The New Second Amendment: A Bark Worse Than Its Right
In June, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling on the Second Amendment right to bear arms, D.C. v. Heller. For over 70 years, the federal courts had read that amendment to protect only a state's right to organize militias, like the National Guard. In a long-awaited victory for the gun rights movement, the Court reversed course and held that the Second Amendment protected an individual's right to own guns for personal self-defense.
So far, the victory hasn't turned out exactly as the gun rights folks had hoped.
As many legal scholars predicted, the Supeme Court's decision led to a tidal wave of Second Amendment challenges to gun control. Every person charged with a gun crime saw the Supreme Court's decision as a Get Out of Jail Free Card.
To date, the lower federal courts have ruled in over 60 different cases on the constitutionality of a wide variety of gun control laws. There have been suits against laws banning possession of firearms by felons, drug addicts, illegal aliens, and individuals convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors. The courts have ruled on the constitutionality of laws prohibiting particular types of weapons, including sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, and specific weapons attachments. Defendants have challenged laws barring guns in school zones and post offices, and laws outlawing "straw" purchases, the carrying of concealed weapons, possession of an unregistered firearm, and particular types of ammunition. The courts have upheld every one of these laws.
Since Heller, its Gun Control 60, Individual Right 0.
Before the Supreme Court's decision, none of the numerous challenges to gun control laws raised in recent months would have had any hope of winning. Now, with a revolutionary ruling recognizing a renewed individual right to keep and bear arms, they still have no hope of winning.
About the only real change from Heller is that gun owners have to pay higher legal fees to find out they lose.
The basis for most of these lower court rulings upholding gun control is a paragraph near the end of the Supreme Court's decision that, at the time, seemed like a throwaway. The Supreme Court wrote that "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions on the commercial sale of arms."
What gun rights advocates are discovering is that the vast majority of gun control laws fit within these categories.
"I would have preferred that that not have been there," says Robert Levy about this laundry list of Second Amendment exceptions. Levy, executive director of the CATO Institute, which funded the Heller litigation, believes that paragraph in Scalia's opinion "created more confusion than light."
But to a die-hard gun rights advocate, the problem is exactly the opposite: the paragraph shed too much light. It revealed that the Supreme Court believes that almost all gun control measures on the books today are perfectly lawful--a message that hasn't been lost on the lower courts.
Hardliners in the gun rights community cannot help but be disappointed with their long-awaited triumph.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
What's the old saying "be carful what you wish for, you just might get it" Was in no way happy about the ruling, but now that I have read this stroy I don't feel so bad. I thing the court interp the 2nd amendment wrong, I don't believe it says crap about an individual right, the right is to the state for the malitia, but whatever, I guess this makes the NRA crazy, explain to me how you hunt with a AK47 or a hollow point bullet, it's crazy. We have far to many gun deaths in this country, lives lost and lives ruined by guns. Everyone always says law abiding cit, should not have their rights limited because of what criminals do with guns, what they fail to accept as true is every gun in the hands of a criminal was once a legal gun. I hope that this leads to even stronger gun control laws.
About hunting, the point of using a hollow point round while hunting to to ensure a quick humane kill. If you are againt hunting in all cases, well that is a different issue, but hollow points point bullets in the hands of a skilled hunter can prevent deer and elk from being injured or crippled.
AK-47 can make for good hunting rifles, in short distances. Also, they make a 5 round clip for the AK-47 so that it is legal to use for hunting in states like georgia. And if your counting, that is 5 less rounds then contained in the 100 year old british 303 enfield or 3 less rounds then the world war 2 M1 Garand.
Now I agree that you should allow people to hunt with automatic weapons, but there is no need to be predjudice against a semi auto weapon just because it looks like what the bad guys use in movies.
"explain to me how you hunt with a AK47 or a hollow point bullet, it's crazy."
I assume you're speaking of non-automatic civilian guns that LOOK, but do not function, like AK-47's, since actual AK-47's are tightly controlled by Federal law. Civilian AK lookalikes are actually decent eastern-whitetail rifles.
