HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » New Yorker magazine has a...

Sat Apr 21, 2012, 08:30 PM

New Yorker magazine has an interesting article about history of 2nd amendment, NRA and gun control

Lots of interesting history about gun control and 2nd amendment in this article. I recommend reading it. Gun nuts please respond with a little personal history about when you got worked up about right to "Bear Arms" and where did that concealed carry thing start up from?

Really interested and hearing about your personal history with guns and the NRA. Does anyone remember the Cincinnati thing?

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/04/23/120423fa_fact_lepore

Thanks for a little thoughtfulness. Please read the article before going off on me.

183 replies, 27777 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 183 replies Author Time Post
Reply New Yorker magazine has an interesting article about history of 2nd amendment, NRA and gun control (Original post)
rgbecker Apr 2012 OP
DrDan Apr 2012 #1
rgbecker Apr 2012 #2
Riftaxe Apr 2012 #4
The Wielding Truth Apr 2012 #3
Hoyt Apr 2012 #8
Clames Apr 2012 #5
rgbecker Apr 2012 #7
Clames Apr 2012 #14
discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2012 #16
Hoyt Apr 2012 #9
Clames Apr 2012 #11
AH1Apache Apr 2012 #32
AH1Apache Apr 2012 #30
Riftaxe Apr 2012 #22
Logical Apr 2012 #6
The Wielding Truth Apr 2012 #23
safeinOhio Apr 2012 #33
Atypical Liberal Apr 2012 #40
safeinOhio Apr 2012 #50
Atypical Liberal Apr 2012 #54
PavePusher Apr 2012 #56
safeinOhio Apr 2012 #68
gejohnston Apr 2012 #69
safeinOhio Apr 2012 #67
Atypical Liberal Apr 2012 #70
gejohnston Apr 2012 #71
safeinOhio Apr 2012 #72
AH1Apache Apr 2012 #73
safeinOhio Apr 2012 #80
gejohnston Apr 2012 #75
safeinOhio Apr 2012 #81
gejohnston Apr 2012 #82
safeinOhio Apr 2012 #85
gejohnston Apr 2012 #88
safeinOhio Apr 2012 #96
gejohnston Apr 2012 #98
safeinOhio Apr 2012 #108
gejohnston Apr 2012 #113
GreenStormCloud Apr 2012 #79
safeinOhio Apr 2012 #87
GreenStormCloud Apr 2012 #89
gejohnston Apr 2012 #90
safeinOhio Apr 2012 #94
gejohnston Apr 2012 #95
safeinOhio Apr 2012 #97
gejohnston Apr 2012 #99
safeinOhio Apr 2012 #107
gejohnston Apr 2012 #111
GreenStormCloud Apr 2012 #100
safeinOhio Apr 2012 #109
GreenStormCloud Apr 2012 #112
gejohnston Apr 2012 #114
Clames Apr 2012 #10
Hoyt Apr 2012 #12
Clames Apr 2012 #13
AH1Apache Apr 2012 #31
rgbecker Apr 2012 #35
shadowrider Apr 2012 #36
AH1Apache Apr 2012 #37
Hoyt Apr 2012 #46
Clames Apr 2012 #52
Hoyt Apr 2012 #53
Clames Apr 2012 #60
Hoyt Apr 2012 #61
Clames Apr 2012 #105
rl6214 Apr 2012 #115
gejohnston Apr 2012 #116
Union Scribe Apr 2012 #165
Hoyt Apr 2012 #167
iverglas Apr 2012 #83
rl6214 Apr 2012 #117
iverglas Apr 2012 #120
gejohnston Apr 2012 #122
iverglas Apr 2012 #123
gejohnston Apr 2012 #125
iverglas Apr 2012 #126
gejohnston Apr 2012 #131
iverglas Apr 2012 #134
gejohnston Apr 2012 #135
iverglas Apr 2012 #140
rl6214 Apr 2012 #146
iverglas Apr 2012 #148
Clames Apr 2012 #152
Clames Apr 2012 #121
iverglas Apr 2012 #124
Clames Apr 2012 #127
iverglas Apr 2012 #128
Clames Apr 2012 #130
discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2012 #15
Logical Apr 2012 #20
discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2012 #28
Logical Apr 2012 #29
discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2012 #45
Logical Apr 2012 #48
discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2012 #49
rl6214 Apr 2012 #118
Logical Apr 2012 #119
rl6214 Apr 2012 #147
RegieRocker Apr 2012 #17
PavePusher Apr 2012 #21
RegieRocker Apr 2012 #156
PavePusher Apr 2012 #159
RegieRocker Apr 2012 #168
PavePusher Apr 2012 #169
RegieRocker Apr 2012 #170
PavePusher Apr 2012 #172
RegieRocker Apr 2012 #176
PavePusher Apr 2012 #177
RegieRocker May 2012 #182
PavePusher May 2012 #183
gejohnston Apr 2012 #178
RegieRocker May 2012 #181
gejohnston Apr 2012 #18
rgbecker Apr 2012 #106
gejohnston Apr 2012 #110
mvccd1000 Apr 2012 #19
Atypical Liberal Apr 2012 #24
Logical Apr 2012 #27
Atypical Liberal Apr 2012 #38
GoneOffShore Apr 2012 #41
PavePusher Apr 2012 #55
Callisto32 Apr 2012 #76
GoneOffShore Apr 2012 #144
gejohnston Apr 2012 #77
rgbecker Apr 2012 #34
Atypical Liberal Apr 2012 #39
sarisataka Apr 2012 #25
shadowrider Apr 2012 #26
rgbecker Apr 2012 #42
Atypical Liberal Apr 2012 #58
rgbecker Apr 2012 #63
Atypical Liberal Apr 2012 #78
melm00se Apr 2012 #86
rgbecker Apr 2012 #101
iverglas Apr 2012 #129
gejohnston Apr 2012 #132
melm00se Apr 2012 #136
gejohnston Apr 2012 #137
melm00se Apr 2012 #138
iverglas Apr 2012 #143
iverglas Apr 2012 #142
gejohnston Apr 2012 #149
iverglas Apr 2012 #151
gejohnston Apr 2012 #153
iverglas Apr 2012 #154
gejohnston Apr 2012 #155
beevul Apr 2012 #157
sarisataka Apr 2012 #158
iverglas Apr 2012 #139
Atypical Liberal Apr 2012 #43
discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2012 #47
GoneOffShore Apr 2012 #51
Atypical Liberal Apr 2012 #57
Marengo Apr 2012 #65
Starboard Tack Apr 2012 #44
pipoman Apr 2012 #59
rgbecker Apr 2012 #62
Marengo Apr 2012 #64
pipoman Apr 2012 #66
rgbecker Apr 2012 #74
Union Scribe Apr 2012 #166
iverglas Apr 2012 #84
GreenStormCloud Apr 2012 #91
gejohnston Apr 2012 #92
iverglas Apr 2012 #104
Clames Apr 2012 #133
iverglas Apr 2012 #141
Clames Apr 2012 #145
rl6214 Apr 2012 #150
Remmah2 Apr 2012 #161
rl6214 Apr 2012 #164
Xela Apr 2012 #93
iverglas Apr 2012 #102
Remmah2 Apr 2012 #160
iverglas Apr 2012 #162
Remmah2 Apr 2012 #163
rgbecker Apr 2012 #103
Tuesday Afternoon Apr 2012 #171
PavePusher Apr 2012 #173
Electric Monk Apr 2012 #174
sarisataka Apr 2012 #175
Electric Monk Apr 2012 #179
PavePusher Apr 2012 #180

Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sat Apr 21, 2012, 08:57 PM

1. to "bare" arms has to do with the first amendment -

the Second Amendment issue is the right to to "bear" arms

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 21, 2012, 09:07 PM

2. LOL!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 21, 2012, 09:59 PM

4. So that grizzly LAR i had

qualifies under the 2nd then?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sat Apr 21, 2012, 09:55 PM

3. It's an informative read. Thanks for posting.

From independence from England to "Go shoot someone. It's okay".Sponsored by the NRA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Wielding Truth (Reply #3)

Sat Apr 21, 2012, 10:51 PM

8. That's definitely a good way to put it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sat Apr 21, 2012, 10:12 PM

5. I recommend...

 

...you figure out how to use labels other than "gun nuts" if you really desire civil discussion. Otherwise you just prove you have no interest in this topic. Thoughtfulness, you should try that...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #5)

Sat Apr 21, 2012, 10:15 PM

7. How about gun lovers?

Pick your own label.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Reply #7)

Sat Apr 21, 2012, 11:33 PM

14. Pro-Civil Rights...

 

...if you please

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #14)

Sat Apr 21, 2012, 11:40 PM

16. My personal favorites are...

...pro-rights vs. pro-control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #5)

Sat Apr 21, 2012, 10:53 PM

9. Like "gun grabbers" promotes discussion. What apt characterization works for you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #9)

Sat Apr 21, 2012, 11:15 PM

11. I'm not as apt...

 

...to assign labels unlike you Hoyt. Don't you have other things to worry about, say somebody strapping things on and going into public...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #11)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 09:49 AM

32. Also detaining people he suspects of carrying a firearm so he can check their papers

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #9)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 09:44 AM

30. Hey Hoyt

 

got those links yet?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #5)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 03:08 AM

22. Well mindlessly labeling human beings has worked so well over the years

At least he is in good company , besides it has to be less work then thinking. It saves that step of painful cognitive awareness where you realize you are certainly *not* the center of the universe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sat Apr 21, 2012, 10:15 PM

6. Interesting part about the NRA paying "scholars" to publish 2nd amendment papers. n-t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #6)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 05:03 AM

23. Yep. It's corruption and twisted conservatives playing facist games to preserve corp. power.

Truly disgusting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #6)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 09:56 AM

33. Right wingers push lots of pro-rights

issues that have little to do with the Constitution or what the Founding Fathers meant. The 2nd does state "the people", not every person. Now we have people thinking that it is a civil right. Then all this gets even better when the same right-wing scholars push the 1st Amendment to equate money with speech. So, now, by the same logic, Foreign countries have a 1st Amendment Right to donate large sums of money into American politics. Have yet to hear our local neo-civil rights experts on the 2nd push for this extension of the 1st. It's only a matter of time.
Then the message becomes individual restrictions on the possession of handguns in public is a restriction on minorities, meaning urban Black folks. The same people that push this idea bemoan the fact that those same minorities elect urban mayors, that follow their constituents wishes to reduce the number of handguns on the streets of their own cities. They are all for civil rights, except when it comes to self governance of minorities. They are all for the right of self defense, just not self governance. Can't have it both ways. If you think Scalia and company are the true defenders of the 2nd, you just about have to agree with them on the 1st.
I'm more in favor of state and local restrictions. What works in Bum Fuck Texas, may not be appropriate or work in NY city or other large, high density urban areas.
I'm more willing to look at gun rights and the Second Amendment as varying shades of gray, not black and white. The zealots on both sides seem to have problems with the nuance of laws and rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #33)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 01:02 PM

40. "The people" is every person.

 

The 2nd does state "the people", not every person. Now we have people thinking that it is a civil right.

Name one right that the people can exercise that individuals cannot also exercise.

Then all this gets even better when the same right-wing scholars push the 1st Amendment to equate money with speech. So, now, by the same logic, Foreign countries have a 1st Amendment Right to donate large sums of money into American politics. Have yet to hear our local neo-civil rights experts on the 2nd push for this extension of the 1st. It's only a matter of time.

Not sure what this has to do with the second amendment, but anyway, I am strongly against corporate personhood and it is one of the reasons I am active in the Occupy movement.

Corporate money should not equal speech. I have no problem with groups of people unionizing together and contributing and pooling their money as individuals to further a cause, but I have a big problem with corporations having this same right, because invariably they have massive treasuries that give them a far, far, far more powerful voice than the people could ever have.

If corporations want speech, then the people that belong to that corporation, and its shareholders, can all individually exercise their free speech.

What works in Bum Fuck Texas, may not be appropriate or work in NY city or other large, high density urban areas

I reject this notion as being hugely paternalistic. Basically what you are saying is that the people in urban areas just can't be trusted with firearms the way people in Bum Fuck Texas can. That is hugely insulting.

