Think about the consequences of demanding ever more and more gun control laws

[bluestateguy]

You may not appreciate it, but the end consequence would be a growing parade of people being arrested, investigated, charged, tried and jailed on "weapons charges". Just what we need, more people in prison and in the criminal justice system based on amorphous "weapons charges". Furthermore, you are giving the police more reasons to poke around into people's homes and property on the basis of alleged illegal weapons.

Is that really what we want? More powers for the police? More people in the criminal justice system? And don't think that the impact of these multiplying gun laws that the gun controllers advocate won't disproportionately affect non-white Americans, who are less likely to have the ability to fight back in court with effective counsel. Don't we have enough people in prison already?

[gejohnston]

1. to some people, yes.

To some progressives, the BoR should not apply to gun owners.
To some conservatives, the BoR should not apply to bong owners.

[Angry Dragon]

2. Perhaps you could list the gun laws the gun controllers are advocating

Thank you

[bluestateguy]

8. Bans on semi-automatic weapons

limits on how many guns you can buy each month, limits to the types of ammunition, mandatory trigger locks.

Those are just a few for starters.

[safeinOhio]

10. I think all of the issue you have listed

are fair game for local and state voters. Then, as a Democrat, I support Democracy.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

15. Rights are not...

...subject to democracy. That's the difference idealism and wisdom.

It always seems more dangerous not to err on the conservative side of suspicion and control, but that is a myopic view.

[Starboard Tack]

105. "Rights are not subject to democracy." Really?

Tell the descendants of slaves that. Whites had the "right" to own other humans before democracy decided that was not a "right".
Today's "rights" sometimes become tomorrow's "wrongs" and vice versa. Democracy is fluid, thankfully. That is why it often takes a while for people to come around. Wisdom does not come overnight, but hopefully it comes eventually.

Constitutional rights, which were politically motivated, are sometimes amended via the democratic political process.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

106. Really? Really!

"Whites had the "right" to own other humans..."

No they didn't. Slavery was, is and always will be evil.

"Constitutional rights, which were politically motivated, are sometimes amended..."

Which ones?

[Starboard Tack]

108. The one that said whites could no longer own slaves. (13th Amendment)

The one that gave women and minorities the right to vote.
Slaves and women were considered property and their ownership fell into the realm of property rights prior to the Civil War.
Fortunately the Constitution was amended to abolish those supposed rights.
The 18th Amendment took away the rights to purchase, manufacture and drink alcohol. (Later amended by the 21st).
The 22nd took away the right to serve more than 10 years as president.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

110. Addressing your list :)

"The one that said whites could no longer own slaves." This does not change a right as there never was a right to own another person. The fact that some people did this and that government permitted it did not make it right. The 13A was absolutely a good thing as it firmly established that slavery is not only evil but illegal as it should be.

"Slaves and women were considered property..." Yes they were. This was a real shame. At the country's founding, only adult white males enjoyed a full measure of rights. The last group in the US to have their right to vote recognized was Native Americans. Utah was the last state to recognize that right... in 1956!

"Fortunately the Constitution was amended to abolish those supposed rights." Supposed rights is the key here as those rights were a myth.

"The 18th Amendment...the 21st." Clearly this was an exercise in over control, just like the AWB. Wisely the AWB was written such that without renewal, it would just die.

I don't think I would call being eligible to serve as president a right. As I've said elsewhere, rights are human attributes. We have the right to life and all that that implies. We have the right to enjoy the fruit of our own labor including owning personal property and real estate. The idea of what is really good and of benefit to society and all individuals has its basis in essential human rights. It is that spirit which inspires the courts and the people overall to recognize, that regardless of race or sex, that we are all human and all deserving of human rights.

[Starboard Tack]

124. Couldn't agree more.

That's why the so-called right to "carry a loaded firearm" is a constitutional right and not a natural right. The natural right is the right to defend oneself. The tools available are subject to the rule of law, whether we like it or not. As long as guns are available, there should be no exclusions, unless one has forfeited his legal right.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

127. The RKBA...

...is constitutionally protected for good reason. Those tools are subject to the rule of law. The law says felons (among others) can't own them. However, if I have a natural right to defend myself, I have the right to do so with the most effective tool for the task which is a loaded gun, according to the FBI. The FBI states that assault cases end better for those who resist their assailants and that those who resist with a firearm experience the least injury.

I also agree that only those whose rights are forfeit should be excluded from that option. Guns will always be available.

[Starboard Tack]

128. "Guns will always be available."

Always is a mighty big word. Hopefully we will progress beyond using guns as problem solvers. The FBI is not god, but obviously guns are the most effective method of warding off an assault, in the same way that nukes are the most effective way of winning wars. I think we are capable of creating less lethal, yet equally effective weapons for SD. Heck, they had them on Star Trek.

[Glaug-Eldare]

129. I hope they won't be banned when they're obsolete

They're good for more than shooting people, after all. Shooting paper is lotsa fun!

[Starboard Tack]

136. I agree. I just hope we come up with a better solution for those who feel a need to carry.

[gejohnston]

137. reverse Reaganomics

and go back to the Truman Eisenhower days and ditch the war on drugs. Violent crime will continue to drop. Fewer people will feel the need to carry and the casual gun owners will be flooding the second hand market. I get all kinds of good deals at the local flea market or Gunbroker.com. We both win.

[Starboard Tack]

142. Makes sense to me.

[Clames]

131. Well...in a few hundred years...

...someone might come up with a compact power source to allow a ranged and effective "stun" gun. I'm not holding out though.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

132. Less lethal weapons...

...will be less effective.

The choice of weapons is determined by your objectives. Nukes are effective at turning a city into an ash tray.


How's the weather in your parts?

[Starboard Tack]

138. Less effective if one's intent is to kill maybe.

I'm talking about a stopper, a temporary debilitater like a stun gun.
Weather is perfect. Sunny, mid 70's and breezy.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

141. A less lethal weapon...

...is most always just as effective as a lethal weapon after they are fired. An important and perhaps the most important effect of a lethal is the finality of death. Firearms influence many to stop and surrender or turn and run. In some cases the aggressor will continue the assault deterred only by the possibility of death. A deadly firearm has that advantage over less lethal means for that time until the weapon is fired.

In the Philly area we have haze and scattered clouds. 70s also.

[gejohnston]

135. once this happens

and the firearm goes the way of the crossbow, the point is what? What kind of phaser regulations would you have in place? The same places and people who want to ban guns and bows today will want to ban phasers. Think Brady and VPC won't be clutching their pearls over that?
Pepper Spray is illegal in Canada, and tightly regulated in the "civilized" parts of the US. That leads me even more that the issue is not guns or violent crime per se, but a culture war by people who have a negative stereotype of gun owners, detest the idea of people defending themselves instead of "giving them what they want", etc. Only one fourth of gun control advocates actually list "less violence" as a reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maser
http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-cetera/homemade-star-trek-phaser-really-will-stun-you-20120426/

[Starboard Tack]

139. No regs for the people. Only for the manufacturers and sellers.

I honestly have never encountered anyone who detests the idea of defending oneself. Most who oppose the use of a gun consider it overkill and a less than ideal tool. Giving an armed assailant your stuff is a very good argument. No material goods are worth taking or losing a life. Best way to avoid being robbed is don't carry anything around you are not prepared to lose. Using a gun is more likely to further complicate your life.