Here's my SAR-1 (civilian AK lookalike) in hunting configuration, with a scope and hunting magazine:
http://www
It's about half as powerful as a .30-06 deer rifle, but comparable to a .30-30 Winchester, and is adequate for small to medium-sized deer at moderate ranges (inside 125 yards). It's absolutely identical to this more traditional looking deer rifle:
http://www
Thing is, hunting is pretty much irrelevant to the gun issue, because only 1 in 5 U.S. gun owners hunts. Like most gun owners, my wife and I don't currently hunt, though I'd like to take it up someday (and it will be with that little rifle).
I do shoot competitively (IPSC/USPSA). Here's the same carbine in IPSC/USPSA configuration, which is the same way I configure it for defensive purposes:
http://www
FWIW, most hunters use softpoint or hollowpoint bullets. Using full-metal-jacketed bullets, which go through the target and keep on going, is considered inhumane by most hunters.
The best way to be "humane" is not too shoot. If you really like or need to go back to human basics, take up bow and arrow, be a sport.
"explain to me how you hunt with a AK47 or a hollow point bullet, "
Any time you are ready, I'll be happy to educate you.
What do you hunt with an AK47, or a .50 cal. H&K? My old .270 Mauser has done very well for me. My problem with gun nuts, friends, is you don't know where the bullet will end up. Still, the case of The Hunter, back in the day, showed responsible gun ownership can help the cause of law. But in urban America your whizzing bullets are not your neighbor's friends.
The second amendment is not about hunting.
"but now that I have read this stroy I don't feel so bad"
Oh no? The DC gun ban is gone. The gun bans in the Chicago suburbs are gone. The San Francisco gun ban is gone. Chicago's gun ban is living on borrowed time. Nice victory you have going there. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
"I don't believe it says crap about an individual right, the right is to the state"
Well, 75% of the population disagrees with you. The vast majority of both houses of Congress disagree with you, and they all filed briefs in favor of Heller. The Supreme Court disagrees with you. And the Founding Fathers themselves disagree with you:
http://www
And nowhere in the entire Bill Of Rights does it say one word regarding the rights of the state. The BOR enumerates and guarantees the rights of the people.
Odd that this last point is not debated by any of you, regarding any amendment but the 2nd. Do you think the Founders meant the 'People' to refer to individuals in all the amendments save this one?
You might also want to familiarize yourself with the US Code definition of 'militia', because you're in it.
http://www
I think you're probably citing the Gallup Poll Mike, in which case it's actually 73%, but you're close enough.
http://www
Here's part 2 of the list of citizens who wish they had been given the rights of the Second Amendment in their countries. They cannot blog or speak their sorrow so I will do that for them with great humility.
Please notice how "reasonable and common sense" the gun laws are as listed.
www.jpfo.o
The Human Cost of "Gun Control" Ideas
Order of Info is:
Government
Dates
Targets
Civiliams Killed
"Gun Cont
Features o
China, Red 1949-1
China, Nationalis
Nazi Germany & Occupied Europe 193
Soviet Union 1929
Ottoman Turkey 191
Hey I only want the same guns that government agents get with by my tax money. I don't want anything different.
www.NODC.u
I am from the Netherlands and I can blog. No problem we can't own guns. The United States has the highest murder rate and the most people in jail in the Western world. We like to keep those problems at your side of the Atlantic.
Guns; thanks but no thanks.
I don't think guns have a place in everyday life. Yeah, you need a gun to hunt. If I don't feel safe, it's because I worry the other person HAS a gun. Thanks Giopaps for your post. You are lucky you don't have the constant worry of the other person being armed.
We also have what... 10 times the people here in the US then you have so of course the murder rate will be higher and that's not because of guns. If you look at the stats, the places with the most gun controls (e.g. Washington DC) have the worst crime rates...
Maybe my comment was not clear. They can't blog because their governments killed them.
As I mentioned in a previous post, even if you removed murders committed with firearms from America's murder rate, it would still be three times higher than any other western indusrtiaized nation.
The majority of violent crime and why so many are in jail in America is due to the illegal drug trade, not because private citizens own guns.
Also, any comparison between nations has to be done on a per capita basis to account for population differences, and you also need to account for differences in crime reporting policies and systems between nations.
What works in the Netherlands won't necessarily work here. It's impossible to remove guns from a society where guns are so widespread. We also have a heterogenous population, so we don't get along with each other. In many rural areas, homeowners are self-reliant when it comes to self defense from wild animals or dangerous individuals.
I never thought the argument that we might have to take up arms against a tyrannical government held water until Bush was in office a few years. Suddenly, liberals started talking about buying guns. Gays carry guns (see "pink pistols") to protect themselves from people who like to assault gays.
None of this is criticism of the Netherlands, a place I hope to visit someday.
Here's a list of citizens who wish they had been given the rights of the Second Amendment in their countries. They cannot blog or speak their sorrow so I will do that for them with great humility.
Sorry about the length but they deserve mention and they too are sorry the list is so long. Please notice how "reasonable and common sense" the gun laws are as listed. This list is incomplete as "gun control" is still being used everywhere there is ethnic war.
www.jpfo.o
The Human Cost of "Gun Control" Ideas
Order of Info is:
Government
Dates
Target Group
Number of Civilians Killed by their Government
"Gun Contr
Features o
Rwanda 1994 -Tutsi people -80
Cambodia (Khmer Rouge) 197
Uganda 197
Guatemala
My thanks to the JPFO.org for this info - check the website if you wonder why this group doesn't trust a government that doesn't trust citizens with guns.
"everywhere there is an ethnic war"
Are you saying we have an ethnic war going on in the US?
Gun control preceded the genocide in the examples above. Federal gun control has never show success in crime control.
I'm OK with local laws as long as those don't disarm law abiding citizens. Local ordinances reflect local values and local needs. Why should anyone in Nevada be banned from owning a particular firearm because some urban criminal uses a firearm in a crime?
Guns cause violence like cameras cause pornography.
Regardless of law, people have a natural right to defend themselves against harm.
I emphasize 'natural' right vs legal right.
We should make the qualification to vote and the qualification to carry a firearm one and the same. No person too irresponsible to be trusted to carry a gun should be trusted to vote. Obviously, exceptions would be made for the blind or others who were physically unable to handle a firearm, although many states allow the visually challenged to qualify for a C.C.W. license. No Gun - No Vote! No one would be required to actually carry, or even own a firearm in order to vote, but both electors (voters) and those who carry a defensive firearm would have to meet the same standards, accounting for physical disability.
A very good suggestion. It is far more realistic than mine; an IQ test for firearms ownership.
"No person too irresponsible to be trusted to carry a gun should be trusted to vote."
Darn right!
B___S____. The right to vote needs to be widespread. See November, 2008.
ANYBODY THAT OWNS A FIREARM SHOULD BE MADE - BY LAW - TO ENROLL IN A FIRE-ARMS SAFETY & OPERATION COURSE. WITH PAYING A REGISTRATION FEE FOR A LICENSE SHOWING THAT THIS COURSE HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND THAT THESE INDIVIDUALS RE-NEW THESE LICENSES PERIODICALLY.
ITS NOT THE "GUN" THAT KILLS INNOCENT PEOPLE - ITS THOSE TO WHOM STAND HOLDING THE GUN.
I'M ALL FOR THE RIGHT TO OWN AND CARRY FIRE ARMS BUT ALSO BELIEVE THAT THOSE THAT CARRIES THESE SHOULD HAVE PROPER KNOWLEDGE AS TO HOW TO SAFELY USE IT AND THE LAWS THAT APPLY TO THESE INDIVIDUALS.
People know the laws and except for a very small percentage know how to be safe with the firearms. The problem is not one of ignorance of these items. The problem is the willfull, deliberate disobeying of these laws. So requiring such a course and test will accomplish exactly nothing.
What will licensing achieve?
I would rather have a gun and not need it than need one and not have it.
Precisely. Most of these folks seem to think that we live our whole lives around our guns.
