Plaxico Burress Shoots Himself Into The Gun Debate

As you may have heard by now, particularly if you are a pro-football fan, New York Giants receiver Plaxico Burress accidentally shot himself in the leg in a Manhattan nightclub on Friday. While covering the Redskins-Giants game last Sunday, FOX Sports commentator and former NFL defensive tackle Tony Siragusa summed up the situation pretty well: "If you go to a place that you feel you need to carry a gun, the best thing is, stay home."

Or, as NBC's Bob Costas said, "I'd like to have somebody show me one time when an athlete was out in a public place and by having a gun, he either averted harm to himself or other innocent people. Show me one time as against the dozens of times people came to grief for carrying guns."

The comments by Siragusa and Costas make a point not only about common sense, but also about a culture of fear that the gun lobby in this country is constantly trying to generate. The gun pushers want us all to be afraid of one another so we feel the need to carry a semi-automatic pistol every time we leave the house. Apparently Burress felt that way.

Except Burress isn't an ordinary gun owner - and not because of his status as a professional football player. Until this past May, according to reports, he had a valid concealed carry permit from the state of Florida. If we are to believe the gun lobby propaganda, that made Burress the classic "law-abiding citizen" that all Americans should trust to carry a loaded, hidden handgun anywhere, at any time in public - someone who is supposedly educated about the laws regulating where and how he can carry his firearm, and who won't accidentally shoot himself in the leg.

Obviously that wasn't the case.

The gun laws in New York and New Jersey (Burress's reported state of residence) are some of the strongest in the country. They work to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, helping both states rank among the five with the lowest gun death rates in America.

On the other hand, Florida's gun laws are notoriously weak. In just this year alone, according to news reports, Florida concealed carry permit-holders have been charged in at least two murders and a manslaughter; another apparently had an illegal drug record; another was arrested for impersonating a police officer; at least four others shot themselves in gun accidents (here, here, here, and here). These are just published reports. Almost certainly, many more go unreported every month - and not just in Florida.

What these incidents show is that some people who we're led to believe are responsible, law-abiding gun owners - people like Plaxico Burress - can still exhibit dangerous behavior with firearms in public every day. The fact that most gun owners really are responsible, law-abiding citizens only highlights the risk of serious injury or death that a firearm in the wrong hands can cause.

This risk is borne by the public as much as by gun owners themselves, and the Burress incident is just one more example of how a gun kept for protection is often used against its owner instead. Yet the costs of Burress shooting himself are not borne by him alone. His team is also paying the price, in medical costs, media scrutiny and their chances on the playing field.

When it comes to the steady drumbeat of stories about guns in professional sports, John Feinstein wrote an important column in yesterday's Washington Post. While Feinstein's desire to "repeal the Second Amendment" is a nonstarter, another statement of his gets at the same point Tony Siragusa made: "If [Burress] felt he was unsafe going to the New York club two questions arise: Why go there? And, if you think you need protection wherever you go, at $7 million a year [in salary], why not hire bodyguards?"

Rather than put himself, his team, and the public at risk with a gun he didn't know how to handle, in a city that didn't allow him to carry a firearm without a proper license, perhaps Plaxico Burress should have gone somewhere else last Friday night - or just stayed home.

Hopefully, we can all learn a lesson from this - guns are dangerous and gun ownership is a serious responsibility. Any one of us has the potential to make a mistake, get angry, or get drunk, which makes carrying loaded guns in public all the more dangerous for all of us. We all need to understand the risks and responsibilities that go with guns.

(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)

Comments

[ProGunAmerican]

I wonde what the Brady Campaign is going to say when Obama tells them that their agenda is a good year and a half to two years out. With the country in shambles right now, I think gun control is last on the list. Why would he expend political capital right out of the gate on something as controversial as an AWB. The anwswer....he won't.

[djkrlsn]

I tend to agree with you--and hopefully incorporation will be settled by then and Cali's AWB will be gone which will help with stopping the feds

[Toonadude]

Good point Prog UnAmerican. In fact, we probably won't see anything at all done about guns in Obama's first term. He does want to get re-elected ya know. Looking at Bush as a "role model," he was expected to spend his way to re-election in the first term to ensure a second term. The Repug faithful turned a blind eye to it even though spending like a drunken sailor is supposed to be so unRepugnican. They took it in faith that Bush would slash government spending in his second term to deliver on his promise ....... but look what happened .... TWO drunken sailor spending terms. Bush just didn't follow the playbook !!

So maybe Obama will toss the playbook and go two full terms without muttering the phrase gun control.

[djkrlsn]

I agree with you--Bush and the Republicans spent far too much--but the Pelosi/Reid Congress are just as bad--and the Democrats have a far longer history of dirty/machine politics than the donkey party (remember the civil rights legislation in the '60s passed because more Repubs voted for it than Dems--and as an example of the high civil rights standards of the Dems--don't forget Ku Klux Klanner Robert Byrd (and he is not the only Dem to have been in Congress with KKK ties)

[Thirdpower]

Hey, Blago is the second Brady Endorsed Gov. to take a fall this year for corruption.

We all remember NY Gov. Elliot Spitzer, right?

What a fine track record.

[shedances]

I'm not happy for what Gov. Blagojevich is accused of doing (reminds me of the famous quotation that 'power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely'); but I won't bask in his downfall either ... as you seem to be doing here thirdpower.

[fishyjay]

For years, gun control advocates had claimed that pro-gunowner legislators had been "bought" by campaign contributions from gunowner groups.

Thus many gunowners cannot help but comment when it turns out that anti-gunowner legislators were the ones who REALLY were for sale.

[Thirdpower]

I find the whole situation hilarious. I'm also enjoying telling people who voted for him and endorsed him that they're getting what they voted for. I think we all know who I'm talking about, don't we?

Via Amendment II Democrats:

Fast forward to June 9, 2007. Now we find Blagojevich surrounded by the families of people killed by violent criminals - and once again calling for a ban on semi-automatics, denouncing Illinois Speaker of the House Michael Madigan for not allowing a vote on banning "high-capacity" magazines on the House floor. But this time, the venue is different. Blagojevich delivered these remarks while standing outside the Children's Memorial Hospital in Chicago...

...which, as it turns out, is the very same hospital that Federal prosecutors allege was secretly threatened by Blagojevich with a loss of $8 million in state funds, earmarked to reimburse doctors who treated Medicaid patients. The reason? Blagojevich complained that he never received a contribution from hospital CEO Patrick Magoon to the tune of $50,000.

The personification of Il politics. You have to love this guy.

Did you see the press conference with MAIG member Daley? He's scared.

[djkrlsn]

But if Blago had been as staunch a supporter of the 2nd amendment as he is about supporting the gunbanners agenda--you would be proclaiming his dirty downfall to the heavens for the next decade. The fact he actively supports your unconstitutional gunbanning agenda washes away all his dirty dealings in your book

[djkrlsn]

Kelli, Toonadude, BlackJAC--can any of you come up with a valid reason that the 2nd amendment should not be treated like the rest of the BOR. You rightly believe that the rest of the BOR (including the 14th) should be updated to reflect the time (if snailmail needs a warrant so does all electronic communication)--so should the rest of the BOR. Toonadude--in many ways you are as bad as Kelli--she has a major mental block (she seems to attribute magical powers to firearms (anyone who owns one is automatically turned evil) and has a hard time understanding the Heller decision (she likes pretending that the term RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE is so government can arm the military)) because it looks like your primary reasons for posting are a combination of bashing Bush/Cheney/Rove and to irritate the proRKBA folks (I know I support the rest of the BOR--but the 2nd amendment seems to be a red headed stepchild here--namely the right that puts the teeth in the rest of the BOR is the very one that the progressive folks here want to get rid of.)

[djkrlsn]

Has anyone else noticed that the strictest gun control is in the areas with the worst political corruption (or is a relic from a corrupt era (for instance the Sullivan Act was pushed through by an Irish mobster to protect the Irish gangs from the newer Italian and Sicilian gangs/mafioso)--and the last time I checked Chicago and Illi politics can use some serious cleanup.

[shedances]

People don't need a gun with them, in order to be safe, while visiting our national parks.

There are precautions that anyone can & ought to take in order to enhance their personal safety while hiking, camping, etc. (ie., never hiking alone & staying in groups, staying on designated trails & not wandering off, watching for park service postings for any bear sightings/warnings, etc. & take it seriously, not wandering around after dark, keeping a very close eye on youngsters, etc.).

The only thing I shoot with is my camera.

And this behavior has well served both myself & my environment ~ & others, too, for that matter ... no accidental shootings or a child or someone else who shouldn't be getting ahold of a gun to worry about, etc. ~ for a number of years now.

I suspect that some of you pro-gun types just wish to be able to take your guns just about everywhere you fancy. And that is more dangerous, in my view, than the possibility of facing a grizzly bear or a mountain lion.

[djkrlsn]

Kelli--you don't think law abiding citizens need firearms when they are at ground zero of a major riot, crime wave or natural disasters; you also oppose legitimate self defense, keeping violent felons in prison and I would truly be surprised if you don't oppose subsistence hunting and varmint control. In other words Kelli--you have made it clear that you truly do not understand the Second Amendment, crime control or how to form solid workable compromises with reasonable pro RKBA gun owners (of which thirdpower, Tao, benEzra, mike102, sneaky, fishyjay and I all qualify),since your idea of compromise is you make up your ultimate wish list and we are supposed immediately acquiese and give it to you (and no Kelli--bans on common semiauto pistols and carbine (like the AR) are not reasonable to anybody but you).

[EmilyU]

Off topic.

This is about Plaxico. There is another article regarding the national parks issue.

[shedances]

Enjoy that discussion!

[shedances]

Moreover, I believe the guns-in-parks discussion ties in quite well with the issues of ir/responsible use & personal choices/consequences for behaviors involving guns that Paul Helmke highlights in his current ~ & fine ~ blog. Don't you?

[shedances]

And in terms of celebrities & gun violence/safety issues ... did you read the news today of actor Mark Ruffalo's brother dying after being shot in the head?

[benEzra]

Fine. Your state, your rules.

But MY state is now free to make the rules that WE want, instead of having them dictated by legislators from Illinois and California. You have spoken very favorably of home rule in the past, even to the extent of dictating what people could do inside their own homes, so I don't see how you can have a problem with allowing states to set the rules as they have always done for National Forest lands and BLM lands.

And FWIW, I am much less concerned about animals than I am about drug growers and meth makers, which (thanks to drug prohibition) are much more common in a lot of National Parks than grizzlies are. Your CHL-holders-can't-carry rules don't disarm them.

[shedances]

Once more, it just isn't that simple, Ben. But don't take my word for it; read it yourself.

From the news reports: "... Rules in place since the Reagan Administration have allowed visitors to transport guns in national parks and wildlife refuges if they are unloaded and stored or dismantled. These restrictions have made the parks some of the safest places to visit in the country. Yet at the behest of the gun lobby and without any review of the potential impacts on crime or the environment, the Interior Department announced earlier this year that it planned to allow concealed firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges. Concealed carrying would be allowed in every state that allows concealed carrying, even if the state specifically bans the practice in state parks."

And, Paul Helmke's/Brady Campaign's quote sums up this situation well: "The Bush Administration's parting gift for the gun lobby to allow hidden weapons in our parks threatens the safety of these national treasures and those who visit them ... We should not be making it easier for dangerous people to carry firearms in our parks. We urge the proper authorities to use common sense, and stop this senseless rule."

[Ohio9]

"I suspect that some of you pro-gun types just wish to be able to take your guns just about everywhere you fancy."

Sheedances, for once you are telling the truth. I will carry my legal handgun any place where I am legally allowed to do so, and will do everything possibly to ensure that the right to carry a lawfully concealed handgun extends to as many places as possible. I do this because criminals do not give advance notice of when they plan to strike and have no more regard for "gun free zones" then they do for any other law. I do this because I know that anyone who keeps their handgun in proper working condition and follows the basic rules of gun safety will never have a negligent discharge under any circumstance. The four rules are as follows

RULE I: TREAT ALL GUNS AS IF THEY ARE ALWAYS LOADED

RULE II: NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO DESTROY

RULE III: KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOU ARE READY TO FIRE

RULE IV: BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET, WHAT'S IN LINE WITH IT, AND WHAT'S BEHIND IT.

Following these rules will ensure no "accidental shootings" just as much as if you did not have a gun.

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for you to provide some evidence that pro-CCW state parks are less safe then anti-CCW federal parks. What's the hold up? Is if because you can't find any?

[djkrlsn]

2nd posting--Kelli has been given the safety rules before--and besides she knows that gun control is a complete failure--she just doesn't want to admit it to anyone.

[vespasian1]

Bears and mountain lions aren't the only danger in national parks. Two women were found murdered last year at Yosemite. I guess there weren't any rangers around.

http://www.nps.gov/yose/parknews/bonaventura6.htm

[MorgansRifles]

A refreshing point-of-view from the UK Sunday Times.


Think tank: If each of us carried a gun . . .
. . . we could help to combat terrorism

Richard Munday

...For anybody who still believed in it, the Mumbai shootings exposed the myth of "gun control". India had some of the strictest firearms laws in the world, going back to the Indian Arms Act of 1878, by which Britain had sought to prevent a recurrence of the Indian Mutiny. ..

...The Mumbai massacre also exposed the myth that arming the police force guarantees security. Sebastian D"Souza, a picture editor on the Mumbai Mirror who took some of the dramatic pictures of the assault on the Chhatrapati Shivaji railway station, was angered to find India"s armed police taking cover and apparently failing to engage the gunmen...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article5299010.ece

Michael

[shedances]

I read something similar to that opinion too; and I don't agree with it at all. The Mumbai massacre isn't a failing of gun control; it's a harsh reality of terrorism & intolerance & an increasingly violent world we all live in. Places in Africa, for example, where people such as kids are armed aren't safer than India, which follows the British system.

[djkrlsn]

Kelli--you never agree with studies showing private ownership of firearms in a good or positive light, and of yet you have yet to show any valid proof of your position (BTW Kelli--the usual BC/VPC/Joyce Foundation swill does not qualify). You also choose to ignore the salient fact that terrorists and criminals try to choose locations where the chances of effective resistance are decreased (in other words they choose a hotel/train/school where they can be reasonably sure no one is armed as opposed to locations where a goodly chunk of the people are armed (a small town Texas cafe where most of the diners not only have handguns with them, but rifles in their trucks is a piss poor place to do something stupidly criminal--because you will not only get shot--but thrown in jail (do not pass go, do not collect $200)

[blueman55]

The idea the the police will always be there and people can abdicate their responsibility for their own safety is a sick joke.

A lot of those "elite" police officers in Mumbai didn't even know how to shoot straight.

[Sneaky]

Terrorism requires opportunity (it is exceedingly rare that acts of terrorism committed against hardened targets), and "a... violent world" is an observed effect, not a cause. Mumbai occurred because there were too few, too poorly-armed, and too poorly-trained police when the shooting started, because the Pakistani government provided the terrorists with enough weapons for the perpetrators to effectively cache them around the city, and because Mumbai was itself a very soft target.

The "Mumbai Massacre" would not pan out that way in America, for several reasons. First, terrorists have learned first hand that you don't win shootouts with Americans; that's why bombings against American targets have skyrocketed and shootings plummeted. Our cops are much better armed and trained, have MUCH better communications and response speed. In areas of stricter gun control (which tend to also have higher crime rates), the police are even better at responding to active shooter threats because they get more practice. In areas of less-strict gun control (which tend to have lower crime rates), there is a much greater likelihood that someone is going to be armed who isn't police. Our image around the world as "a gun on every hip" actually makes us a harder target for active shooter threats.

But what do I know. I'm just a college-age research student who carries a gun out of school because, hey, you never know, and I could be wrong.

[shedances]

When Pres. Bush finally leaves office, I suspect a lot of people will be happy to close ~ and lock ~ the door after him! Right 'til the very end, it seems, the Bush administration continues to make one rotten decision after another ... this time, in terms of being swayed, at the last, by the arguably-bad politics of the NRA & thus, ignoring the safety of visitors & employees (as protecting natural resources & wildlife) in our beautiful national parks. I hope the park service is successful in challenging & eventually overturning this latest Bush act.

[EmilyU]

All of which has what to do the with article above?

[shedances]

Remember the terms 'current news'? Been a long time, eh (LOL).

[djkrlsn]

Kelli--so far the only thing that gunfree zones have succeeded in becoming is criminal empowerment zones--so why are you pushing for more of them? Your opponents have already established that criminals like gunfree zones because that means they have many vunerable victims because people like you have disarmed them.

[benEzra]

You mean the same Bush who supports the Brady Campaign's silly ban on protruding rifle handgrips?

The same Bush who introduced the Brady-Campaign-backed proposal to revoke the gun rights of anyone his administration secretly blacklists?

Half of U.S. gun owners are Dems and indies, including me. I have criticized both Bushes (W and H.W.) on civil liberties grounds, and will continue to do so.

[mike102]

"thus, ignoring the safety of visitors & employees (as protecting natural resources & wildlife) in our beautiful national parks. "

You're an alarmist and scaremongerer. How is this going to make people unsafe? Gun-free zones are unsafe.

Furthermore, people don't want to carry guns in national parks to shoot the animals. They want to carry them for protection.

[djkrlsn]

I don't know about you, but I tend to worry about the 2 legged predators more than the 4 legged ones--but I recognized that Kelli has never found a gun she approves of (not even water or rubberband guns)

[Tao21Zen]

Many National Parks, like a lot of "gun free zones", are surrounded by areas that already have concealed carry in place. You don't see concealed carry making coffee shops, movie theaters, supermarkets, etc. in these surrounding areas any less safe.

However, when the idea is raised of allowing the same people that already lawfully carry in these places without making these places any less safe, to step into somewhere that is labeled a "gun free zone", the anti-gun crowd mantra is to claim that these areas will all of a sudden become 'death zones'.

This is laughable, at best.

[Ohio9]

Shedances, dozens of State Parks across the nation allow CCW holders to carry their guns into them. Do you have any evidence those State Parks that allow CCW are less safe then federal parks that do not? Are there any major gun crimes involving legally carried weapons in state parks that you can bring up without doing hours of research?

If you are so afraid of lawful citizens carrying their lawful guns into parks, then you can just stay home and leave the rest of us safe and sound.

[fishyjay]

Ohio9: "Do you have any evidence those State Parks that allow CCW are less safe then federal parks that do not?"

http://www.adn.com/outdoors/story/614608.html From the article:

Some former employees of the National Park Service, along with park advocates, were Friday expressing dismay about a Bush administration decision to allow people to carry concealed weapons -- where permitted by state laws -- in national parks and refuges.

But park service officials in Alaska didn't appear particularly concerned.

"We've had guns in the ANILCA parks since 1980 with no real troubles," noted Alaska region spokesman John Quinley. The legislation creating the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, or ANILCA, parks has always allowed for guns to be carried.

[shedances]

Are you saying those places are either as/more safe than parks which prohibit guns? No. I don't buy that argument. Just the presence of weapons increases the likelihood of these being used. Don't bring the guns, and they can't be discharged in a way that hurts or kills another or harms wildlife or negatively impacts the environment, Nature (which people come from all over the world to see & enjoy), etc.

[vespasian1]

" we give ourselves a Constitutional right to have 'em all (even our civilian version AK-47s, that weren't around at the time the 2nd Amendment was conceived of, or written).' shedances

I have to agree with Emily, and others, that this is probably the most absurd argument presented by the anti-gun side. I see it occasionally on other anti-gun blogs as well, and it's the dumbest thing I ever heard.

Do you honestly think that the founders were so stupid and short-sighted that they believed the Brown Bess musket was as far as firearms tech. would ever advance?

Firearms technology was advancing during their own lifetimes. When Ben Franklin was a boy, the flintlock was a new advance. Later in the 18th century, riflling came along. During the Revolution, a British army colonel invented a successful breach-loading rifle. The French were trying to develop the first practical revolver.

I am surprised at you Kelli, for even trying to resort to such a lame argument.

[shedances]

This may be splitting hairs; but modernity (as in firearms/weapons technology, etc.) doesn't necessarily equal a "right" ... constitutional or otherwise. I'm sorry you progun folks fail to see this.

[benEzra]

Of course it doesn't. The salient point is, of course, that it doesn't invalidate the right either, just as improvements in printing press and broadcast technology do not mean the First Amendment doesn't apply to those mediums.

There ARE limits, of course; civilian gun capability was frozen by the National Firearms Act of 1934, which de facto limits civilian guns to non-automatic, non-sound-suppressed firearms under .51 caliber. Lever-actions, bolt-actions, revolvers, and semiautomatics were deemed appropriate for civilian use, whereas automatics, explosives, and cut-down rifles and shotguns were restricted. No one is seriously trying to overturn that.

What I, and most gun owners, wish to do is PRESERVE that compromise. I want to retain the right to lawfully purchase, own, use, and maintain currently legal non-automatic, non-sound-suppressed NFA Title 1 civilian firearms.

The Brady Campaign's attempts to outlaw protruding rifle handgrips and ergonomic rifle/shotgun stocks, mandate 1860's style magazine capacities, move the rifle caliber limit from .50 down into the .40's or .30's, etc. are all attempts to undermine that long-established compromise. And since those features are pretty much irrelevant to gun violence in the USA, the underlying motive is to screw responsible gun owners.

[fishyjay]

shedances: This may be splitting hairs; but modernity (as in firearms/weapons technology, etc.) doesn't necessarily equal a "right" ... constitutional or otherwise.

Unless, of course, the US Supreme Court has ruled on the matter:

"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35-36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

Worth reading again: "We do not interpret constitutional rights that way."

[djkrlsn]

2nd posting--but modernity DOES NOT NEGATE THAT RIGHT no matter how much Kelli wants it to. Both Heller and Miller makes it abundantly clear that revolvers, semiauto pistols, rifles, carbines, shotguns and all other commonly used firearms are protected. Yes Kelli--that means that the ARs, AKs, SKSs, and all other common firearms are constitutionally protected whether you approve of the styling, civilian ownership of that style rifle or not. FYI Kelli--building a bridge does not mean that you can demand everything you can possibly dream of and expect people to give it to you.

[vespasian1]

So you're going to stick to the ridiculous notion that the founders were so muddleheaded that they meant for the Second Amendment ony to apply to front-stuffing, single shot weapons, because that's what existed at the time?

Shame on you. You regularly insult the intelligence of the readers of this blog, but now you are implying that the founders were mindless droids also; even those with scientific backgrounds, like Franklin (an inventor himself) and Jefferson (perhaps the most forward-thinking of the founders)?

In my experience, those who automatically assume that others are less intelligent than they, are generally not the sharpest 'knives in the drawer' themselves.

This argument that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the weapons of the day is so utterly ridiculous, that I hardly have the words to describe how just plain dumb it is. I would give serious consideration to dropping it like a bad habit, if I were you.

[EmilyU]

Arms is a generic term which would include firearms, even modern ones.

Again, applying your logic, TV, radio, telephones, computers, the Internet, modern newspaper printing presses, etc. would not be covered by the First Amendment.

Sorry you fail to understand that.

[Indubio]

Conservatives who support the purported Second Amendment right to bear arms want to have it both ways: They often demand strict Constitutional interpretations, with many arguing the document must be interpreted as it was understood in 1789. Many of these same people reject Kelli's argument: The Founders never expected 30-shoot magazines/automatic and semiautomatic weapons suggesting the Founders expected advances in weapons technology and never intended to restrict gun possession. Conservatives can't have it both ways: Either the Constitution is a living document subject to periodic reinterpretation or it's dead that must be interpreted as it was written; if subject to reinterpretation, then a reasonable person might conclude semiautomatic/automatic firearms should be outlawed; if dead,strict constructionists must argue any rapid fire weapons are illegal because they didn't exist in 1789. There is nothing inherently 'lame' with Kelli's argument. You might ask yourself where you stand in this constitutional argument. If you support the strict constructionist faction most of the time, then, at best, you're as much of a hypocrite on Second Amendment issues as these historically and logically challenged justices.

[djkrlsn]

Indubio--would you be willing to accept the BC/ Kelli style restrictions on the rest of the BOR that they want to impose on the 2nd amendment? Is it acceptable to you that the only forms of communication that are protected were those that were in existence in 1790 (the only speech allowed being the human voice, the only acceptable writing available being quill pen and the Guttenberg presss). If you demand that modern speech and communication is protected, police need warrants to tap your phones/email etc--then I have the right to modern firearms.

[vespasian1]

"The Founders never expected 30-shoot magazines/automatic and semiautomatic weapons"

Well that's odd, because Leonardo da Vinci did, back in the early 16th century. And how do you know what the Founders expected? Weapons technology, including firearms tech. had been advancing since the dawn of time. So, I think you're wrong again.

"The Founders never expected 30-shoot magazines/automatic and semiautomatic weapons suggesting the Founders expected advances in weapons technology"

Did you mean to contradict yourself here, or did you mistype?

And why are you harping about conservatives? Many of us here, and nearly half of gun-owners in general (including myself), are liberal leaning Democrats or independents.

[djkrlsn]

Indubio--are you willing to accept the same restrictions on the rest of the BOR that Kelli wants to impose on the 2nd amendment (no telephones, computers, typewriters, telegraph, PA systems--and if you have them--the police can tap/read these communications without warrant?)

[EmilyU]

You confuse understanding the original intent with changes in technology. The two are not at odds.

[Newt]

Apples to apples then. Besides the fact that there are more than just textual/orignial meaning/original intent readings of the constitution, lets apply the same standard:

Why do liberals demand an expansive reading of all of the Constitution while demanding the narrowest reading of the Second Amendment?

Do you agree with Roe v. Wade? It elucidated an unenumerated right from the penumbra of the Constitution (14th). Most liberals are ok with such and expansive view of rights not codified. They would say the same about First, Fourth, Fifth Amendments. And yet take such a narrow reading of the Second when neither history nor most of the methods for interpreting the constitution support that reading. So unenumerated rights exist, but there are reductions on enumerated rights based on what?

Further, your argument would have severe First Amendment right limitations based on construction. Should the internet not be protected as the original intent/meaning of the framers never envisioned these things?

And finally, WHY would a reasonable person conclude under living constitution reading, that firearms you discuss should be outlawed? Even the CDC concluded that gun laws don't reduce violent crime. Most of the social science is not on your side. Don't you find that there is a need for conclusive evidence when choosing to reduce rights as a matter of policy?

But really, if you support Roe, or expansive views of the First Amendment, aren't you equally the hypocrite when you take such a narrow view of an enumerated right?

[Indubio]

The same intellectually bankrupt justices who made the aforementioned statement argue that the Constitution must be interpreted as it was written: This is called strict constructionism. So, following their second amendment argument, may we assume that when these justices employ strict constructionist arguments they are full of crap?

[benEzra]

Believing that the Constitution means what it says does not mean that the Constitution protects ONLY those forms of speech, press, arms, and privacy that existed in 1791.

Why? Because the Constitution doesn't say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms designed before 1791 shall not be infringed." It does not say "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religions that predate 1791" or "Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of the press unless the press is not hand cranked." Nowhere does it limit the freedoms it protects to the way those freedoms were practiced in 1791.

As the Court pointed out, we simply do not read the Constitution that way.

If we did, then Roe v. Wade would only protect methods of abortion available in 1791. Would you support that, too?

[vespasian1]

"The same intellectually bankrupt justices who made the aforementioned statement argue that the Constitution must be interpreted as it was written: This is called strict constructionism."

Wrong. The Supreme Court allowed for "reasonable restrictions". The second amendment doesn't say one word about restrictrions of any kind.

[shedances]

News story after news story ~ about people accidentally or intentionally being shot (& not just adults but kids very young, too; just recall the 8 yr. old who was taught to use a gun by his father & who then allegedly shot to death both his dad & another man, etc.) ~ and all the gunrights types here can say is 'well, don't blame the guns ... we love our guns ... we sleep with our guns ... & we give ourselves a Constitutional right to have 'em all (even our civilian version AK-47s, that weren't around at the time the 2nd Amendment was conceived of, or written).' And, I wonder: Could the gun extremists/gun lobby supporters manage to care any less about the huge costs both to our society & to various communities in terms of (possibly preventable) injuries &/or deaths from guns?

[Ohio9]

What about the huge costs of NOT having a gun? We saw the results of that in India, which allowed a small group of no more then 25 people to inflict almost 500 deaths and injuries! All because the victims had no way to fight back.

And what of the police? How did they perform? Not very well, as it turns out:

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/article14086308.ece

"There were armed policemen hiding all around the station but none of them did anything," he said. "At one point, I ran up to them and told them to use their weapons. I said, 'Shoot them, they're sitting ducks!' but they just didn't shoot back."

"I told some policemen the gunmen had moved towards the rear of the station but they refused to follow them. What is the point if having policemen with guns if they refuse to use them? I only wish I had a gun rather than a camera."

Perhaps we should use a new slogan: Guns don't kill people, gun control does.

[djkrlsn]

Of course Kelli--you choose to completely ignore the huge cost of gun free zones where the only people that have guns are criminals--places like Virginia Tech, NIU, the Long Island train massacre, Columbine, Washington DC, Chicago, NYC, and to a lesser extent Los Angeles.

[Thirdpower]

And yet you oppose increased penalties for violent criminals.

[benEzra]

Your "civilian version AK-47's" (sic) not only kill far fewer people than .38 revolvers, they kill far fewer than baseball bats, shoes, knives, bathtubs, swimming pools, and bicycles.

It doesn't appear that you "could care any less" about criminal violence, since all you complain about is the lawful ownership of the least-misused guns. It's responsible gun owners who really bother you, not your local criminal with the .357 in his waistband.

If you care about gun violence, work to address that, and not lawful and responsible ownership. But deep down, I don't think that's what you really care about.

[Ohio9]

"we give ourselves a Constitutional right to have 'em all (even our civilian version AK-47s, that weren't around at the time the 2nd Amendment was conceived of, or written)."

So does this mean the fourth amendment no longer prevents police from searching private homes without a warrant? After all, most private homes we have now were not around back then either.

