shotgun was made for birds, but works on lawyers.

At his level of sworn Constitutional office, would he be having any doubts on his right to personal arms? Do you really think that the folks that helped install bush, will rule that Dicks’ gun isn’t a personal right guaranteed under the 2nd amendment?

Or was the Italian 28-gauge Perazzi shotgun a militia weapon as Cheney would be sub-commander in chief, or do you figure he bought the very expensive piece, and owns it, and certainly without question has a right to it, even if he has had an accident with it?

Hmm, what does 230 years of the 2nd amendment say? It is surely very confusing, huh? What was it the crown wished to do to the people of Boston when they began to complain of their rather shabby treatment by his majesty?

First open proclamations sullying the good king were banned, taxes instituted, the right of self governance taken away, and then the attempt by the crown to disarm the citizenry. The Patriots of means allowed all the rest, but this. At such a juncture, there being no return to negotiation upon being disarmed. Not with the crown.

The rest is history.

No. Heller isn’t a complicated case. It’s quite simple.

The States Rights argument flies in the face of logic. That’s why leading Democrats (and the Brady Campaign) agree that it represents an individual right.

And Republican appointees or not, the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land.

If you don’t like it, amend the Constitution.

Yes, I’ve heard the oral arguments. I’ve also read unofficial transcripts, comments and analysis on the orals and most of the amici briefs. But I think that would have been pretty obvious by the way I’ve been regularly schooling you. No?

Cliff,

It’s simple to understand how it reached the SCOTUS , it reached the Supreme Court because D.C. challenged the legal, correct ruling of the Appeal Court.

I find it amazing that you shrug off so many facts, so much evidence, documentation and support if it doesn’t agree with your preconceived notions.

Hey listen. SCOTUS officially full of republican appointments. Even if they decide for Heller, they will be wrong.

You are right about Emerson and Parker. They were bad decisions and will not stand long

Even the highest court in the land makes HUGE errors, not unlike this administration and the Republican party as a whole

I’m still waiting for your supporting evidence on so many of your comments. Can you support those statements, such as showing other court cases about the opionions in Emerson and Parker being wrong.

Such as can you prove the effectiveness of gun bans?

Can you show court cases where it was determined there was no individual right to keep and bear arms?

A response to the 9th amendment so even if the 2nd amendment doesn’t protect the right to keep and bear arms, the 9th does, right?

How is it worth sacrificing even more of our rights as you propose to ban handguns?

Here is a list of 21 court cases (local, state and federal) where the individual right to keep and bear arms has been confirmed.
link to Senate subcommittee report http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm

Care to try and match it with cases showing the opposite?

1. State v. Blocker, 291 Or. 255, — — — P. 2d — — — (1981).
“The statue is written as a total proscription of the mere possession of certain weapons, and that mere possession, insofar as a billy is concerned, is constitutionally protected.”

“In these circumstances, we conclude that it is proper for us to consider defendant’s ‘overbreadth’ attack to mean that the statute swept so broadly as to infringe rights that it could not reach, which in the setting means the right to possess arms guaranteed by sec 27.”

2. State v. Kessler, 289 Or. 359, 614 P. 2d 94, at 95, at 98 (1980).
“We are not unmindful that there is current controversy over the wisdom of a right to bear arms, and that the original motivations for such a provision might not seem compelling if debated as a new issue. Our task, however, in construing a constitutional provision is to respect the principles given the status of constitutional guarantees and limitations by the drafters; it is not to abandon these principles when this fits the needs of the moment.”

“Therefore, the term ‘arms’ as used by the drafters of the constitutions probably was intended to include those weapons used by settlers for both personal and military defense. The term ‘arms’ was not limited to firearms, but included several handcarried weapons commonly used for defense. The term ‘arms’ would not have included cannon or other heavy ordnance not kept by militiamen or private citizens.”

3. Motley v. Kellogg, 409 N.E. 2d 1207, at 1210 (Ind. App. 1980) (motion to transfer denied 1-27-1981).
“[N]ot making applications available at the chief’s office effectively denied members of the community the opportunity to obtain a gun permit and bear arms for their self-defense.”

4. Schubert v. DeBard, 398 N.E. 2d 1339, at 1341 (Ind. App. 1980) (motion to transfer denied 8-28-1980).
“We think it clear that our constitution provides our citizenry the right to bear arms for their self- defense.”

5. Taylor v. McNeal, 523 S.W. 2d 148, at 150 (Mo. App. 1975)
“The pistols in question are not contraband. * * * Under Art. I, sec 23, Mo. Const. 1945, V.A.M.S., every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, and property, with the limitation that this section shall not justify the wearing of concealed arms.”

