“Bush administration backs gun regulation”. * joins forces with gun-grabbing Dem Senators.

[jody]

Bush administration backs gun regulation

But that's just what happened when U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement urged the Supreme Court in a brief Friday to say that gun rights are limited and subject to "reasonable regulation" by the government and that all federal restrictions on firearms should be upheld.

Reasonable regulations include the federal ban on machine guns and other "particularly dangerous types of firearms," he said in the brief. Moreover, the government forbids gun possession by felons, drug users, "mental defectives" and people subject to restraining orders, he said.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

The case before the court tests the constitutionality of the District of Columbia's unusually restrictive ordinance. Clement, the Bush administration's chief lawyer before the court, agreed that the 2nd Amendment "protects an individual right to possess firearms, including for private purposes unrelated to militia operations." D.C.'s ban on handguns goes too far and is probably unconstitutional, he added.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

"The D.C. ban may well fail constitutional scrutiny" he said, because it totally forbids private citizens from having a handgun at home.

Looks like Dubya is in bed with the Scary Brady Bunch, VPC, Joyce Foundation, and the infamous group of gun-grabbing Dem Senators.

[laconicsax]

1. It's in *'s best interests to have an less armed population.

Fewer people to shoot back at Blackwater, right?

[zanne]

3. Unless you own a nuclear weapon....

You can forget about that "keeping our guns so we can fight the government" stuff. How absurd.

[DavidMS]

6. I would talk with the Iraqis and PIRA about that one.

Its not guns (they can be had easily on the international market) its the social organization mixed with a desire not to be dominated and oppressed and some governmental heavy handedness that cause long running insurrections and Guerrilla wars that require political solutions. We aren't there yet thankfully and I am grateful we probably won't ever get to that point.

And anyways no semi-sane leader nukes their own city to kill some well hidden insurgents.

[Boomer 50]

10. You think they'd nuke their own population?

That's the way to calm the population. The moment an innocent gets killed by either side, the fence sitters would come out in droves against the offending side. Use a nuke and watch how the population slaughters every Goverment employee, elected official and judge in the land. The shrub or whoever wins in November would be constrained to small arms. The SWAT teams and other paramilitary wannabe cops are armed for close engagement. They stupidly banned machineguns thinking that the population thinks the same way. For myself, I'll stick to my .338 Lapua and do my best to keep them out of range if it comes down to it. Guess they didn't think they'd need to be concerned with us hunting types that can take game at long range.

[krispos42]

15. Any civil war, rebellion or revolution...

would start out as, and be fought as a giant mess. It would be waged on a political and economic level as well as in an insurgent manner. The people revolting would not spontaniously put on uniforms and follow a flag into battle like in the Civil War.

It would look more like Vietnam or Iraq or the former Yugoslovia, where things just kind of disintegrated. Generals and individual military units taking sides and fighting it out.

It would be a catastrophe. There would be no winners. Just blood and misery. And I would be quite happy to die without seeing my country torn asunder by such an event.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

18. Agree Completely

The Constitution is pretty clear about what constitutions Treason.

The notion that the Constitution protects the right of the people to over throw the government is not founded in the words of the Constitution.

[gorfle]

30. Please explain...

"The notion that the Constitution protects the right of the people to over throw the government is not founded in the words of the Constitution."

Please explain the founding father's intent for militias.

[jmg257]

32. It DOES protect the notion that the people would always have the means to withstand

a TYRANNICAL Government. At least some framers thought so. I think the whole idea was to prevent the need for any more Lexington and Concords, by limiting the power and tools of the tyrant in the 1st place, and making a grab for power less attractive. But just in case...

Hamilton, Fed #29

"This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

Well - it exists, and knowing who the CIC is, I would say now more then ever the protection of the people's RKBA is paramount.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

37. Your Are Confusing the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution

Quite a bit changed after the revolution when the Articles of Confederation resulted in disastrous consequences. One the US of A was formed, it wasn't about to let anyone overthrow it as evidenced by the section on treason. Nothing in your bold quotation speaks of their rights as being the right to be armed. I know you'll disagree, but read it again.

[jmg257]

38. Its Federalist #29 - written AFTER the Constitution was written (1788). It refers to the "ability"

of the people, who will be a well armed well regulated militia, to withstand and "out-gun" any standing army - specifically one that may be used by a tyrannical govt. I don't think they expected the people to just overthrow the govt without cause, but it was the intent of many(?) several(?) framers that the people WOULD be able to withstand tyrants and their force (the army).