[Glaug-Eldare]

140. Nonviolent street robbery is only one type of encounter

and I think it's overplayed. There's a whole shopping list of reasons a person may feel a need or desire to carry, and not all of them can be resolved with pretty words or compliance. There's business robbery which places entire livelihoods in peril, there's violence based on race/sexuality/appearance/etc., there's violence stemming from domestic disputes and breakups, there's irrational violence caused by mental illness, there are random assaults by gang members to prove their mettle, &c. Even in street robbery, some criminals will assault or even kill their prey regardless of whether they comply.

Finding a solution to one particular type of encounter is not a compelling reason to abandon useful tools. Even if there was a zero violent crime rate, some people would want to carry simply to have the option at their disposal. That's what I'd carry for, if it was legal here.

[Glaug-Eldare]

107. To be brutally honest, "democracy" didn't decide it wasn't a right.

The Army did.

[Starboard Tack]

109. It could be argued that way.

Yet without support of the people and it's elected representatives, the army would not have fought. Britain's democratically elected parliament had already abolished slavery.

[Callisto32]

23. Okay.

Why?

For each of those items, why? Why can't a person buy more than one gun, after all, a human can only run 2 at a time anyway, and that's only 2 months to a fully armed rampage, under your limits. What do you mean by "types of ammo" "FMJs penetrate too much, tracers light stuff on fire," "HPs do too much damage to soft flesh"; so, under your dream scheme, what kinds of ammo would be restricted and why?

Mandatory trigger locks? As far as I know, every firearm sold new comes with one, they are easily broken, and a far better safe storage mechanism is to simply store the guns unloaded with the ammo in a locked strong box in a remote location.

[liberal N proud]

3. Its not the guns that need control...

It's the crazies who use them to kill other people that we need to control.

Figure out how to do that!

[safeinOhio]

4. I use to visit the county jail.

For most of the people in there, I say thank God for prisons. If you lived in a crime infested community, you'd want more people in prison

Of course there are too many drug possession people in jail. The low level dealers are the ones in the jails, not the big guys. We need to reform the drug laws, no question. However, violent gun crime criminals need a long, long time in jail along with those that make the almighty buck supplying them with handguns. The laws in Switzerland make the most sense to me and seem to work the best. Lots of guns, including full autos, and gun owners, with pretty strict laws on purchase and carry, yet a very low gun crime rate. Then there is Somalia with no gun law enforcement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

[gejohnston]

6. We basiclly agree, however

Of course there are too many drug possession people in jail. The low level dealers are the ones in the jails, not the big guys. We need to reform the drug laws, no question.

I actually agree.

However, violent gun crime criminals need a long, long time in jail along with those that make the almighty buck supplying them with handguns.

That should be true of all violent criminals regardless of weapon. I would argue the same be true for some white collar criminals.

The laws in Switzerland make the most sense to me and seem to work the best. Lots of guns, including full autos, and gun owners, with pretty strict laws on purchase and carry, yet a very low gun crime rate.

Low violent crime period, regardless of weapon. Russia also has a very low gun crime rate, but its murder rate is still makes us look like Japan. I don't think the Swiss gun laws are the actual reason. They have tighter sense of community, not as urban, small wealth gap, violent shooter video games are banned, different history and culture.

Then there is Somalia with no gun law enforcement.

Most people are too poor to buy a gun, besides how many warlords like armed serfs? The warlords are the defacto governments. BTW, what is Somalia's murder rate?

[safeinOhio]

7. The Swizz model for gun rights

would fit with the original purpose of the 2nd. I agree with someone you have mentioned many times as right on, on many topics.

[gejohnston]

11. That was the idea for the military

but the collective right argument has never been precedent. All of the SCOTUS decisions gun control advocates use are "states rights" cases that had more to do with incorporation of all of the BoR. They had nothing to do with "well regulated milita" or supporting a collective rights theory. They simply said "the BoR is only as good as the state you live in." Presser was about private militias forming to protect the labor organizers and social justice activists from Chicago PD, who were puppets of the robber barons. It was a footnote in the Hay-market Riots. The favorite of Brady lawyers in both Heller and McDonald was United States v. Cruikshank. What did it say about a "well regulated militia"? Not a fucking thing.

The First Amendment right to assembly was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens and the Second Amendment has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.
"The fourteenth amendment prohibits a State from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; but this adds nothing to the rights of one citizen as against another."

In other words, the state could not violate your civil rights, but the Klan could.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

I agree with Thom on most things, but he does not research the gun or self defense issues very well. He read from Brady talking points about Florida's law, and was corrected by several callers. I don't know how to attach podcast files. Most of the time he debates total flakes who are "militia members" but gets creamed by people who knows what they are talking about. This one was after the Al Qaida "you can buy machine guns at gun shows without background checks" BS. He also joined the "Bushes terror watch list didn't have any real terrorists on it until someone wanted to put it in NICS" or "I was against it before I was for it" hypocrisy.

The founders wanted the Swiss model to avoid the MIC, empire, and police state that came with standing armies of Europe at that time. He is correct on that. He fails to look at the larger context of gun rights as part of the "sovereign individual" in the Enlightenment's classical liberalism.

[Glaug-Eldare]

12. I enjoy Thom too, but on this I think he's dead wrong

the simple fact is, gun violence is not a technological issue. It's a social issue and requires social solutions. Take legal guns away, there'll still be illegal guns, and knives, and clubs, and pepper spray, and pipes, etc... We have a culture that embraces aggressive violence instead of cherishing well-defended peace

[Simo 1939_1940]

30. "I enjoy Thom too, but on this I think he's dead wrong."

Another in a very long list of examples of otherwise thoughtful people losing their brains when it comes to the issue of gun restriction policy.

[safeinOhio]

45. Not for taking away legal guns.

I'm just for keep track of legal handguns. Less illegal guns is my goal, to lessen the need for me to protect my self from crime and mayhem. My long guns might come in handy if a total change in the way we are govern. Handguns, not so much. That is why I'm in favor of handgun registration, not long guns.

[Clames]

52. Well with one...

...eventually comes the other. Thankfully neither have a snowball's chance in hell in this country.

[safeinOhio]

57. What is your, workable solution

to help keep handguns out of the hands of criminals without restricting the rights of legal citizens from buying and carrying handguns?

[Clames]

67. My idea for at least a credible effort towards a...

..."solution" comes more from understanding the root causes of violent crime (including those involving guns) and attempting to mitigate there. Unlike you and those that seem to think like you on this subject, I understand that legislation pinpointing firearms is about as worthless an undertaking as it gets. Now, addressing youth involvement in gangs and actual, comprehensive rehabilitative programs in our prisons would do vastly more good than banning magazines and weapons based on the technical incompetence of the authors of such bills. Israel does an excellent job of this in their prisons, you should endeavor yourself to research that.

[safeinOhio]

70. Regulation of fully automatic weapons seems to

be working just fine.

The people of this country are more than willing to support Israel with $3 billion. They have a population of just less than 8 million. They can afford jails and programs.

Now who is going to pay for your idea?

Gun ownership in Israel, only because you like to compare.

The Israel Dept. of the Interior makes notification to the generalpublic the requirements necessary for the obtaining of a permit to possess a firearm:

1. Applicant must be a permanent resident of Israel for 3 consecutive years prior to making application for a firearms permit.