6. City of Lakewood v. Pillow, 180 Colo. 20, 501 P. 2d 744, at 745 (en banc 1972).
“As an example, we note that this ordinance would prohibit gunsmiths, pawnbrokers and sporting goods stores from carrying on a substantial part of their business. Also, the ordinance appears to prohibit individuals from transporting guns to and from such places of business. Furthermore, it makes it unlawful for a person to possess a firearm in a vehicle or in a place of business for the purpose of self-defense. Several of these activities are constitutionally protected. Colo. Const. art. II, sec 13.”

7. City of Las Vegas v. Moberg, 82 N.M. 626, 485 P. 2d 737, at 738 (N.M. App. 1971).
“It is our opinion that an ordinance may not deny the people the constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms, and to that extent the ordinance under consideration is void.”

8. State v. Nickerson, 126 Mt. 157, 247 P. 2d 188, at 192 (1952).
“The law of this jurisdiction accords to the defendant the right to keep and bear arms and to use same in defense of his own home, his person and property.”

9. People v. Liss, 406 Ill. 419, 94 N.E. 2d 320, at 323 (1950).
“The second amendment to the constitution of the United States provides the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This of course does not prevent the enactment of a law against carrying concealed weapons, but it does indicate it should be kept in mind, in the construction of a statue of such character, that it is aimed at persons of criminal instincts, and for the prevention of crime, and not against use in the protection of person or property.”

10. People v. Nakamura, 99 Colo. 262, at 264, 62 P. 2d 246 (en banc 1936).
“It is equally clear that the act wholly disarms aliens for all purposes. The state . . . cannot disarm any class of persons or deprive them of the right guaranteed under section 13, article II of the Constitution, to bear arms in defense of home, person and property. The guaranty thus extended is meaningless if any person is denied the right to possess arms for such protection.”

11. Glasscock v. City of Chattanooga, 157 Tenn. 518, at 520, 11 S.W. 2d 678 (1928).
“There is no qualification of the prohibition against the carrying of a pistol in the city ordinance before us but it is made unlawful ‘to carry on or about the person any pistol,’ that is, any sort of pistol in any sort of manner. *** [W]e must accordingly hold the provision of this ordinance as to the carrying of a pistol invalid.”

12. People v. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922).
“The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the right of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff.”

13. State v. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921).
“We are of the opinion, however, that ‘pistol’ ex vi termini is properly included within the word ‘arms,’ and that the right to bear such arms cannot be infringed. The historical use of pistols as ‘arms’ of offense and defense is beyond controversy.”

“The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions.”

14. State v. Rosenthal, 75 VT. 295, 55 A. 610, at 611 (1903).
“The people of the state have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state. *** The result is that Ordinance No. 10, so far as it relates to the carrying of a pistol, is inconsistent with and repugnant to the Constitution and the laws of the state, and it is therefore to that extent, void.”

15. In re Brickey, 8 Ida. 597, at 598-99, 70 p. 609 (1902).
“The second amendment to the federal constitution is in the following language: ‘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 language of section 11, article I of the constitution of Idaho, is as follows: ‘The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense, but the legislature shall regulate the exercise of this right by law.’ Under these constitutional provisions, the legislature has no power to prohibit a citizen from bearing arms in any portion of the state of Idaho, whether within or without the corporate limits of cities, towns, and villages.”

19TH CENTURY CASES

16. Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878).
“If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.”

17. Jennings v. State, 5 Tex. Crim. App. 298, at 300-01 (1878).
“We believe that portion of the act which provides that, in case of conviction, the defendant shall forfeit to the county the weapon of weapons so found on or about his person is not within the scope of legislative authority. * * * One of his most sacred rights is that of having arms for his own defence and that of the State. This right is one of the surest safeguards of liberty and self-preservation.”

18. Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165, 8 Am. Rep. 8, at 17 (1871).
“The passage from Story shows clearly that this right was intended, as we have maintained in this opinion, and was guaranteed to and to be exercised and enjoyed by the citizen as such, and not by him as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights.”

19. Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846).
“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.” The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well- regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State.”