HR Gerry 1st Congress: "...Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this {exemption} clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous and prevent them from bearing arms. What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures, with respect to a militia as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. "

Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution: "Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive"

Consitutional Convention: Mr. Jackson: “that he was of the opinion that the people of America would never consent to be deprived of the privilege of carrying arms.” “In a Republic every man ought to be a soldier, and prepared to resist tyranny and usurpation, as well as invasion, and to prevent the greatest of all evils – the standing Army.”

[fightthegoodfightnow]

39. Even Better

Historical revisionism and certainly *NOT* what was written.

Intention is meaningless to strict constructionist who look no further than the words of the Constitution.

[jmg257]

44. True. Then why is SOO much time spent trying to figure what the intent was of things like the 2nd

Entire court cases revolve around it, like in DC vs Heller (and BTW, much of both sides agree with Hamilton). But you are right, the trouble with relying on quotes of the framers - they MIGHT have been wrong (although in debates, you figure SOMEONE would have pointed this out to them).


So lets see..."a well regulated militia being neccessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

being - is, or in asmuch as
OK - so we KNOW (in asmuch as)"a well regulated militia (is) necessary to the security of a free State".
What militia? The "Militia of the several States" as mentioned in various Militia clauses; well understood (made up of the body of the people, people supply & keep their own "arms", &c) well defined entity, the ones that pre-existed and were declared permanent by the Constitution (given specific roles to fill - A1S8C16). (i.e. NOT the National Guard, and certainly not the "Army", the "navy", "troops" or any other different entities referred to in the Constitution.
What State? The United States.
well regulated - obvious - well armed well trained well functioning.
free - obvious - freedom, free from tyranny, people are secure in their rights, republic govt
necessary - REQUIRED, permanent

SO we know the Militia of the several States is required for the freedom (of the people) of the United States. (damn we are in trouble already - that entity is gone - BUT!! the amendment isn't - it is STILL law of the land)

Next, we KNOW "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
OK, so we KNOW the people have "the right to keep and bear arms".
What people? The people of the United States.
right - not to be suspended except via due process
What right? "The right to keep and bear arms".
arms - well used well understood term - swords, tomahawks, bayonets, & pistols, muskets, rifles - stabbing weapons and firearms
keep - obvious
bear - obvious - use, produce, carry; as in "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; "

And finally we have "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" - quite explicit, obvious - not subject to restrictions

SOO - the well regulated Militia of the several States is required, and the right of the people to KBA shall not be infringed.

Simple, and explicilty clear!

Thank you...FINALLY we agree! :)

[fightthegoodfightnow]

46. WOW

I couldn't help but laugh at your post which seems mostly designed to talk yourself into thinking I agree with you. I don't. :)

[jmg257]

47. Ha - I would expect nothing less! :) nt

[gorfle]

31. Really?

There are countless examples of insurgents going up against technically superior forces and winning.

See: Iraq. Palestinian/Israel conflicts. Mogadishu.

It doesn't take much of an insurgency to have massive economic repercussions.

[jody]

5. The case D.C v. Heller is about self-defense and the question is:

"Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?"

See: Court agrees to rule on gun case

[laconicsax]

7. Thanks for the info.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

21. Self Defense Indeed

That is EXACTLY why DC enacted it's law to begin with.

[zanne]

2. Are you sure you're on the right website?

Gun-grabbing Dem senators? When are you scheduled to be on the Rush Limbaugh show?

[jody]

4. Last time I checked, DU advocates protecting the natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable rights

of law-abiding citizens.

One of those is the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

If you don't support those goals, perhaps it's you that is not on the right website.

[east texas lib]

8. I'm not a very religious person but...

AMEN!!!:thumbsup:

[fightthegoodfightnow]

22. Is That Your Way of Shutting Us Up?

Sorry but you can't point a pistol at me on this board and tell me to leave. It just won't work.

[SecularNATION]

9. Yes, I'm Sure

"Are you sure you're on the right website? Gun-grabbing Dem senators? When are you scheduled to be on the Rush Limbaugh show?"

There ARE gun-grabbing Dem Senators. That's a fact. There are also gun-grabbing Democratic voters, like you, apparently. But, don't try to paint pro-right to keep and bear arms Democrats as not real Democrats. It won't work. That shit won't fly.

zanne, the truth is, it's zealots like you who have caused the Democratic Party to lose election after election after election, and that pisses me off. GWB would never have become POTUS, if it weren't for "Democrats" like yourself who can't shut up about guns.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

24. Pick Up a Newspaper

Dems are winning elections and they are doing so without any regard to the question of guns.

[SteveM]

12. Why should Rush take us when he could get you? (nt)

[OffWithTheirHeads]

13. He's on the correct website

Gun grabbing Dems scare me just as much as criminal Repukes.
Lots of others here too.
I know that there are a handful that think you have to hate guns to be progressive but you would be wrong. Lots, in fact the majority of us think the second amendment is just as important as the rest of them.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

23. Felons and the Mentally Ill Have No Constitutional Right to Own a Gun

....... and anyone who says otherwise is just ........... crazy.

[deadlikeme13]

25. Where does it say that in the Consitution or the Bill of Rights?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

26. Where does it say in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that

....... someone can't own a nuclear weapon?

That's using your logic and that's just silly.

But heh.... I'll leave you to argue the mentally ill and the felon are entitled to own a gun.

[deadlikeme13]

34. There were no nukes in 1776. Besides the 2nd protects firearms, not nukes.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

36. Right !!!!

And in 1776 there were only rifles and small arms.

So using your logic, the Second Amendment doesn't protect machine guns, assault weapons, semi-automatic rifles, or any other arm capable of firing high-impulse, multiple projectiles NONE of which existed when the Second Amendment was written.

Thanks for making my point.

[SecularNATION]

40. and your "point" is?

If semi-automatic rifles had been the technology during the 1780s, would the 2nd amendment not have been adopted? Do you favor banning semi-automatic rifles? If so, why? Remember, bolt action, pump action, and lever action rifles all have a much higher rate of fire than the old muzzle loaders of that period. Should those be banned, as well? If not, why not? Also, what is a "high-impulse" projectile? I don't recall ever hearing that term.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

41. Why Don't You Ask deadlikeme13

.......... who I was responding to. He claimed that the nuclear bombs did not exist in 1776 and therefore any comparison to the guns of the time was irrelevant.

I merely pointed out the inconsistencies of his arguments. Nothing more.

[SecularNATION]

42. I'm asking YOU

I know who you were responding to. I asked you some specific questions. Can't you answer them?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

43. Didn't Like My Answers

Too bad. I wasn't responding to you.

Notice how you ask me these questions but not the person I was responding to.

LOL.

[SecularNATION]

45. non response is telling

I asked you sincere and reasonable questions. Not all gun control advocates have identical positions. I'm not sure what yours are. What's the big problem with answering them? If they've already been voiced, I apologize. I am willing to state my positions, if you're interested.

[zanne]

27. The majority of progressives? WRONG. nt

[spin]

11. To see what happens when a government bans weapons

just check out England. They have banned firearms and are working on totally banning knives. Right now a citizen can carry only a folding pocket knife with a non locking blade shorter than 3". (Unless he has a really good reason.)

A quick summary of British knife laws can be found at: http://www.bkcg.co.uk/guide/law.html

Next to be banned are kitchen knives. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/may/27/health.politics. A quote from this link:


"Many assaults are impulsive, often triggered by alcohol or misuse of other drugs, and the long, pointed kitchen knife is an easily accessible, potentially lethal weapon, particularly in the domestic setting," say the doctors from the West Middlesex university hospital, London, in the British Medical Journal.

Knives "of less than 5cm <2ins> in length" or with blunt, round ends would meet culinary needs and be far less likely to result in fatalities.



Another interesting link showing how British knife owners feel about their knife laws is at: http://www.britishblades.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=39

I know a lot of well intentioned posters on DU favor stricter gun laws. I suggest they research what has happened in Great Britain. Perhaps they can begin to understand the posters on DU who oppose draconian weapons laws. Do we really want to head down a slippery slope that might lead us to cutting a steak with a two inch blunt kitchen knife?

The laws we have today in states like Florida, where I live, are reasonable but could be improved. Perhaps we could require any gun owner to complete a firearms safety course similar to a hunter safety course. Of course we could work to insure that only mentally stable. crime free individuals could legally posses firearms. Extremely violent computer games that desensitize players to killing could contribute to murder. How we regulate these games without violating the first amendment would be challenging but might prove worthwhile.

The problem is not firearms but people. We need to elect politicians who solve problems and not merely use them as wedge issues to get votes.

Of course, it's possible that politicians of both political parties fear citizens and wish to disarm them. While it's hard to imagine that a rebellion could succeed in overthrowing our government, there is no doubt a disarmed citizenry would be much easier to control. Any government that fears its citizens probably doesn't have the best interests of its people at heart.

The Republican Party is just as capable of selling out gun owners as the Democratic Party.

Sometimes I wonder if my grandchildren will live in a free country with a representative democracy. If we lose the right to own weapons, I fear the future of my grandchildren will resemble Nazi Germany.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

14. Sorry, the greatest kitchen utensil ever made is a10" French

chef's knife! How the fuck am I gonna carve a Roast with a paring knife?

Oh btw, you can't have my guns either!

[sir pball]

28. Just to be a pedantic ass about things ;)

A good carving knife doesn't have to have a point..

I actually prefer the straight blade, it's easier to shave off thin slices as opposed to a bellied edge.

And an 8" chef's knife is so much better for 99% of work, the compactness and handling more than makes up for the lack of length ;)

[jody]

29. A straight razor also doesn't have a point.

:rofl:

[sir pball]

33. Yeah

After I posted that I was sitting there looking at the knife and thinking "Gawdam, you could probably saw somebody's head off pretty damn easy with that thing" :D

[Tejas]

48. Upswing in the price of

pre-cut briskets in this area of Texas lately. At 4.99 a pound, I'm seriously considering a good set of carving knives and doing it myself. Guess that I better get a set before the ban though!

[OffWithTheirHeads]

35. Good looking carving knife. Have one like it myself but

It don't chop veggies for kaka.

[krispos42]

16. Not surprising at all.

Bush and those that control the Republican party are authoritarians as well as fascists. An armed population worries them.

They want political and economic power, and they want the population disarmed. They've managed to arrainge it so that their political opponents are advocating for disarming the population. If their opponents ban guns, then one of their goals is met. If their opponents fail to ban guns, they they take all the voter outrage, giving political and economic power to the Republicans.

In the mean time, of course, the Republicans move their party hard to the right, dragging Democrats with them while at the same time dominating the talk-radio and news-media worlds.

But now that the '94 backlash has made most Democrats "gun-shy" and avoiding the issue, they don't have enough lackeys to continue the disarmament, so they have to switch to more direct tactics.

[jody]

17. Excellent, at the extreme right proponents espouse totalitarianism & all power to the state.

The true supporters of individual rights and liberalism recognize the value of the natural. inherent, inalienable/unalienable right to keep and bear arms for defense of self and state.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

20. It's Not Facism for the State to Deny Murders the Right to Own a Gun

What a cr*ck of sh*t.

[piedmont]

53. It certainly is fascist for the state to deny law-abiding citizens the right to own a gun.

Last time I checked, murderers ARE denied the right to own a gun. Or are you calling all citizens murderers?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

59. Wrong

You write: "Last time I checked, murderers ARE denied the right to own a gun."

Check again.

You ask: "Or are you calling all citizens murderers?'

No.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

19. Felons Don't Have the Right to Vote anymore than they have the Right

........... to use a gun to kill someone.

[Tejas]

49. Are you in the correct thread?

Heller concerns law-abiding citizens possessing firearms in their own homes, where did this rant about felons come from?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

50. Got It

YOU know what the 'correct thread' is.

Heller concerns the rights of DC citizens to enact laws governing.....DC citizens.

But heh.... where exactly do you fall in that again?

[Tejas]

52. Good, glad I could help n/t

[fightthegoodfightnow]

So Responsive

But heh.... where exactly do you fall in that again?

[Tejas]

56. post #49 is still there waiting on you n/t

[fightthegoodfightnow]

58. See Post #57

Just for you

[fightthegoodfightnow]

51. OH.......... PLEASE DO TELL US WHERE YOU LIVE

......so we can have the opportunity to look who exactly has benefited from having a gun.

[Tejas]

54. Sure isn't DC or Chicago n/t

[fightthegoodfightnow]

55. Such an Answer

No problem. I didn't expect you to answer

[Tejas]

60. I've got a good teacher (that would be you) ;) n/t

[fightthegoodfightnow]

57. Heller was Designed to Prevent Citizens from Becoming Felons

Get it?

[Tejas]

61. Really? Then the Sun will rise in the east?

You come up with some of the best "filler", shame that none of it is news.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

62. Really?

No the Sun sets in the west.

Not only that: Heller was Designed to Prevent Citizens from Becoming Felons

[Tejas]

63. speaking of Senators

Where did they find this guy?

[SteveM]

64. Probably wanted to experience what his bodyguards are carrying (nt)