To many of us, a gun is a precautionary tool. Do I expect to have my home invaded? No. I don't expect my house to catch fire, either, but I have a fire extinguisher in case it does.
The problem isn't having a gun/rifle in case you need it.
The problem is carrying it to a shoot out in the shopping mall, or detaining citizens on suspicion of being a felon illegally carrying a firearm. The problem is with unregistered gun sales, any felon can obtain a gun through a third party at a gun show. The problem is adults who are too stupid to secure their weapon from kids. (The problem is also screening people likely to shoot their spouses at home, but that's a different story.)
Wonder how we got the impression you care only about guns? Might have something to do with the fact that you only blog about guns.
I agree. I am someone who could probably be considered liberal, or pro-Democratic Party, left of center, etc. I own 2 guns for home protection and never hope to have to use them for this purpose. That said, I still think sensible legislatio
I have lived in many countries all over the world. Israel, England, Japan, Australia, Canada, Spain and Switzerland to name a few. And I can tell you that in every country I have felt safe. I have never, ever, felt the need to carry or own a gun. On the other hand I think America is one of the most dangerous places, apart from Afghanistan and Iraq, to live in. And there is only one reason. Guns.
There is an insanity about guns in the United States that is difficult to comprehend. It states that everybody should own a gun and even more insane is that everybody should be carrying a concealed weapon. Indeed, apart from traffic accidents gun deaths are one of the most pervasive risks to people living and traveling through the United States.
So my question is this: How can the NRA convince otherwise sane people that guns are necessary for the safety of Americans when it is so clear that it is the cause of tens of thousands of unnecessary and tragic deaths?
Why cannot the majority of peace loving Americans remove such a dangerous clause in your Constitution "the right to bear arms". This is what I cannot understand and why I will never live in the United States.
How can you ask this question after living in Isreal and Switzerland, two of the most heavily armed countries on Earth? Do you think that armed civilians might not be the reason there is so little violent crime in these countries? When was the last time there was a school shooting, or a hijacking of an airliner in Isreal?
In the US, we have serious criminals who do not heed gun laws.....l
And as far as England is concerned, violent crime went through the roof when their gun ban went into effect in 1997, whether you were exposed to it or not.
I don't know about Switzerland, but there are no school shootings in Israel, because they allow armed parents and teachers to patrol their school grounds.
Nothing states everyone should own a gun
Nothing states everyone should obtain CCW
Because the people as a collective cannot can't remove or add amendments
Switzerland has the highest gun ownership per capita in the world, yet you felt safe strangely enough
Perhaps your problem is just with Americans in general, so then don't come here, easy enough?
"Switzerland has the highest gun ownership per capita in the world"
That is not true. It hasn't been the case for a long, long time. The US has far surpassed Switzerland in per capita gun ownership. However, comparing the population of Switzerland, which is highly educated and disciplined, to the US, which is overrun with uneducated, undisciplined, violent, and dangerously misinformed bumpkins, is pointless. I too lived in Europe (France) and travelled extensively there for many years and concur that I've never felt less safe than here in the US. And guns (in the hands of morons), are the reason.
Bravo, I feel safer walking the streets of Paris, Madrid and London than New York. When a schizophrenic or sociopath or imaginative child has a gun in his hand, he is far more dangerous. Our Second Amendment was designed to allow American citizens to carry arms to defend themselves from the British, wild animals and native Americans. Well, we've decimated all three of those groups, so now what's the point? Mainly, it's gun sellers' lobbyists who want to shop their goods. / Reasonable Americans understand that hand-guns and assault weapons are made to murder people. Yet they cling to the NRA interpretation of the Second Amendment allowing anyone to sell any gun to anyone. Why? Because of NRA publicity,/ My father kept a rifle in his closet. He shot it off on New Year's Eve, and occasionally shot crows on a friend's farm. I was never afraid of that rifle./ My brother-in-law keeps a rifle. The only time I've known him to use it was to put down a dog that had bitten my son. He dug a grave for the dog first. On New Year's Eve, he plays the bagpipes. /However, Richard Gordon, we U.S.ns have such a reverence for our admirably constituted Constitution that we are reluctant to change a golden word of it. Our laws insist that our Supreme Court must reassess a Constitutional Amendment. Now this is the same Supreme Court who elected George Bush so who trusts them?
Nonsense.
"Bravo, I feel safer walking the streets of Paris, Madrid and London than New York."
NYC has just about the most stringent gun laws in the country. So what are you soooo afraid of? Or is that an admission that gun laws don't affect criminals?
"Our Second Amendment was designed to allow American citizens to carry arms to defend themselves from the British, wild animals and native Americans.
Who told you that?
"Now this is the same Supreme Court who elected George Bush"
LOL. Where do you get your information?
"Reasonable Americans understand that hand-guns and assault weapons are made to murder people."
The most popular civilian target rifles and defensive carbines in U.S. homes are primarily made to murder people?
How do you square that claim with the fact that only 3% of U.S. murders involve ANY type of rifle, despite the fact that more Americans own "assault weapons" than hunt?
http://www
And handguns being made to murder people---is that why the police carry them?
"Reasonable Americans understand that hand-guns and assault weapons are made to murder people"
MOST Americans have no idea what an assault weapon is.
We Americans are a violent frequently ruthless people, no doubt about it...
I think that fact has a lot more to do with crime in the U.S. than the availability of guns. BTW, I'm curious richardgordon, are you basing your feeling of not being safe on personal experiences while in the U.S., or on what you read in the news papers and see on the TV?
I have lived in many of those countries as well as others. In some of them, firearm ownership is actuall pretty high. In fact I have hunted, and shot recreationally and competetivly in many of them.
Guns aren't the problem.
Of course not. Its people who commit crimes and people who think guns actually solve problems. Maybe the fact that the US has the largest prison population in the Western world is pointing towards the real problem. But why is that so?
I don't overstand why you people get such a rise out of the 2nd amendment.
Winkler you should realize that Heller vs D.C. was the victory. The rest is just trimmings.
If you sheep don't want guns, then don't have them. When you talk the criminals out of carrying them illegally then come talk to me. The police react to crime, having the means to self-defense is proactive.
My concern is that government and industry will try to disarm the populace so they can set up an unconstitutional type of governance that would be overbearing. Why trust a government that keeps a herb(cannabis), one that has incredible healing benefits and industrial use, illegal for their own enrichment? They don't have a good track record, so far.
I'm with you. If they legalized it, and taxed it the way they do tobacco, imagine the revenue it would create. They could build enough prisons to house the criminal miscreants who give gun owners a bad name. That's better than letting these people out early, in the name of 'prison overcrowding', just to reoffend.
If you don't want to have a gun in your home, don't. But don't tell me what I should do when you are looking out through a gated community with rent-a-cops to patrol the community day and night. My situation is a little closer to the Urban sprawl. I have to protect myself and my home. In addition, with all of the gun owners out here, you love to site the instances of gun mishaps as a reason that we should not have guns. Would you site the instances of automobile accidents for the reason we should not have cars? I'm sorry but the problems with some irrisponsible gun owners is only a small, small precentage of people who own guns responsibly. Like so many others, I am not placing my family in danger just because you think it is wrong to have protection in my home.
Now, you seem a bit angry. Calm down. And, it's cite, not site. Honest. I have four weapons, at least one loaded and ready at all times. Like you, I am not about to be a victim. But we must also be rational about this. Take a deep breathe, step back, and be certain the enemy is really the enemy before taking action.
Right. So just like with a car you should have a license after taking a test and you should have mandatory liability insurance. That way accidents are covered. The fact that they might be stolen will be part of your terms of insurance etc.
I do not think that citizens should not be allowed to defend themselves or hunt but we regulate who drives a car, bus or truck. We also regulate how you can drive and where. Guess why. So it should be possible to find reasonable regulations.
Furthermore, selfdefense should mean life not property, like in some states of this country. Shooting someone for trespassing is so 1800s.