20. Simpson v. State, 13 Tenn. 356, at 359-60 (1833).
“But suppose it to be assumed on any ground, that our ancestors adopted and brought over with them this English statute, [the statute of Northampton,] or portion of the common law, our constitution has completely abrogated it; it says, ‘that the freemen of this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence.’ Article II, sec. 26. * * * By this clause of the constitution, an express power is given and secured to all the free citizens of the State to keep and bear arms for their defence, without any qualification whatever as to their kind or nature; and it is conceived, that it would be going much too far, to impair by construction or abridgement a constitutional privilege, which is so declared; neither, after so solemn an instrument hath said the people may carry arms, can we be permitted to impute to the acts thus licensed, such a necessarily consequent operation as terror to the people to be incurred thereby; we must attribute to the framers of it, the absence of such a view.”

21. Bliss v. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822).
“For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise.”

“But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution.”

Bob S.

Cliff Says:

May 12th, 2008 at 8:38 am
If Heller is so simple, why did it reach the Supreme Court?

Please, school me.

Btw: Even the highest court in the land makes HUGE errors, not unlike this administration and the Republican party as a whole. That is why you angry white, gun toting, Ozzie and Harriet types are going down hard in the next election.

Even republicans are admitting it may be generations before they recover. And you libertarians will be shoved even further back into the shadows where you belong.

When different Circuit Courts disagree, the Supreme Court often takes up the matter. I would have thought that during your IR studies, that you would have learned a little about the American system of jurisprudence, Cliff.

And if Republicans really do take the hit you suggest, it should be easy for you and the rest your ovine “progressive” companions to amend the Constitution and toss that embarassing Second Amendment into the trash. Shouldn’t it?

I find it interesting that you suggest that I’m angry, white and “Ozzie and Harriet” type. Perhaps it’s not the guns you are afraid of, but the people, Cliff.

It should be noted that you, Cliff, have threatened people, ranted and called them playground names. Perhaps you are projecting your fears of losing control onto others. Perhaps you should divest yourself of your guns, Cliff. Maybe you should attend to your own house, first. Stones and glass houses, Cliff.

JD,

Have you noticed that it is only people who threaten Cliff’s carefully constructed and maintained world view that gets called names?

Guess it might be a badge of honor

Cliff,

I will use small words. The people who wear black robes in the big building are ready to tell the world or at least America (is that too big?) what they think the “right to keep and bear arms” means.

or as I said earlier

I stated it is simple, because D.C. appealed the decision and the Supreme Court is ready to make a ruling on the invalidity of handgun bans. That is fairly simple, right?

Now care to address the rest of the post?

Cliff,

I’m sorry you feel that comment was un-called for; but you set the tone and I didn’t call you dumb. I just wanted to be sure that I wasn’t mis-understood. Sorry if you got your nose out of joint. But if you don’t want names to be called, then don’t call names sir.

I’m not asking you to take the hearing of the case and the final word.

Personally, I don’t bet on anything I can’t directly influence. I think the SCOTUS will make a compromise ruling; one that protects the individual right but still always some form of limitation. I don’t think either side will be completely happy, but that would make it acceptable compromise. I do predict quite a few other cases that challenge existing laws, but very few will make it to the SCOTUS as you stated.

John of M.:

You continually refer to 230 years … as providing irrefutable evidence as to the meaning of the 2nd Amend.; and, by doing so, it is you who are ducking the question. Indeed, were your worldview adopted, you and folks like you would still have slaves working your crops – or maybe you do that anyway.

Albert,

John’s review of history pointed out that the founding fathers considered personal arms and their use legitimate. It’s very difficult to claim the 2nd amendment only supported the rights of the states to keep militias when the Vice President wasn’t censured for the individual use of a firearm, right?

Also, as JD pointed out, the Founding Fathers provided the mechanism to amend the Constitution. That has been repeatedly done, some more successfully than others, but the 2nd amendment in 230 years has not been repealed. What it meant then, it still means.

I posted earlier 21 citations showing the courts have repeatedly found an individual right to keep and bear arms. Can you show any court cases where the individual right to keep and arms was found to be unconstitutional?

Cliff in earlier posts has stated that he wants to abridge the right to keep and bear arms and for those who disagree((at least on this issue) with him; violate their right to free speech, their right to peacefully assemble. How do you feel about someone proposing to violate people’s civil rights?

Bob S. and Jdberger, I appreciate you filling all the related details, on the 2nd amendments guarantee for the individual to own and bear arms.

I sadly do not have the patience to attempt to refute and educate those against it in your detail. The basic reason for the right is history and uninterrupted precedence, it speaks for itself, and Albert, there have been absolutely no portions of the Bill of Rights that have been appealed or amended.

BTW Albert O, Slavery was first abolished in Nantucket, and the issue of slavery has been divisive since even before this nation was founded. All sides however, their bearing on that issue aside, believed and practised the right to bear arms. That you see it as non-specific, is that the question at language you propose as interpretation, would be preposterous if presented to our founders in the manner you do.