The crime rates that are common in big urban areas (with strict gun control, I might add) are not due to large populations of mythical savage, uncivilized minorities unable to responsibly own guns. It's because urban areas have extreme poverty, poor schools, few opportunities, and attract an active drug trade which seem to provide an opportunity out of poverty.

Moreover, the right of self-defense should not be up for a vote, any more than women's suffrage should be up for a vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #40)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 09:43 PM

50. Way to put words in my mouth

"I reject this notion as being hugely paternalistic. Basically what you are saying is that the people in urban areas just can't be trusted with firearms the way people in Bum Fuck Texas can. That is hugely insulting."

That is the opposite of what I said. I think the radical gun rights folks that post on this forum feel pretty paternalistic in their complaints about urban mayors that were elected by the PEOPLE. Be it NY, Chicago or DC, I've never heard a good word about them and guess what, those folks elected them. They, as a group, tend to support more regulations on handguns because that is what the people that elected them support. If not, they would not have voted for them.

The right of self-defense is not the problem. It's the availability of handguns. Laws about the sale of unregistered handguns and possession by criminals can well be voted on by the elections of mayors that support what the majority feel would be safe. There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment that would prohibit the registration of and requirement of mandatory background checks on sales of handguns. In fact the wording, "well regulated", almost calls out for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #50)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 11:40 PM

54. Here are your words:

 

Way to put words in my mouth


That is the opposite of what I said.


Here is what you said:

What works in Bum Fuck Texas, may not be appropriate or work in NY city or other large, high density urban areas

Now why would what works in Bum Fuck Texas not work in NY City or other high-density urban area? Why can't the people of NY City responsibly own firearms just like they do in Bum Fuck Texas?

The implication is that they can't, and I reject that. They can. The difference between Bum Fuck Texas and New York City is not the ability of the people living there, it is the huge gang and drug presence. Gun control isn't going to do anything to affect that any more than drug prohibition does.

I think the radical gun rights folks that post on this forum feel pretty paternalistic in their complaints about urban mayors that were elected by the PEOPLE. Be it NY, Chicago or DC, I've never heard a good word about them and guess what, those folks elected them. They, as a group, tend to support more regulations on handguns because that is what the people that elected them support. If not, they would not have voted for them.

Should the people of California be able to vote away the rights of gay people to get married, as they did with Proposition 8? It's what the voters wanted, right?

The right of self-defense is not the problem. It's the availability of handguns.

Actually, it's drugs that is the problem. I bet you 80% or more of the firearm-related crime in these urban areas is gang and/or drug related.

Laws about the sale of unregistered handguns and possession by criminals can well be voted on by the elections of mayors that support what the majority feel would be safe. There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment that would prohibit the registration of and requirement of mandatory background checks on sales of handguns. In fact the wording, "well regulated", almost calls out for it.

Except it is the militias that were supposed to be well-regulated, not the people.

But that is academic. MacDonald vs. Chicago incorporated the second to the states, which greatly limits how much the states are going to be able to infringe on the individual right to keep and bear arms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #54)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 12:11 AM

56. Not to mention the implied regional bigotry......

 

Seriously, Bum Fuck, Texas? Why not Bum Fuck, New York or California or Maryland?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #56)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 10:04 AM

68. The implied regional bigotry

on your side about Black people electing mayors escapes you? I don't see any civil rights marches in large cities protesting the lack of guns. When that happens you can start using your ALEC talking point about gun legislation being anti-minority.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #68)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 10:39 AM

69. I think you missed the point

In the cities you have your choice of anti-gun Republican or anti-gun Democrat. It would be interesting if someone who was moderately pro-gun or agnostic were to run.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #54)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 10:00 AM

67. Thanks for all of the ALEC talking points

" MacDonald vs. Chicago incorporated the second to the states, which greatly limits how much the states are going to be able to infringe on the individual right to keep and bear arms."
Same Justices that decided Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Also changed 200 years of court decisions on a settled matter on what is speech.

Back to the article, now how much did ALEC and the NRA spend on right wing think tanks to come up with all of those talking points?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #67)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 10:58 AM

70. Um, you're welcome?

 

These are my opinions. If someone else happened to be correct, I'm not surprised.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #67)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 10:59 AM

71. Actually they didn't

Citizens United was the logical extension of earlier corporate person-hood decisions. It upheld other shitty decisions. Or at least that is how Thom Hartmann explains it.

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

McDonald on the other hand, overturned what was left of Cruikshank (parts of it started being overturned since the 1930s). Cruikshank and Presser were both really "states rights" decisions that had nothing to do with a "well regulated militia"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #71)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 12:27 PM

72. Thom Hartman's take on the Second, and I agree.

The Second Amendment has little to nothing to do with personal self defense. It is about "Standing Armies" and nothing else. Like him, I think the Switzerland model is the only way to conform to the Second Amendment. At least it would be a start.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #72)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 12:38 PM

73. So then you are going to give up your CHL?

 

So according to you and Thom Hartmann, the SCOTUS, POTUS, and most constitutional scholars are incorrect about the definition of the 2A?
I think I'll stick with the above opinions and not some TV personality or yours for that matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AH1Apache (Reply #73)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 02:27 PM

80. I sure would because

there would be way less need to carry for protection. Their laws make it much less likely a felon would have a hand gun, plus there are fewer gun crimes. I don't have a CCW because I love guns and just want to carry one. I hardly ever carry anyway as I feel safe enough in most of the time.
I'll bet you can find just as many constitutional scholars that agree with Thom or have opinions that reflect the first 200 years, where all agreed with the 2nd being a collective right.
I go places that don't allow concealed handguns all the time. The mall, post office, church and government buildings and don't feel naked because I'm not armed. My guess is that if there was zero danger of being attacked by an armed person, you'd still want to carry.

In the first century there were lots of places that required you to leave your gun or check it when you went into town. This was much closer to the writing of the Constitution and yet there does not seem to be any 2nd Amendment cases that challenged those rules.

Now if you want to challenge any of Hartman's quotes and writings of those that wrote the Constitution, I'm listening.

On the other hand I am more than willing to let states and local governments write their own laws on the purchase and possession of handguns. If Waco Texas wants a different law than Chicago, that is fine with me. I'd be more than willing to see an end of a standing army and we adopt the same system of Switzerland as they have a history of not getting involved in Iraq, Vietnam or Afghanistan. Switzerland is also a great example of a country with lots of guns and a very low gun crime rate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #72)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 12:49 PM

75. I disagree with him on that

he also misunderstands the "wild west myth" and rugged individualism. There were probably more concealed carriers (or toters) in the eastern cities and Europe at that time than in places like Wyoming and New Mexico. The reasons had more to do with middle and upper middle classes fearing the serfs of the industrial era. The west had stronger sense of community.
The Swiss model would save us a shit load of money that can be used for useful things like national healthcare, equal school funding, better social mobility, all of which would be more effective in making a safer society. Europe had much of that even before they had strict gun laws. They were also just as less violent as they are now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #75)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 02:29 PM

81. I don't think Thom misunderstands the reasons

behind the adoption of the 2nd Amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #81)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 02:48 PM

82. I think he leaves out

a lot. That said, when did the SCOTUS ever support the collective rights theory? One that is independent of "states rights" (that the BoR is only as good as the state you live in.) You mentioned "states rights" that also applied to the first and 14th Amendments. True, that was not the case of Miller, which both sides claim as their victory. Miller, most likely, did not actually didn't do anything other than not overturning NFA.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #82)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 03:06 PM

85. It was a collective right until the late 20th century, or 2001

before that it was considered a collective right because it is the only Constitutional amendment with a prefatory clause. That should answer the questions posed by many here, why is the right to bear arms the only right that......"


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

Late 20th century commentary
In the latter half of the 20th century there was considerable debate over whether the Second Amendment protected an individual right or a collective right. The debate centered on whether the prefatory clause (“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State”) declared the amendment’s only purpose or merely announced a purpose to introduce the operative clause (“the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”).
Three basic competing models were offered to interpret the Second Amendment:

The first, known as the "states' rights" or "collective rights" model, was that the Second Amendment did not apply to individuals; rather, it recognized the right of a state to arm its militia.
The second, known as the "sophisticated collective rights model", held that the Second Amendment recognized some limited individual right. However, this individual right could only be exercised by members of a functioning, organized state militia while actively participating in the organized militia’s activities.
The third, known as the "standard model", was that the Second Amendment recognized the personal right of individuals to keep and bear arms.
Under both of the collective rights models, the opening phrase was considered essential as a pre-condition for the main clause. These interpretations held that this was a grammar structure that was common during that era and that this grammar dictated that the Second Amendment protected a collective right to firearms to the extent necessary for militia duty.
Under the standard model, the opening phrase was believed to be prefatory or amplifying to the operative clause. The opening phrase was meant as a non-exclusive example—one of many reasons for the amendment. This interpretation was consistent with the position that the Second Amendment protects a modified individual right.
The question of a collective rights versus an individual right was progressively resolved with the 2001 Fifth Circuit ruling in United States v. Emerson, in the 2008 Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, and in the 2010 Supreme Court ruling in McDonald v. Chicago. All of those rulings upheld the individual rights model when interpreting the Second Amendment. In Heller, the Supreme Court upheld the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right. Although the Second Amendment is the only Constitutional amendment with a prefatory clause, such constructions were widely used elsewhere.

Just like "person hood of corporations" was never accepted until a law clerk inserted it in the very early 20th century, individual right of the 2nd has been adopted in the late 20th century.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #85)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 03:29 PM

88. Heller was individual right

McDonald was incorporation, two entirely different concepts. Before incorporation, the view was that the BoR only limited federal government, but not a state government. In other words, a state was free to establish a religion, ban free speech, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights


The first handgun ban being overturned based on 2A was not Heller. Heller was the SCOTUS, but in 1845, the Georgia supreme court over turned its 1837 ban using the federal 2A.

Your point about corporate person hood is really moot because of the open corruption (as in handing out cash on the house floor) before the early 20th century.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #88)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 04:50 PM

96. 1846 case Nunn v. State (1 Ga. 243), if you wish to use that case....

"The Nunn opinion concluded by holding that the state legislature's ban on concealed carrying was valid because it did not interfere with a citizen's Second Amendment right; but insofar as the law "contains a prohibition against bearing arms openly, it is in conflict with the Constitution, and void. . ." Since the indictment did not specify that Mr. Nunn's weapon was concealed, the charges were quashed."

Please go ahead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #96)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 05:01 PM

98. the ban on knives and pistols was overturned

but the banned weapons already owned were grandfathered (kind of like "prohibited" weapons in Canada, or "assault weapons" during the AWB) but could not be carried concealed, but had to be open carried.
It was a crime only if Mr. Nunn concealed a prohibited weapon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #98)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 06:48 PM

108. So, the right to carry a concealed weapon

is not a constitutional right according to the case you cited?

Even Scalia in his majority opinion in the Chicago case said that the right to buy and possess a firearm is for the home only and that other restrictions can be applied by the state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #108)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 07:44 PM

113. concealed banned weapon

if it was a legal weapon, then it could be concealed.
Scalia needs to look up "bear" (not the animal). In other words you are saying Illinois law is equally as constitutional as Vermont's (and everyone else in between)? Or are you saying that Vermont's lack of law is unconstitutional?
I think May issue states and Illinois should close the oligarch loophole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #67)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 02:14 PM

79. Calling something a "talking point" is not a rebuttal.

It is merely an attempt to dismiss your opponents argument without discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #79)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 03:21 PM

87. When a "talking point" is used,

repeatedly on a liberal site, it's source becomes important to the members of that community.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #87)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 03:31 PM

89. It still isn't a rebuttal. You are just refusing to discuss.

Often that means that a person realizes that the point defeats them and they are trying to dodge it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #87)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 03:33 PM

90. now prove it came from ALEC

or the NRA, and it is not true.