When you think about it, if you were to say the constitution doesn't apply to anything that wasn't around back when it was written, then the bill of rights would pretty much have no meaning.

[djkrlsn]

Last time I checked--the proRKBA people gave ourselves nothing--we are just demanding the logical interpretation of the right to keep and bear arms that the 2nd amendment protects--since it is the M16s, milspec AKs, FNFALs/Steyr AUGs/Berettas/1911s/ Garands/SKSs/shotguns/handguns and other semiauto and bolt action rifles that the individual soldier in the military uses, those are the weapons we are entiltled to own in addition to all our sporting arms. From what I can tell--Kelli does not even approve of archery equipment, slings/slingshots, spears, knives, swords and axes.

[1will]

There have been literally millions of concealed carry permits issued nationwide and Paul could only come up with a handful of instance where CCW (concealed carry weapon in my state) holders broke the law. That's sad. Statisticaly as a group, those with concealed carry permits are more law abiding than police officers and if someone does loose his/her permit it's due to misdemeanors such as failing to pay child support or traffic violations.

http://www.guncite.com

[Thirdpower]

Here's the current FL stats:

# 1,408,907 licenses have been issued.
# 533,181 of those are current and active.
# 166 have been revoked due to a gun-related crime. ...

Even if you include all 3716 that have been revoked, that .027% .

A larger percentage of Million Mom March Chapter Presidents commit crimes.

[research]

A tazer would have been a good alternative, particularly with drinks.

Gun Control:

Hitler was for it

Gandhi was vehemently against it.

Gandhi:

"I used to issue leaflets asking people to enlist as recruits. One of the arguments I had used was distasteful to the Commissioner: 'Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity.

If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial,

distrust will disappear, and the

ban on possessing arms will be

withdrawn.'

http://www.mkgandhi.org/autobio/chap151.htm

Plenty of us Liberals defend the 2nd amendment for it's deterrence to tyrants, not just for self defense and hunting.

[HisXLNC]

The homicide rate for NFL players is 188 for every 100,000. The homicide rate for the general population is 5.9 for every 100,000.

I can see why Plaxico would carry a gun.

[djkrlsn]

good reason for preferentially disarming professional athletes compared to the American population at large, same thing with professional basketballers--since IIRCC, they also have a far higher crime rate than the regular population

[dwedge]

It'll be interesting to see if the NRA jumps in here to defend his right to bear arms.

[Thirdpower]

Why would they? Not only did he break the law, he was practicing unsafe handling.

[Toonadude]

Then the NRA should condemn Burress for his actions. Just like they did Cheney for [hic] that little incident involving Whittington in [hic] Texas.

[djkrlsn]

I am an NRA member and view Plaxico as a stupid jerk that needs to start working for a living at a real job (and no--professional sports (while extremely lucrative) are not a real job).

[EmilyU]

Why should they? He violated several laws. Even if he were not in the very restrictive NYC, he would have been in violation of several laws.

His firearm was not registered when it should have been.

He was illegally carrying concealed.

He was carrying concealed in an establishment which primarily served alcohol (many concealed carry rules prohibit carrying in establishments which primarly serve alcohol).

[Tao21Zen]

Does anyone else find it hypocritical the way the anti-gun say high crime rates in places with lax gun laws (oddly enough, always urban areas) are due to the those law gun laws but at the same time say that high crime rates in places with the strictest gun laws have nothing to do with their strict gun laws? How about the way they completely ignore the the areas of country that have some of the lowest crime rates and very lax gun laws?

This is what psychology calls a "confirmation bias." They seek out information that confirms a preconceived belief while completely ignoring any information or evidence to the contrary.

[Thirdpower]

It's the same as them screaming about preemption stopping more 'gun control' laws but then supporting preemption to overrule locales w/ less restrictive laws as well as Federal laws overriding state and local laws.

[Tao21Zen]

And they way the only respect "State's Rights to legislate their own laws" when it is an anti-gun laws being legislated by the state. Otherwise, they are trying to over rule states that pass pro-gun laws or won't pass their desired anti-gun laws by getting their anti-gun agenda passed at the federal level through federal anti-gun laws.

[Rep/Dem both suck]

I think some people have never lived in the poor inner city, if they did, they would realize that gun bans simply do not work, and that they only hurt law abiding citizens. I was lucky and moved out of my old neighborhood, but if I still lived there, I would definitely gotten registered for a gun, as quickly as I got registered to vote. Espicially since on my last job there, I was robbed at gunpoint.