Contrary to your straw man argument that people who desire to maintain the 2nd, would have kept slavery, I would side with the Nantucketers, they who did not allow slavery, had black whaling captains held in high esteem, and those very same men, were fully armed and able to be so at will. Yes indeed, they had the means in ownership, and individual right, to never be taken as slave again, which was all too common, for all sailors, in confrontation with British and French navies in the early days of our nation

The nation was founded by gun bearing elements, individuals brought their own weapons to the fray, and nothing in the history or language since that time is in any way unclear.

What you are hoping for would be unprecedented, and to date you have given no reasons for any reversal of the historical fact of individual right to bear arms for 230 year, other than you don’t like it.

In the incarnation of this post, it was government officers, seemingly out of control, and a subsequent judicial process that again, seemingly out of control, exonerated them. Yet you would try to disarm the law abiding?

For what pray tell? Your comfort?

Sorry, this individual right is in the Bill of Rights, you will need far more than that, and I don’t see much in your reasoning but hand wringing.

Cliff,

I’ve asked repeatedly why handguns should be banned and you’ve just answered that you want them banned. Never a reason other than people get hurt.

First, The story about the bb gun isn’t relevant as the lady robbed didn’t know it was a bb gun at the time, neither did the gentleman who came to her rescue. The CRIMINAL who tried to rob a legitimate business owner and assaulted her presented it as a more powerful firearm. You want to ban handguns which the lady could have used to defend herself.
Second, I never said you wanted to ban shotguns, but want to know what additional requirements or restrictions you want to put on them. If that neighbor hadn’t been armed, the criminal might have done more than hit her on the head. Why is the criminal allowed to assault people

Incredible the almost deliberate misdirection you are trying here

The story illustrates the problem with everyone having guns. In such a world, any situation gets escalated to gun play where without guns nothing much happens but a couple of hundred bucks gets stolen and someone’s pride gets hurt.

I presented 3 incidences where criminals attacked innocent people and you think it’s about someone pride getting hurt. Tell it to the family of the man dead in Cleveland.

By you philosophy you give free rein for the criminals to commit their attacks or crimes and only after they are done should anything be done to stop them.
Outrageous! It is everyone’s right and responsibility to try to stop criminals.

How about the EX-Wife — is her pride hurt? She’s DEAD. The ex-husband attacked her with a baseball, no gun used there. But a handgun carried by the woman could have prevented or stopped the attacked. Nothing is certain about that, but the fact the current laws favor the criminals, not the innocent citizens.

In your world, people get killed. I don’t want to live in your world.

My world, your world, real world it is all the same — PEOPLE GET KILLED. Every day, people get killed. I’m just tired of the WRONG people getting killed. Ideally, the criminals would realize it is too big of a risk to commit the crimes and STOP- no one killed, no one the victim of crimes.

I’m not angry, you are either projecting or mis-reading what I say. I’m tired of innocent people being hamstrung in their self defense by people who live in a fantasy world.

I remember that great day, years back, when Grog first gave his wife a club. “This club. Better than fist. Hunters outside. Protect self.” It was brilliant. The hunters didn’t dare come in her cave, for fear of the club. Then, one day, a hunter from another cave saw the club, fashioned one of his own, and beat Grog’s wife to death.

My point is that in every example Bob provides, he neglects to acknowledge that guns would not save the victim if the criminals had guns as well. When victims accelerate their self-preservation, criminals compensate. The more good people carry guns, the more likely it is that bad people will carry guns. Hence the phenomenon of the last 10 years where robbers have significantly increased their willingness to shoot their victims–many of them don’t want to risk their victims having a gun and shooting them as they leave.

Times have changed. Guns are many times more deadly, many times more accurate. Criminal research shows that the vast majority of gun deaths are caused by the use of illegal guns, and that a majority of those crimes are committed using guns stolen from legal owners. This means that owning a gun puts you in more danger of being killed by one than not owning a gun! Should the ownership statistics change, we could expect a change in this phenomenon, but there is still a valid point to be made by it. In conjunction with the enormously high gun death rate in the United States, this phenomena requires serious attention. What should be done about it? I don’t think it’s my place to make that decision by myself.

Perhaps I can modify the statement “guns don’t kill people; people do” to: guns don’t kill people; they empower people who do. Is that an inaccurate statement? If so, why? A sniper isn’t going to be stopped from killing other people by them owning guns. He has no fear of them from a distance. In addition, he couldn’t possibly kill them from that far away without being empowered by his rifle. What of machine guns? One criminal can kill a crowd of people without even stopping to reload. And throw another gun into the mix (that of a vigilante), and you’re likely to have even more people killed. Accuracy reports on firearms discharge are very discouraging. In a stressful situation, most people are more likely to hit an innocent bystander than their target.