BTW, why would ALEC give a shit? I am guessing none of them really researched the French Revolution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #90)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 04:34 PM

94. NRA along with ALEC

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/13/nra-weakened-gun-control-laws?newsfeed=true
The NRA, working alongside like-minded conservative groups such as Alec, the American Legislative Exchange Council, has developed sophisticated lobbying networks designed to push back gun controls both at the federal and state level.
Here are key areas where the gun lobby has either pushed laws that weaken controls or blocked laws intended to tighten loopholes:

then there are the ones mentioned in the article in the first post here.

In 1986, the N.R.A.’s interpretation of the Second Amendment achieved new legal authority with the passage of the Firearms Owners Protection Act, which repealed parts of the 1968 Gun Control Act by invoking “the rights of citizens . . . to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.” This interpretation was supported by a growing body of scholarship, much of it funded by the N.R.A. According to the constitutional-law scholar Carl Bogus, at least sixteen of the twenty-seven law-review articles published between 1970 and 1989 that were favorable to the N.R.A.’s interpretation of the Second Amendment were “written by lawyers who had been directly employed by or represented the N.R.A. or other gun-rights organizations.” In an interview, former Chief Justice Warren Burger said that the new interpretation of the Second Amendment was “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special-interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

ALEC's support of SYG laws have now ended up costing them sponsors and a closer look at that "non-profit" standing by the IRS. As many articles in the last few days have exposed ALEC's part, in conjunction with the NRA in promoting talking points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #94)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 04:41 PM

95. read that article once before

and has number of problems. One of which it inaccurately describes the Tiahart Amendment. Did you miss this:
SOURCE: Mayors Against Illegal Guns

all they did was copy and paste a MAIG press release or two.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=31107
So what's next, a Judith Miller article about Iraqi atomic bombs?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #95)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 04:55 PM

97. I guess this would cancel that out then...

to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.” This interpretation was supported by a growing body of scholarship, much of it funded by the N.R.A. According to the constitutional-law scholar Carl Bogus, at least sixteen of the twenty-seven law-review articles published between 1970 and 1989 that were favorable to the N.R.A.’s interpretation of the Second Amendment were “written by lawyers who had been directly employed by or represented the N.R.A. or other gun-rights organizations.”

I'm going with Thom Hartman, he doesn't belong to either group and gives an accurate interpretation of 18th Century thought with his quotes of the founding Fathers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #97)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 05:09 PM

99. Carl Bogus was funded

by the Joyce Foundation and was a board member of HCI. In other words, Bogus was projecting. The name fits.
Actually, Thom was a member of the NRA until last year. Why? Have to ask him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #99)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 06:45 PM

107. I use Thom Hartman because you

cited him and he is a contributor to DU. Impeccable source for DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #107)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 07:31 PM

111. I meant ask him why

he was an NRA member. I mentioned it a couple of times, but I forget his exact reasoning.
I agree with Thom about 80-90 percent of the time, but nobody and nothing is impeccable.

im·pec·ca·ble
    Show IPA
adjective
1.faultless; flawless; irreproachable: impeccable manners.
2.not liable to sin; incapable of sin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #97)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 05:12 PM

100. You can quit beating that dead horse. It won't get up.

Your side lost. 2A is an individual right. Live with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #100)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 06:57 PM

109. Yes and you have won the "money equals speech" Scalia court

case. I find fault with both.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #109)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 07:40 PM

112. Why do you say that I won the "money equal speech" decision?

You routinely make anti-gun posts so I can accurately say that your side lost in Heller and in McDonald. I have never taken a side in that other decision. It is something that I don't really have an interest in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #112)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 07:51 PM

114. trying to get the

guilt by association thing going. Kind of like infamous dictators and vegetarians, or promiscuous alcoholics and great UK prime ministers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sat Apr 21, 2012, 11:07 PM

10. Article is in need of some factual background work.

 

A federal ban on the possession, transfer, or manufacture of semiautomatic assault weapons, passed in 1994, was allowed to expire in 2004


Wrong, semiautomatic weapons were not banned. Only certain features.

In many states, to purchase a gun from a licensed dealer you need a permit, which requires you to complete firearms-safety training, not unlike driver’s education.



Only a handful of states have this requirement and even fewer of them require any kind of class to apply for the permit. Some of these state waive the permit if the person hold a CCW permit in that state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #10)

Sat Apr 21, 2012, 11:20 PM

12. Thanks for clarifying, we definitely need to change that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #12)

Sat Apr 21, 2012, 11:22 PM

13. Except the "we" you are referring to...

 

...are largely impotent in that respect since they do little more than complain on the internet. Lots of talk, little walk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #12)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 09:46 AM

31. So what are you personally doing to change it Hoyt?

 

I mean besides sitting in front of a keyboard and bitching and moaning about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #12)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 11:31 AM

35. Hoyt, Looks like you're being stalked!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Reply #35)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 11:33 AM

36. By whom and for what reason?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Reply #35)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 11:39 AM

37. He won't answer my question or post any links about what I allegedly said

 

so I am going to keep asking him. Do you have a problem with that?
If so, take it up with Hoyt and tell him to provide the links I've asked him for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Reply #35)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 03:34 PM

46. Yes, many of the gun culture here are just cyber Zimmermans. In reality, some may be too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #46)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 10:24 PM

52. That "reality"...

 

...only exists within the narrow confines of your skull Hoyt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #52)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 10:27 PM

53. Hey, you guys would have considered Zimmerman a model gun toter right until he shot unarmed kid.

A lot of right wing carriers still think he is a poster boy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #53)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 12:36 AM

60. Yeah...

 

..you have trouble forming a credible argument against anything in this group. You better leave the higher-order thinking, like psycho-analysis, to those far better qualified......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #60)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 12:46 AM

61. Sure, some guy who believes he needs a gun to walk into public

actually thinks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #61)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 06:23 PM

105. That guy or girl...

 

...actually does think. Taking an extra level of precaution always requires more forethought than those that don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #53)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 08:20 PM

115. I've never seen a "model gun toter"

 

This is the only type of "toter" I have ever seen. I sure could carry a whole bunch of guns in this toter

http://www.toter.com/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #115)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 08:25 PM

116. now you have

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #46)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 01:31 AM

165. Sickening

Martin's death has given you a shiny new way of smearing other members here, and the way you use that kid's blood is fucking disgusting. People disagreeing with you online = Zimmerman to you? Really? Grow the fuck up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Union Scribe (Reply #165)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 05:17 AM

167. Zimmerman, intimidation, Loughner, guns everywhere, etc. -- that's what the gun culture has wrought.

"Zimmerman" is a term that everyone is famaliar with that expresses where we are with respect to guns in our society. Sorry you don't like it. Howsabout those that strap a gun on before venturing into public, and/or promote more guns in society, grow up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #10)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 02:51 PM

83. get out those spectacles

 

Wrong, semiautomatic weapons were not banned. Only certain features.

... You're seeing things that aren't there.

What you responded to was:
A federal ban on the possession, transfer, or manufacture of semiautomatic assault weapons, passed in 1994, was allowed to expire in 2004

"Assault weapon" is the term defined by the legislation itself, so the statement you call "wrong" was right by definition.

I'm sure somebody thought you were making sense, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #83)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 08:26 PM

117. Semi-automatic assault weapons were not banned, not the possession, not the transfer

 

not the manufacture, none of it was banned. Only features which supposedly made them "assault weapons" was banned. But then most of those legislators had no clue what they were trying to ban. And any weapon that was already in existance was grandfathered in so again, no ban.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #117)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 08:37 PM

120. and yet it was called the "assault weapons ban" by gun militants ...

 

You seem to be arguing something completely different from what the poster I replied to said.

But hey yeah, those stupid, stupid Democrats in Congress, eh? Shame on them for being so stupid. Why do people elect stupid Democrats??



I know somebody would like to pretend my question is something other than sarcastic, because I have seen that trick multiple times in this forum, so I'll just say: have a picnic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #120)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 08:56 PM

122. that list would also include the

vast majority of Republicans in the House, including the current Ohio Governor, and all but two GOP senators.

Richard Shelby (AL), Frank Murkowski, Ted Stevens (AK), JOHN MCCAIN (AZ), Christopher Bond (MO), Conrad Burns (MT), Judd Gregg, Bob Smith (NH), Pete Domenici (NM), Alfonse D'Amato (NY), Duncan Faircloth, Jesse Helms (NC), Don Nickles (OK), Robert Packwood (OR), Arlen Specter (PA), John Chafee (RI), J. Thurmond (SC), Larry Pressler (SD), Kay Hutchison (TX), George Brown, Ben Campbell (CO), William Roth (DE), Connie MAck (FL), Paul Coverdell (GA), Larry Craig, Dirk Kempthorne (ID), Daniel Coats, Richard Lugar (IN), Charles Grassley (IA), Bob Dole, Nancy Kassebaum (KS), Mitch McConnell (KY), William Cohen (ME), Thad Cochran, Trent Lott (MS), Robert Bennett, Orrin Hatch (UT), James Jeffords (VT), John Warner (VA), T. Gorton (WA), Alan Simpson, Malcolm Wallop (WY)

Shelby, Helms, Faircloth, Thurmond, Lott were/are racists.
Coats, Nickles, McConnell are stupid
Simpson is an asshole
All Republican, all voted for the "AWB"

the last time it was introduced, the sponsors were Republican, and I really doubt it was for public safety. If the Dems would have fallen for it, we would be one heart attack away from Sarah Palin with the "football". I find that a hell of a lot more dangerous than ARs at Wal Mart.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr6257

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #122)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 09:51 PM

123. couldn't make much sense of that, sorry

 

Except for this, from the link re the bill:

Amends the federal criminal code to reinstate, for 10 years, the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act's assault weapons ban to prohibit the manufacture, transfer, or possession of a semiautomatic assault weapon or a large capacity ammunition feeding device.

Huh. Now where have I seen that before ...


Fixed formatting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #123)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 09:57 PM

125. basiclly

that was the list of Republican senators (all but two) that voted for the AWB. Some of them were some really despicable assholes on other issues. The short list below were what some of them were most known for.
The House Republicans also voted for it. It was not a party line split. There were the same number of "no" votes of each side. One was a progressive Dem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #125)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 10:09 PM

126. I didn't say no Republicans voted for it

 

A lot of Democrats voted for it. And some very loud negative comments were made about them in the post I replied to.

I've never said that all Republicans are despicable individuals, except of course for the really insurmountable problem that each individual Republican contributes to the Republican hive. There are some damned despicable Democrats. I just wouldn't go saying what was said about that mass of Democrats, myself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #126)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 11:20 PM

131. you don't get it

all but two Republicans voted for it, including some of the most despicable racist assholes like Trent Lott, Jessie Helms, and Strom Thurmond. The worst of the worst Republicans voted for it.
All but two or three Democrats voted for it. One of the Dems was a good progressive.
Trent Lott publicly said "the country would be a better place if Thurmond would have been elected president." Thurmond's presidential campaign speeches included gems like this:
I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there's not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the Nigra race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches

Helms was not better.

Al Simpson is not a racist or a homophobe, but hates Social Security and just kind of an asshole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #131)

Tue Apr 24, 2012, 01:09 AM

134. you're right

 

I seldom do get the point of or reason for your posts.

Try reading the post I initially replied to and following the thread of thought.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #134)

Tue Apr 24, 2012, 07:37 AM

135. my point was that

the Republicans that voted for it were among the worst of the worst. If you would have read the short list below, you would have figured it out. It seems that as long as some reactionary or racist takes a stand against "gun militants" they are some how less despicable in your book. That is the point I got from post 126.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #135)

Tue Apr 24, 2012, 10:42 AM

140. you didn't get that point from my post

 

I at no point said anything about the Republicans who supported the legislation; I assume they were reflecting their constituents' wishes at the time. I did not say I find them "less despicable" than I would otherwise, so please don't pretend I said or thought that. I didn't and don't.