2. Applicant years of age.

3. The permit request must be for personal use, not to engage in the business of firearms sales.

4. Applicant must fall into one of the following categories:

a. Part-time reservist (volunteer) for 3 years- may own 1 handgun
b. Such a reservist (volunteer) is a member of a gun club- may own 1rifle
c. Professional, licensed public transportation driver, transportinga minimum of 5 passengers- may own 1 handgun
d. Licensed animal control officer- may own 2 hunting rifles, *not*full automatic weapons, or semi-automatic weapons with a limitedcapacity magazine.
e. Full-time dealer of jewelry or large sums of cash or valuables-may own 1 handgun


You like?

[gejohnston]

75. not the same thing

full autos are not mass produced, and there was only a very small market for them before 1934 in the US or Canada before 1977 (or France until a few years ago when you could own up to three machine guns).
Full auto regulation is more effective here than UK and Europe when you compare the number of machine gun crimes.

[safeinOhio]

78. Really? Not mass produced.

full auto AK47 mass production
Production outside of the Soviet Union/Russia
Military variants only. Includes new designs substantially derived from the Kalashnikov.
Country Variant(s)
Albania
Automatiku Shqiptar model 56 (ASH-78 Tip-1) Albanian Automatic Assault Rifle Model 56 Type-1 [Made in Poliçan Arsenal] (Straight forward copy of Type 56, which in turn is a clone of the Soviet AKM rifle)
Automatiku Shqiptar Tipi 1982 (ASH-82) Albanian Automatic Assault Rifle Type 1982 [Made in Poliçan Arsenal] (Straight forward copy of AKMS)
Automatiku Shqiptar model 56 (ASH-78 Tip-2) Albanian Light Machine Gun [Made in Poliçan Arsenal] (Straight forward copy of RPK)
Automatiku Shqiptar model 56 (ASH-78 Tip-3) Albanian Automatic Hybrid Rifle Model 56 Type-3 [Made in Poliçan Arsenal] (Hybrid rifle for multi-purpose roles mainly Marksman rifle with secondary assault rifle and grenade launcher capability)
Other unknown variants.
Several other unnamed & unidentified versions of the AKMS have been produce mainly with short barrels similar to the Soviet AKS-74U mainly for special forces, Tank & Armoured crew also for Helicopter pilots and police.
There have also been modifications and fresh production of heavily modified ASh-82 (AKMS) with SOPMOD accessories, mainly for Albania's special forces RENEA & exports.
Bangladesh Chinese Type 56
Bulgaria AKK (Type 3 AK-47), AKKS (Type 3 with side-folding buttstock)
AKKMS (AKMS) AKKN-47 (fittings for NPSU night sights)
AK-47M1 (Type 3 with black polymer furniture)
AK-47MA1/AR-M1 (same as -M1, but in 5.56 mm NATO)
AKS-47M1 (AKMS in 5.56x45mm NATO), AKS-47MA1 (same as AKS-47M1, but semi-automatic only)
AKS-47S (AK-47M1, short version, with East German folding stock, laser aiming device)
AKS-47UF (short version of -M1, Russian folding stock), AR-SF (same as −47UF, but 5.56 mm NATO)
AKS-93SM6 (similar to −47M1, cannot use grenade launcher)
RKKS, AKT-47 (.22 rimfire training rifle)
BARR-101 (semi-automatic-only version with a 5-round magazine)
Cambodia Chinese Type 56, Soviet AK-47, and AKM
People's Republic of China Type 56
German Democratic Republic MPi-K (AK-47), MPi-KS (AKS), MPi-KM (AKM), MPi-KMS-72 (AKMS), KK-MPi Mod.69 (.22-Lr select-fire trainer);
Egypt AK-47, Misr assault rifle (AKM), Maadi.
Ethiopia AK-47, AK-103 (manufactured locally at the State-run Gafat Armament Engineering Complex as the Et-97/1[37])
Hungary AK-55 (domestic manufacture of the 2nd Model AK-47)AK-63D/E (AMM/AMMSz), AKM-63, AMD-65, AMP-69, NGM-81(AK-63 in 5.56mm NATO)
Iraq Tabuk Sniper Rifle, Tabuk Assault Rifle (with fixed or underfolding stock, outright clones of Yugoslavian M70 rifles series), Tabuk Short Assault Rifle
India Assault Rifle 7.62 mm, manufactured by Ordnance Factories Organisation[38]
Iran KLS (AKM), KLF (AKS), KLT (AKMS), KL-7.62 (Type 56)
Israel IMI Galil
Finland RK 62, RK 95 TP
Macedonia M60
Nigeria Produced by the Defence Industries Corporation of Nigeria as OBJ-006[39]
North Korea Type 58A (Type 3 AK-47), Type 58B (stamped steel folding stock), Type 68A (AKM-47) Type 68B (AKMS), Type 88 (AKS-74)[40][41]
Pakistan Reverse engineered by hand and machine in Pakistan's highland areas near the border of Afghanistan; more recently the Pakistan Ordnance Factories started the manufacture of an AK47/AKM clone called PK-10[42]
Poland pmK/kbk AK (name has changed from pmK – "pistolet maszynowy Kałasznikowa", Kalashnikov SMG to the kbk AK – "karabinek AK", Kalashnikov Carbine in mid 1960s) (AK-47), kbkg wz. 1960, kbk AKM (AKM), kbk AKMS (AKMS), kbk wz. 1988 Tantal based on the 7.62 mm kbk AKMS wz. 81, kbs wz. 1996 Beryl
Romania PM md. 63 (AKM), PM md. 65 (AKMS), PM md. 90 (AKMS), collectively exported under the umbrella name AIM or AIMS
PA md. 86 (AK-74), exported as the AIMS-74
PM md. 90 short barrel (AK-104), PA md. 86 short barrel (AK-105) exported as the AIMR
Serbia M92, M21, M70
South Africa R4 assault rifle
Sudan MAZ,[43] based on the Type 56
Vietnam Chinese Type 56, Soviet AK-47, AK-74, AK-108 and AKM
Venezuela License granted, factory under construction[44]
Yugoslavia M60, M64 (AK-47 with longer barrel), M64A (grenade launcher), M64B (M64 w/ folding stock), M66, M70, M70A, M70B1, M70AB2, M76, M77, M-21

[gejohnston]

80. compare their production and price with say

the Walther PP and its clones like the Bersa Thunder
Then compare concealability without a hacksaw. Most UK machine gun crimes involve SMGs like mini Uzi.

Still does not explain why use or lack of machine guns in Canada and US were mostly unchanged before and after laws.

In the US, the mob formed the "Commission" after the outrage over the St. Valentines Day Massacre. They were the largest users of MGs in crime. Dillinger stole his from cops, national guard armories had poor security in the 1930s. That was the other source of Thompsons and BARs for John's ummm contemporaries.

[safeinOhio]

81. Semi-auto AK47s

are very popular with gang bangers, etc. You don't think they would love some of the $200 middle east knock offs full autos? Yet the smugglers won't risk it with current laws.

[Clames]

85. BWAHAAHAHA...

You think your garden variety, room temperature IQ gang banger is going to even know about, let alone pay a premium for, a select fire AK-47? Gang members are buying $45 second hand Hi-Points and $100 knock-off, import legal or domestically made AK-47 clones. They are buying firearms they are stealing from other gang bangers for comparative pocket change. Smugglers are bringing in drugs by the ton and I'm sure they'd bring in full-auto AK's if there was a market for them here. But there isn't. Gang bangers are dumb, usually broke, and are arming themselves with the cheapest crap they can buy from each other or the local pawn shop.