All of you in support of the 2nd Amendment: if you’re really concerned about personal safety, maybe you should focus on faster law-enforcement response, human respect and responsibility education, and buying kevlar.

Besides, you’re not supporting the 2nd Amendment as much as you think. You might note that, of the 10 amendments contained in the Bill of Rights, the 2nd is the ONLY one which provides a contingency. The others simply state “do this, don’t do this.” The 2nd says “because of this reason, don’t do this.” This implies that the right to bear arms required some kind of control or explanation. The fact is, we don’t have militias any more. If you are drafted (which was the primary use of militias–they facilitated the draft), a gun is provided for you. So you can use whatever other arguments you want. Just don’t hide behind the Constitution.

You must understand that we in opposition of unlimited weapons possession simply have a different interpretation of the Constitution than you do. You might use historical precedent as validation; I would challenge that the historical precedent was established due to a misinterpretation. The 2nd Am, no matter what some might say, says nothing in itself about self defense. In the perspective of the United STATES OF AMERICA view at the time of the drafting of the U.S. Con, rather than the present-day UNITED STATES of America view (I will explain this if anyone doesn’t understand), right to bear arms is likely largely invested in the rights of each state to protect itself without support of national military, and the consequent practical need for citizens to be personally prepared for sudden military action.

I could also bring up such questions as: what are “arms?” Did the framers even consider that SMGs would ever exist? How about missiles? Are they protected by the Constitution? Why or why not? I won’t discuss each of them, but only use them to state that we need to look beyond the Constitution and towards practicality, reason, and modern circumstance. Should the law need to be changed, the Constitution provides a means. So stop hiding behind the Constitution. It’s not bullet-proof.

Dwight Sheldon Adams

Dwight,

Sorry to burst your bubble

My point is that in every example Bob provides, he neglects to acknowledge that guns would not save the victim if the criminals had guns as well

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?

When victims accelerate their self-preservation, criminals compensate. The more good people carry guns, the more likely it is that bad people will carry guns.

Can you provide evidence for this? The current statistics on concealed carry does not support this

Research comparing various countries’ violent crime rates, murder rates, and crimes committed with weapons, have found that legal ownership of guns, including concealed carry guns, generally reduces crime rates.[30][27]

And more studies support this, please present your evidence to support your position.
As Cliff states

This is the beauty of the internet. Unsupportable public comments and the people who make them can be taken to task and a permanent record established.

Hence the phenomenon of the last 10 years where robbers have significantly increased their willingness to shoot their victims–many of them don’t want to risk their victims having a gun and shooting them as they leave.

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.

This means that owning a gun puts you in more danger of being killed by one than not owning a gun!

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?

Perhaps I can modify the statement “guns don’t kill people; people do” to: guns don’t kill people; they empower people who do. Is that an inaccurate statement?

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

Research comparing various countries’ violent crime rates, murder rates, and crimes committed with weapons, have found that legal ownership of guns, including concealed carry guns, generally reduces crime rates.[30][27]

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.

What of machine guns? One criminal can kill a crowd of people without even stopping to reload. And throw another gun into the mix (that of a vigilante), and you’re likely to have even more people killed.

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.

All of you in support of the 2nd Amendment: if you’re really concerned about personal safety, maybe you should focus on faster law-enforcement response, human respect and responsibility education, and buying kevlar.

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.

f you are drafted (which was the primary use of militias–they facilitated the draft), a gun is provided for you. So you can use whatever other arguments you want. Just don’t hide behind the Constitution.

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.

I could also bring up such questions as: what are “arms?” Did the framers even consider that SMGs would ever exist? How about missiles? Are they protected by the Constitution?

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?

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?

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/

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Cliff,

Happy to oblige from your post- May 2nd, 2008 at 11:59 am

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.

And

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?

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

1. Do you advocate banning all weapons & items that could be used as weapons or just firearms?
Just hand guns

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.

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.

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?

Forgive me…that’s maDe and expended…Shees! And btb Shaun, RIP.

99 is cruel and unusual. What was his ‘Crime’ again?

Well, JD, don’t hold back. Tell us how you really feel.

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.

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.

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.

I did? I over generalized this quote?

Cliff Lyon Says:

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.

Perhaps I missed the part where you set up the hypothetical involving SCOTUS and the Heller case. Could you point it out to me?