My point was that coming here and saying nasty, stupid things about a large group of elected Democrats -- Democrats supported the legislation -- because of their support for a piece of legislation that is then misrepresented, to boot, isn't really the best way to approach posting at Democratic Underground.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #120)

Tue Apr 24, 2012, 01:51 PM

146. NO, it was called the "assault weapons ban" by the anti-gun zealots that wrote it

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #146)

Tue Apr 24, 2012, 02:17 PM

148. lordy, lordy, lordy

 

site:www.democraticunderground.com "assault weapons ban"

https://www.google.ca/search?num=30&hl=en&safe=off&complete=0&site=webhp&source=hp&q=site%3Awww.democraticunderground.com+%22assault+weapons+ban%22&oq=site%3Awww.democraticunderground.com+%22assault+weapons+ban%22

I get 68,800 results. Have a party. You can liven it up by counting the tombstoned gun militant posters, and the, er, gun enthusiasts still with us, you find using the term.

The term in question, "assault weapon", was DEFINED in the legislation. It means exactly what it is stated to mean in the legislation. It would be foolish NOT to use the term when discussing the legislation.

The legislation instituted a BAN with exceptions. Most people don't find it reasonable to talk about, say, the "assault weapons ban with exceptions". Most bans have exceptions. Really.

I've never heard such silliness, even after all these years in this place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #148)

Tue Apr 24, 2012, 07:24 PM

152. And with all the silliness you post...

 

...you still seem to reserve your best just for this group. The term in question is a non-technical term that was defined only by the technically challenged twits that wrote and/or supported that legislative abortion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #83)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 08:46 PM

121. Your technical ignorance...

 

...is showing again. That statement in the article was wrong, the author of that article was wrong, and now you are wrong.



I'm sure you thought you had a point to make here. Snork.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #121)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 09:55 PM

124. my lack of interest in your opinion ...

 

should be pretty apparent.

Did ya check out gejohnston's lnk? Here ya go:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr6257

Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008 - Amends the federal criminal code to reinstate, for 10 years, the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act's assault weapons ban to prohibit the manufacture, transfer, or possession of a semiautomatic assault weapon or a large capacity ammunition feeding device. Specifies models and features of banned weapons. Sets forth exceptions to such ban, including: ...

Look at all familiar?

I can make it nice and big if you like.

Or just remind you of what you said, in case you've forgotten:

A federal ban on the possession, transfer, or manufacture of semiautomatic assault weapons, passed in 1994, was allowed to expire in 2004

Wrong, semiautomatic weapons were not banned. Only certain features.

Maybe you should take your issue up with the Republican who apparently authored that bill.

Doesn't your head just hurt?

A ban with exceptions. Does that make you happy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #124)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 10:53 PM

127. Quaint.

 

my lack of interest in your opinion ...



Yet here you are with your wall of words, again. Let me give you the help here you seem to so desperately need in figuring out the proper context of my original post.


Let's examine what the legislation ACTUALLY says in its title.

SEC. 110102. RESTRICTION ON MANUFACTURE, TRANSFER, AND POSSESSION OF CERTAIN SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS.


Emphasis mine the bolded part. Notice it doesn't say "ban". And you'll further notice, when you go read the bill for yourself, that the word "ban" doesn't show up anywhere in the section concerning "assault weapons". "Ban" is only mentioned concerning ammunition magazines with more than a 10rd magazine (except restriction would also have been a more accurate term). So if the author of that article had said "A federal ban on the possession, transfer, or manufacture of pee-pee pants scary high-capacity ammunition feeding devices, passed in 1994, was allowed to expire in 2004" then that would have been more accurate. I would take up the issue with idiotic politicians on both sides that supported this worthless piece of legislation in the first place. I would but I really don't need to since they were beaten by their own lack of technical understanding when manufactures "violated the spirit of the law", whatever that was. Their whining considerably humorous because if they felt the "spirit" of the law was some sort of ban then they should have flat out stated that in the legislation. The anti-gunners apparently learned that lesson, albeit far too late, upon later attempts to revive that legislative turd and liberally used the word "ban" to make extra sure their desire was understood.


Nope, my head doesn't hurt. It gets a pretty decent dosage of endorphins because of the laughter your posts induce.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #127)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 10:59 PM

128. I actually know all about the ol' AWB

 

and have done since long, long before you were incarnated here at DU.

I have always found the squawking of the gun militant brigade here and elsewhere on this subject to be quite amusing. To hear them, you'd think that all those stupid, stupid politicians really were intending to ban bayonet lugs. They don't seem to realize how very stupid they themselves look when they try to portray a whole group of really very intelligent people as being dumb as a sack of toters. I mean taters.

I plan to continue to do so.

Meanwhile, I shall continue to be charmed by your own efforts in this regard:

pee-pee pants scary high-capacity ammunition feeding devices

as if gun control advocates were the bed-wetters in the crowd ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #128)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 11:17 PM

130. Well you should surprise us all...

 

...by demonstrating that you "actually know all about the ol'AWB" Anytime you're ready. Really.




They don't seem to realize how very stupid they themselves look when they try to portray a whole group of really very intelligent people as being dumb...



Really very intelligent people who don't know shit about what they legislate against, or for depending on your POV. Really very intelligent people would know what the hell they were talking about if they were really very intelligent. Sorry, they were really very dumb when it came to this particular subject and their repeat failures since the ol'AWB expired hasn't helped. Why you like these particular folks is beyond me. Well, not really...


as if gun control advocates were the bed-wetters in the crowd ...



They are. I hope that the cost rubber bed sheets is covered in their compensation. Few cases of Depends wouldn't hurt either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sat Apr 21, 2012, 11:39 PM

15. "New Yorker magazine has an interesting article."

FTFY

The 2A is never mentioned. The NRA is listed in the key words but also not mentioned in the article.


Back to your questions:
I started shooting at 15. By the time I got to college I was fairly good, competitively speaking. I made the Varsity and ROTC teams for four years. My only involvement with the NRA is having instructors involved with the NRA. I learned to various skills including reloading. I've reloaded a lot of .30-06. Maybe you could highlight what aspect of personal history you're looking for.

I have no idea what the Cincinnati thing is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #15)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 01:34 AM

20. Did you read the article???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #20)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 09:34 AM

28. Yes I did.

Story about a school shooting.

ETA: Apparently I'm not able to see the links to the other pages. Browser issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #28)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 09:37 AM

29. No you didn't, WTF.......

You said "The 2A is never mentioned. The NRA is listed in the key words but also not mentioned in the article. "

Both the 2nd and NRA are mentioned many times. Why would you flat out lie about reading it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #29)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 03:24 PM

45. Apparently...

...this is more than one page and I wasn't able to read past the first page. (maybe a browser problem)
The first page does not mention the NRA or the 2A.

I cannot comment on what I can't see.

What I did see was an article written with a poor ratio of fact to emotion. Rather common for pro-control writing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #45)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 06:31 PM

48. I wonder how people like you ever challenge your minds? I read rightwing stuff all the...

way through for insight. Some people, like you, don't want your set beliefs challenged I guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #48)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 06:48 PM

49. "Some people, like you, don't want your set beliefs challenged I guess."

Sorry I'm not up to your standards. I used to be a Republican.

So what do you think keeps those Republicans as they are? Could it be the warm welcome they get when discussing opposing ideas from "some people" like you?

Well, have a nice night anyhow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #48)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 08:28 PM

118. Why do you have to be so accusatory?

 

He already stated he thought he was having a browser problem and you skipped right over that and accused him. Why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #118)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 08:35 PM

119. Well.....

He said the article was biased and also said they didn't mention the NRA when he knew he didn't read the article because of browser problems. How can you have an opinion when you didn't even read 1/2 of the article?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #119)

Tue Apr 24, 2012, 02:01 PM

147. He didn't say he didn't read the article, he said

 

discntnt_irny_srcsm (1,869 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

45. Apparently...

...this is more than one page and I wasn't able to read past the first page. (maybe a browser problem)
The first page does not mention the NRA or the 2A.

I cannot comment on what I can't see.

This tells me that he didn't know at the time that there was more to the article than just one page. This tells me he thought he read the entire article until later he saw that there was more and he apparently had a browser problem. He voiced his opinion on what he thought was the entire article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 12:23 AM

17. Statistics suck the big one.

 

You only have two hands, so owning more than one gun does nothing except for backup. Switzerland has the highest armed civilians. One person doesn't own a 100 guns. 100 people own a gun. The also have a lower crime rate than the US of A. Damn stupid shit statistics this New Yorker magazine has and more of it on the internet and now D.U.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #17)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 01:48 AM

21. There are various firearms for various purposes.

 

Just like there are different bicycles for different purposes.

I'll own as many as I want and can afford. no-one else has any say in the matter as long as I don't break any laws pertaining to them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #21)

Wed Apr 25, 2012, 12:41 PM

156. Own a thousand if you like but that

 

doesn't mean that you will then live on the most heavily armed block in the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #156)

Thu Apr 26, 2012, 09:14 AM

159. I'm sure you thought you had a point there....

 

but darned if I know what it was....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #159)

Sun Apr 29, 2012, 12:56 AM

168. Of course you don't becuase you suffer from the same thing

 

the extreme right does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #168)

Sun Apr 29, 2012, 10:14 AM

169. And that would be....?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #169)

Sun Apr 29, 2012, 10:23 AM

170. Exactly...

 

Your complete and utter disregard to facts with the " I don't understand your point or you have no point ". Way to go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #170)

Sun Apr 29, 2012, 04:33 PM

172. What "facts"? Where?

 

Inability or unwillingness to explain your point or intent may be a winning strategy in some culture, somewhere, but not this one.

Good luck with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #172)

Mon Apr 30, 2012, 12:14 PM

176. One last time...

 

Example
City block
200 homes
1 house has a 1000 guns
All the rest have none
Vs
200 homes
Each has 5 guns

Which is the most heavily armed block?


Guns don't fire on their own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #176)

Mon Apr 30, 2012, 12:18 PM

177. Thank you, I now understand what you meant.

 

I think what was throwing me off was this: "100 people own a gun."

You seemed to be indicating that 100 people shared ownership of a single firearm.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #177)

Tue May 1, 2012, 06:31 PM

182. No what I am saying is

 

1000 guns sitting in a pile with no one around kills no one.
One person with a 1000 guns only has two hands.
1000 people each with a gun is something to reckon with.

So one person on a block with 200 guns vs a block with 200 people each with a gun is more menacing.

The statistics that America is the most heavily armed is bogus to me. As I stated in Switzerland, most own a gun and are highly trained (military style) in its use. I would consider them more heavily armed.

Now for some other interesting info

2009 FBI murder statistics
Murders total – 13636
Murders with handguns – 6452 (47.32%)
Murders with rifles – 348 (2.55%)
Murders with shotguns – 418 (3.07%)
Murders with unknown firearms – 1928 (14.14%) Unknown??? Are they phasers or something....LOL
Murder with knives or cutting instruments – 1825 (13.38%)
Murders with other weapons – 1864 (13.67%)
Murders with hands, fists, feet etc.. – 801 (5.87%)


52.94% were from known firearms
47.06% were from unknown and not from firearms

Only a idiot would think if guns were removed that the percentages of non firearm murders would not skyrocket.

Killing people will and has always been around and will continue to be until the mental condition is confronted.

With the misplaced focus on guns I don't see that happening very soon.

Murder, greed and more is what ails man.

War, corruption in government (starts at the local level) doesn't help either.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #182)

Tue May 1, 2012, 08:15 PM

183. I agree.

 

This:

Only a idiot would think if guns were removed that the percentages of non firearm murders would not skyrocket.

Killing people will and has always been around and will continue to be until the mental condition is confronted.


...is commonly ignored by anyone who is ignorant of history, and startlingly frequently by some who aren't. Murder was not invented along with firearms, it has a long tradition since the first semi-opposable-thumb hand picked up a rock and a pointy stick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #176)

Mon Apr 30, 2012, 12:21 PM

178. depends

if the one guy is a collector (if he has that many guns, probably is), he may not have any ammo for them. Ammo may no longer be manufactured for them. vs
where I grew up, those five were modern guns with ammo, the latter is more heavily armed.

On the other hand, if the one guy has heavy machine guns, select fire assault rifles, etc. that the ATF (and probably DEA) would have a more heavily armed block than the one I grew up where each of those five would be a couple of rifles, couple of pistols, and a shotgun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #178)

Tue May 1, 2012, 06:13 PM

181. That is a reasonable reply

 

However a person only has two hands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 12:25 AM

18. you mean the Cincinalti revolt?