Finally, criminals will always have bigger guns than you. Worse, they will always have less scrupels to use them than the citizen defending himself. I'd rather get threatened by a knife when mugged than shot because the criminal expects me to have a gun. So an arms race is not the answer. Eventually, they will have shootouts with police and outgun them. Then you can call in the military like in Tijuana, Mexico.
You only need a license and isurance to drive on public roads. In many states you can own a vehicle without having a license.
Driving is a privilege, not a right.
"Then you can call in the military like in Tijuana, Mexico."
Firearms are illegal in Mexico.
Criminals do not follow the same rules as the rest of us. Restrictions on gun ownership for average Americans only make us less able to defend ourselves as the criminals will break the law anyway. Preventing us from obtaining automatic or high-caliber weaponry doesn't stop the bad guys. As a matter of fact, it gives them the awareness of this inherent tactical advantage (hey, I'm the only one here with a machine gun). Let's face it. We can't use the old excuse that these types of weapons are for hunting. They are for self-defense. Owners of large recreational boats, for example, should obtain the heaviest firepower possible for protection against pirates, regardless of any local gun laws.
Sad, but true. Good guys must be in touch with their baser instincts if the human race is to survive.
This is a bullshit argument. If I was faced with a criminal wanting to take my property and I was unarmed - which I would be since I refuse to buy a gun, I would just tell him. Just take the damn property! Problem solved. Unless the guy is a psychopath it is unlikely he/she would use it on me.
And the fact is that most gun deaths are the result, not of protecting property but because people lose their tempers and blow somebody away because they are in a rage, or some kid get a hold of a gun and fires it by mistake.
Now you might argue that, "criminals would come after me". Yes, this is possible I guess in a really bad neighborhood. But if you have any sense you would stay out of those neighborhoods. As an American would you walk around Baghdad if you had the choice? Of course not. Why bother go to Baghdad unless you have a death wish?
I have a dog like you, when faced w/ confrontation she rolls over and gives up her stomach in a show of submission.
What are you going to do when a criminal wants to take your wife or your children? You're going to tell him to take them too?
My father taught me that, as a man, I am responsible for my family's safety. I don't take that responsibility lightly and I won't give anyone that wants to do them harm an inch, if I can help it. The only way to do that is to be properly prepared and have the proper tools.
"This is a bullshit argument. If I was faced with a criminal wanting to take my property and I was unarmed - which I would be since I refuse to buy a gun, I would just tell him. Just take the damn property! Problem solved. Unless the guy is a psychopath it is unlikely he/she would use it on me."
Talk about a "bullshit argument". Don't tell us what you would do "if", because it's a big if. And it's not property we are concerned about protecting.
I was mugged once, a long time ago. I handed over all of my money, and I still got stomped to within an inch of my life. There were five of them. I doubt they were all phychos.
But if you think it is more noble to be a victim, it is totally within your rights. It is not your right to drag us down with you.
And do a Google search on the Pettit family, why don't you? It will show you what can happen when you are at the mercy of the merciless.
So you would just let the thug have your stuff? Do you have anything really valuable? Maybe I'll come a take it. If the police happened to be in the neighborhood, would you except them to apprehend me? If I ran or resisted, should they shoot me? The police are very rarely 'in the area'.
Richard, you sound like a very well to do person. Not someone who has to worry about having enough to feed his family.
It's good that you don't have to worry about losing the rent money to a thief.
"And the fact is that most gun deaths are the result, not of protecting property but because people lose their tempers and blow somebody away because they are in a rage, or some kid get a hold of a gun and fires it by mistake."
Actually most of them are due to criminal on criminal shootings and shooting in the commission of another crime.
Owning a gun to protect yourself or your family (from somebody else with a gun) would seem a good right if there was the slightest evidence that owning a gun protects you from anybody. Unless you shoot them first, or they shoot but their bullet hits your gun, you're endangering yourself and your family. Statistics don't lie.
I'm tired of having to do the reasearch for you people. Go the the FBI's website, and explore yourself. Guns are successfully used in 80,000 defensive situations a year, at least.