Talk about wow...

[safeinOhio]

87. I'll pass what you said to all

bike gangs.

[Clames]

90. Go ahead...

...bikers don't get too close to my 6,000+ lb supercharged truck. They may be dim but they have at least that basic concept of physics down. In fact, their grasp of physics seems to even better than the average gun controller's.

[safeinOhio]

91. Even better than teabaggers.

[gejohnston]

92. that is an increadbly low bar

that is like saying fast food (McD is the favorite target, but they all suck IMHO.) is better than three day old road kill.

[Clames]

93. Very true.

Teabaggers and VPC/Brady Campaign parrots are very poorly educated when it comes to physical science. So low wattage bikers don't have much of a stretch but they at least got that far...

[safeinOhio]

94. Almost all of the outlaw clubs, starting with the Hells Angels,

were started by and most members are or were U.S veterans.

So, what are you saying about veterans?

[Clames]

95. I'm not saying anything at about veterans...

...as a whole. Though it seems you would like to put such words in my mouth. Being a veteran and currently serving member of the military myself i'm very careful not to even imply such falsehoods, though you apparently do not share my concerns. Shame on you.

[safeinOhio]

96. Talking about outlaw clubs

means talking about veterans. You seem to think they fear your 6,000 lb turbo truck.

Shame on you.

[Clames]

97. Talking about outlaw clubs means...

...means talking about outlaw clubs. Your intentional effort to conflate veterans and outlaw motorcycle gangs is noted as is your obvious disdain for military veterans.

[safeinOhio]

98. Not in the least,

I respect veterans, even those that started and are members of outlaw gangs. I knew a bunch of them and they had a lot of good attributes, along with some bad ones.

[Clames]

99. Well then do yourself (and veterans)...

...a favor by ceasing your conflation of veterans and outlaw groups. Speaking as a veteran it is not appreciated nor is it an accurate representation of the vast majority of veterans. So far your "respect" and what you have posted here do not align.

[safeinOhio]

101. Sorry if you feel insulted.

[oneshooter]

102. he isn't the only one. Your attitude about veterans smells to high heaven.

[safeinOhio]

103. I think his attitude toward

the many special force veterans that belong to motor cycle clubs stinks too.

But, we all have our opinions. It sometimes becomes a game among some to twist the others view here.

Once again to quote Shakespeare

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

[PavePusher]

112. The numbers of vets who are members of "outlaw" clubs....

is a very tiny minority of all vets. Your statements certainly appears to attempt to conflate this number with all vets, which simply ain't so, as you well know.

Some of those members served well and honorably. That does nothing to excuse them if they then move into criminal biker enterprises.

[safeinOhio]

113. True, but a large number

of outlaw gang member are vets. I know several that have been in the special forces and have a chest full of medals. I have also said they have some great attributes along with some bad ones. I had a friend back in the 60s that was wounded in Nam and was a member of the then largest most famous gang in the country. I would have trusted him with my life. A guy he had supplied a handgun with pulled it on me one time. I took it away from him in a fight over the gun. When John heard about it, he went over and beat the crap out of the guy and took away his gun. I use to hang with a member of a Detroit gang in the 70s. He had been a Nam war hero. I was riding my bike and he was following me in his truck. At 3 in the morning a drunk pulled out and almost hit me. I looked back to see him run the guy off the road. Not a great thing to do, but one form of justice.
Now for someone to say they don't fear outlaws because they have a 6000 lb turbo truck is about as dumb as they get. One thing about outlaw brotherhood, you fuck with one, you've fucked with all of them. Like I said, from my experience, they have some good attributes and some bad. Many served our country and were heros that didn't fit in when they came home.

[Clames]

116. Wow, out of date...

...and out of touch with military vets. Sorry, your attitude towards veterans and apparently the laws of society stinks. Newsflash: its 2012 and biker gangs are no longer have the same numbers of disenfranchised veterans that you seem to think they do. Many of them are drug peddlers and thugs and are little more than a pest to decent people. My truck isn't the reason I don't fear them, I don't fear them because they are irrelevant in my area and seem to do a very good job of removing themselves from the gene pool by there own antics. Conflating veterans with motorcycle gangs that are considered crime syndicates is disgusting but it seems you don't care for all your talk. Typical :rolleyes:

[safeinOhio]

118. Out of date?

2010 ATF report on veterans and military-1% bike gangs.

http://publicintelligence.info/ATF-OMGmilitary2010.pdf

[Clames]

121. So these are the veterans you hold in high esteem m

Drug peddlers, thugs, and thieves? Are these the people that come to your mind when you hear the word "veteran"? Did it not occur to you that these people (these are not veterans in the eyes of respectable people) are exactly the type that divert military weapons to other criminals? I find that at odds with some of your stated positions on gun control. Those of us who wear the uniform and respect ourselves and the American public have a term for these individuals: dirtbags. Glad to know where you stand on this issue, explains a lot now

[safeinOhio]

122. Fact is I believe in redemption.

Those you scorn may someday be the ones that save your or a loved ones life. Holier than thou, be it religion, military or republicans make me want to puke. All of those dirt bags are human beings with as much potential for good as you or anyone else. There are ass holes in the military and every where else, there is hope for everyone. There are veterans that go wrong just like anyone else. Most of those that are super duper gung ho were cooks anyway. I'd say you may be the one with a closed mind.

[Clames]

123. Good for you...

...but the fact is that based on your own source document that these individuals are a far way from redemption, especially the ones still actively recruiting on military posts. No, these are not the people who I would count on to save mine or anyone I care about's life. These creeps are selfish in the worst way when they claim any connection to the military and the oaths they took to wear the uniform and in the same breath deal drugs and threaten the public. Sick people only somewhat worse than their apologists IMO.

[safeinOhio]

125. Like I said, I believe in redemption.

[Clames]

126. Good.

Start on yours anytime you feel like it.

[safeinOhio]

130. You always make your post personal.

You even goad me into it.

Why are you so full of anger and hate? I think in general, those that act that way, consistently, are hiding some great shame of their own past. Those that moralize with out forgiveness of others and other groups, use it a a defense mechanism to hide their own past failings. I have many past and present faults, but I have come to terms with them and find that I can forgive and see possibilities everyone, even you.

Peace brother.

[Clames]

133. Anger and hate? You really don't know me...

... Couldn't be further from the truth on that one. Those that condone the actions of criminals and conflate them real military veterans, who in the extreme vast majority are truly honorable and selfless, do not deserve to tell others about moralizing. What you have said about veterans on this particular issue I will take as personal because I will not stand idle on such slander. I don't want forgiveness from you. You haven't earned that right.

[safeinOhio]

134. OK,

[PavePusher]

72. Handguns aren't useful? Huh.

The next time the military issues one to me, I'll just tell them that safeinOhio says they aren't worth a darn, and could they please give me something effective.

Yeah, that'll work.

[oneshooter]

100. A handgun is a usefull way to get to a real gun.(rifle/shotgun) n/t

[safeinOhio]

104. You might talk them into issuing them to the

grunts in the infantry.

[PavePusher]

111. They do so quite frequently. n/t

[safeinOhio]

114. Really, frequently?

[Clames]

115. Yes, the M9 9mm handgun is...

...issued to infantry, combat engineers, MP's, and combat medics among others. Enlisted and officers.

[safeinOhio]

117. Could be wrong, but I thought

the M9 was only issued to officers and infantry who's MOS wouldn't make a rifle practical to carry. While a rifle is standard issue, handguns, not so much. In other words the army does not rely on handguns for grunts.

[PavePusher]

119. Your knowledge is somewhat out of date.

While true that it is the standard sidearm for officers, and those in limited-mobility jobs, it is also issued to the general Joe Smith-leg ever more frequently. The current standard M4 carbine, while offering improved mobility and close-quarters effectiveness than the previous M16 rifle, still can be awkward in many situations encountered in modern warfare. It's also an effective back-up weapon in many situations. When in combat, reliance on a single weapon is a good way to come home on a bed or in a box.

As a random sample, running a Google search on "Afghanistan, U.S. Army, pictures", the number of troops wearing a leg or chest pistol holster is close to 50%.

[Clames]

120. Out of date doctrine.

Using the M9 as a back up is common practice for units down range. M9 holsters are part of the current CIF issue and is part of the basic issue even with Reserve units.

[safeinOhio]

17. self-defense is not talked about or mentioned in the 2nd.

It only refers to "bear arms" and many have said in 18th century, bear arms implied military.

All other forms of self-defense are regulated and, or banned, many weapons by state or city. Knifes, bows, clubs and blackjacks are very well regulate without much controversy. Those would be weapons. Where is the larger context of "sovereign individual" with other weapons and WHAT makes firearms the one and only special case?

The 2nd is different than all other rights and amendments. The Second Amendment is the only Constitutional amendment with a prefatory clause, such constructions were widely used elsewhere. You can argue for or against this fact, however, it is a fact and does make it different than all the other amendments and rights, not one right in the BoRs, other than the 2nd has such a clause. That is a fact. That takes away the much used comparison used in this forum for the 2nd as to all others.

Strange to call decisions by Antonin Scalia, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and John G. Roberts Jr protection of human rights. Right up there with Citizens United.

I see nothing in the 2nd that would limit registration of handguns and limits on where, when and how they may be carried on public property. This is not Brady talk about banning or taking away guns. You can argue that having a handgun is the only thing keeping you from death on the streets, so it must be an individual right, just as anyone can argue that the only thing between them and death is a blackjack under their jacket.


There can be arguments on both sides that are just as valid as the other.

[PavePusher]

22. "security of a free State" arguably begins with security of the individual.

And I invite your attention to "Kelo" for court cases.

[gejohnston]

29. not the same thing

All other forms of self-defense are regulated and, or banned, many weapons by state or city. Knifes, bows, clubs and blackjacks are very well regulate without much controversy. Those would be weapons. Where is the larger context of "sovereign individual" with other weapons and WHAT makes firearms the one and only special case?

None of them are regulated to the degree guns are. Why to people clutch their pearls over kids target shooting but not over archery? Are there anti bow groups seeking to ban crossbows by calling them "assault bows"? Nugent is a bow hunter. Are there anti bow groups bitching about his mouth? Again, it is the antis making the controversy, not bow owners.

The 2nd is different than all other rights and amendments. The Second Amendment is the only Constitutional amendment with a prefatory clause, such constructions were widely used elsewhere. You can argue for or against this fact, however, it is a fact and does make it different than all the other amendments and rights, not one right in the BoRs, other than the 2nd has such a clause. That is a fact. That takes away the much used comparison used in this forum for the 2nd as to all others.

I fail to see how.

Strange to call decisions by Antonin Scalia, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and John G. Roberts Jr protection of human rights. Right up there with Citizens United.

The ACLU supports Citizens United. Human rights are more broad than Constitutional rights. It is a different concept.

I see nothing in the 2nd that would limit registration of handguns and limits on where, when and how they may be carried on public property.

There is no evidence registration would actually do anything. For most of the 20th century, Vermont was the only state that did not have strict laws on carry on public property. From 1887-1995, Wyoming was shall issue to "private investigators, pharmacists, guards, and couriers of high value items" and no issue to everyone else. Not may issue, no issue. It included all weapons like sword canes, knives and even sling shots. 1995 became shall issue. Now only nonresidents need CCW. If you have a sword cane, still need your CCW with you.
Other states were more strict. None of the dire predictions have come true, therefore, there is no compelling State interest.

This is not Brady talk about banning or taking away guns. You can argue that having a handgun is the only thing keeping you from death on the streets, so it must be an individual right, just as anyone can argue that the only thing between them and death is a blackjack under their jacket.

Are blackjacks illegal?

There can be arguments on both sides that are just as valid as the other.

I define "valid argument" as being based on something factual. For example an argument against CCW on campus like "drunken shootouts in the dorms or frat parties" is not a valid argument because:
dorm dwellers are usually under 21, and are ineligible for CCWs in most states
CCW has nothing to do with possession in dorms
frat members are also mostly under 21, and frat houses are off campus

[safeinOhio]

35. I don't think you have read what the ACLU says about

Citizens United.
http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-and-citizens-united

We understand that the amount of money now being spent on political campaigns has created a growing skepticism in the integrity of our election system that raises serious concerns. We firmly believe, however, that the response to those concerns must be consistent with our constitutional commitment to freedom of speech and association. For that reason, the ACLU does not support campaign finance regulation premised on the notion that the answer to money in politics is to ban political speech.

At the same time, we recognize that the escalating cost of political campaigns may make it more difficult for some views to be heard, and that access to money often plays a significant role in determining who runs for office and who is elected.

In our view, the answer to that problem is to expand, not limit, the resources available for political advocacy. Thus, the ACLU supports a comprehensive and meaningful system of public financing that would help create a level playing field for every qualified candidate. We support carefully drawn disclosure rules. We support reasonable limits on campaign contributions and we support stricter enforcement of existing bans on coordination between candidates and super PACs.


On the rest, you have an opinion and that is all. When ditching the Swiss model you bring up cultural differences, then ditch those by bringing up Vermont. If what works in Vermont would work in Baltimore, then what works in Switzerland could work here.

[safeinOhio]

37. As the ACLU does not take a position on "gun control",

I agree with their position on the Second Amendment and think their view will be the law in the future.
what the ACLU says about the 2nd

Gun Control
Updated: 7/8/2008
The Second Amendment provides: "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."
ACLU POSITION 
Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view.
The Supreme Court has now ruled otherwise. In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia.
The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue.
ANALYSIS 
Although ACLU policy cites the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Miller as support for our position on the Second Amendment, our policy was never dependent on Miller. Rather, like all ACLU policies, it reflects the ACLU's own understanding of the Constitution and civil liberties.
Heller takes a different approach than the ACLU has advocated. At the same time, it leaves many unresolved questions, including what firearms are protected by the Second Amendment, what regulations (short of an outright ban) may be upheld, and how that determination will be made.
Those questions will, presumably, be answered over time.

http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/second-

The NRA and it's propagandist twist what the ACLU really says because they fear it.

[gejohnston]

46. I mentioned Vermont only in that

it was the only state that did not ban or tightly regulate concealed carry. I was not comparing Baltimore to Vermont or any place else.
A better example for Baltimore would be a similar size city in a shall issue state or Arizona. Liberalization have not lead to any problems there, therefore there is no compelling state interest.

[safeinOhio]

47. Great, lets take Arizona

Population, just over 6 million.
2010, just over 400 murders.

Switzerland
Population, just over 7 million
2010, less than 100 murders. Only 68 by firearms.


Switzerland may have as many or more guns than Arizona, even full autos, but with strict regulations and registration of handguns.

This might prove that more guns does not equal more crime and that registration and regulation reduce crime by a multiplier of 4.

[gejohnston]

50. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

and absurdly simplistic. The two are nothing alike. Using your logic, I could argue the opposite:
Thunder Bay, Ontario: 4.7 murders/100K
El Paso, Texas:0.8 murders/100K


The US has a greater drug and organized crime problem than Switzerland. Switzerland has a rational drug policy, among other things. Handgun regulation has nothing to do with it. If it did, UK, Australia, and Jamaica should have had a drop in murder after their stricter laws.

[safeinOhio]

71. Thank you for your opinion.

[PavePusher]

74. Now who's using bad comparisons? n/t

[Clames]

33. And what century are you living in?

and many have said in 18th century, bear arms implied military.

As for the 2nd being different than other Rights, granted. But that does absolutely nothing for the argument that it is "lesser" or "subordinate" to other Rights as some here seem to suggest.

[safeinOhio]

34. Of course it is not lesser or subordinate when

seen in it's original context.


p://www.english.illinois.edu/-people-/faculty/debaron/essays/guns.pdf
English common law had long acknowledged the importance of effective arms
control, and the meaning of the Second Amendment seemed clear to the framers and their
contemporaries: that the people have a right to possess arms when serving in the militia.
Over the years, this “collective rights” interpretation of the Second Amendment was
upheld in three Supreme Court decisions, in 1876, 1886, and most recently, in 1939
(Bogus 2000). The meaning of the Second Amendment remained uncontroversial until
1960, when a law review article using sources like American Rifleman asserted an
additional, individual, right to bear arms for the purposes of self-defense (Hays 1960).
Since that time, a growing bloc of constitutional scholars and historians has asserted that
only the individual rights interpretation of the right to bear arms is correct, even calling
this new reading the “standard model,” as if the original, collective rights interpretation
hadn’t prevailed for more than a century (Bogus 2000b). And the majority of Americans
now believe that the Second Amendment guarantees their right to tote a gun.

[Glaug-Eldare]

36. If it applies to the militia bearing arms,

and that definition is narrowed to mean the select militia, then doesn't it follow that servicemen shouldn't be prohibited from possessing or carrying guns on domestic bases? Is it illegal that many state defense forces are forbidden to bear arms? Do noncombatant military specialists have a right to carry a gun regardless of whether their commanders believe they should? I've never gotten a satisfying answer to the question, "so, what would be a violation of the 2nd Amendment?"

[safeinOhio]

39. They are

"well regulated"

[Glaug-Eldare]

40. The Constitution didn't even envision a permanent select militia,

let alone the reserves, NGs, state defense forces, etc. I have a hard time buying the argument that only particular regulated militias enjoy the right to "bear arms." It raises bizarre questions, like whether Individual Ready Reservists and Guardsmen are entitled to militia rights, or whether the MD Defense Force constitutes a well-regulated militia, when it's a noncombatant organization.

More to the point, though, what is something that Congress cannot do because of the 2nd Amendment?

[safeinOhio]

41. Have a standing army.

[Glaug-Eldare]

42. I don't follow...

How do you conclude that? Forming a standing army doesn't infringe anybody's right to keep and bear arms.


P.S., I always enjoy discussing 2A with you here -- you're among the most civil and honest people on this board.

[safeinOhio]

43. Please see post #7

Thank, even though it is sometimes hard, it cost nothing to be nice.

[Clames]

53. So what is it that you are trying to say here?

The Swiss have no standing army? False. Even trained with them. You think conscription would work in the contemporary US? Laughable. Would like those of us who are currently serving be able to take home our select-fire individually assigned weapons, including those with attached 40mm grenade launchers? Fine with me but I bet your knuckles will turn white.

[safeinOhio]

55. Yes, pretty much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Switzerland

The Military of Switzerland perform the roles of Switzerland's militia and regular army. Under the country's militia system, professional soldiers constitute about 5 percent of military personnel; the rest are male citizen conscripts 19 to 34 (in some cases up to 50) years old. Because of a long history of neutrality, the army does not take part in armed conflicts in other countries, but takes part in peacekeeping missions around the world.
The structure of the Swiss militia system stipulates that the soldiers keep their own personal equipment, including all personally assigned weapons, at home. Compulsory military service concerns all male Swiss citizens, with women serving voluntarily. Males usually receive initial orders at the age of 18 for military conscription eligibility screening. About two-thirds of young Swiss men are found suitable for service, while alternative service exists for those found unsuitable.[3] Annually, approximately 20,000 persons are trained in basic training for a duration from 18 to 21 weeks (increased from 15 weeks, in 2003).

Conscription would work great, do you think Mitt would be pushing for more war if his 5 boys were drafted. The Founding Fathers feared getting involved in foreign wars, as was what was and had been happening in Europe for years. They were for a standing Navy and would be for a standing air force.

[Clames]

58. Not surprised you would advocate for something like that.

Like the gun-control legislation you hope to see, completely out of touch with the realities of today's world the US exists within. The US shares so much with Switzerland in terms of population, scale of economy, contemporary attitudes, culture, ethnic breakdown....




You and Hoyt, good for a chuckle.

[safeinOhio]

62. You don't surprise me much either.

New member that only post in gun forum with the usual right wing mimes. At least our member in good standing, Hoyt, post in other forums with a progressive agenda.


I think most polls indicate that the majority of Americans support reasonable gun laws like background checks on private sales and registration of handguns. The small minority of gun owners that belong to and support the NRA would love to think they have the majority on their side.

While we don't share population, scale of economy, contemporary attitudes, culture, ethnic breakdown....with Switzerland, either does much of the rest of this country share those of Arizona.

[gejohnston]

63. what did he say that was right wing?

is seems like a basic statement of fact and not a meme.

meme/mēm/
Noun:

An element of a culture or behavior that may be passed from one individual to another by nongenetic means, esp. imitation.
An image, video, etc. that is passed electronically from one Internet user to another.

[safeinOhio]

65. To assume that the whole country is against any form of

handgun restrictions.
"out of touch with the realities of today's world the US exists within"

As I said, the NRA would like people to believe that and is repeated here by some on this forum and it just is not true.

[gejohnston]

68. no one is assuming any such thing

there are federal handgun restrictions. Can you show evidence that anyone said that the who country wants all regulations removed? Handguns are regulated in the United States on federal and most state levels. The "unregulated" meme is as dishonest as it is absurd.

Has the NRA ever said they wanted to remove all regulation?

[safeinOhio]

69. Really?

I legally purchased a handgun at a garage sale with no questions asked. Regulated handguns?

NRA is against background checks on private sales and against states registering handguns, that's all I'm saying.

[gejohnston]

73. How would the feds regulate intra state

private sales? If you bought the gun from a resident of a different state, it was not a legal purchase.
Registration does nothing other than piss money away. A felon can not be charged with possessing a unregistered firearm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States

[safeinOhio]

82. Laws can and should be changed

on many things. If your state changed to register handguns and also passed a law that would give a felon caught with an unregistered handgun a mandatory 10 jail sentence, you'd be OK with it then?

or is it just your job to argue with anything I say?

[safeinOhio]

84. See United States v. Freed.

Laws can be changed to make them fit the Constitution, especially after 9/11.

[gejohnston]

88. do you bother to read links?

a felon can not be charged with having an unregistered machine gun or pistol because it violates their 5A rights of self incrimination. Did you read the SCOTUS case?
One more time, Haynes' conviction was overturned because requiring him to register an NFA or any other firearm would violate his 5A rights of self incrimination.

No it is not my job to argue with anything you say, it is my job to educate you on facts why registration is absurd and pointless theater.

[Glaug-Eldare]

89. I suppose you could charge them with illegally obtaining it,

but even then, registration had nothing to do with the commission or non-commission of any crime.

[PavePusher]

76. 1. So what?

2. Why did you do something against your pricipals?

Hypocracy, much?

[Clames]

77. Only posts in the gun forum?

Well that's a false assertion. Well, par for the course as far as you go with assumptions really.

Usual right wing memes? Oh, because I strongly disagree with you on this particular issue I must be right wing? Never mind my support of marriage equality. Never mind that I strongly believe women should be able to choose how they deal with their own bodies. Never mind this website is about center-to-left politics and not your narrowly defined interpretation of what it means to be a Democrat. You are wrong on that poorly constructed and all to obvious smear.


Now as to what you think the majority of Americans support as far as reasonable gun control measures. I'm familiar with the poll you are attempting to cite. I'm also familiar with the VPC/Brady Campaign spin on it that you are using. In fact one of those "reasonable" gun laws you say is supported by a majority of Americans actually isn't very well supported. You'd know this if you actually did your homework here.


Arizona is probably sharing quite a bit with its neighboring states. Vastly more than Switzerland is anyway. I'm sure you were trying to make a point with that...

[gejohnston]

48. Carl T. Bogus

was directer of HCI and on the board of VPC

Over the years, this “collective rights” interpretation of the Second Amendment was
upheld in three Supreme Court decisions, in 1876, 1886, and most recently, in 1939
(Bogus 2000).

Wrong. Those decisions were states rights cases. All the 1939 case said was that a short barreled shotgun was not a protected weapon because the court did not see a military purpose for it.

Bogus is full of shit. None of those cases support the "collective rights" theory. The first two are pre incorporation for states rights. The first one is U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), which civil rights lawyers have been chipping at since the 1930s.
How many times do I have to repeat myself?

The First Amendment right to assembly was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens and the Second Amendment has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.
The fourteenth amendment prohibits a State from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; but this adds nothing to the rights of one citizen as against another.

That is the 1876 case. Nothing about a militia. It says that if you live in the wrong state, you have no first or second amendment rights. It also made civil rights laws of the time unenforceable and made Jim Crow possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank

The next one:

The Second Amendment limits only the power of Congress and the national government, not that of the state

more states rights bullshit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presser_v._Illinois

The next one:

The National Firearms Act — as applied to transporting in interstate commerce a 12-gauge shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches long, without having registered it and without having in his possession a stamp-affixed written order for it — was not unconstitutional as an invasion of the reserved powers of the States and did not violate the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller
Odd thing about Miller is that both sides claim the decision was a victory for their side. Interesting side note about Miller: It was a one sided argument. Miller's council did not show up or file any brief.

Nothing about well regulated militia. Go re read the wiki link on incorporation.

[safeinOhio]

56. Ok, then perhaps you might site

all the pre 1960 SC cases that supported the "individual right" view.

[gejohnston]

59. why 1960?

Heller was the first that actually individual vs collective.

[safeinOhio]

60. OK, then for 200 years

the 2nd was a collective right?

[gejohnston]

61. No it was not

the law always treated it as an individual right. The collective right theory did not exist until the 20th century. That is why the NFA is a tax it out of existence, because the proponents thought a ban would be struck down.

[safeinOhio]

64. The collective right theory existed in the 18 century. History matters.

Some, and I do mean some, have seen it as an individual right, just as some have seen it as a collective right. For me or you to claim otherwise is ridiculous and disregards history.

From a historic and legal point of view, this article nails what I am saying. I am posting the conclusion, but suggest reading the whole article.

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5200

Conclusion
Political and legal debates over the meaning of the Second Amendment will continue at rallies, in legislative halls, in the media, and in courtrooms throughout the United States. And all such debates will continue to rely on conflicting understandings of the past. Although the new individual rights scholarship on the Second Amendment has attracted some support among legal scholars, historians have uncovered serious errors of fact and interpretation in this body of scholarship. With more rigorous historical research it is possible that the balance may shift to the individual rights view. For the moment, however, the claim that the Second Amendment was originally understood to protect an individual right to gun ownership remains historically unproven and politically contested.

[Clames]

54. Why don't you post all of it?

Hell, try providing a working link even.

But I see what you are getting at.

...gun regulation has been a feature of English law since the
14th century, when a series of Game Laws expressly restricted weapons ownership to
members of the gentry who met thresholds of income and land ownership – guns were for
the wealthy, not the peasants or the lower middle class (Schwoerer 2000).

[Glaug-Eldare]

44. On guns, Thom is incredibly dishonest

He enjoys cherry-picking excerpts, glossing over details that contradict his view, building up stereotypes, and utterly failing to address coherent arguments he can't answer.

Note how quickly he reads off the portion of the PA constitution that guarantees the right to bear arms "for the defence of themselves and the state." He then explains that guns were supposed to be kept in the armory. How does an individual defend himself with a gun if it's locked up? Is it because, for some mysterious reason, the 2A must be read as the only collective right in the BoR? He spends half the time discussing text that was not adopted as though it was binding law, and neglects to mention the many state constitutions that specifically guaranteed an individual right to keep and bear arms.

On this issue, he stretches logic, historical context, and grammar until they break.

[Tejas]

26. 6 of one, half dozen of the other

"Then there is Somalia with no gun law enforcement."


And there is Mexico with strict gun law enforcement. Your point?

[bongbong]

5. Get rid of speed laws too!

Too many people get speeding tickets! What do we want, more police powers? Get rid of those pesky speed laws that hinder FREEDOM & LIBERTY!

And while you're at it, I think traffic signals are an INFRINGEMENT on my desire to drive how I want to! We gotta get rid of those!

[Callisto32]

24. You laugh...

but only because you lack the vision to see past the current paradigm. Why should speeding be illegal? Speed, in and off itself doesn't create a reckless driving situation. I live in the mountains and our roads are never straight for long. I've gone around turns with a posted speed of 35MPH. In a loaded truck, that's too fast and would be reckless. In my buddy's MX-6...erm, not so much.

Why should my buddy be arrested and fined for doing 15 over the limit safely when nobody was put in danger? Why punish someone because someone ELSE engaging in that activity, under an entirely different set or circumstances would be dangerous?

Speed would certainly be EVIDENCE of recklessness, but making it a prima facie case on its own is just silly; especially since cars, tires, and paving materials are all way better than they were when those speed limits were set.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

28. it is reasonable for speed limits...

...to remain unchanged because of vehicle and traffic fault tolerance. Driving undistracted in clear weather with all conditions just right is the norm and, for those who enjoy driving, a pleasant experience. Individual abilities with most skills are highly subject to practice and experience. Driving on an unfamiliar road is much easier (and safer) if that road is built to interstate standards.

Roads with variable conditions of grade, visibility and surface under some circumstances impair the driver's abilities. An experienced driver will slow down under these conditions. A fault, such as a sudden flat, puts additional demands on the driver's attention. Those demands are greatly magnified with increased vehicle speed.

I was driving South on Maryland 295 headed for the Greenbelt area as I had done every Sunday night for months. I had a morning meeting. It was late evening and as I drove I had a startling experience. While driving at about the posted speed of 55 in the #2 lane in generally dark conditions, I encountered a Buck (unknown number of points) galloping North between the #1 and #2 lanes. Traffic was sparse, about a car every 1/4 to 1/2 mile. Because this encounter took place in area of three lanes with no adjacent traffic, I was able to move several feet to right to avoid this misguided animal. This stretch of road under perfect conditions would easily be navigated at 80 but it's not always advisable.

[bongbong]

49. limits

> but only because you lack the vision to see past the current paradigm.

I'm not laughing! I think everybody should drive whatever speed limit they want to, just like gun-religionists think there should be no limits on guns. I myself would drive 150+ MPH everywhere even on city streets. I KNOW I am a better driver than 99.99999999% of the others, just like gun-religionists know they will NEVER fire a gun unless it is absolutely necessary!!!

[friendly_iconoclast]

79. I found a picture of one of those "gun-religionists" you mention:

[ellisonz]

9. Think about the consequences of a failed gun control policy...

[hack89]

51. Higher rates of murder and other gun violence?

get back to us when it happens.

[Hoyt]

13. I don't think such laws will subject gun culture to a pitiful plight.

[herberto55]

14. Democrats Should Distance Themselves From Gun Control

I believe in the right to bear arms. I live in Arizona and am considered by my friends to be a Liberal. In California I would be be suspected of being a Conservative. I think that the Democratic party should distance it's self from gun control. I'm a union guy and hard core Democrat but I think that the Democratic party has lost a lot of support from working class types due to this one issue. The Republicans are over reaching right now with stand your ground laws and laws that allowing guns in state buildings and in colleges. I don't agree with these laws but still support the rights of every American to own a gun if they choose to. With all of the crazy Republicans in office now I'm not all that concerned with anti gun legislation. There are so many other important issues right now that I think are more important, like; the war on women, anti gay legislation, attacks on unions and the NLRB, Patriot Act types of legislation that intrude on our personal lives, the rise of the Christian coalition as a political force and cutting social services to fund war. So I'm with ya brother, just focusing on other stuff right now.

[mvccd1000]

18. Well said

It's not a time to get lax on guarding our 2A rights, but there are a lot of other fires to put out these days, particularly with the issues you mention at the end of your post.

[Permanut]

16. I guess I'm not seeing the demand...

I'm seeing the gun control laws go the other way, allowing more options for gun owners. For example, President Obama has signed a law permitting guns to be taken into national parks. He signed another allowing guns as checked baggage on Amtrak. He acted to preserve an existing law limiting the use of government information on firearms it has traced.

The policy that was developed by this administration requiring gun dealers in border states to report certain gun sales has been cast as an infringement on 2nd amendment rights, but it is just a reporting requirement.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence issued a report card flunking Obama on all seven issues it deems important.

There are certainly people advocating, and certainly some demanding more gun control laws. I don't see where they're getting what they want.

[safeinOhio]

19. Well, apparently you have not been reading or hearing the

NRA propaganda about the super secret plan by the un american, half Irish President. Democrats on this site have to be very vigilant and support the NRA to protect us from him.

[Permanut]

20. Dang, I missed the super secret plan...

I'm gonna ask my teabagger cousin about it. He prolly won't tell me though, since it's super secret.

Disclaimer: I'm a gun owner, and I feel absolutely no threat that President Obama is gonna come knockin' at my door and asking me to hand them over. My sarcasm derives only from the hysteria that surrounds the gun issues.

[Skittles]

21. NRA propaganda is very badly done

yet even DUers fall for it

[Simo 1939_1940]

27. I don't believe that our President "is coming for my guns", but neither do I believe

that his positions on gun restriction are well thought out.

For example, President Obama has signed a law permitting guns to be taken into national parks.

In my view, President Obama gets no credit for this due to the fact that this legislation was connected to the credit card bill he very much wanted passed.

He signed another allowing guns as checked baggage on Amtrak.

If memory serves, this law requires the gun owner to transport the unloaded firearm in a hard case in the train storage area and give Amtrak 24 hour prior notice of intent to transport. Not a big deal in my view to strike down an utterly senseless prohibition. When he supports substantive pro-rights legislation then I'll believe he has amended his thinking on the RKBA. And quite honestly, based on his prior statements I don't see this happening anytime soon.

Edited to add: President Obama's refusal to allow the importation of M1 carbines from South Korea handed the GOP a golden nugget to go after him on gun rights. Not smart. Rifles generally are very seldom the weapon of choice for criminals, and I've got to guess vintage war rifles even less so.

[doc03]

25. I get laugh out of it, everytime the COPs pick up anyone for drugs

they always hit them with a weapons charge and many times it is just a cheap 22 rifle or even an airgun.

[slackmaster]

31. Great topic. I think California provides a realistic example of what happens.

There are SO many laws and SO many unfunded mandates for local authorities to enforce state laws, that a lot of the laws end up being broadly ignored, generally unknown to the people, and only spottily enforced.

Gun dealers are very careful to stay legal because they have real skin in the game, and can be punished by FEDERAL authorities for violating the laws of ANY state as well as the least-common-denominator that federal laws have become.

Most individuals are HIGHLY ignorant of California gun laws (and knife laws BTW.) I think a lot of used firearms get handed off from one person to another, or casually sold, without any criminal intent but in violation of the state's transfer laws.

I've seen many people import firearms into the state when they move here, without realizing that they have violated the 10-round magazine capacity limit or some other nuance of state law. A person who moves to California can legally import any handgun that isn't configured as an "assault weapon," but most people don't know that, or that they ARE required to registered personally imported handguns within 60 days of moving here.

OTOH there is no law prohibiting the direct, unencumbered transfer of a long gun that is a curio or relic from one non-licensee to another - Most people don't know that either, and I've seen many instances where people have paid unnecessary transfer fees and subjected themselves to needless paperwork and 10-day waits, which dealers are more than happy to perform because they make a good profit on private-party transfers. Also, most people have no idea about the exceptions that are codified for familial transfers of most kinds of firearms.

There are probably in the neighborhood of a million handguns that have been in private hands since before 1968 when mandatory registration became law - Generally perfectly legal unless the owner is prohibited for some reason.

Most local police don't give a flying fuck about the intricate details of the state's gun laws. As long as you aren't being an asshole at a shooting range or outdoor shooting area, the probability of anyone checking to see if your weapons are all configured legally, registered where required, etc. is very, very low. Gun laws get enforced most often as secondary charges brought against people who are charged with malum in se crimes, such as robbery or assault, or other tax crimes like drug possession.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

32. In some cites/localities the war on guns is starting to look like the war on drugs

[ileus]

38. How many more useless roadblocks do they need..lets try freedom for a change.

[bluestateguy]

86. Actually, yes.

I do think roadblocks are overdone. Justified in some cases, but often overused

[Remmah2]

66. Just another form of micro-mangement. nt

nt