I was in high school, and understood much of it. I learned more about the larger issues surrounding it since then.
Grew up with guns. Everyone in my family was at one time cop, hunter, rancher, some combination of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #18)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 06:25 PM

106. Seems like it was the DC group that didn't want to see the HQ moved to Colorado.

Government lobbyist types like Harlon Carter, on government pension from his work at the border wanted to keep it in DC?
Old guard wanted to just be a safety group and move to a clubhouse in Colorado? Is that your reading too? Seems like it was right at that time in 1977 when the NRA really got going on the rights thing. Is that your opinion? Jimmy Carter just elected, maybe they wanted to make sure he wouldn't make a second term...like Keene and Obama. What do you think? I wasn't paying any attention to the NRA in 1977.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Reply #106)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 07:29 PM

110. that and

what to do with the property in Raton, NM. The old guard wanted to use it for wilderness survival education, environmental awareness education (seriously), and other stuff in addition to shooting ranges.
Carter and crew didn't like the "hippy dippy" stuff and just wanted the shooting ranges.
Some like Carter who thought the Gun Control Act of 1968 was letting the camel's nose too far under the tent.

I doubt it had anything to do with Jimmy Carter. One of the (probably) unintended consequences it attacked one of the environmental movement's flanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 01:20 AM

19. She supports many of the posters here...

... who point out that gun control laws often were intended to discriminate based on race.

Gun-rights arguments have their origins not in eighteenth-century Anti-Federalism but in twentieth-century liberalism. They are the product of what the Harvard law professor Mark Tushnet has called the “rights revolution,” the pursuit of rights, especially civil rights, through the courts. In the nineteen-sixties, gun ownership as a constitutional right was less the agenda of the N.R.A. than of black nationalists. In a 1964 speech, Malcolm X said, “Article number two of the constitutional amendments provides you and me the right to own a rifle or a shotgun.” Establishing a constitutional right to carry a gun for the purpose of self-defense was part of the mission of the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, which was founded in 1966. “Black People can develop Self-Defense Power by arming themselves from house to house, block to block, community to community throughout the nation,” Huey Newton said.


I agree with her (and with many posters here) who point out that true liberals promote the expansion of civil rights. I've always felt overtones of pure fascism in the promotion of laws designed to restrict civil rights, and I wonder about the intentions of people who support those laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 06:43 AM

24. I only made it to page 3 of 8...

 

I made it as far as page 3 looking for the meat and potatoes before I gave up.

The article seems biased anti-gun, but seemed generally well-written and factual.

About the only eyebrow I really raised in the first three pages was when the author was talking about how schools are preparing for gunmen - except, of course, by the obvious way allowing people to have the means to defend themselves from gunmen.

Anyway my personal history with guns started when I was a child. Like my father and his father before him, firearms have been in my family for generations. They've been a means to put food on an otherwise scarce-at-times table. They have been tools to defend the home, though it has never been necessary as far as I know for anyone in our family.

I don't remember exactly when my father taught me how to shoot, but Santa brought me my first gun, a Ruger 10/22 rifle, when I was 8 or 9 years old, which I was allowed to use, under his supervision, for squirrel hunting and target shooting. Shortly after that he got me my first shotgun, which we used for hunting and shooting clay pigeons. And it wasn't long after that when he bought me my first deer rifle.

I didn't buy my first handgun until I was 26 or so. I had moved into the big city of Atlanta and decided I needed a firearm for self-defense. A shotgun is probably a better choice but my Remington 1100 has a looooong barrel and really isn't suitable for the close quarters of a home. It's a hunting arm, not particularly a self-defense arm. And I won't lie, I was itching to own my first pistol, too. It was a Ruger P90, a .45 ACP pistol derived from the 1911 design. I think it cost about $375.

Around this same time the assault weapons ban arrived. This was what really put the issue of gun control on my radar. I was just starting to buy my own firearms and now the government was trying to limit the kinds of firearms I might be able to buy! So I figured I better go and buy one of the "amputated" assault rifles that were still available under the AWB while they were still possible to get. I bought a Romanian SAR1, a civilian variant of the AK-47 that had been modified to comply with the AWB - the threads on the barrel had been turned down so that a muzzle flash hider could not be installed, and the bayonet lug had been ground off so you could not mount a bayonet. And a few of the components had been replaced with US-made parts to comply in that regard. But it was still functionally a semi-automatic AK-47 and it would accept high-capacity magazines so about $350 later I owned my first assault rifle.

As I started to realize what had been done to my assault rifle to make it a "post-ban legal" AK-47 variant, I began to realize how stupid and ineffective the ban was and I figured it would not be long before the people who made the law figured that out, too, and made even more draconian laws to control firearms. So I began to get involved with the NRA and became hyper-vigilant with the politics of firearm rights.

So you could say, very correctly, that the anti-gun maneuvers like the AWB are directly what stirred me to get involved in defending my firearm rights and belonging to the NRA.

In 2006 I switched from voting Republican to voting Democratic. My biggest turning point was the obvious lie of the wars in the Middle East, and the growing inability to believe that even though they supported the individual right to keep and bear arms that the Republicans really had any going concern for regular individuals.

I've been fortunate that, living in the South, nearly all of my Democratic candidates are also pro-second-amendment. I carefully review the NRA endorsements at election time, and I vote for every Democrat I can that has high marks. I've only had to vote against one Democrat who had an F rating. I voted for President Obama in spite of the NRA rhetoric because I was fairly confident he would not be able politically to move against firearms but also the alternative of guaranteed more war overseas was unacceptable.

Over the years I have belonged to a couple of private gun clubs that require NRA membership to participate. This wasn't a big deal for me as I already was.

So that is my personal history with guns and the NRA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #24)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 09:30 AM

27. Why give up so early unless it just is painful for you to read long articles? How can you base....

biased either way by reading less than half of the article.

Some people just don't like reading and I understand that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #27)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 12:33 PM

38. I find I do this more and more often. I know I'm not the only one.

 

I've heard it chalked up to our ADHD generation (though I predate that, and I was never on any of ADHD medication. But I've read that people are less and less willing to invest time in reading long internet articles - they expect the content to presented quickly.

I'll invest the time (I'm an avid reader, I'm in the middle of Game of Thrones right now), but it has to grab me. This author didn't grab me in the first 3 pages so I didn't feel compelled to read the following 5.

But the anti-gun bias was clear even in the first 3 pages. I mean just the melodramatic paragraph where she described going to a shooting range and the gunfire didn't sound like raindrops or thunder, just gunfire. What else would gunfire sound like?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #38)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 01:23 PM

41. You didn't get to the most telling paragraph in the article.

One that I agree with btw: Bolding mine.

One in three Americans knows someone who has been shot. As long as a candid discussion of guns is impossible, unfettered debate about the causes of violence is unimaginable. Gun-control advocates say the answer to gun violence is fewer guns. Gun-rights advocates say that the answer is more guns: things would have gone better, they suggest, if the faculty at Columbine, Virginia Tech, and Chardon High School had been armed. That is the logic of the concealed-carry movement; that is how armed citizens have come to be patrolling the streets. That is not how civilians live. When carrying a concealed weapon for self-defense is understood not as a failure of civil society, to be mourned, but as an act of citizenship, to be vaunted, there is little civilian life left.

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/04/23/120423fa_fact_lepore#ixzz1sn63mDhM

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoneOffShore (Reply #41)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 12:07 AM

55. Who gets to make that determination, and on what authority? n/a

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoneOffShore (Reply #41)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 01:03 PM

76. That's not telling at all...

It's a statement that means nothing, because it has no context. How many of those were shot, say, in the line of duty as a soldier?

A candid discussion is impossible? Have you SEEN the gungeon?

Follows a gross oversimplification of positions on two sides of an issue....

Finishing up with naked fiat of the author.


Neither telling, nor compelling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Callisto32 (Reply #76)

Tue Apr 24, 2012, 12:05 PM

144. Your opinion and hence by your own argument just as valid as the author's.

And I believe she means a candid discussion of this issue in public, among public officials and citizens. Not a free for all on an internet site.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoneOffShore (Reply #41)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 01:10 PM

77. There is one problem with the paragraph

Gun-rights advocates say that the answer is more guns: things would have gone better, they suggest, if the faculty at Columbine, Virginia Tech, and Chardon High School had been armed. That is the logic of the concealed-carry movement; that is how armed citizens have come to be patrolling the streets.

How could they have been worse? VT is a prime example. Students were trapped inside, no training in escape and evasion, no place to hide or escape to, the cops stood around outside with their fingers up their asses listening to the gun shots inside. A student with a gun (or crossbow for that matter) probably would have mitigated the carnage, but it would not have made it worse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #24)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 11:20 AM

34. Thanks for the personal report.

That's the kind of response I was looking for. I hope you have time to finish the article. I'm interested in your reaction to the history of the NRA and the take over by the retired border patrolman in Cincinnati. The report says he actually murdered someone when a teenager!

DO you practice with the SAR1 regularly? Do you envision or fear attack or home invasion or do you think your interest in weapons is similar to someone who likes cars or collecting model trains or antiques? Many car lovers are concerned that somehow they are going to come and take away the old cars that pollute so badly, but that hasn't manifested itself as a voting block, at least yet.

Thanks again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Reply #34)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 12:45 PM

39. No problem.

 

DO you practice with the SAR1 regularly?

Not so much anymore. When I bought the SAR1 I bought a case of 1000 rounds of ammo to go with it. It cost $89. I have burned through all but 200 rounds or so, which I am saving in case of emergency. I'd like to buy some more ammo for it but a case of ammo now costs $250 last time I checked.

The price of ammunition is why I started reloading. I currently only reload .45 ACP, but whereas 4 50-round boxes of .45 ACP could cost me $40 or more for an afternoon at the range I can now shoot the same amount for $6.

Do you envision or fear attack or home invasion or do you think your interest in weapons is similar to someone who likes cars or collecting model trains or antiques?

I've only been a victim of crime once. Last year someone went into our back yard here at home and tried to hot-wire my brand new garden tractor. But I've been fortunate most of my life to live in quiet middle class neighborhoods, and I live a relatively boring life of work and school and family. So I don't feel I am likely to encounter crime.

The biggest reason I own firearms is for shooting for fun. I shoot competitively.

But the second biggest reason I own them is for emergency preparedness for SHTF scenarios (shit hits the fan). After seeing the disaster of Katrina and what happened here when the tornadoes struck last year and put us without power for a week and gasoline was gone in a day, I am convinced that the fabric of society is very tenuous, and it would not take much, especially in urban areas, to case extreme, dog-eat-dog rioting and looting. I believe within my lifetime we are going to see a chemical, biological, or nuclear terror attack on a major US city, and when that happens chaos is going to ensue. People will try to flee the cities, especially if the terrorists are smart and say they have similar weapons in other, unnamed cities. People will not travel into the cities to deliver food and fuel, and as such they will run out in a day, maybe two.

Many people fantasize about "bugging out" in such scenarios, with a "bug out bag", but I have grave doubts of most people being able to do this. Firstly, you are going to be caught up in the mob that is going to strip you of whatever looks valuable. Thirdly most of these people aren't in good enough shape to carry anything any meaningful distance anyway. You are far better off, in my opinion, staying put with your supplies, which will be far greater than anything you can carry with you, and protect your home, or what is left of it, with your neighbors.

Many car lovers are concerned that somehow they are going to come and take away the old cars that pollute so badly, but that hasn't manifested itself as a voting block, at least yet.

I believe there are emissions exceptions for registered antique cars, which seems reasonable given how few are on the road.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 07:45 AM

25. A few observations

-when I reached the line comparing a gun store to a porn shop, I realized this was simply an opinion piece with a definite bias
-further proven by only mentioning bad gun uses, neglecting where armed citizens stopped active shooters, as in Appalachian State and Pearl MS


-as far as how it paints the NRA, I noticed a definite change over time. At first the NRA supported gun control enthusiastically, then as more GC laws came around, they accepted them as being good if inconvenient, then more laws accepted with reservations until finally in the 80's when yet more GC laws came about the NRA started to resist until you have the situation today where the NRA is actively lobbying for increased gun rights. The NRA's change from a sporting group to a lobbying group is in reaction to more and more restrictions...

