Just curious...if 2nd Amendment purists are true purists, then how come...

[HardWorkingDem]

they never express that even felons should be able to possess firearms?

Here is the 2nd Amendment....

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.



If a 2nd Amendment purist reads it like I imagine he or she does, then why isn't the NRA and other pro-gun groups fighting to make sure ALL Americans can possess firearms?


(My main point is we all know it would be political suicide for the NRA to come out and suggest felons should be able to possess firearms, however, as a discussion point, if they are such purists, should this also include felons? - Seems to be a contradiction).

[Sherman A1]

1. I always find it odd....

that the "A well regulated militia" part seems to get ignored in the the discussion.

It would seem that would have just as much meaning as "the right to keep and bear arms" part, but doesn't come up in the discussion often if at all.

Just wonderin?:shrug:

[Euromutt]

8. It's not odd at all

The part you forgot to mention is that the right to keep and bear arms is explicitly listed as "the right of the people." Not the right of the state, not the right of the militia, but the right of the people.

The prefatory clause gives a reason why it is in the positive interest of the government not to infringe upon "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," namely that if the need arises for the state to muster a militia, it helps if its recruiting pool consists of people who are already skilled in handling and maintaining firearms, and have at least a rudimentary grasp of marksmanship. Bear in mind that in 18th century parlance, "well regulated" meant "operating properly," not "subject to legal regulations." For example, a "well regulated" colon is one that produces a healthy-looking stool at regular intervals, not one that is subject to legal restraints.

[RC]

12. Good looking straw man you have constructed there.

A well regulated militia is the root of the 2nd amendment.

[Euromutt]

14. I don't think you know what a "straw man" is

A "straw man" is when you misrepresent your opponent's argument, then refute that misrepresentation, and claim that you've refuted your opponent's actual argument.

And no, the "well regulated militia" is not the root of the Second Amendment; the root is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You can leave off the prefatory clause and you'll still have a whole sentence: "The right of the people* to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

But if you leave off the operative clause, you get: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State..."
That's obviously incomplete; to extend your metaphor, all that leaves is a bunch of branches suspended in mid-air, with no trunk and no root.

* - And again I emphasize, "of the people." Not of the state, not of the militia, but of the people.

[Callisto32]

20. Thanks for trying, Euromutt.

I'm starting to wonder if we should even bother explaining the basic grammar of the 2'nd anymore. Unless someone is new to the conversation around here, the anti-rkba folks seem to just be willfully ignorant at this point.

It has been explained, ad nauseum, in logically irrefutable terms. Still, they refuse to accept reality.

[AtheistCrusader]

26. Please look up 'Straw Man', because like the 2nd Amendment, you don't comprehend it.

[beevul]

57. How wrong you are.

"A well regulated militia is the root of the 2nd amendment."

No. The "root" of the second amendment, is the part that is the restriction upon government exercise of power, as the preamble of the bill of rights itself describes:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

billofrights.org


Declaratory and restrictive clauses.

Heres the declaratory clause:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state

And heres the restrictive clause:

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed


The language of the amendment is clear.

The preamble which explains exactly what it is, clearer.

The days of calling it, misrepresenting it, or portraying it - as something other than what it is - are over.

[armueller2001]

15. Actually,

With some exceptions, everyone between the ages of 17 and 45 are members of either the organized or unorganized militia, see 10 USC 311. The organized militia is of course the national guard, and the unorganized militia is everyone else.

"Well regulated" during the founders' time did not mean restricted or controlled, it meant well functioning. So because I keep my firearms and skills in "well regulated" or well functioning condition and I'm a 25 year old male, I'm a citizen who falls into the category of "well regulated militia"

[Travis Coates]

16. I find it odd

That in spite of the SCOTUS ruling stating that the 2nd protects an individual right unconnected W/ service in a militia to bear arms this argument keeps coming back.

As to the original question, I believe that there should be a process of reinstatement where by if a felon displays exemplary behavior over a set period of time he/she can have full rights restored.

[X_Digger]

22. My take..

First, "well regulated" at the time, and in this context meant 'well functioning'-

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/WellRegulatedinold%20literature.pdf

In Item 1, Anne Newport Royall commented in 1822 that Huntsville, Alabama was becoming quite civilized and prosperous, with a “fine fire engine” and a “well regulated company”. I suppose one could make the case that the firefighters were especially subject to rules and laws, but the passage is more coherent if read, “They have a very fine fire engine, and a properly operating company.”

William Thackary’s 1848 novel (item 4) uses the term “well-regulated person”. The story is that of Major Dobbin, who had been remiss in visiting his family. Thackary’s comment is to the effect that any well-regulated person would blame the major for this. Clearly, in this context, well-regulated has nothing to do with government rules and laws. It can only be interpreted as “properly operating” or “ideal state”.

In 1861, author George Curtis (item 5), has one of his characters, apparently a moneyhungry person, praising his son for being sensible, and carefully considering money in making his marriage plans. He states that “every well-regulated person considers the matter from a pecuniary point of view.” Again, this cannot logically be interpreted as a person especially subject to government control. It can only be read as “properly operating”.

Edmund Yates certainly has to be accepted as an articulate and educated writer, quite capable of properly expressing his meaning. In 1884 (item 6), he references a person who was apparently not “strictly well-regulated”. The context makes any reading other that “properly operating” or “in his ideal state” impossible.

Secondly, let's look at the preamble to the Bill of Rights-

The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

The Bill of Rights was intended as a 'the government shall not' document- "to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers"- not a 'the people can' document. Rights aren't limited by the bill of rights; rather the scope of protections of certain rights are set. If the Bill of Rights were a listing of all a person's rights, there would be no need for the ninth and tenth amendments ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." and "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." respectively.)

And finally, let's look at the second amendment itself-

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.

Who does the right belong to? The militia? No, the people. See US v. Verdugo-Urquirdez for the salient definition of 'the people'.

Grammatically this can be broken down into two clauses- a prefatory clause and an operative clause. Similar wording can be found in other writing of the time, though it's fallen out of favor these days. For comparison, see Rhode Island's constitution, Article I, Section 20- "The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish sentiments on any subject..". That construction- '{reason}, {statement}' exists today, but we usually swap the clauses- "I'm going to the supermarket, I'm completely out of soda." or we add in a 'because' or 'since'- "Since I'm completely out of soda, I'm going to the supermarket." or "I'm going to the supermarket because I'm completely out of soda."

I know that complex English is lost in today's twitter-ful and facebook-y terseness, but it really does pay to read older documents when you want to analyze what a sentence from that era actually means.

So with the point from the first section, the second section in mind, and rearranging the clauses per the third would yield a modern restatement of the second amendment as-

"Because a well functioning militia is necessary to state security, the government shall not interfere with the right of the people to be armed."

or

"The government shall not interfere with the right of the people to be armed because a well functioning militia is necessary to state security."

Nothing in either of those statements says that arms are only for militia service, rather the ability to raise an effective militia is _why_ protecting the right to be armed is protected. Since we know from the preamble (and the 9th/10th amendment) that the bill of rights is not exhaustive, we have to look outside the bill of rights itself to see if the founding fathers expected this right to extend beyond militia service.

State analogues of the second amendment that were adopted in the same timeframe give a clue-

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/WhatStateConstitutionsTeach.htm (sections rearranged by me)

The present-day Pennsylvania Constitution, using language adopted in 1790, declares: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

Vermont: Adopted in 1777, the Vermont Constitution closely tracks the Pennsylvania Constitution.<15> It states "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State.."

Kentucky: The 1792 Kentucky constitution was nearly contemporaneous with the Second Amendment, which was ratified in 1791.<32> Kentucky declared: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned."

Delaware: "A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use."

Alabama: The Alabama Constitution, adopted in 1819, guarantees "that every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state"

Arizona and Washington: These states were among the last to be admitted to the Union.<55>* Their right to arms language is identical: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."<56>

Illinois: "Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."<89>**

So from analagous documents created by many of the same founding fathers or their peers, the individual right unconnected to militia service is fairly well laid out.

* Admittedly, not analogous in time to the others, but still demonstrates the point.
** same

You should read other cases such as US v Cruikshank ("This right is not a right granted by the Constitution . . . neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.") or Presser v Illinois (""the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, as so to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.")

[GreenStormCloud]

23. The militia part gets discussed quite a bit here. You haven't been keeping up.

However, it doesn't really matter as SCOTUS has decided the issue already. You are beating a dead horse.

[SteveM]

75. I find it odd that gun-controllers "discover" a topic discussed almost daily...

Are you new here? The Second Amendment and its "militia clause" is discussed in this forum almost daily. Please search back a few days in the archives -- or just read the responsese you will surely receive.

[YllwFvr]

95. find me a state militia

and Ill join it.

BTW if your an American, chances are your already in the militia :)

[Travis Coates]

97. Several states have state militias

They mostly train in CERT and do very little weapons training but they do exist. Google the term

[YllwFvr]

101. State run militias

may be allowed but citizens militias are illegal in my state
PENAL CODE
SECTION 11460
11460. (a) Any two or more persons who assemble as a paramilitary
organization for the purpose of practicing with weapons shall be
punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year
or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by
both that fine and imprisonment.
There is more to it but thats the meat of it

[rrneck]

102. Got a link? Thanks.

[X_Digger]

103. Little disingenuous there, no?

http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/code/getcode.html?file=./pen/11001-12000/11460

11460. (a) Any two or more persons who assemble as a paramilitary
organization for the purpose of practicing with weapons shall be
punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year
or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by
both that fine and imprisonment.
As used in this subdivision, "paramilitary organization" means an
organization which is not an agency of the United States government
or of the State of California, or which is not a private school
meeting the requirements set forth in Section 48222 of the Education
Code, but which engages in instruction or training in guerrilla
warfare or sabotage, or which, as an organization, engages in rioting
or the violent disruption of, or the violent interference with,
school activities.

[Travis Coates]

Did I say anything about citizen militias?

I looked into joining the Colorado State Defense Force but their traing schedule conflicted W/ my work schedule

[krispos42]

2. Because you can take away constitutional rights, but you need due process

Felons have, by definition, due process, and have lost rights as a result. They also generally can't vote, can't freely associate, and can't freely travel after release, either.

[bluestateguy]

3. I think once you do your time (including parole and probation) you should be able to own a gun again

But that's just me.