There's plenty of evidence. It's a hell of a lot more than "slight".
"Unless you shoot them first, or they shoot but their bullet hits your gun, you're endangering yourself and your family. Statistics don't lie."
And what statistics would these be? If you are referring to anything from the oft quoted (by the Brady Campaign, and it sounds like you are) Kellermann study, please be aware that this study has been debunked by everyone, including Dr. Kellermann himself. It was the result of a telephone survey. Kellermann admitted that he had no chance of duplicating the research with any reasonable hope of obtaining a similar result, which makes the research useless.
Get your statistics from governmenbt sources, like the FBI Uniform Crime Report. It's pretty hard to argue with the Dept. of Justice.
Or would you rather call 911, and wait 8 to 22 minutes for thje cops to show up, just in time to stuff you into a body bag?
Do a Google search on the Pettit family while you're at it. Or are you another 'one post and run away' wonder?
"Get your statistics from governmenbt sources, like the FBI Uniform Crime Report. It's pretty hard to argue with the Dept. of Justice"
And I'm supposed to trust an organization that was headed by Alberto Gonzalez?
ARE YOU KIDDING ? "Statistics don't LIE)??? Since when? "Statistics" have been manipulated to give the desired "result" since their inception. Try real life, someday. My life was threatened by punks more than one time and they backed off to seek easier prey when they saw I was prepared. "Their bullet hits your gun...)??? Whaaa? Did Doc Holliday break in on you? Of course, statistics lie. They are only as good as available information, which is never complete. So, stake the lives of you and your family on statistics, if you wish...I'm sticking with my Smith & Wesson.
LOL... Your "statistics" are ????
It's called logic... you either shoot first and hit, or they shoot you.
A better situation might be, don't let anybody have guns, and ban their manufacture. Problem solved.
But then, what if the guy knows jujitsu...
I laugh whenever one of the gun people invokes the "Founding Fathers." It reminds me of the bible thumper who quotes the bible, which is for the purpose of precluding further argument.
I say these are the same "Founders" who believed in slavery and denied women basic human rights. I recognize they are the same who wrote the Constitution, which then required countless amendments and interpretations to keep it current. I wouldn't argue a 21st century issue by quoting 18th century minds, however esteemed they may be.
"I laugh whenever one of the gun people invokes the "Founding Fathers." It reminds me of the bible thumper who quotes the bible, which is for the purpose of precluding further argument."
Laugh away. These people wrote the Constitution which is what governs this country.
And not all of the founders believed in slavery, or denying the rights of women. But, if that's the best you have, stick to it. It's not helping your pacifist submission monkey cause.
Now, come on, V. That's a bit rude and anti-evolutionary doncha think? Just because Mike doesn't know his history and understand that slavery and women's subservience were givens in that period is no reason to dis him.
No, actually thousands of pages of laws written by Congress since then govern this country.
The right to protect your life, the lives of your family, neighbors, etc. is not granted to us by the government. It is one of those self-evident rights mentioned in the declaration of independence. (That's one of the documents you can learn about in an American history class.) In defense of the founding fathers, one should consider the standards of the time period you are studying. To do what the founding fathers did, WHEN THEY DID IT, is remarkable. The current bunch of idiots in Washington - from both parties - can not even follow the principles the founding fathers set forth.
The intention of the Second Amendment is not only personal protection, sport etc. but to insure that the Government follows the rest of the Amendments. This country was born out of oppression and the Founding Fathers believed that the right to bear arms was crucial in preventing any re-occurance.
The right to bear arms is among my most closely held beliefs...
...Now I can go do something manly and productive, like go help my wife clean her elderly fathers house...
Thanks for saying so, and fear not. We've got you covered.
Right. It's the 2nd Amendment that protects all of the others.
The term "the people" refers to individuals. This is not debated by our opposition regarding any amendment but the 2nd. Why is that, I wonder?
Actually, it's the 1st amendment that protects all the others.
"The intention of the Second Amendment is not only personal protection, sport "
The Second isn't about "sport" at all.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