It gets back to the slippery slope- where is the end point of 'reasonable gun control'?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #25)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 07:54 AM

26. where is the end point of 'reasonable gun control'?

C'mon man, death by a thousand cuts. The end result is a total ban. Except of course for bad guys, who will ignore the ban and it's open-season on law abiding citizens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 01:36 PM

42. After reading this article, I had to do a little research about some of the names.

Seems the NRA is now run by the conservative wing of the Republican Party. The Cincinnati revolt, when Harlon Carter took over, really set the group on a radical path. It seems that is when the DC lobbying group took over...moving the HQ back to DC and closing out the idea of moving the HQ to Colorado. A look at Carter's bio makes me wonder who's in charge. I feel there is a paranoid strain running through the gun lobby here on DU that compliments the NRA's program to oust Obama. Interesting to me is the appeal that DU would have for the expressed libertarian views by so many in the gun forum. Has someone polled the DU gun forum to see how many are NRA members?

Do advocates of nationwide concealed carry laws envision a country where everyone packs? I think if I were to believe everyone else had a gun and I felt threatened I would soon feel it necessary to buy my own weapon, the bigger the better. This is certainly not a future I look forward to. Is this the future you envision?

I keep my rifles in the basement and I suppose I occasionally go through a scenario in my mind about holding off attackers as they come for my food and fuel after the bomb etc. but the truth is, I don't see it ending well for anybody and I pretty much figure it isn't going to happen. Is my imagination lacking? Talk me through how it might all play out.

http://meetthenra.org/nra-member/David%20Keene



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Reply #42)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 12:28 AM

58. For my part...

 

Seems the NRA is now run by the conservative wing of the Republican Party. The Cincinnati revolt, when Harlon Carter took over, really set the group on a radical path. It seems that is when the DC lobbying group took over...moving the HQ back to DC and closing out the idea of moving the HQ to Colorado. A look at Carter's bio makes me wonder who's in charge. I feel there is a paranoid strain running through the gun lobby here on DU that compliments the NRA's program to oust Obama. Interesting to me is the appeal that DU would have for the expressed libertarian views by so many in the gun forum. Has someone polled the DU gun forum to see how many are NRA members?

For my part, I'm a member of the NRA and I am annoyed, though not surprised, at the constant bashing of the President and the obvious right-wing leanings. I'm fortunate in that in most elections I have a plethora of Democratic candidates to chose from that have high marks from the NRA, and often they are the NRA-endorsed candidate.

I believe the NRA is absolutely single-issue focused, and they will endorse anyone that is pro-gun, from any party. The reason why they pander so hard to the right is the majority of firearm owners come from the right. While many of them would probably be on the right no matter what, a large contingent of them were driven to the right by the gun control efforts of the left.

It's why I would love to see the Democratic party drop gun control and embrace the right to keep and bear arms. Literally overnight you would have millions of people stop looking at Democrats as the "anti-gun guys" and Republicans as the "pro-gun guys" and they would have to consider other issues. Now you are never going to get the religious nuts or the homophobes to change their stripes, but you will get lots and lots of people who are anti-war and anti-corporations-are-people.

And overnight you could turn the NRA into a sponsor of the Democratic party.

Do advocates of nationwide concealed carry laws envision a country where everyone packs? I think if I were to believe everyone else had a gun and I felt threatened I would soon feel it necessary to buy my own weapon, the bigger the better. This is certainly not a future I look forward to. Is this the future you envision?

I don't know of anyone who thinks that everyone should carry a firearm. What most people who support concealed carry think is that everyone should have the right to carry a firearm if they choose and are legally able.

I keep my rifles in the basement and I suppose I occasionally go through a scenario in my mind about holding off attackers as they come for my food and fuel after the bomb etc. but the truth is, I don't see it ending well for anybody and I pretty much figure it isn't going to happen. Is my imagination lacking? Talk me through how it might all play out.

I already addressed this in another post. I think the most likely scenario that is going to happen during my lifetime is either a major natural disaster or, more likely, a chemical, biological, or nuclear terrorist attack on a major urban center, with a threat (real or pretend) of other urban centers, that will result in the shut-down of fuel and food into these areas which will then result in riots.

Will you be able to work with your neighbors to defend your homes? Maybe, maybe not. I remember the Koreans doing a pretty good job during the LA riots year ago. The mob tends to be fickle and when bullets start flying the mob runs the other way looking for an easier target.

Ultimately it won't end well for anyone but assuming things don't disintegrate to the point where things can be corrected after a few months of martial law, if you have food and water to survive a few months and keep others from taking it from you, you will at least survive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #58)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 08:48 AM

63. Somehow, I don't think the NRA will be embracing the Democrats.

Even if the Democrats announce as a party their support for gun rights...actually Obama on many occasions has said he respects the 2nd amendment and he has yet to offer any legislation that would restrict any kind of guy posession....a quick look at the list of board members of the NRA show a group that promotes all the GOP policies: Anti Gay rights, Anti social security, Anti Medicare, Anti investment in infrastructure, Pro War, Anti Women's choice, Anti women's health care, Anti health care. etc. The board member list reads like a directory of Reagan/Goldwater supporters. Even Norquist is on the board! I think these guys know they need the gun rights special interest vote more than the gun rights special interest group needs them and they will make sure to be vocal about gun right issues to get that vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Reply #63)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 01:35 PM

78. They do for me.

 

In the last election, every one of my Democratic candidates except one had high marks from the NRA, and three of them were the endorsed candidate.

actually Obama on many occasions has said he respects the 2nd amendment and he has yet to offer any legislation that would restrict any kind of guy posession

During his presidency, he has been very pro-gun-rights friendly.

However, his record prior to the presidency is anti-gun. Also he campaigned on re-instating the AWB (and it is still up on www.change.gov under urban policy).

Many people believe he is still anti-gun but has not moved on the issue as it is politically impossible to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Reply #63)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 03:17 PM

86. the NRA

endorsed Democrats during the last House election cycle:

Alabama: Bobby Bright
Arkansas: Mike Ross
Colorado: Betsy Markey and John Salazar
Illinois: Debbie Halverson
Maryland: Frank Kratovil
Minnesota: Tim Walz
New York: Scott Murphy and Bill Owens
Ohio: Zach Space
Pennsylvania: Paul Kanjorski and Chris Carney
South Dakota: Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Texas: Chet Edwards
Virginia: Rich Boucher
Wisconsin: Steve Kagan


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to melm00se (Reply #86)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 05:39 PM

101. Are you sure Bright is a Democrat?

DINO, I think is the term.

Roby and the Republicans kept Bright on the defensive. He felt it necessary to become the first Democrat to announce he would not vote for a second time to elect California liberal Nancy Pelosi as speaker of the House. The election of speaker is typically a unanimous vote of the party in power. Bright voted to elevate Pelosi to speaker in January 2009, and Roby charged that the vote was proof of Bright’s flawed judgment. In one campaign ad, Bright boasted of having voted with House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio 80% of the time. He also played up his endorsements from the National Rifle Association and the National Right to Life PAC. He sometimes campaigned in a “Fire Congress” T-shirt.

Must be quite a district.

But listen, I am really impressed that the NRA has backed Democrats. Maybe there is hope. Yes we can!


http://www.nationaljournal.com/almanac/person/martha-roby-al/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Reply #101)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 11:07 PM

129. pretty much

 

Scratch a large majority of those Democratic darlings of the NRA, and you'll find something like this one:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/09/02/379736/-Stephanie-Herseth-Sandlin-Profile

(I picked her at total random from that list.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #129)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 11:33 PM

132. and your problem with her is what?

she is pro-choice, pro-working class, pro-environment, and a Dem. You think she sucks because she is a rural populist and pro-gun? You think a progressive to your liking would have a snowball's chance there? You have to work with what you have. I hope you don't become head of the NDP, that would be Harper's wet dream.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #132)

Tue Apr 24, 2012, 09:42 AM

136. all those issues

are +1 (each) except pro-gun which to some is -10000000000000000000000000000.

if one looks at issues (and their supporters and detractors), one can easily see that "pro-gun" is to democrats what "pro-choice" is to the republicans: incredible hot button topics whose support (or lack of support) can easily wipe the slate of all the good things they do and support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to melm00se (Reply #136)

Tue Apr 24, 2012, 10:02 AM

137. the chance of an anti-gun any party

getting elected in rural US or Canada is zero. That is one reason why the more progressive NDP does better in rural Canada than the Liberals do. So a marginal cultural issue is more important than the environment, social justice, economy. Even if I were anti-gun or even agnostic, I would not touch it for that reason. Brian Schweitzer working to get single payer to Montana, protecting the environment safe from big oil, making a stand against Citizens United, and all of the other good things he and other rural Dems are doing is negated because you don't like guns? Maybe because I'm just some gun toting hick from Wyoming, but that makes no sense to me.
If I were on Obama's campaign staff, "Mitt the preppy elitist" and "Mitt signed MA's AWB" would be playing in places like Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #137)

Tue Apr 24, 2012, 10:14 AM

138. Rural folks

see guns for what they are: tools. They don't ascribe any anthropomorphic motives to them.

I went to college with a guy whose family owned a ranch and when I visited him and he took me out to show me their cattle (damn they were big), he never ventured from the jeep without a gun...I asked "why?" and he said that there are plenty of things out here that can take down full sized cattle and this (his lever action rifle) is the great equalizer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to melm00se (Reply #138)

Tue Apr 24, 2012, 11:59 AM

143. how clever they are

 

see guns for what they are: tools. They don't ascribe any anthropomorphic motives to them.

Gosh, one would almost think you were saying someone else did.

Of course, that would amount to saying that said someone elses suffer from delusional mental illnesses, and we know you wouldn't want to be doing that.

he said that there are plenty of things out here that can take down full sized cattle and this (his lever action rifle) is the great equalizer.

Huh. What a bright fellow. Has anyone ever suggested that he ought not to do that? Not moi, I can tell you for a fact with loads of evidence for what I say.

What was your point? Lions and tigers and bears are dangerous. Yuppers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #137)

Tue Apr 24, 2012, 11:55 AM

142. you know, if you would just stop when you're behind ...

 

That is one reason why the more progressive NDP does better in rural Canada than the Liberals do.

You just don't have a clue.

The "progressive" rural western NDPers are the ones who gave us the useless Alexa McDonough as party leader in 1995 because they would not support a gay man for party leader.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexa_McDonough#Federal_leadership
Damned "progressive" of them, that.

Jack Layton, from downtown Toronto, and the other MPs from there, and all the new Quebec MPs, are the left of the party. And if you think the left in Quebec (and most of Quebec) doesn't support stringent gun control wholeheartedly, you're woefully ignorant.

These rural populists, in both countries, are self-centred and/or panderers when it comes to firearms. And plain ignorant. Firearms are trafficked from their lax jurisdictions to urban areas with more stringent rules; what do they care, eh? And firearms homicides and other criminal uses of firearms within the family, for example, are no less common, and in some instances more common, in rural areas than in big cities. In Canada, the various Mounties who have been killed by firearm in the last few years weren't working in Vancouver's downtown east side, and it wasn't handguns they were killed with, btw.

Nobody is saying that firearms control, which IS NOT a "marginal cultural issue", for the love of fuck (except to the right wing and its panderers, who try to make it one), negates anything. Many people think that those who try to make it a cultural issue for their own benefit should grow some common decency and honesty and acknowledge the role their policies play in the harm suffered by other people. And maybe act like actual leaders, and educate their constituencies about the facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #142)

Tue Apr 24, 2012, 04:37 PM

149. there but not here

According to the ATF the plurality if not majority of crime guns in New York originate in New York. DCs originate in Maryland. I thought the registry was supposed to greatly curtail trafficking in Canada?
Sorry, don't buy the "rural populists are self centered asses" bit. They are not the cause of NYC's or Chicago's problems. They are not the gun sources, at least not according to the ATF. MAIG and Brady are full of shit.
I believe I said more progressive. As in relative.
Criminal use of firearms in rural areas maybe a Canadian problem, but not so much a US problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #149)

Tue Apr 24, 2012, 05:34 PM

151. I just never, ever know wtf you are talking about

 

I thought the registry was supposed to greatly curtail trafficking in Canada?