[jtuck004]

5. Would it change your mind, or make you rethink, if you knew that

about 51% of those people will return to prison?

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/reentry/recidivism.cfm

Not arguing, just thinking that if whatever was going on caused them to go to prison, a large number may not
have overcome whatever it was that got them in the first time.

There are sub-categories in which race plays a greater part than decisions that people make about their behaiovr,
and many of those cases might be argued differently. I also know that if someone wants a gun in this country
some silly law isn't going to stop them. Anyone that thinks so should go to a fairly high security prison
and check out the weapons they have taken away from prisoners. From people locked up. When you have 24 x 7 to
do nothing but think about how to accomplish something...

But knowing that about 50% of felons, in general, are going to be returning to prison anyway, do you think
it is wise allow them to obtain a legal weapon?

[bluestateguy]

7. No

Most of those people are non-violent drug offenders who have been warehoused because of "War on Drugs" policies. So they should never be in jail in the first place. As for the others, the problem is that we are letting them out in the first place.

Besides, people who are prone to committing crimes will find ways to get guns without any problems regardless.

[Callisto32]

21. This.

When your prison system lets out violent people to make room for potheads, you need to seriously rethink the legal system...

[Chulanowa]

9. Nope

How many who return to jail do so becuase their sentence continues well beyond the time they served?

We have a for-profit prison system, remember. They'll cram you in there for anything htye can get you on, even if they have to make it up, and keep ensuring new ways to make you a repeat customer.

[Caliman73]

34. I agree

The problem with the 50% statistic is that it fails to recognize that there is a fundamental flaw in the system. You get out of prison, but you are never done serving your sentence. Your chances for advancement in society are severely restricted because even though you have "repaid your debt to society" you are essentially not a full member of society. Your options close up and you fall back on what you know because criminals are certainly willing to use you to commit crimes again.

[jtuck004]

39. Certainly. Their chances are much worse, and because of that

their odds of "re-offending" are much higher. And we all know sometimes re-offending just means walking down the street. And I understand the whole "most are non-violent drug offenders" argument. But huge numbers of people in this country have used and continue to use drugs, and don't wind up in prison. Yet this specific subset has. Perhaps their decision-making process needs a little refinement?

I would think that a gun is probably the last thing they need in that case.

Maybe without one they would be forced to use their mind to realize that they actually have the
capacity to accomplish things in life without resorting to force or violence.

For a person who has, perhaps, made some really bad decisions up to that point, perhaps limiting their options for at least some period of time might not be such a bad idea.

[Chulanowa]

41. If you want to make "the decision-making process" the criteria...

Then you really need to be against pretty much anyone owning a gun. Because most people are really rather stupid.

[TPaine7]

46. Aha... the core premise of gun control.

most people are really rather stupid

That is the core premise of gun control. It is also the core premise of monarchy, totalitarianism and dictatorship. (I'm sure that's just a coincidence.)

Most people may not be highly skilled in technology, law, mathematics, politics or business. But they are not stupid. This country rests on the premise that they are NOT stupid, that their collective intellect is the best human moral guide we have. America is not a nation

of the stupid, by the stupid and for the stupid

[lepus]

40. I go along with blue state guy.

With so many laws being made into felonies, If you haven't committed one in the past year, you likely haven't been out of your closet.

The argument that rights can be lost is asinine. That reduces them to privileges. The constitution made no mention that these rights could be lost, since I do not think it was an oversight, I must side with full redemption of all rights after jail and parole.

BTW, if they are so dangerous that they cannot have a gun, what the fark are they doing outside of jail? Making room for a non violent offender? Oops, forgot. Nonviolent offenders also lose constitutional rights.

[TPaine7]

50. Your argument is Constitution refuting and self-refuting

The argument that rights can be lost is asinine. That reduces them to privileges.

Imprisoned felons lose many rights, at least temporarily. People who have to "spread their butt cheeks" and use the bathroom in the open and have their mail searched don't have a right to privacy. People who live in a cell don't have a right to travel freely to the state of their choice. And people with life sentences without the possibility of parole lose those rights permanently. There's nothing asinine about it.

The constitution made no mention that these rights could be lost, since I do not think it was an oversight, I must side with full redemption of all rights after jail and parole.

On the contrary, the Constitution is quite explicit that rights can be lost--inalienable rights like life and liberty, no less:

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 offence 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.

Link: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

You can be deprived of rights, even of life, but not without due process of law.

I happen to agree with you that people should not be deprived of their gun rights based on most nonviolent crimes. The only non-violent crimes I would favor depriving someone of gun rights for (off the top of my head) would be treason, statutory rape, and conspiracy regarding violent crime.

[lepus]

60. and your argument is self generating.

people lose their rights because they lose their rights.

Under amendment V a person can lose life liberty or property, but no mention of losing rights is even implied.

Then look at the bill of rights, they basically state that the government has no authority to make laws to abridge those rights.

While the courts and lawmakers likely do not share my point of view, I believe it is in line with the founder's intent.

[TPaine7]

70. Life and liberty are rights--read the Declaration of Independence.

It shows the founder's understanding, too.

Under amendment V a person can lose life liberty or property, but no mention of losing rights is even implied.

[lepus]

79. Life may be forfeit, liberty may be curtailed,

and property may be lost. But Amendment V makes no mention of the loss of rights. While it may be interpreted that there is a right to these things, that amendment states that they can be removed. Do not confuse the declaration of independence with the constitution. The DOI is a statement of grievances against the crown, and the constitution is the final law of the land.

Does due process mean that I can now buy my own slaves? After all with due process and the loss of rights involved it can generate, it should be a no brainer that people could be sentenced to slavery. After all, those pesky protections granted by the constitution can now be removed by that due process thing.

Wow, castration for jaywalkers, again, if it can be done with due process than there is no issue. After all, what is a pesky thing like freedom from cruel and unusual punishment to the wonderment of due process.

Again, my viewpoint on the constitution is not held by the fed or the courts. Do you think that they would give away that kind of power?

[TPaine7]

109. Sigh,

You conceded that imprisonment and parole—the temporary loss of rights (like the right to travel freely in any state)—are legitimate (your post 40):

The argument that rights can be lost is asinine. That reduces them to privileges. The constitution made no mention that these rights could be lost, since I do not think it was an oversight, I must side with full redemption of all rights after jail and parole.

If you believe that rights cannot be lost (sentence 1), then you cannot logically believe in imprisonment. “Full redemption of all rights AFTER JAIL AND PAROLE”—which you accept as legitimate—acknowledges that rights are at least temporarily lost during imprisonment and parole. In other words, your third sentence refutes your first sentence.

Now I said that “your argument is Constitution refuting and self-refuting” (my post 50). I just covered the self-refutation. On to the refutation of the Constitution.

According to the Constitution, people can lose their liberty, their property and even their lives after due process of law. You point out accurately that the Fifth Amendment doesn’t use the word “rights.” So what? Does that mean that there is no right to life or liberty or property?

The last time I checked, the Bill of Rights did not use the word torture or the phrase “separation of church and state.” Does that mean that it doesn’t forbid the union of church and state or the use of torture? This is the type of reasoning I would expect from the likes of Pat Robertson or George Bush.

But let’s take your argument at face value. You are claiming that

“Life may be forfeit, liberty may be curtailed, and property may be lost. But Amendment V makes no mention of the loss of rights.

So an individual can be executed and that execution will not involve a loss of rights? Fascinating.

Since you were talking about the founder’s intent (your post 60), I quoted the Declaration of Independence to show that the founders regarded life as a right. I realize that the Declaration is not law, I simply used it to show that the founders regarded life as a right—not that that should require demonstration!

There is a lot more that I could say about your arguments, but if you sincerely believe that an executed person suffers no loss of rights, then further discussion is probably wasted.

[TPaine7]

110. Oh, I almost forgot...

You can lose some rights as punishment as result of due process of law.

1)Pedophiles can lose their free association rights
2)Hackers can lose their internet rights
3)Murderers can lose their liberty or even their lives

You cannot lose your right to not be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment as a punishment for any crime.

I'll leave the detailed analysis as an exercise for others who read this--unless, of course, someone asks me to break it down. (No offense, but at this point, I doubt anything I say would convince you.)

[lepus]

111. Sigh

Again, the constitution does provide for loss of liberty, loss of property, and loss of life with due process, but not loss of rights.

Under your interpretation, anything goes, subject to a courts arbitrary decision and a few lawmakers.

Where are the restrictions on the rights that can be lost? A court interpretation and a bit of scrutiny? Some can be lost and some can't? Yet where does the constitution provide the guidelines on which ones can be lost or that they can be lost at all. Simple answer, the constitution does not provide for the loss of rights.

I believe this interpretation since the felony label has been abused of late, or at least the last thirty years or so. At one time you had to commit some very serious crimes to warrant a felony charge. Nowadays it can be done for stuff as simple as misfiling paperwork or a slew of other minor actions. I think this is step two of making the US a police state personally, make everyone a criminal.

Removal of the voting rights of a large portion of a class or racial group has definite consequences. I can think of a few places where this almost seems to be the aim of the courts and law enforcement. I really doubt the founders would have liked that aspect at all.

An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates his duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. Thomas Paine

[TPaine7]

112. We are at an impasse.

I agree with you that felony creep is wrong and should be stopped. But as far as I can tell my namesake believed, along with every other founder, that life was a right and like many other rights it was forfeit for certain crimes. The limit for what rights can be forfeit is the forbidding of cruel and unusual punishment.

Actually, there is no set of words that the founders could have written that would have prevented abuse. The issue is not whether rights can be temporarily or permanently lost--executing torturers and murderers of children--and thus permanently depriving them of rights--will not lead inevitably to castrations for jaywalking. One is cruel and unusual, the other isn't. Furthermore, I hope the American people (including much or all of the military) have enough spine left to start a revolution if the government attempts castration for jaywalking. The people are the ultimate guarantee, not the words.

Ultimately, however, we are at an impasse:

Again, the constitution does provide for loss of liberty, loss of property, and loss of life with due process, but not loss of rights.

You believe that a person can be executed and yet retain his rights. I do not.

Take the last word, if you want it.

[lepus]

113. As I get older,

and hopefully wiser, the more I take a dim view of the death penalty. There are the few cases of men that have performed deeds so heinous that the only sane response is to take them out back and shoot them.

But they are also counterbalanced by the men executed simply for not being able to raise a decent defense against an over powered prosecution. I have read too many tales of collusion between the police, prosecutors, and judges in death penalty cases. Defense lawyers with very limited hours to defend the case, violations of discovery, etc,etc.

The constitution itself says that life can be forfeit for a crime. That removes any debate about the constitutionality of it. I would hope that it goes the way of impalement, branding, and other outmoded forms of punishment. But I do believe it is constitutional because the document itself states that it can be taken with due process.

The cruel and unusual prohibition of it came about as what actually constitutes cruel and unusual punishment for a crime. That was effectively settled by restricting it to the few crimes that people considered bad enough to warrant it. When was the last U.S. execution of a person that was not convicted of murder? The best I can think of was soldier in Vietnam showing cowardice in the face of the enemy and that was before the SCOTUS hold on executions in the 70's.

But back to the quandary, it makes no mention of the loss of rights. It even states a few times "congress shall make no laws,,," as a prohibition against it. This is restriction against creating laws that diminish or remove constitutional rights in the first place.

It can be reasonable assumed that during times of incarceration, again authorized with due process, that rights could be removed or restricted for a time,ie armed prisoners are a pain to guard. But what cannot be assumed was that it was meant as a lifelong punishment. That is a holdover from old common law that was pretty much voided by the constitution.

[Caliman73]

4. What krispos42 said, but...I don't think you are just curious

I find it difficult to believe that your question is driven by simple curiosity. You go out of your way to call out "purists" as if supporters of the right of the people to keep and bear arms must support that right for ineligible persons as well or else they cannot truly support the 2nd Amendment. Does 1st Amendment support extend to falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater? Does it extend to support for slander and libel? If not why?

As krispos said, there is a point to where you forfeit your rights and committing a felony and being convicted through due process is that point. Felons are not allowed to be in the militia. Felons are ineligible for service in the military and any other armed service. I do not support the NRA's right wing rhetoric and who they associate with at all, but they support the right to keep and bear arms for law abiding citizens. That has been a consistent stance of theirs. Felons are not law abiding citizens. To try and pigeon hole them into that position is a stretch in logic.

[HardWorkingDem]

27. Then why don't you try asking first...

Before accusing others of some sort of chicanery how about being courteous and asking first.

In your points, you mix apple and oranges. No, you can't scream things in a crowded theater (get a new example, will you) or commit crimes with your words, but you can still speak them. And not being eligible to be in the military does not necessarily infringe upon one's right to bear arms. It just suggests you are unable to bear arms in a militia because you are ineligible for some reason. Just like if you were physically unfit to be in the military - being so does no infringe upon your right to bear arms.

To clarify, my point was, if someone really, really has a belief in something like they state they do, like the NRA people (many people don't realize it, but the largest portion of funding for the NRA comes from...gasp.....firearm manufactures), then should it not be pushing the complete philosophy of their belief?

And if these purists or strict interpretation people believe that the amendment includes people and their right to bear arms, then does it not include all people, and if so, then why aren't they pushing for such standards?

Yes, common law and case law does remove rights from felons and the ilk, but really, what is the reason these purists do not fight for all people? How is it that they avoid reconciling their stated position with its actual entire construct?

[Caliman73]

31. This is the reason I didn't ask.

"To clarify, my point was, if someone really, really has a belief in something like they state they do, like the NRA people (many people don't realize it, but the largest portion of funding for the NRA comes from...gasp.....firearm manufactures), then should it not be pushing the complete philosophy of their belief?

And if these purists or strict interpretation people believe that the amendment includes people and their right to bear arms, then does it not include all people, and if so, then why aren't they pushing for such standards?

Yes, common law and case law does remove rights from felons and the ilk, but really, what is the reason these purists do not fight for all people? How is it that they avoid reconciling their stated position with its actual entire construct?"


And the reason why my analogy is valid. The NRA has never stated that the right to bear arms applies to people who are made ineligible through due process of law as felons are. The fact that you continue to harp on this position shows that your question is not to satisfy any curiosity but to try to create an argument that is indefensible. You can extend that argument to almost all of the rest of the Bill of Rights.

INFRINGE means to destroy, or to take to a point beyond the norm. I have not seen the NRA, or anyone on this forum state that the 2nd Amendment is an absolute right that should have no restrictions on it whatsoever, but that it the position you are pushing as the only "purist" position that 2nd Amendment advocates should be taking.

Your assumptions have been discussed thoroughly throughout the thread. Go back and read them over. Another point, an important one, many of the posters on DU who do support the 2nd Amendment are not supporters of the NRA. They are the largest and most visible advocacy group related to firearms, but they represent only 4 million out of the over 80 million gun owners in the country.

[HardWorkingDem]

59. Listen....

Are you a mind reader? Or are you just so arrogant you automatically know what a person's thoughts and ideas are? If so, then move along and don't even enter into a conversation if you are such a mindreader.

Now, I've seen some NRA nuts on television before more or less harping that if they wanted a damn shoulder missile, that they should be able to have one. In fact, I've seen all kinds of people stating all kinds of things while touting what great NRA people they are.

I'm not trying to link the NRA with the loonies, but instead, ask a philosophical question.

If you can't add to the conversation then instead of being a discourteous jerk, then move along. It's as simple as that.


And to let you know - some people ask questions here or start debates here to learn more information or obtain different points of view. If you aren't up to that, then move along and leave people alone for crying out loud.

[pipoman]

36. How about a link

verifying your charge: (many people don't realize it, but the largest portion of funding for the NRA comes from...gasp.....firearm manufactures)...yeah, I didn't think so...it was made up by you extemporaneously..

Now, all of those who spout that firearm manufacturers fund everything from CCW legislation to criminal defense for mass murderers fail to explain where all of this money is coming from considering that the sales of ALL US firearms makers combined wouldn't qualify them as a Fortune 500 company...with this in mind, where does all of that money come from?

[HardWorkingDem]

58. For your information....

Though it has been sometime, I once did a research paper on the funding of the NRA - it might be from some time ago (back in the late 80's), but at the time of the project something like 76 percent of NRA funding DID come from firearm manufactures. Do I have a link for that? Sorry, back then the internet was not like it is now, so of course I do not. But I hardly doubt the NRA funding has changed that much.

Now, if you were a courteous person, I might be willing to drag out my old research project and obtain the source for you, but since you are not, I will not waste my time on people like you.

So basically calling me a liar is not only rude, but I think also against the rules here at DU.

And as I suggested to another DU'er, how about ASKING first? Is that not the polite thing to do?

[pipoman]

63. So the answer is no

it is no because it isn't true. Does that make you a liar? Only if you intended to misrepresent which I never said. What I did say was that you have no proof because the vast majority of NRA funding comes from private donations in the form of membership fees. These fees include individual memberships, business memberships (gun shops, shooting ranges, etc), certification fees, fund raisers (regional and national), branded products, services, etc.

BTW, I'm not a member of the NRA. I do know that the NRA proper has done more to improve firearms safety than any other .org on the planet. They have educated more people of all ages and skill levels on proper use and safe handling of firearms than any other .org anywhere. The NRA lobbying groups are not my bag, they are a separate issue from the NRA proper. Though the NRA lobbying groups do in fact endorse and support pro-firearm rights Republicans, they also endorse and support pro-firearms rights Democratic candidates. In fact the NRA donated more to Democrats in the last national election cycle than all of the gun control groups combined. The topic of NRA funding has been laid to rest long ago. Even those who are most often anti-NRA don't make that claim because they know it is incorrect.

Like so many who come here with an agenda, you wish to come here and make assertions which are completely erroneous then claim others who point out your inaccuracies or ask for independent verification to be too rude to communicate with instead of either proving or acknowledging you were wrong. This is a highly charged topic which has been discussed for years right here. Sorry if I upset your fragile sensibilities.

[HardWorkingDem]

72. As I stated....

But evidently you are calling me a liar...


Back in the late 80's during the time of a strong firearm control movement, during that time the largest portion of funding of the NRA came from firearms manufactures. It did not come from memberships or other things. Now, evidently you have never heard of documentary research from libraries and such and only know of "links" from the internet, so I can't help you there.

Is it that way now? As I stated in my reply to your rude reply, it might not be since during that period the NRA has evolved.

What I find interesting about the rest of your reply is how your points rely upon the latent functions of the NRA (pushing the feel good aspects of the group while ignoring the more radical arms of it).


As for any agenda I might have, I asked a pretty simple question - if people believe in a strict interpretation of the wording of the 2nd amendment, does that not mean felons should be included in being able to own firearms, mainly for self protection. And if they don't, does that not conflict with their perspective of the strict interpretation. My only agenda is I think it does show a conflict, which then asks me to ask why, especially if this group believes in the intent of the amendment.

Frankly, I do not like the NRA or Wayne LaPierre because over my lifetime I have seen him, and many others, on television countless times demonizing ANY person or politician pushing for what I considered reasonable gun control laws. Back during the 80's and Clinton's terms it was quite common to see gun rights advocates of all sorts attacking people like Sarah and Jim Brady and others.

Now, please, put me on ignore or go away.

[benEzra]

73. Fighting to ban the most popular civilian firearms in the United States

is most assuredly NOT "reasonable gun control."

Brady II/S.1878 (1994) was truly frightening and Orwellian legislation, and the Brady Campaign deserved to be called on it. Ditto for their attempts to portray rifles, which are involved in less than 3% of U.S. murders, as a major crime problem requiring sweeping new bans.

By choosing to go after the lawful and responsible ownership of nonhunting guns (which was and is the majority of gun ownership in this country), the Brady Campaign/VPC made themselves a fair target for criticism by those of us whom they want to harass. And that choice is also why their influence and credibility is now pretty much gone.

[HardWorkingDem]

78. All sides have their extremists....however...

I do not find the ending of straw purchases or the better regulation of guns sales to be an unreasonable thing. Nor do I find it an unreasonable thing to restrict gun sales regarding certain types of firearms when it comes to their purposes or capabilities.

Now, let me be clear when I state regulation and restrictions - I do not call for an across the board "ban" or endorse such things, only more measures to prevent firearms from ending up in the hands of the violent.

As for the Brady's, unfortunately, I think the waning of their influence had more to do with politics and what many believe are the misreadings of political tea leaves when it comes to firearm issues (many political operatives on the left have put out opinions that they did not think gun issues hurt Gore like once thought, while others wanted to get away from guns all together when it came to elective politics. Also, the country has grown too old to remember who James Brady was and what happened to him.

Unfortunately, it appears too many of the gun crowd feel any gun control is unreasonable.

[friendly_iconoclast]

81. "...too many of the gun crowd..." Like who? Give us some examples.

And so what if they do? They haven't any traction outside the more extremist libertarian circles, and last I heard having
odd political opinions isn't a crime.

The NRA is on board with some gun control (they endorsed the instant background check, for example), and AFAIK so are the other gun-rights orgs.

You keep bringing up absolutist positions, attributing them to "too many of the gun crowd" without providing any
(yet) sources, links or media citations. It's getting a little old, imo.

[HardWorkingDem]

87. Wayne LaPierre for one.....and recently...

I can't recall his name off the top of my head, but he was on the Chris Matthews show a few weeks ago and was speaking in Washington. This white male was espousing all sorts of wild gun views. Turn on FauxNews at almost any given time. Pull on CSPAN during call in shows. Last week Professor James Fox was on CSPAN and plenty of people called in with these types of opinions. Rush Limpball. Hannity. Glenn Beck.

Heck, do a google search for them....frankly, my time is too important for me to do a google search on these people and their positions to learn them by name.

But maybe I should have expressed it in the way like "too many in the gun crowd" that receive attention for their views as a better way to illustrate it.

[friendly_iconoclast]

106. Any source for this alleged LaPierre quote?

I rather doubt that any gun control org would let Wayne LaPierre get away with publicly disagreeing with this. It
would be too juicy to pass up:

"http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FAQ/?s=22


Does NRA feel that anybody should be allowed to own a firearm?

NRA believes the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right of the individual to keep and bear arms and that the government should not interfere with any law-abiding citizen’s private decision to own, or not to own, a firearm. Felons, particularly those convicted of violent offenses should, as a result of their own actions, have their right to own a firearm abridged."

[friendly_iconoclast]

120. A day later, and *still* no source. Not for the first time in this thread, either:

I give the reader post #99 as an example:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=321596&mesg_id=321871

This is why the struggle against gun control isn't over- gun control advocates seem to really like faith-promoting
rumors.

[benEzra]

84. Thoughts, at some length...

I do not find the ending of straw purchases or the better regulation of guns sales to be an unreasonable thing.

I don't find the ending of straw purchases to be an unreasonable thing, either; it would be a good thing. What I consider unreasonable are some of the proposals advanced in the name of ending straw purchases, such as suggesting that licensed gun dealers should engage in gender and ethnic profiling of purchasers, attempts to reduce the already sharply diminished number of FFL's, and various registration proposals.

Nor do I find it an unreasonable thing to restrict gun sales regarding certain types of firearms when it comes to their purposes or capabilities.

Nor do I. But those guns have already been as tightly controlled as bombs and hand grenades for 76 years. Please familiarize yourself with the National Firearms Act, the majority of which most gun owners (and even the NRA) don't have a problem with.

If you're talking about the "assault weapon" fraud, though, you're not talking about dangerous and unusual weapons; you're talking about banning the most popular civilian rifles in the United States, including the leading centerfire target rifles and the most popular defensive carbines.

Now, let me be clear when I state regulation and restrictions - I do not call for an across the board "ban" or endorse such things, only more measures to prevent firearms from ending up in the hands of the violent.

So do you, or don't you, want to ban any currently legal Title 1 civilian firearms? Or support new restrictions on their purchase and use by the lawful and nonviolent?

I can't speak for you, but the Brady Campaign most certainly does, and some of the least misused firearms (e.g., modern-looking rifles) are at the top of their ban list.

As for the Brady's, unfortunately, I think the waning of their influence had more to do with politics and what many believe are the misreadings of political tea leaves when it comes to firearm issues (many political operatives on the left have put out opinions that they did not think gun issues hurt Gore like once thought, while others wanted to get away from guns all together when it came to elective politics.

The Third Way communitarians have been claiming for 16 years that everybody really really really wants more restrictions on gun ownership, and that the vehement opposition thereto at the grassroots level is just NRA smokescreening and astroturfing. If you honestly believe that to be the case, I don't know what to say, except to point out that approximately one thousand times as many Americans own "assault weapons" as belong to the Brady Campaign (and four or five times as many own "assault weapons" as belong to the NRA, lest you give the NRA primary credit for anti-AWB activism).

By objective measures, support for new gun-ownership restrictions has declined quite a bit since the ban-heyday of the 1990's.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117361/recent-shootings-gun-control-support-fading.aspx

Also, the country has grown too old to remember who James Brady was and what happened to him.

James Brady was a very well liked Republican press secretary (IIRC) who was tragically shot by an insane loser with a .22 revolver, purchased several months prior, while said loser was shooting at President Reagan. But knowledge of that tragedy has what, exactly, to do with whether or not one supports outlawing rifles with handgrips and magazines that stick out? Or with revoking the gun rights of people placed on the Bush/Cheney blacklists? Or with allowing local officials to deny or revoke CHL's at whim?

Personally, I think the Brady Campaign made a very good case for something like the NICS background check for purchase (and perhaps the tragedy that the Brady family suffered is, indeed relevant to that law). But when one uses a crime committed with a rimfire revolver to stump for a ban on (say) centerfire rifles, one is being exploitative, IMO.

Unfortunately, it appears too many of the gun crowd feel any gun control is unreasonable.

And who, exactly, might that be? I think you are arguing with an imaginary construct.

I hope I don't come across too sharply here, but how many times do I and most other gun owners have to profess support for the National Firearms Act, most of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (including the prohibition on possession by criminals), the NICS background check for purchase, the 1986 armor-piercing bullet ban, carry licensure, etc. etc. etc. etc. before those on your side of the issue will acknowledge that we are not, in fact, absolutists?

Just because I do not support expanding the Bush/Cheney secret blacklists to bar gun ownership like the Brady Campaign wants, or I oppose outlawing rifle handgrips that stick out when only 2.6% of murders involve any rifle, or I oppose restricting carry licensure to the wealthy and politically connected, or I oppose measures aimed at making it more of a hassle to lawfully own a gun (particularly for defensive purposes), does NOT mean that I am opposed to all restriction. I can understand the occasional misunderstanding, but this claim gets really old.

There is common ground to be found, and most of that common ground is reflected in the considerable body of gun law that is already on the books.

[HardWorkingDem]

92. Issues.....

In hindsight, in this post I started, I probably did not ask my question well or start the debate as clear as I wanted to - what I wanted to ask about was what I see is an apparent conflict between those who have a strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and of people in America who can no longer possess firearms and why do these strict interpretation people avoid the battle over this conflict.

I did not intend to start a protracted debate on gun ownership or gun issues. (It's too complex of a debate.)

But with this.....



I did not bring up the incorrectly and often used fear tactic of assault weapons use when it comes to American crime and firearm control. I know that is a myth and a celebrated feature used to scare people.

As for mentally ill people and gun crimes, it is my own belief that when it comes to these types of acts, there just might be very little we can do about preventing them on a large scale basis.

However, there are issues that we can deal with.

Take Straw purchases for example. I just did a google search on the NRA and straw purchases. From their own site they are fighting regulations against them. On top of that, unless I read it incorrectly, the NRA is pushing for legislation to give dealers immunity for such sales.

http://www.nralea/gun-dealers.html

Though I don't have the compiled data I once did, here is a report by Frontline that illustrates where criminals get their weapons....

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html


Guess which is the number one method? Straw purchases, then after that unscrupulous dealers.

Now, what group has been against restrictions at gun shows?

My point is, just like others, the NRA does use extremist language and tactics to alarm people. Here's another link from the NRA's own site about gun show sales. Note the loaded words in the release.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/read.aspx?id=5375


As for politics and guns and the Democrats and elections.....shortly after Gore's run there was a great deal of Democratic hand wringing over Dems and gun control and what a loser it was. I can't recall specifically, but either The Nation or New Republic did research regarding this topic and found otherwise.

You attribute my use of the Brady's for illustration as an apparent entire agreement with their measures. I do not. For one thing, a couple of years ago I read an excellent article regarding the 2nd Amendment that persuaded me to believe the framers did intend individual citizens the right to possess firearms. So while they may call for total bans on many, many different firearms, I do not.

It would be excellent if people would use valid points in their arguments instead of in ways to make their case. For example, the NRA and gun proponents love to use the argument that while New York has the strictest gun laws, it had so much gun violence in the city of New York, while ignoring neighboring states had the laxest gun laws. The same was with Chicago.


As for the individual names of those who feel strongly against gun control, I answered that in a previous thread, but in short, turn on any right wing tv show on Faux when the subject is guns; the same with CSPAN, or any other news show. There is a plethora of people who espouse such views. Chris Matthews recently had a dust up with one on his show. A Tea Party person - one of the head honchos. Can't recall his name.


Lastly, I do not understand why so many gun owners are so sensitive regarding the topic of guns and gun ownership. While you have obviously spent a great deal of time regarding your reply, which I greatly appreciate, you also regarding me what you complain about: stereotype. Would it surprise you if I stated I own approximately 20 firearms? From handguns to rifles to shotguns?

Or on top of that, that I have seen first hand the results of gun violence more times than easily most of those here at DU? On top of that, that from experience, I KNOW where most criminals get their guns and for years have watched gun advocates fight time and time again over measures that are reasonable because they are persuaded in the stories of the fringe?

[X_Digger]

98. Where do criminals get guns?

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

Gun shows and flea markets account for 1.7%

[HardWorkingDem]

104. From the report...

I did not state the largest majority were from gun shows and flea markets, but practices like "straw purchases"....as noted in the ATF agent in the Frontline report, many people mistakenly believe that many are obtained from things like theft and burglaries, when it is more from straw purchases.


from the report you linked to...

80% from family, friends, a street buy, or an
illegal source.

[X_Digger]

105. Family and friends don't always mean straw purchase.

I'd suspect straw purchases fall under the retail heading, if I understand the DOJ's criteria.

[HardWorkingDem]

107. Um.....

what do you think it means when a person's buddy goes to Guns R US and buys guns for his fellows? Or when a family member does the same? Certainly a number of family and friends sell or give firearms to criminals, but going to a store and purchasing a firearm for a prohibited person meets the criteria of a "straw" purchase from my understanding.

Where I'm at, girlfriends doing this is an issue.

[X_Digger]

108. All squirrels are mammals, but not all mammals are squirrels.

A girlfriend buying a gun for her boyfriend is definitely a straw purchase, but a girlfriend giving / selling her boyfriend a gun she already had is not a straw purchase.

So trying to clump all 'family / friend' sources as straw purchases is not accurate nor honest.

[HardWorkingDem]

114. The report stated...

the 80 percent.

I'm sorry, but I am not following your point at all.

[X_Digger]

116. You didn't read the whole thing, did you?

See Table 8 on page 6.

[benEzra]

115. And if they identified a girlfriend as the straw purchaser,

both she and her boyfriend can be prosecuted, yes? He's a felon in possession, and she knowingly transferred a gun to a prohibited person and perjured herself. So are the authorities prosecuting?

Or is this actually conjecture based on the observation that women are walking into gun stores knowing what they want to buy, and paying cash for their purchases, rather than being the results of actual traces?

[benEzra]

117. More thoughts, and a question.

In hindsight, in this post I started, I probably did not ask my question well or start the debate as clear as I wanted to - what I wanted to ask about was what I see is an apparent conflict between those who have a strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and of people in America who can no longer possess firearms and why do these strict interpretation people avoid the battle over this conflict.

To go back to this question for a moment, I would like to reiterate that one can be very much in favor of retaining what rights we have without being an absolutist, just as one can be vigorously pro-free-speech or pro-choice on reproductive rights without being an absolutist. In a First Amendment context, the ACLU certainly doesn't oppose restricting libel, slander, snuff films, and child porn, yet that view is not inconsistent with a broad view of the First Amendment as a fundamental civil right. Not all nuance stems from cognitive dissonance.

I did not bring up the incorrectly and often used fear tactic of assault weapons use when it comes to American crime and firearm control. I know that is a myth and a celebrated feature used to scare people.

Then what guns were you speaking of when you mentioned that we need to "restrict gun sales regarding certain types of firearms when it comes to their purposes or capabilities"? Were you indeed merely expressing support for the Title 2 provisions of the 76-year-old National Firearms Act as amended by the 42-year-old Gun Control Act, or were you speaking of new restrictions that need to be passed on Title 1 civilian guns? If so, which Title 1 guns, and why?

As for mentally ill people and gun crimes, it is my own belief that when it comes to these types of acts, there just might be very little we can do about preventing them on a large scale basis.

Getting state declarations of mental incompetence into NICS after VT was a good thing, IMO. I agree that this problem really doesn't have a complete legislative solution (as the recent mass shooting in the UK demonstrates, which took place under a patently absurd level of gun regulation) but I believe that patching the gaping holes in our mental health care system is beneficial far beyond the possible benefit with regard to violence by the mentally ill.

Take Straw purchases for example. I just did a google search on the NRA and straw purchases. From their own site they are fighting regulations against them. On top of that, unless I read it incorrectly, the NRA is pushing for legislation to give dealers immunity for such sales.

http://www.nralea/gun-dealers.html

Though I don't have the compiled data I once did, here is a report by Frontline that illustrates where criminals get their weapons....

Guess which is the number one method? Straw purchases, then after that unscrupulous dealers.

Now, what group has been against restrictions at gun shows?

So far, all of the proposed restrictions I'm aware of have been intentionally written to affect the legitimate market as much as possible. The gun control lobby has already driven over fifty percent of licensed FFL's out of the business since the early 1990's, and in some cases there are only one or two FFL's now serving major markets. I don't have any problem with prosecuting crooked dealers, but when you want to shut down the only one or two FFL's in an area because they have occasionally been duped by fraudulent buyers, you are doing something other than cracking down on straw purchasers; you are using straw purchasing as an excuse to shut down the vastly-larger legitimate market. Again, if you want trust on this issue, after the events of the 1990's through 2004, you're going to have to earn it, and so far I don't see the gun control side even making an attempt to limit the scope of their proposals to fighting illegal trafficking.

My point is, just like others, the NRA does use extremist language and tactics to alarm people. Here's another link from the NRA's own site about gun show sales. Note the loaded words in the release.

I agree with you about the NRA's counterproductive shrillness; they are stuck in an Old Media paradigm, just like a lot of their opponents. But pro-2ndA activism is far broader and deeper than the NRA, as much as the NRA would like to pretend otherwise; if you don't believe me, ask Jim Zumbo.

As for politics and guns and the Democrats and elections.....shortly after Gore's run there was a great deal of Democratic hand wringing over Dems and gun control and what a loser it was. I can't recall specifically, but either The Nation or New Republic did research regarding this topic and found otherwise.

It wasn't a matter of "finding otherwise" as much as "declaring otherwise due to unwillingness to let it go". At the time, the New Republic and other mouthpieces of the Third Way were fighting desperately to convince people that support for new gun restrictions was a political winner as long as support for "traditional sportsmen" was made clear, and the DLC'ers went so far as to found new organizations to preach that mantra (e.g., Americans for Gun Safety, and the American Hunters and Shooters Association as originally founded, etc.).

Unfortunately the Third Wayers won that argument, with the result that John Kerry ran hard on a "talk up hunting guns, demonize nonhunting guns" message in accordance with the DLC mantra. He talked about how much he liked hunting (irrelevant), but left the campaign trail on fricking Super Tuesday to vote for S.1431, which would have been the most sweeping gun ban in U.S. history had it passed. The S.1431 vote and the we-need-new-bans rhetoric was a disaster, such that he did roughly as bad as Gore among gun owners despite all the posing with 19th-century-style guns and all the skeet-shooting photo ops.

After the 2004 debacle, the party finally decided the Third Way approach wasn't working and ditched the we-need-new-bans crap in 2006---and pro-gun Dems helped retake Congress. In 2008, Obama reigned in Biden on the issue and sent "gun control is not a priority with me" signals, and it helped him, not hurt him. We've still got a ways to go, as the party platform still calls for new bans, but things have hugely improved since even 2004.

[beevul]

121. "Now, what group has been against restrictions at gun shows? "

I'm not sure how that one managed to slip by un-noticed...


What restrictions are they (the nra) against at gun shows? And why?

"On top of that, that from experience, I KNOW where most criminals get their guns and for years have watched gun advocates fight time and time again over measures that are reasonable because they are persuaded in the stories of the fringe?"

Reasonable is in the eye of the beholder...

And in a case like gun laws, I'd call a law abiding gun owner more of a beholder, than a gun hater - and let me be clear here, I'm not saying you are either.


And finally, the word "reasonable" has been attatched to all sorts of proposed legislation, gun related and not, with quite intentional aims to use it as a brush to paint opponents of any given piece of legislation to which it was attatched - as unreasonable (which I'm not accusing you of).

[Travis Coates]

86. more measures to prevent firearms from ending up in the hands of the violent.

Because the measures you have now are working so well?

Also, the country has grown too old to remember who James Brady was and what happened to him.

James Brady was shot by a lunatic W/ a.... wait for it... 22 caliber revolver how is the use of 100 year old technology a reason to ban semi automatic rifles and pistols?

Unfortunately, it appears too many of the gun crowd feel any gun control is unreasonable.

At least we agree on something

[rrneck]

74. They, them , those...

Please cite someone who has actually held that position and why, and we will happily discuss it.

[benEzra]

85. How much funding did the NRA even have in the 1980's?

It wasn't until the 1994 Feinstein law that grassroots gun owners got involved in a bit way, so citing stats from the 1980's to paint post-1994 grassroots activism and fundraising by individual gun owners as astroturf would be disingenuous.

I would not be surprised if not a lot of individuals were donating to NRA-ILA in the mid-1980's, because there weren't any national bans even on the table, never mind the perception that some of them could actually pass. Even in mid-1994, my then-Dem dad told me, speaking of the Feinstein bill, that "that won't pass; this is America." A whole lot of us were very roughly shaken out of our complacency that September and in the decade following, and that activism is seen in the upsurge in NRA membership and individual donations, and more importantly grassroots activism, that occurred post-1994.

[pipoman]

82. I don't have anyone on ignore because

I believe differing opinions are what political discourse is about, and i will not "go away" and let you or anyone else just swale through here and state demonstrable inaccuracies unchallenged. If you believe challenging your inaccuracies = rude, I am wondering why you are still here?

Back in the late 80's during the time of a strong firearm control movement, during that time the largest portion of funding of the NRA came from firearms manufactures.

Only according to the "strong firearm control" advocates, and like your inaccurate assertions, theirs was unsupported by fact too. These groups like the Bradys, who you apparently agree with, have never wanted to have open debate based on actual statistics compiled by government agencies or any other facts. They were far too busy conducting push polls and, frankly, just plain making shit up.

As for any agenda I might have, I asked a pretty simple question - if people believe in a strict interpretation of the wording of the 2nd amendment, does that not mean felons should be included in being able to own firearms, mainly for self protection. And if they don't, does that not conflict with their perspective of the strict interpretation. My only agenda is I think it does show a conflict, which then asks me to ask why, especially if this group believes in the intent of the amendment.

And your question has been answered many, many , many, many, many, times over the years right here in this forum and has been answered in this very thread, yet like many who make these assertions and ask these sorts of questions in the name of peace and harmony, you don't seem to really care what the reasonable answer is.

Frankly, I do not like the NRA or Wayne LaPierre because over my lifetime I have seen him, and many others, on television countless times demonizing ANY person or politician pushing for what I considered reasonable gun control laws. Back during the 80's and Clinton's terms it was quite common to see gun rights advocates of all sorts attacking people like Sarah and Jim Brady and others.

Uh, do you expect the largest firearms rights group on the planet to like what you consider "reasonable gun control laws"? You do know that NRA supported the 1934, 1968, 1984, and 1994 gun bills which limited automatic weapons, made felons exempt from gun ownership, closed the automatic firearm registry, and created NICS background checks respectively, no? Which "reasonable gun control laws" are you referring to specifically? I am not a fan of lapierre or even the NRA for that matter, only that the NRA is the only voice for protection of the 2nd Amendment. I have been a civil libertarian for years, if ACLU (I am a member) were doing their duty in respect to the 2nd, NRA wouldn't be the power they are...'til then I'll agree with, and maybe even join the NRA.

[HardWorkingDem]

88. I'm putting you on ignore because....

From the start, rather than try to educate, you have tried to distort my point regarding a philosophical question. Not only that, you basically called me a liar. You have constantly asserted what my motives have been without even having the courtesy of asking first.

On top of that, through the 80's and 90's, many times, I have watched Wayne LaPierre make his points known, attack anyone who brought up these issues and paint them as far left extremists with my own eyes.

Now, if you believe the Brady folks are the wackos who make shit up...here is a list of groups from the NRA's own website that they consider are Anti-gun and in need of an ass kicking....


Now, tell me...which are the wackos you talk of...?


American Academy of Pediatrics
American Association of Suicidology
American Ethical Union
Americans for Democratic Action
American Jewish Committee
American Jewish Congress
American Psychiatric Association
American Public Health Association
Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America
The Bible Holiness Movement, International
B'nai B'rith Women
Center for Science in the Public Interest
Central Conference of American Rabbis
Child Welfare League
Church of the Brethren, Washington Office
Citizens For Safety
The Communitarian Network
The Council of The Great City Schools
The DISARM Education Fund
Fellowship Reconciliation
Friends Committee on National Legislation
International Ladies Garment Workers Union
Jesuit Conference Office of Social Ministries
Jewish Community Center Association
Loretto Community
Mennonite Central Comm., DC Office
National Association of Social Workers
National Council of Jewish Women, Inc.
National Council of Negro Women, Inc.
National Urban League, Inc.
North American Federation of Temple Youth
Pan American Trauma Association
Presbyterian Church USA,
Social Justice and Peacemaking Ministry Unit
Union of American Hebrew Congregations,
Religious Action Center
Unitarian Universalist Association
United Church of Christ, Office for Church and Society
United Federation of Teachers
United Methodist Church, Board of Church and Society
U.S. Conference of Mayors
U.S. Student Association
United Synagogues of America
Women's League for Conservative Judaism
Women's National Democratic Club
YWCA of the U.S.A.

[rrneck]

89. Got a link? Thanks. nt

[pipoman]

91. Of coarse not...that simple request is what gained me

the dreaded ignore

[rrneck]

100. The OP is

a gigantic strawman and a waste of bandwidth.

It's also a perfect example of how Democrats form a circular firing squads. We can't agree on shit because there's always somebody out there running around like their head's on fire and their ass is catching paying too much attention their personal emotional sop and not enough attention to what's actually going on around them.

[HardWorkingDem]

93. Can you read?

Um.....you do realize, links were not easily located back in the 80's like they are now. Back then most research was done in what they called..um...libraries.

Now, if the first guy had not been a discourteous jerk and typed something like, "I don't know if I agree with your number, can you provide the source"......instead of asked in the manner he did, then maybe I might have gotten off my rear-end and went out to my garage and tried to locate the research paper for the source.

[rrneck]

99. If you could read

you would know that I'm not "that first guy".

If you had done any reading since your "research" in the eighties you would realize that whatever you found back then would be the Jurassic era in American politics and is irrelevant today.

If you had any interest in reading anything but your own bloviations you would produce something said by someone who matters now instead of referring to some ill defined set of pronouns from the dim recesses of your undergraduate career.

If you could read your own post - ..."here is a list of groups from the NRA's own website"..., you would be able to provide a link to a website that exists today. Or did you make that up?

If you could read, you would have correctly read my simple request for information that you should have provided as common courtesy and intellectual honesty without my having to ask for it.

Talk about rude. You may begin your apology now.

[pipoman]

90. See, there you go again

why lie and/or distort? Why not just simply be honest?


Oh, and ignore away...



What a joke..

[beevul]

122. Easy there turbo...

"Now, if you believe the Brady folks are the wackos who make shit up...here is a list of groups from the NRA's own website that they consider are Anti-gun and in need of an ass kicking..."

My response, in two parts first, part 1:

"Now, if you believe the Brady folks are the wackos who make shit up..."

Yes, I do. And I'll prove it right here for all to see:

Q. What is Brady doing right now to prevent gun violence?

Our prioirites are requiring Brady criminal background checks on all gun sales; banning military-style assault weapons;

(and right below it on thier very own page - no I'm not making this up)

Q. Is Brady a "gun ban" organization?


A. No. Brady believes that a safer America can be achieved without banning guns.

We believe that law-abiding citizens should be able to buy and keep firearms. And we believe there are sensible gun laws that we can and should insist upon when it comes to gun ownership.

First and foremost, we should try to keep dangerous weapons out of the wrong hands, including criminals and children.

Second, there are certain classes of weapons that should be out of bounds for private ownership. They include Saturday-night specials, which are used almost exclusively for crime, military-style assault weapons like Uzis and AK-47s, and .50-caliber sniper rifles, which serve no ordinary sporting purpose.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/about/

But in case you don't believe thier own words, lets examine whether thier actions match thier words...

""Paul Helmke:...We're not a gun ban organization. We don't push for gun bans." - republican paul helmke - president of the brady bunch

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-helmke/nra-gun-licensing-and-reg_b_110778.html

Yet helmke and the brady org fought in SUPPORT of the DC gun ban:

"Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which fought in support of the city's handgun ban..."

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/27/ruling-galvanizes-pro-gun-groups-opposition

And a brady quote that says something completely contrary to recorded history:

“We never supported handgun bans..." - Jennifer Bishop - the Brady Campaign’s national program director for victims and survivors

http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/13310

They also supporteed "assault weapons" bans, which needs no cite.

And they have said about as much about so called "50 caliber sniper rifles":


"There is no justification for allowing such a powerful and deadly weapon to be sold in our neighborhoods."

http://www.bradycampaign.org/issues/...ons/50caliber

In any case, thats all been hashed out here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x179549

and here:

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=237594&mesg_id=237594


Now, part 2:

"here is a list of groups from the NRA's own website that they consider are Anti-gun and in need of an ass kicking..."

And heres what they actually said:


National Organizations With Anti-Gun Policies

The following organizations have lent monetary, grassroots or some other type of direct support to anti-gun organizations. In many instances, these organizations lent their name in support of specific campaigns to pass anti-gun legislation such as the March 1995 HCI "Campaign to Protect Sane Gun Laws." Many of these organizations were listed as "Campaign Partners," for having pledged to fight any efforts to repeal the Brady Act and the Clinton "assault weapons" ban. All have officially endorsed anti-gun positions.

http://www.nraila.org/issues/factsheets/read.aspx?id=15


First, the "in need of an ass kicking" , was all you.

Second, the implication here:

"Now, if you believe the Brady folks are the wackos who make shit up...here is a list of groups from the NRA's own website that they consider are Anti-gun and in need of an ass kicking...:

The implication is that the nra is wacko and making it up.

It would likely be easy to prove that any of the organizations the nra lists have "lent monetary, grassroots or some other type of direct support to anti-gun organizations."

Yet the implication in your sentence above, is that the nra are wackos who make shit up, with the list as some sort of evidence.

Prove it please.

[friendly_iconoclast]

123. I think the OP took off. Too many pesky verifiable facts and awkward questions, ya know?

They tend to aggravate a factose intolerance...

[GreenStormCloud]

119. You assume that the funding now is the same as it was 25 years ago.

How about some current info?

[Euromutt]

6. Historically, felons ceased to be members of "the people"

Under English common law (and by extension, the law in Britain's American colonies), if you attempted to flee justice, you could be subjected to a "Writ of Outlawry," which removed all legal rights from you by making you legally a non-person (the writ contained the sentence caput gerat lupinum--"let his head be a wolf's"--i.e. anyone could kill an outlaw with as much legal consequence as if they'd killed a wolf, and we're talking centuries before the Endangered Species Act here).

If you were captured and convicted of a felony, punishment was death or banishment; in either case, you ceased to be a member of "the people."

So while there is an apparent contradiction, this is more due to the fact that we no longer execute offenders for every felony, so there's not really any inconsistency in the "purist" standpoint.

[one-eyed fat man]

69. Writ of Outlawry, common law tradition.

Hung on in many places to the early 20th Century. Once a person was declared an "OUTLAW" they were outside the protection of the law. In such cases, posters offered rewards, DEAD or ALIVE. No onus was attached to bringing in a dead outlaw, as the result was generally considered a foregone conclusion and saved the hangman's fee.



By the Thirties, wanted posters encouraged holding the subjects alive for trial and even 'incentivized' capturing outlaws alive as a bonus was paid on conviction

[geckosfeet]

10. 'A well regulated militia' - perhaps a modified application process

rather than an outright ban for the criminal community would be in order.

[Bitter_Cling]

13. There is

A process to have one's rights reinstated.

Nevertheless, most felons are a product of our unconstitutional war on some drugs. Even many right wingers agree that the war is lost and we should end it. If for no other reason than because it has given excuse to the most massive abuses of the Bill of Rights ever seen.

[geckosfeet]

42. Ending the war on drugs, along with a couple of other ongoing failed wars

would be a good thing.

Quite a different thing than letting felons buy guns.

[Bitter_Cling]

11. Felons SHOULD be allowed to own guns

But convicts who can't be trusted with guns shouldn't be allowed to leave prison (or draw breath in some cases). Likewise, if we can't trust them with guns, then we shouldn't trust them with motor vehicles, baseball bats, or park benches across the street from a playground.

[safeinOhio]

35. So you disregard the 8th Amendment?

Hmmm.

[TreasonousBastard]

17. And how did no guns on airplanes or in courthouses sneak through?

[benEzra]

25. Same way the "no abortions on airplanes or in courthouses" rule sneaked through...

and the "no parades on airplanes or in courthouses" rule, and the "no showing adult films on airplanes or in courthouses" rule, and...

Seriously, where are you going with this? Do you think that because every right is subject to some limited restriction, that makes any arbitrary level of restriction OK?

[TreasonousBastard]

32. Not serious and not going anywhere with it-- just constantly amused at...

the occasional high comedy of the gun crowd.

The US, by the way, is one of the few, and perhaps only, country that recognizes personal gun ownership as a "right". The Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn't mention it, nor do the constitutions of most, possibly all, countries signatory to it, or any treaties based on it. This leads to the conclusion that it's a "right" not from natural law, but invented for some specific purpose. The Supreme Court has so far decided what that purpose is, but they have been known to be wrong about things in the very recent past.

(And don't bring up the tired old reference to "security of person". That means secure from actions of the state.)

[Travis Coates]

44. I recognize personal firearms ownership as a right

That is a natural extension of my God given (or natural if you prefer)right to life and the means to defend that life.

I'm also willing (as I suspect many others here are too) to use my gun to defend that right, from the State if need be.

I couldn't care less about The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

[TreasonousBastard]

45. And the rest of the world couldn't care less about what you think...

it's all about consensus, and there is none on personal gun ownership. Not even in the US where most people really don't care all that much one way or the other. I suspect I am at least in the plurality when I say I really don't give a damn about whether you have a gun or not, but would surely wish you would shut up about it.

Unlike the other rights enumerated, the second is simply an artificial, made-up right scribbled in as an afterthought, and can be erased with no theoretical underpinnings to stop the erasure. Just political ones.

[X_Digger]

47. An afterthought? The second one enumerated is an afterthought?

Funny, I don't think that word means what you think it means.

[TreasonousBastard]

48. Until the NRA got all het up, it was about as interesting and important as...

the third.

Very little legislative or court action, and even less commentary for close to two hundred years. Truth is, hardly anyone noticed it was there.

Unlike the first, fourth and a few others, there was little transcribed debate over the Second, and historians to this day really don't know what was on their minds when they stuck it in there.

[cowman]

49. Ummmmmmmmm

the NRA didn't get "all het up" what got folks riled up about gun control was the lies of the VPC and the Brady Bunch and if you remember in I think it was 1993 when the Democratic Congress enacted the dumbass AWB thats when we lost control of the Congress and people really stood up and took notice of the 2A and more and more states started to relax their gun laws

[X_Digger]

52. "Afterthought" would apply to the time of the bill of rights, no?

You really should go to memory.loc.gov and read the transcriptions of the debates surrounding the bill of rights. There was a heck of a lot of debate around the second. As far as commentary..

How about St George Tucker? 1803..

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government" and "whoever examines the forest, and game laws in the British code, will readily perceive that the right of keeping arms is effectually taken away from the people of England." Blackstone himself also commented on English game laws, Vol. II, p. 412, "that the prevention of popular insurrections and resistance to government by disarming the bulk of the people, is a reason oftener meant than avowed by the makers of the forest and game laws."

Or William Rawle, in 1825?

Rawle condemned England's "arbitrary code for the preservation of game," portraying that country as one that "boasts so much of its freedom," yet provides a right to "protestant subjects only" which it "cautiously describes to be that of bearing arms for their defence" and reserves for "a very small proportion of the people." In contrast, Rawle characterizes the second clause of the Second Amendment, which he calls the corollary clause, as a general prohibition against such capricious abuse of government power, declaring bluntly:

No clause could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.

Or abolitionists Lysander Spooner (1852) and John Brown? Spooner-

This right of resistance is recognized by the constitution of the United States, as a strictly legal and constitutional right. It is so recognized, first by the provision that "the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury" - that is, by the country - and not by the government; secondly, by the provision that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This constitutional security for "the right to keep and bear arms," implies the right to use them - as much as a constitutional security for the right to buy and keep food would have implied the right to eat it.

I suggest you also look up the transcripts of the debate surrounding the fourteenth amendment. Of particular concern were the south's 'Black Codes' which were systematically disarming 'negros, mulattos, or free persons of color'.

Read Halbrook, Stephen P., Freedmen, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms, 1866-1876, Westport, CT: Praeger, 1998

"In the enumeration of natural and personal rights to be protected, the framers of the Constitution apparently specified everything they could think of — "life," "liberty," "property," "freedom of speech," "freedom of the press," "freedom in the exercise of religion," "security of person," &c.; and then, lest something essential in the specifications should have been overlooked, it was provided in the ninth amendment that "the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights should not be construed to deny or disparage other rights not enumerated." ... All these rights are established by the fundamental law.

Will it be contended, sir, at this day, that any State has the power to subvert or impair the natural and personal rights of the citizen?

As citizens of the United States they {blacks} have equal right to protection, and to keep and bear arms for self-defense."

As far as SCOTUS level cases, there are only five or six that come to mind as having direct bearing. US v Miller, Miller v Texas, US v Cruikshank, Presser v Illinois, DC v Heller, McDonald v Chicago. There are 20-30 cases at the Federal Court of Appeals level.

There are others that have tangential impact (US v Verdugo-Urquidez, etc).

Even then, the cases we have shed a lot of light-

US v Cruikshank- "This {right to keep and bear arms} is not a right granted by the Constitution . . . neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

Presser v Illinois - "the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, as so to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security"

In short, the right to keep and bear arms comes from common law, predates the constitution and is anything but an "afterthought".

[rrneck]

53. I was wondering

When did the personal carry of firearms become regulated anyway? It seems to me that for most of human history people could pretty much carry whatever they wanted or could afford. Unless some king or other got nervous and outlawed weapons.

For most of the history of the United States hasn't it been the norm to carry some sort of weapon, including a firearm, with the only restrictions defined by the bounds decorum?

[X_Digger]

54. Yup..

Even Rawle made that nod to civility, in a prescient wording familiar to anyone whose ever looked up 'brandishing'-

this right {to bear arms} ought not...be abused to the disturbance of the public peace" and observed, paraphrasing Coke, that "an assemblage of persons with arms, for unlawful purpose, is an indictable offence, and even the carrying of arms abroad by a single individual, attended with circumstances giving just reason to fear that he purposes to make an unlawful use of them, would be sufficient cause to require him to give surety of the peace."

In one state, the personal carry of firearms was never regulated (Vermont), in others, only the concealed carry was regulated, with open carry being presumptively legal. Most of those states amended their constitutions around the 1850-1890 timeframe.

Colorado: The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons. Art. II, § 13 (enacted 1876, art. II, § 13).

Florida: 1885: "The right of the people to bear arms in defence of themselves and the lawful authority of the State, shall not be infringed, but the Legislature may prescribe the manner in which they may be borne." Art. I, § 20.

Georgia: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne. Art. I, § 1, ¶ VIII (enacted 1877, art. I, § XXII).

Kentucky: 1850: "That the rights of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned; but the General Assembly may pass laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed arms." Art. XIII, § 25.

Louisiana: 1879: "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 abridged. This shall not prevent the passage of laws to punish those who carry weapons concealed." Art. 3.

Mississippi: The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons. Art. III, § 12 (enacted 1890, art. 3, § 12).

Missouri: 1875: "That the right of no citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereto legally summoned, shall be called into question; but nothing herein contained is intended to justify the practice of wearing concealed weapons." Art. II, § 17.

http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

[TreasonousBastard]

55. A lot of the debate was over commas and taking the religious test out...

of Madison's original wording. And I see no mention of the British discussion over Protestants bearing arms, which everyone involved with the Constitution had intimate knowledge of and no doubt was thinking of when they stuck this in there.

Fact of the matter is that this is as bad as the Bible in that quotes can be pulled out of all sorts of hats as evidence for every opinion out there. There were questions about the amendment back then, and there still are amongst the experts.

[SteveM]

77. Until the gun-controllers got "all het up," Democrats weren't sitting ducks...

Please note that the gun-controllers of the modern era got virtually all their ideas on gun-control from ol' Jim Crow and his ancestors, stretching back through the antebellum South. Curious, how these "liberal" controllers don't seem to mind having a few percentage points of Jim in their collective blood.

Gun-controllers made the modern NRA.

[Travis Coates]

51. The rest of the world

Doesn't get to decide if I get to keep my guns or not.

Whether you like it or not, America was started because some people with guns decided to put limits on the government of the the time. That's generally the way it happens, ordinary people get pushed to the limit and then they fight back. The Second Amendment isn't an afterthought it's the reboot switch.

Perhaps this statement rings a bell?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,<71> that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

[TreasonousBastard]

56. The Continental Congress funded an army and got the state...

militias to tag along. Then, they all ran out of money and we were saved by the French.

It had as little to do with a nation full of personal weapons as any other war did.

[Travis Coates]

64. You might want to read up on your history

The war started because the British tried to take away the personal weapons of the Colonists.

[TreasonousBastard]

66. This is a joke, right? Waning French threats, increased taxation, attacks on...

colonial home rule weren't important, just some mythical threat of disarming the colonies?

Bunker Hill was about capturing a munitions depot, but it was hardly personal muskets the British were after.

[benEzra]

68. The shooting started when British law enforcement tried to take some farmers' weapons

at a couple of little towns in Massachusetts called Concord and Lexington. You've probably heard of them.

While tensions had been rising for some time, and the colonies would not declare independence for another year after, the "shot heard 'round the world" was fired a year and two months before independence was declared, in response to an attempt to confiscate weapons like Gage's troops had already done in Boston.

[Francis Marion]

61. No.

The American experiment placed The People in charge.
Take away our guns, and we are no longer in charge.

Disarmed people must endure any tyranny, outrage, or genocide- precisely as 20th century Europeans were forced to endure.

As long as we are armed, no form of government may stand save that which earns the consent of the governed.

The men who fought for most of a decade against the British Empire to win their own freedom- these same men really appended the right of the people to own guns as an arbitrary, dispensable afterthought? That seems most improbable considering the role of the musket and bayonet in the recent war.
Don't take my word for it; it's easy to put the pieces together if you read history. Read Trenche Cox, Jefferson, Madison, Washington on the question of arming the people by right.

Patrick Henry:
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined ... The great object is that every man be armed ... Everyone who is able may have a gun"
Source: http://www.guncite.com/journals/gottcons.html

And so it's true that most of the world has a thin pamphlet, "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" to stand between their families and serious peril. And if a sufficient number of those pamphlets were stacked together they'd stop a bullet. But as a meaningful defense to Liberty, it's useless.

[SteveM]

76. This is still mainly a sovereign nation, not subject to "...the world"...

for final approval of its actions. The U.S. Constitution has been described as the most revolutionary document of governance ever conceived, and in its application, the most radical as well. And the Second Amendment goes a long way in making it as such.

If there is an argument to be made for not having a personal right to keep and bear arms, then make it; otherwise, the roar of the greasepaint, the smell of the crowd does not impress me.

[Euromutt]

62. You have to see the UDHR in historical context, though

Bear in mind that the UDHR was drafted in 1948, and adopted by the UN General Assembly, i.e. by governments. At the time, a sizable number of member states were dictatorships, communist or otherwise, and rather a large number of the western democracies has adopted restrictions on private ownership of firearms two or three decades prior because of fear of communist takeover, which was again perceived as a threat in the late 1940s; moreover, quite a few of these countries were at the time engaged in brushfire wars against the independence movements of their respective colonial possessions. Call me cynical, but if you ask me, it's not exactly surprising that very few of the member states were prepared to acknowledge an individual right to keep and bear arms.

I agree with you that rights don't derive from "natural law" or divine decree; if they did, it should be physically impossible to violate them, but that is not the case. In my opinion, rights are the product of the maxim to "do not unto others as you would not have them do unto you"; when there's something that nobody wants done to them, freedom from that something ipso facto is a human right.

[Euromutt]

96. Courthouses, penal facilities and airliners have restricted access involving security checks

In theory at least, nobody can carry a deadly weapon into these areas without authorization, and use it to commit a violent crime against others present, which means it would be very unlikely for you to be justified in using lethal force in self-defense.

This does not apply to shopping malls, institutions of higher learning, et al.

[X_Digger]

18. Who are these "purists" of which you speak?

I've never met one. I've seen some mighty big representations made out of straw, though.

[Callisto32]

19. I have expressed exactly this on a number of occasions.

If a person is truly too dangerous to be allowed to bear arms, they are too dangerous to be released from prison.

[safeinOhio]

37. Who decides that?

An all white jury or an Arizona Sheriff?

See the 8th Amendment.

[Callisto32]

67. Are you accusing me of taking sides with Joe Arpaio, or howeverthehell you spell it?

That is nothing but a personal insult.

Keeping people who are dangerous separated from society is a cruel and unusual punishment, but stripping people of their rights so that their sentence lasts far longer than they actually are isn't?

I wish I could live in such a rich fantasy-world.

In my view, the legitimate purpose of prison is to keep people who are actually dangerous separated from society, so that they don't harm anybody. The idea of imprisoning someone for a non-violent (against people, even property crimes shouldn't involve jail time, but rather restitution) crime is ridiculous, and the very core of a cruel punishment. "You had an ounce of pot, so you rot in prison for 15 years." INSANE!

Yeah, this post is kind of a rant, but I get that way when people accuse me of being in the same camp as the asshat of the year.

[safeinOhio]

71. Did not mean to offend you so much.

I'm just a big supporter of the 5th Amendment.

[benEzra]

24. I think you're reacting to a false idea of what gun owners are actually fighting for.

All of the Bill of Rights are subject to *some* restrictions, but they must be narrowly tailored and generally must pass a strict-scrutiny test.

The NRA has long supported the existing Federal restrictions on all automatic weapons, prohibition on possession by felons, the 1986 ban on armor-piercing handgun ammo, the ban on X-ray-undetectable firearms, and helped write the background-check-for-purchase law.

What gun owners are NOT fine with are proposals to make it harder for mentally competent adults with clean records to lawfully purchase, own, and use non-automatic, non-sound-suppressed NFA Title 1 civilian firearms under .51 caliber (plus shotguns).

More broadly, the idea that supporting some very limited restrictions on an enumerated right makes any level of restriction OK is ridiculous, whether the right in question is the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, whatever.

[HardWorkingDem]

28. But don't you think....

There is a difference between most "gun owners" and others?

To me, what it comes down to is what I see as felons would be too inflammatory for organizations like the NRA to appear to defend. Doesn't a felon have a right to protect him/herself and his or her families while in their home? And I understand someone not being able to own a firearm is not declaring he or she can't own a weapon of some sort to protect him or herself in their home - their are axes and knives - but it gets back to my original point - if you reduce this part of the amendment down, the wording is quite clear - the government SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Pretty clear to me.

[benEzra]

33. Back when the Gun Control Act was passed in 1968, banning possession by felons...

a "felon" was a much narrower class than it is now, and was more closely associated with violent criminals than with, say, people accused of copying a DVD or growing non-approved herbs in their basement. There is due process for the revocation of rights from people who commit serious crimes, and they typically lose *all* of them for at least a while. As originally intended (and as originally supported by the NRA), there is a process in the law by which a nonviolent felon can petition to have his/her civil rights restored on a case by case basis. The gun-control lobby did managed to get that process de-funded a decade or two ago, with the help of "law and order" conservatives and communitarians, but the restorative process still exists in the law and (IMO) it should be funded. But yes, if you're looking for idealogical purity and absolutist zealotry, the NRA isn't it.

As to the broader question of narrowly drawn restrictions on civil liberties, ALL of the Bill of Rights are phrased about as absolutely ("Congress shall make NO law...", etc.) and the courts have created the "strict scrutiny" test to determine what restrictions are allowed and which ones aren't.

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

Agree or disagree, that is how our system of law works as presently constituted, regardless of which amendment you're talking about. And the fact that such narrowly drawn restrictions do exist does not invalidate the existence of the right in question, whether that be the right to free speech, freedom of the press, the right to keep and bear arms, or the right to be free from warrantless search or seizure.

[rotund1]

83. The FIRST says no prohibition on the free exercise of religion...

To employ the logic in your post, I should be permitted to operate a church that includes human sacrifice as a rite of worship, right? Well, that's what it -says-...
:shrug:


edit---by the way, my question is somewhat rhetorical, I am a 100% supporter of RKBA.

[onehandle]

29. 'I got mine, Jack.'

That's it in a nutshell.

[friendly_iconoclast]

30. Good to see you taking a break from genetic fallacies.

They were getting kinda stale.

[proteus_lives]

38. Nohandle in a nutshell:

"I don't want you to have yours, Jack."

[gorfle]

43. Because many of us believein Civic Death.

Just curious...if 2nd Amendment purists are true purists, then how come...they never express that even felons should be able to possess firearms?

Many of us believe in Civil Death ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_death ).

I am torn on the issue. On one hand I would say that when a person has served their time they have paid their debt to society and should have all their rights restored.

But then there are these two facts:

1) Over 90% of firearm homicides are committed by people with extensive prior criminal records, including, on average, four felonies.

2) The anti-firearm crowd continually uses criminal firearm use as a bludgeon to further their goal of eliminating firearms for all. I'd rather just eliminate firearms for criminals.

[Ter]

65. I do

The 2nd Amendment is absolute.

[spin]

80. The NRA does support non violent felons possessing firearms...

House backs new gun rights for some nonviolent felons

The Associated Press

Published: April 10th, 2010 10:56 PM
Last Modified: April 10th, 2010 10:56 PM

JUNEAU -- The state House has unanimously passed legislation restoring gun rights for some nonviolent felons.

The bill passed Saturday now goes to the Senate, with just over a week before the Legislature is scheduled to adjourn.

Fairbanks Republican Rep. Jay Ramras, whose Judiciary Committee sponsored the bill, says the measure helps bring state and federal laws into alignment.

Currently, state law allows for nonviolent felons' gun rights to be partially restored if certain conditions are met. That partial restoration still bars handgun purchases and limits carrying concealed weapons.

A U.S. Supreme Court decision has held that if felons' rights are to be restored, they're to be restored fully, or not at all.

http://www.adn.com/2010/04/10/1220440/house-backs-expanded-gun-rights.html#ixzz0qwlNxdnY

Pass the ammunition
March 17, 2010

Not long ago—last October to be more precise—Anchorage attorney and gun rights activist Wayne Anthony Ross was telling Flashlight how difficult it was to gather political support for specific group of people for whom Second Amendment rights were compromised—felons. (See the Press October 28 cover story “Hidden Punishment” at tinyurl.com/Hidden-Punishment.) The problem, in the eyes of Ross and other gun activists, is that Alaska laws restricting gun rights don’t match very cleanly with federal laws that extinguish a person’s gun rights whenever a state restricts those rights, even just a little.

A felon convicted in state court may have their rights re-instated so they can hunt or carry a firearm in bear country, but state restrictions on their right to carry a concealed weapon turn into a straight-up ban under the federal law.

Ross wants changes to Alaska criminal law. He says changing some state laws would help certain felons—the nonviolent kind, mind you—to avoid prosecution in federal court for illegally possessing firearms under a U.S. law.

*
When Ross first shopped the idea to the Alaska legislators, he got little traction. In fact, at the time he hadn’t found an elected official to sponsor the bill. “They see the problem,” Ross said last fall, “but nothing’s happened so far.”

So Flashlight was bit surprised when we bumped into Ross last weekend and he told us a bill had been introduced, and has not just NRA support but support from legislators. We saw him at an NRA banquet at Wasilla’s sport arena—don’t snicker, it’s a family event. (And yes, an NRA banquet is what you might expect: prime rib and seafood, door prizes, gun auctions, gun raffles, gun accessories as prizes and laser-printed copies of the Second Amendment incorporated in the table decorations. And everyone, women and children included, dresses a bit like Heath Ledger in a romantic cowboy movie.)

Ross was excited about the gun rights bill’s progress so far. We asked about sponsors, and he rattled off the names of people he expected to support it. He promised to fax us a copy Monday morning. We thanked him and left to grab a gimlet from a bartender who needed the drink order translated to: “vodka martini with lime.” (This being a new millennium, “gimlet” is an antiquated word while “apple-tini” was being promoted a menu board as the evening’s special.)

We returned to work this week and learned that restoring gun rights to felons—as provocative as that sounds at first blush—is trendy in Juneau. Four bills address the issue this year. Mat-Su Republican Senator Charlie Huggins has a bill specific to concealed-carry restrictions. A longer but similar concealed-carry bill was introduced in the senate by Anchorage Democrat Hollis French. On the house side, Scott Kawasaki, a Fairbanks Democrat, has his own concealed-carry bill. The most comprehensive bill, the one Ross and the NRA are pushing hardest, carries the name of the Alaska House Judiciary Committee as sponsor, and addresses restoration of rights for convicted felons. emphasis added
http://www.anchoragepress.com/articles/2010/03/17/news/doc4ba179c50347a229385358.txt

[YllwFvr]

94. Felons SHOULD have guns

But then Im a purist. They served there time, they have been "rehabilitated" and released. They are free once more with all the right I have. Except to own, or even shoot, a gun.

Of course if they are still dangerous or incapable of peacefully co-existing with others then they shouldnt be released. The fact that we have repeat offenders is insane. Keep them locked up. Plus have you ever seen the list of charges people get hit with? Laws that are broken that they dont go to jail for?

But thats a different fight :)

[DissedByBush]

118. You can lose a lot of rights due to your own actions

For example, the right to freedom. You lose it when you are convicted and sent to jail.