Yes ... and it does (not so much "curtail", since there has never been really significant trafficking, given the relatively tight restrictions on handgun possession). What did anything I said have to do with trafficking in Canada?

Firearms are trafficked from their lax jurisdictions to urban areas with more stringent rules; what do they care, eh?

Canada does not have "lax jurisdictions"; firearms law is uniform nationally. So obviously, I was talking about the US. (And sure, trafficking out of the US, just in case anybody in the US wants to actually consider the less proximate neighbours too.)

Sorry, don't buy the "rural populists are self centered asses" bit.

Oh well then. To me, anybody who opposes licensing and registration, for instance, for whatever idiosyncratic reasons they might offer, is a self-centred ass.

I believe I said more progressive. As in relative.

And you were wrong.

Criminal use of firearms in rural areas maybe a Canadian problem, but not so much a US problem.

Tell it to the dead people. Oh wait ...

South Dakota has a homicide rate about 50% higher than Canada's. Montana's is a little less than that; still notably higher. Alaska's is more than double. Perhaps all those people were smothered in their sleep.

Some rural states have higher homicide rates, some lower than Canada or even European countries.

Beating the record of the urban US isn't exactly the standard I'd use when determining whether there is a problem. And of course homicide isn't the only measure of harm. Suicide by firearm occurs at higher rates in rural states of the US, according to the studies I've seen.

Suicide rates 2009 by state:
http://www.afsp.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.viewpage&page_id=05114FBE-E445-7831-F0C1494E2FADB8EA

New York, New Jersey and Illinois, for example, have rates well below the average of 12/100,000. Wyoming, Montana and Alaska seem to top the list with rates more than double the NY, NJ and IL rates. But maybe all those people jumped off mountain peaks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #151)

Tue Apr 24, 2012, 09:55 PM

153. The only reason you don't understand wtf

is because you don't bother to read very closely. It seems to be pretty fucking clear to everyone else on the planet.
Most Mexican crime guns did not come from US gun stores. I'm still looking for a RCMP or some other official study that shows Canada's crime guns are smuggled from the US exclusively. MAIG and similar groups are full of shit.
Mexico is not the cause of our drug problem.
South Dakota is not the cause of Chicago's gun problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #153)

Tue Apr 24, 2012, 10:20 PM

154. why in the fucking hell would you be doing that??

 

I'm still looking for a RCMP or some other official study that shows Canada's crime guns are smuggled from the US exclusively.


Has anybody ever CLAIMED that Canada's crime guns are smuggled from the US exclusively??

NO.

But it's funny how you seem to be trying to make somebody believe that somebody has claimed that.

I have posted, over and over and over and over down the years, that the proportions of traceable crime guns in Toronto, for example, are roughly equal between guns trafficked in from the US and guns stolen within Canada. Numbers are small so variations may be noticeable year over year: if there have been a couple of big heists from "collectors" near Toronto, the stolen-in-Canada rate over the next little while might be higher, etc.

Why on earth would you be looking for a study that will never exist because the conclusion you want it to reach would exist only in bizarro land?


MAIG and similar groups are full of shit.

Oh, well, there we have it.

And the US federal govt statistics it analyzes just don't exist.

Right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #154)

Tue Apr 24, 2012, 10:58 PM

155. MAIG didn't get it from them

MAIG claims most of NYC's crime guns come from places like Virginia. ATF says, they come from New York.
MAIG claims most of DC's crime guns come from Virginia. ATF says the plurality comes from Maryland.

Oh well, there we have it.
the US federal govt statistics it claimed it analyzed must be more accurate than the actual ATF data.
http://www.atf.gov/statistics/trace-data/2010-trace-data.html

How many Canadian crime guns are smuggled from gun stores in the US?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #151)

Wed Apr 25, 2012, 05:06 PM

157. Ahh yes. The oft played "rating game."

This is not the first time pro-license/registration proponents have used rates which , naturally, are amplified when applied to low population examples, and compared those rates to places with LARGE populations where those large populations tend to dilute the "rates".

You can skip the "but this is how we compare small with large" blah blah blah, thats sure to follow.

"New York, New Jersey and Illinois, for example, have rates well below the average of 12/100,000. Wyoming, Montana and Alaska seem to top the list with rates more than double the NY, NJ and IL rates. But maybe all those people jumped off mountain peaks."

Now, maybe you can explain which of those places in the above example actually have the worst homicide with guns "problem". It wouldn't be the places with the lowest "rates" that your using there, would it?

This seems an aweful lot like the brady report cards.

I live close to a town with a population of 34. If there were just 1 gun homicide there annually(which there actually isn't), the rate would be something like 2941 per 100,000, and you could use it as an example of one of the places with the highest "gun homicide" rates anywhere in the world. " But maybe all those people jumped off mountain peaks."

All hypothetical 1 of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #157)

Wed Apr 25, 2012, 05:50 PM

158. My friends lived in a town of 1068

About 6-7 years ago there was a double homicide. The first crime related death in over 30 years. But for that year their rate was 187/100k

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #132)

Tue Apr 24, 2012, 10:36 AM

139. read the article, did you?

 

Apparently her opposition makes much of her pro-choice position, but she doesn't. She opposed the health care legislation, she didn't oppose funding for the war on Iraq, and the rest of what is in that article. Pro-working class? That's what subsidies to big agriculture are?

You think a progressive to your liking would have a snowball's chance there?

Who knows? Maybe not today. But that's electoral politics. You don't change human beings overnight.

But the mere fact that someone has a big D after their name doesn't make them progressive ... or even mean they are going to support Democratic Party policies, or a Democratic president's policies, if they get elected.

Thomas Mulcair, the new leader of the NDP, is from the right wing of the party. There is much I don't like about him. My membership lapsed a year or two ago when I dropped the credit card my monthly payments came from, and I didn't think to pay up in time, so I wasn't in on the electronic voting. Policy-wise, I would have supported Brian Topp, the middle of the party's choice with respectable left-wing credentials; given my druthers I would have supported Peggy Nash, but it was clear early on that she wasn't going to be in the top two. But had I voted, it probably would have been for Mulcair, because Topp doesn't have a seat in the House, and that would take weeks or months to happen and there's no guarantee he would get one, and because we had been leaderless in the House for way too long already and we risk losing momentum from the election if it goes on much longer. The party leader is not going to make the party over in his own image, and meanwhile he is in the House, fluently bilingual, and from Quebec, and has appointed a sterling deputy from the left wing of the party, and he is a very mouthy person, which suits me fine.

Electoral politics. You don't very often get what you want. But you don't have to pretend that what you've got is what it isn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 01:40 PM

43. OK, I have read the whole thing. I want my 20 minutes back.

 

I kept waiting for some meat and potatoes argument, and it never came.

The article is mostly factual, shows a definite anti-gun bias, and a lamenting over how liberal firearm rights have become.

The entire article is basically a history of gun rights interspersed with a history of some high-profile shootings, in an attempt to paint the right to keep and bear arms negatively.

The following passages struck me in particular:

"The American Firearms School sits in an industrial park just north of Providence, in a beige stucco building topped with a roof of mint-green sheet metal. From the road, it looks like a bowling alley, but from the parking lot you can tell that it’s not. You can hear the sound of gunfire. It doesn’t sound like thunder. It doesn’t sound like rain. It sounds like gunfire."

Ah, the horror, the horror, gunfire sounds like gunfire.

"Inside, there’s a shop, a pistol range, a rifle range, a couple of classrooms, a locker room, and a place to clean your gun. The walls are painted police blue up to the wainscoting, and then white to the ceiling, which is painted black. It feels like a clubhouse, except, if you’ve never been to a gun shop before, that part feels not quite licit, like a porn shop."

Never miss an opportunity to link firearm rights with illicit sexual gratification.

"The idea that every man can be his own policeman, and every woman hers..."
The idea here really is that every man and woman has a right to self-defense.

"We got earplugs and headgear and ammunition and went to the range. I fired a hundred rounds. Then Dietzel told me to go wash my hands, to get the gunpowder off, while he went to clean the gun.

...

I opened the door, and turned on the tap. T. J. Lane had used a .22-calibre Mark III Target Rimfire pistol. For a long time, I let the water run."


How dramatic. As if she had just touched something unspeakably unclean.

"Between 1968 and 2012, the idea that owning and carrying a gun is both a fundamental American freedom and an act of citizenship gained wide acceptance and, along with it, the principle that this right is absolute and cannot be compromised; gun-control legislation was diluted, defeated, overturned, or allowed to expire; the right to carry a concealed handgun became nearly ubiquitous; Stand Your Ground legislation passed in half the states; and, in 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled, in a 5–4 decision, that the District’s 1975 Firearms Control Regulations Act was unconstitutional. Justice Scalia wrote, “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.” Two years later, in another 5–4 ruling, McDonald v. Chicago, the Court extended Heller to the states."

This of course is meant to be a lament, to me it is fantastic!

"That is the logic of the concealed-carry movement; that is how armed citizens have come to be patrolling the streets. That is not how civilians live. When carrying a concealed weapon for self-defense is understood not as a failure of civil society, to be mourned, but as an act of citizenship, to be vaunted, there is little civilian life left."

This hand-wringing is, of course, untrue. People who carry concealed weapons (people like Zimmerman not withstanding) are not out to "patrol the streets". They are simply prepared in the unlikely event that they are involved in a violent crime.

Violent crime is continuing its decades-long decline. In those terms, civilian life continues to get better and better.

When good people stand up to bad people, this is not an act to be mourned, but an act to be celebrated.

"The Bill of Rights, drafted by James Madison in 1789, offered assurance to Anti-Federalists, who feared that there would be no limit to the powers of the newly constituted federal government. Since one of their worries was the prospect of a standing army—a permanent army—Madison drafted an amendment guaranteeing the people the right to form a militia. In Madison’s original version, the amendment read, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”"

But, of course, there were several drafts of the second amendment, and in the end, the founders enumerated the right of the people to keep and bear arms, not the right to "form a militia". Moreover, the right to keep and bear arms was specifically enumerated to the people, and not the states, nor the states' militias.

I should probably be skeptical of the author's account of history but I'm willing to go along with it pretty much at face value, as it seems fairly factual from what I know.

Regardless of what transpired to make the NRA form it's legislative action branch in 1975, I'm glad that it has been around to protect the second amendment. They've done a great job. As the author notes, "Between 1968 and 2012, the idea that owning and carrying a gun is both a fundamental American freedom and an act of citizenship gained wide acceptance and, along with it, the principle that this right is absolute and cannot be compromised."

The NRA is a huge, huge reason for that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #43)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 03:36 PM

47. One of the reasons...

...(IMHO) that the NRA and many organizations that favor individual RKBA are doing well, growing and have continuing contributions is that many pro-control organizations make themselves enemies by their unreasonable opposition to what is obviously a personal right and choice. Nothing unites a group like an enemy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #43)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 10:16 PM

51. So you are perfectly happy feeling that you "must carry" in order to feel protected?

"Violent crime is continuing its decades-long decline. In those terms, civilian life continues to get better and better.

When good people stand up to bad people, this is not an act to be mourned, but an act to be celebrated. "

Do you think that "must issue" and "concealed carry" have actually led to the decline? Perhaps something else is at work in respect of those declining numbers - a rising standard of living(despite our economic downturn) - better policing, town watch, etc.

You will most like likely say that a society where everyone is armed is a "civil" society. If that was indeed the case, then Afghanistan or Somalia should be remarkably civil and safe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoneOffShore (Reply #51)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 12:14 AM

57. I don't carry.

 

So you are perfectly happy feeling that you "must carry" in order to feel protected?

I don't know about "protected", but I feel pretty "safe" where I live and travel on a regular basis, and I don't carry a firearm.

Do you think that "must issue" and "concealed carry" have actually led to the decline? Perhaps something else is at work in respect of those declining numbers - a rising standard of living(despite our economic downturn) - better policing, town watch, etc.

No, there is no evidence to say that more liberal firearm laws have caused the decrease in crime. All we can say is that they probably have not increased crime, given the huge numbers of firearms going into circulation.

The biggest reason why crime has declined since the 1990s is we have put an entire child-bearing-age set of African-Americans and Hispanics in prison. Aside from the unfair prison and sentencing that African-Americans and other minorities get, this has had the effect of putting a huge swath of disenfranchised people who might easily find criminal activity a way out of poverty into prison.

I've cynically heard it put (and I disagree with this) "the right people are now in jail." There is nothing right about incarcerating African-Americans at the absurd rates they are incarcerated at, especially when you consider the social problems that give minorities such a hopeless outlook on life that a life of crime looks like a way up. But when you look at homicides in New York City, you can easily tell that most homicide is committed by African-Americans.

http://projects.nytimes.com/crime/homicides/map

As you can see from the map, 61% of homicides are committed by African-Americans, and 29% are committed by Hispanics, for a total of 90%. Unfair or not, if 30 years ago you started putting huge chunks of the child-bearing minority population in prison you are going to see a reduction in crime over time. And that is just what has happened.

The war on drugs has put a large chunk of our most disenfranchised members of society in prison, which is just what Nixon intended when he started it. My google is failing me right now, but I distinctly remember a quote by Richard Nixon where he basically said, "The problem really is the blacks. The trick is to create a policy that addresses this without appearing to."

Rather than fix the social problems that make crime look like an opportunity for those with little other opportunity, we put them in jail. A rather hollow victory.

As an aside, of course this opens up a whole other social consequence. The right loves to rail against unwed and single mothers and yet with the prosecution of the drug war we have put large swaths of the available men for minority women in prison. (Not that I'm against inter-racial marriage, which I think is fine, it's just not yet the norm).

You will most like likely say that a society where everyone is armed is a "civil" society. If that was indeed the case, then Afghanistan or Somalia should be remarkably civil and safe.

The difference is law and order. In a lawful and orderly society, where people have faith in the government and the rules, then most people operate inside the law to resolve personal and professional conflicts. When people have faith in the justice system, the courts become the arbiters of such conflicts. Thus law-abiding people can be armed in such societies and they will seldom use their firearms outside of the law.

When there is no law and order, and society is in chaos and the government is corrupt or non-existant, and people feel that they will get no protection nor representation from their government, and they will have no recourse within the law for injustice, then they will operate outside the law to get justice.

That said, if you lived in Afghanistan or Somalia, would you want to be defenseless?

Being able to defend yourself and your family is largely a luxury here in the United States. There I would think it would be an absolute necessity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoneOffShore (Reply #51)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 09:14 AM

65. Speaking only for myself...

I carry only in remote places, far from law enforcement or many others at all for that matter. Yeah, I'm pretty happy about that having had some disturbing encounters in the past.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 02:08 PM

44. Excellent article. Very informative. Thanks.

I might point out that "gun nuts" is probably not a good term to use. There is a big difference between gun enthusiast, habitual carrier and average gun owner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 12:31 AM

59. You insult, then ask for "a little thoughtfulness"..how quaint..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #59)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 08:32 AM

62. I'm sorry I used the term "Gun nuts."

I am surprised that I offended anyone by using the term "Gun nuts". It was not my intention. I am often called a "Car nut" because of my love of old cars, race cars, new cars etc. and I have never considered it an insult. I had no idea gun enthusiasts were sensitive about this. I'll, in the future, use the term "Gun enthusiasts" if that would be more acceptable. RB.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Reply #62)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 09:11 AM

64. "Worked up" and "bear arms" in parenthesis didn't help the tone either.

"I had no idea gun enthusiasts were sensitive about this."

Uh huh

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Reply #62)


Response to pipoman (Reply #66)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 12:46 PM

74. What do you mean "Covertly"?

I would hope my post is clear as glass, or at least clearer than yours.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Reply #62)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 01:56 AM

166. If you're so sorry

go fucking edit it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 03:00 PM

84. excellent article

 

Page 6 has this:

On Election Day in 1970, Keene was at the White House. Joseph Tydings, a Democratic senator from Maryland who had introduced a Firearms Registration and Licensing Act, was running for reëlection. “The returns were coming in, and someone said, ‘What’s going on in Maryland?’ ” Keene recalled. “And someone answered, ‘I can tell you this: everywhere except Baltimore, there are long lines of pickup trucks at the polls. He’s going down over gun control.’ ”

The late 60s was when "gun rights" were invented. In response to civil rights.

What else happened in Maryland was Spiro T. Agnew. A disorganized Democratic Party nominated the racist gun militant George P. Mahoney for governor, and liberals deserted the party in droves and elected Agnew. And we all know where that got you.


http://abacus.bates.edu/Library/aboutladd/departments/special/ajcr/1970/Tydings.shtml

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD – SENATE
July 9, 1970
Page 23393

SENATOR TYDINGS AND GUN CONTROL

Mr. MUSKIE: Mr. President, in the June 27 issue of the New Republic, Alex Campbell has written a perceptive article about the political situation in which the Senator from Maryland (Mr. TYDINGS) presently finds himself being the object of attack from both the left and right. I think this short piece clearly demonstrates what happens to a public figure when he takes on the tough issues without ducking. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the RECORD.

...

TYDINGS OF NO JOY

And, because Tydings is also pushing for saner gun laws, lavish displays of posters and bumper stickers paid for by you-know-who tell Maryland voters, "If Tydings wins, you lose."

What?

Their guns; therefore, they seem to fear, their manhood. Both fears are groundless; nevertheless Tydings, a self-confessed liberal, is now being depicted as a castrator as well. Tydings is Maryland's senior senator and faces in September a primary fight with George P. Mahoney, a Democrat who is an eight-times loser and is so far from being a liberal that in 1966 Spiro T. Agnew won the governorship from him largely by appearing to be by contrast a moderate.

Mahoney is counting confidently on gun lobby backing. Should Mahoney lose a ninth time, the gun lobby doubtless will back Republican J. Glenn Beall Jr. against Tydings in November.

Unregistered guns killed two of Tydings’ close friends, John and Robert F. Kennedy. The 1968 Gun Control Act is a flop; only three states require gun licenses and in 35 states, lunatics may legally own guns. Tydings wants guns registered and licensed. His assurances to hunters that this will not interfere with sport and to collectors of antique guns that these won't count, have failed to abate the trumped-up hysteria against Tydings' modest proposals; so have Tydings' terrible statistics – 99,000 armed robberies annually, more than doubled since 1964, and 9,000, Americans shot to death each year.

... The senator has written a book, Born to Starve, to expose his views on population control. He says that 5.4 million American women who are poor don't want large families and do want family planning assistance, but fewer than 800,000 get it. The Nixon Administration has adopted elimination of unwanted births as a national goal, but Tydings is urging larger financial provision, $984,000 over five years. His less rational accusers blow up over his family planning stand. Some blacks say he's a rich white who aims to sterilize the black poor; others profess shock at his proposal to leave abortion "to individual conscience." If he politically survives the attacks generated by what seems to be everyone else's castration syndrome, Tydings may look good in 1972, when he will be only 44. Many of his liberal ideas match with those of Senator McGovern – and of Senator Ted Kennedy. Tydings would also fit a Muskie ticket, or a Hughes ticket. But sometimes, reading his hate mail, Tydings becomes a bit glum. The storm that is being worked up against him in his state is contrived by the gun lobby in part because he is a liberal, and people who fear and hate liberal views readily believe that Tydings is plotting to disarm them so as to leave them helpless prey of vaguely glimpsed powers of evil. But, meanwhile, Tydings' efforts to protect poor and black people from the criminals who prey on them are rudely rebuffed.


Those were the days.

Although ... plus ça change ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 03:36 PM

91. That guy is so dumb about guns that he thinks Rimfire is a brand of gun.

The correct brand is Ruger, Mark III Target. Rimfire is just a description of the type of ammo that it uses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #91)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 03:43 PM

92. that reminds me

did you see the new pistol Pinfire came out with?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #91)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 06:01 PM

104. and what are you on about?

 

The correct brand is Ruger, Mark III Target. Rimfire is just a description of the type of ammo that it uses.

You appear to be referring to this:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/04/23/120423fa_fact_lepore?currentPage=all
He led me to a classroom, opened a case, and took out a .22-calibre Mark III Target Rimfire pistol.

"Mark III Target Rimfire Pistol" is the name that Ruger gives to its product model:

http://www.ruger.com/products/markIIITarget/models.html

If I say I drive an F150 4X4 Lariat Super Cab (trust me, I don't), will you bash me about the ears because "super cab" just means it has a big cab, and it's really a Ford?

Who could possibly have read it as meaning that, or inferred from it that the author thought such a thing? Why on this green earth you would allege that the author thinks Rimfire is a brand of gun, from that sentence, I have no clue.

(Of course, I also have no clue why you would refer to Jill Lepore as "that guy".)

Just nothing else you could say about the content of the article, I guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #104)

Tue Apr 24, 2012, 12:05 AM

133. Actually he is right.

 

And since I can reach into my cabinet and actually look at my own "Mark III Target" .22lr pistol, that easily verified.

Why on this green earth you would allege that the author thinks Rimfire is a brand of gun, from that sentence, I have no clue.



Here's your clue: vast majority of anti-gunners are technically ignorant when it comes to firearms. Of course, they are not bothered by that ignorance and some even seem to wear it as a badge of honor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #133)

Tue Apr 24, 2012, 11:44 AM

141. actually you're making just as little sense

 

but being even more unpleasant about it.

Congratulations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #141)

Tue Apr 24, 2012, 01:17 PM

145. Being unpleasant?

 

Oh, I'm sorry. Did I borrow a page from your book? You being such a pillar of pleasant discourse here on DU I'm sure it wasn't intentional. Remind me again why your opinion about me matters to myself? Anyone? Does that opinion somehow change what is engraved into the steel of the gun's receiver?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #141)

Tue Apr 24, 2012, 04:55 PM

150. Pot

 

Kettle

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #150)

Thu Apr 26, 2012, 09:29 AM

161. Board vigilante!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #161)

Thu Apr 26, 2012, 03:24 PM

164. Bragging about getting other posters tombstoned

 

kinda like high school all over again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 03:59 PM

93. Two more related articles by Jill Lepore...

Related to the one mentioned in the original post.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/04/the-second-amendment.html

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2009/11/09/091109crat_atlarge_lepore

They may shed better light on her stated point of view.

Xela

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xela (Reply #93)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 05:49 PM

102. if you have something to say about her "stated point of view"

 

-- and what its relevance is to the content of the article in the OP -- why not say it?

This is a discussion board, after all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #102)

Thu Apr 26, 2012, 09:25 AM

160. And your point is?

 

File a complaint with board management.

Who appointed you board vigilante?

FILL OUT THE OFFICIAL FORM!

I think you should apologize for the uncivil personal attack.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #160)

Thu Apr 26, 2012, 09:35 AM

162. you think ...

 

I think you should hire a crane to remove the two-ton chip from your shoulder.

No one else in the world would read my post as a "personal attack". Now, yours ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #162)

Thu Apr 26, 2012, 09:56 AM

163. It's all about you.

 

Yup.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xela (Reply #93)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 05:58 PM

103. Thanks for the links.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #171)

Sun Apr 29, 2012, 04:38 PM

173. If your post gets hidden, I'm going to take that phrase "(subject-X) nuts" to some other forums....

 

here on DU and see what kind of reception I get.

Should be enlightening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #173)

Mon Apr 30, 2012, 12:40 AM

174. Jury voted 6-0 to hide it. Let us know how that works out for you, re: "(subject-x) nuts" :)

You might want to start here http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1205 with a thread about truck nuts. I bet that'd be just fine

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Electric Monk (Reply #174)

Mon Apr 30, 2012, 01:15 AM

175. There does seem to be

a double or triple standard when it comes to what juries vote to hide..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #173)

Mon Apr 30, 2012, 06:47 PM

179. So, was that just an empty threat?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Electric Monk (Reply #179)

Mon Apr 30, 2012, 11:23 PM

180. I actually have a life outside of D.U.

 

Patience, Grasshopper.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread