Keep your gun fetish out of my festival

[kpominville]

http://www.examiner.com/progressive-in-detroit/keep-your-gun-fetish-out-of-my-festival

[Orrex]

1. As much as I applaud any cautions against firearm accidents...

the two Google searches suggested by that blog are poorly conceived. For instance, the second professes to search for the child shot in accident with parents gun, yielding 88.9M results, but in fact it searching for those words in any combination. If you search for the exact phrase "child shot in accident with parents gun," you get just 10 results. Still tragic, but rather different from 88.9M, I should think.

Additionally, if you search for the exact phrase "man shoots self with own gun" you get not 29.5M results (as suggested by the article) but one. And that one result is the blog article itself!

Hell, if you search for the words Michelle Obama is in love with me, you get 10.7M hits! But if you search for the phrase, you get none.



The problem is that the blog article, regardless of its legitimacy or validity in general, makes itself sensationalistic by featuring two bogus "gotcha" searches so prominently. Such tactics imply dishonesty or culpable sloppiness even if the poster is totally sincere.

[hlthe2b]

3. I find many people don't really understand google searches.

So, I didn't even click on those links. Without that distraction, I find this CCW-owner's opinions to be interesting. We hear frequently from CCW and NRA-members who believe in no limits whatsoever to where one can bring a gun. We don't often hear from those who feel differently and certainly they are never polled. :shrug:

[pipoman]

5. Really?

Can you link us to these oh-so-common posters/people who "who believe in no limits whatsoever"? It should be easy given the frequency we hear from such folks.

[hlthe2b]

7. spend some time in the gungeon... n/t

[pipoman]

11. I have spent time there and have NEVER, EVER in 5 years

seen anyone, at all, nobody, espouse this line of nonsense. Now since you are the one being accused of not knowing what you are talking about, prove it, post links or it didn't happen.

[SteveM]

22. Insufficient answer. Please provide links.

[kpominville]

13. I have heard there should be no limits repeatedly since posting that article.

How about the group in Tennessee who wants to carry their guns in bars?

Where does this insanity end?

[pipoman]

15. Really? Then it shouldn't be hard to link to examples..

How about the group in Tennessee who wants to carry their guns in bars?

Oh, you mean like 30 or so other states already allow with no real problems arising? Don't you really mean restaurants which serve alcohol and not bars per se?

[kpominville]

18. No, I mean bars.

Look it up. Google the "guns in bars bill" in tennessee.

[friendly_iconoclast]

20. Try again. There are plenty of limits on guns in bars under Tennesee law.

No drinking (or being under the influence) if you're packing being the major one. I'm sure there's a few more, but I can't
be arsed to look for them at the moment.


I hope your posts in this thread aren't indicative of your posts at DU in general. Maybe you're just having a bad day...

[pipoman]

40. Actually,

it is customary not to tell people to do your googling for you. And I'll take your failure to post links to examples of, "I have heard there should be no limits repeatedly since posting that article.", as acknowledgment that nobody is saying any such thing?

BTW, welcome to DU. Now for my suggestion. Spend a little time in the DU Guns forum. read the threads and follow the links with an open mind over the next few weeks...make sure that your conception of 'the other side' of this issue is, in fact, what you believe it to be.

[friendly_iconoclast]

19. There *are* no examples- it's another faith promoting rumor amongst prohibitionists

They're usually the same people who claim the NRA wants no limits whatsoever on gun sales.

When asked for evidence that this is true, we either get waffling or third-hand gossip repeated as if it were Holy Scripture.

Never a link or a citation from a printed source, you'll notice.



And they wonder why gun control is losing ground...

[SteveM]

23. Some controllers use GOP tactics: state an untruth. Over & over.

[pipoman]

43. Yep..I will give this newer member the benefit

of the doubt that he/she just doesn't realize the truth about 'the dark side'...maybe this poster has a more open mind than the usual suspects who carry the same water..

[PavePusher]

21. Has it been a significant problem...

anywhere else it is already in practice?

Cite to evidence?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

33. If you search for the phrase, you get ONE hit

Google now finds this thread.

You have upset the balance of the universe.

:hi:

[pipoman]

2. Keep your sexual orientation out of my parade..

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=st.patrick%27s+parade+gay&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=8631cdd35a4d476d

[ProgressiveProfessor]

4. Or your race out of my neighborhood

[hlthe2b]

8. What an obscene attempt to analogize.

Comparing race or sexual orientation to carrying guns? Really? Last I checked no one accidentally killed anyone while gay or of a minority race.

[pipoman]

10. Last I checked we were talking about an enumerated civil liberty

frame it how you like, this is the bottom line.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

12. So you only support some civil rights?

That is exactly what you are saying.

Even the Royal Oak police chief has no problems with open carry at the festival. Every one needs to chill, enjoy the food and the music and let it go. They will not be more than 10 people carrying openly anyway.

[PavePusher]

24. Civil Rights is Civil Rights, right?

Or are some Civil Rights "more equal" than others?

[TheMadMonk]

45. The right to possess, does not equal the right to possess wherever you damn well please.

Vis a vis the "no limits" claim. So the bloke indulged in a bit of hyperbole. Get over it.

Certainly there is ANY amount of argument against anything which might in any way be construed to restrict or limit a legitimate gun owner regardless of any far greater limits that might be placed on those who should legitimately be prohibited from possessing a firearm.

Yes I am fully aware that anyone absolutely determined to come into possession of a firearm will do so regardless of the law. The same can be said for drugs. So why not open slather on manufacturing and distribution of anything and everything to any comer? What about MY inalienable right to sit in a pub and wait for some dodgey geezer in an anorak to sell me YOUR blu-ray player? Laws don't prevent theft, so why bother with laws to prohibit it? Laws don't prevent anything at all actually. So why have any laws at all?

Your "...anyone absolutely determined..." argument is as empty as a politician's promise. The point of the law is not to prevent. It's purpose is to prohibit and to delineate penalties for breaching its prohibitions and through threat of those penalties DETER breaches. SO while it is true that if I decides that I needs me a piece to establish me cred when confronting a register jockey, then I might decide (very bloody stupidly) that the reward merits the risk, but keeping a prohibitted firearm in my bedside table, just in case some dodgey geezer decides to help himself to my blu-ray player would not pass the risk vs. benefit test.

Oh and one other thing I find interesting related to this argument is the sheer number of you who openly avow, that in the event that the big bad Feds ever did pass laws seriously restricting gun ownership, you'd defy those laws and hide your guns rather than turn them in. You declare in advance that by your own illegal actions you will prove your point.


I am all in favour of responsible gun ownership. However, it is seems to me, that there are any number in America who would rather see irresponsible owners AND all the conditions necessary for a thriving black market, than themselves have to put up with the inconvenience of cooling off periods, psych checks, ballistic fingerprinting, or even letting the G-man know how many or what types of firearms they possess.

You (gun rights proponents) basically argue, that in the event that there is no legal prohibition, then it is absolutely no one's business what you do with your license to bear arms. And by inference from all your arguments (in many, many threads) regarding self defence, that anything more is superfluous, because where you yourselves are concerned you have it covered and for those who didn't have the foresight or gumption to arm themselves, tough luck, they made their choices they live with the result of their decisions.

And why? From where I'm standing, your whole argument hinges on the assumption that you have to assume that in any encounter the other guy might be armed, and thus you yourself must be afforded the same privilege. Excuse me, you NEED the Second Ammendment because you HAVE the Second Ammendment?

Your arguments against registration of individual weapons, restrictions and numbers and types, and so forth, presuppose that you will be using them against your fellow man in times of either complete anarchy or to oppose the illegal(?) susspension of civil liberties.

And then, as a group, you side with those most determined to curtail civil liberties, because they promise absolutely no (or at least, the least) restriction on your pet civil liberty, wheras, the long hairs on the left have openly declared that in order to maximise ALL OTHER civil liberties, a few sensible restrictions on just one are on the cards.

I am sure there are plenty of truly responsible owners of firearms in the USA, but that is not the issue. At issue, particularly on this board, is where the most vocal and the most visible owners of firearms stand and that is foursquare behind those who gave the USA homeland security, the Patriot Acts, TIA, TSA, the full "no fly" treatment for six year olds, cops vs. cameras and two unwinnable wars which have bled the coffers dry.

From where I stand, I see the controlling core of the gun lobby willingly participating in the curtailment of pretty much every single civil liberty but one. Why? Why is it so unreasonable: That a person show good reason to own a given type/class of firearm? That he notify a registrar that he intends to purchase another, or like with motor vehicles, an actual exchange of papers that is formally notarised and registered with every legal sale public or private? That by test and/or a cross referencing of records (including medical) an individual demonstrate a basic fitness to own/use a firearm, just as with a motor vehicle?

We already know which way the right wing militias will jump if they are ever given leave or opportunity to act. Is the answer to "Why?" here? Are the Brown Shirts of the Second American Revolution already waiting in the wings. The pages of the PNAC playbook have been well thumbed over the past decade, and even today, The New Kid on the Block appears to be working from his own copy.

Unless something drastic changes in America very soon, I really do dread to think what could all to easily happen: Another Rodney King episode as attempts at ethnic cleansing becoming more and more blatant; Another 9/11; A Greenpeace stunt gone (or made to go) wrong in the Gulf; any one of a number of sparks that will lead to the chipping away at yet more civil liberties, or ultimately their wholesale suspension.

[shadowrider]

47. Please show me one post that says "We should possess wherever we damn well please"

I'll wait.

[friendly_iconoclast]

56. You'll be waiting until the sun burns out (see post #19) n/t

[TheMadMonk]

59. Are you familliar with the term "hyperbole"?

A gross (and all too often highly inaccurate) overexageration, offten for the purpose of making a point.

[jazzhound]

60. So tell us, please, the "point" of this particular piece of

hyperbole?

Pretty obvious that the "point" of statements like these is to denigrate RKBA supporters by dishonestly characterizing all of their positions as extreme.

[Callisto32]

73. "Never use hyperbole,

not one writer in a million can do it effectively."

[Bold Lib]

85. Hyperbole: A gross overexertion, often to the point of being untrue.

So, are you backing away from your post? If not please provide a link.

[PavePusher]

49. All I have time to say right now is...

1. You certainly seem to assume a lot about me. Muost of your assumptions are not accurate.

2. You seem to assume the worst of individuals, especially those with guns. I don't know why you do that, but it is also inaccurate and unjustified.

3. You seem to both distrust the government (Patriot Act, etc, on which I agree with you) and yet trust the government to know all about our private property (guns). Interesting dichotomy, if not outright hypocracy.

4. Are you willing to put the same restrictions/conditions on our other Civil Rights that you seem to find acceptable for the exercise of the Right to keep and bear arms?

[oneshooter]

50. If you apply the same restrictions to the other rights

"That a person show good reason to own a given type/class of firearm? That he notify a registrar that he intends to purchase another, or like with motor vehicles, an actual exchange of papers that is formally notarised and registered with every legal sale public or private? That by test and/or a cross referencing of records (including medical) an individual demonstrate a basic fitness to own/use a firearm, just as with a motor vehicle?"

Then you may have a valid argument.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[TheMadMonk]

61. Cars weren't around then, or you could almost guarantee they'd have been...

...in the constitution too. Certainly everybody in America today behaves as if motor vehicles are a constitutional right. (That would be hyperbole, friendly.)

Throughout the civilised world exactly those restrictions (and greater) are placed on the ownership and transfer of motorvehicles; Explosives and a hell of a lot of other potentially dangerous goods and practices. No one feels that their civil rights are violated/restricted there.

Throughout most of the civilised world we get by with fairly severe restrictions on guns without the government taking over our living rooms or criminals the streets. Our world is also one in which "going postal" is such a rare occurence that it is world news when it happens in any first world nation outside the US. In yours it is so common that it takes 1/2 dozen or more bodies for it to make national news. Almost the same for goes for school shootings, just a lower threshold, since dead kids alway run so well on the 6 o'clock.


Is your collective machismo so fragile that a provision intended to ensure an armyless state nevertheless had the means to defend itself must always be interpreted in the losest possible fashion regardless of negative consequences?

And machismo it is for the most part. I have never seen anyone argue otherwise (or even disagree) when it is put forth that the reson no one can put a stop to Middle Easterners accidentally shooting up their inlaws (and/or neighbourhood) at weddings is how the men would view it as a threat to their manhood. I see no reason to interpret similar behaviour in white rednecks any differently.

Cars, guns, extreme sports, even the obscenity that is Wall Street, it's all bloody (literally) courtship dances and dominance games.

[Straw Man]

63. Congratulations...

...on winning the Elitist of the Month medal, with laurel cluster for Extra Condescension and Cultural Stereotyping.

And machismo it is for the most part. I have never seen anyone argue otherwise (or even disagree) when it is put forth that the reson no one can put a stop to Middle Easterners accidentally shooting up their inlaws (and/or neighbourhood) at weddings is how the men would view it as a threat to their manhood. I see no reason to interpret similar behaviour in white rednecks any differently.

"Bloody Arabs. Bloody hillbillies. Why can't they all just be civilised?"

[Euromutt]

65. Ah, "the civilized world"

I always love it how, whenever non-Americans hold forth about what they personally think is wrong with America, they feel entitled to speak for the entire rest of the world. Speaking as someone who holds dual citizenship--Dutch by birth and American by naturalization--I marvel at the sense of self-importance required to adopt such a view.

No one feels that their civil rights are violated/restricted there.

So the population of Australia consists mostly of sheep. And I should give a toss... why, exactly?

[X_Digger]

51. What's the other half of the protection in the second amendment?

Oh yeah.. "keep and bear"

Only a matter of time for the correct case to be brought.

Otherwise? You assume much and demonstrate little.

[friendly_iconoclast]

55. All that verbiage and not one actual citation or link , and only one incomplete quote

I'll just give one example of how very wrongheaded this post is. I leave it to the interested observer to pick any other inaccuracies:

I am sure there are plenty of truly responsible owners of firearms in the USA, but that is not the issue. At issue, particularly on this board, is where the most vocal and the most visible owners of firearms stand and that is foursquare behind those who gave the USA homeland security, the Patriot Acts, TIA, TSA, the full "no fly" treatment for six year olds, cops vs. cameras and two unwinnable wars which have bled the coffers dry.

Like the NRA, perhaps? Let's see if what you claim is true. From the NRA's own website, emphasis added:

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=251&issue=010


Second Amendment/Right To Arms
Standing Guard: The Terror Watch List

STANDING GUARD WAYNE LAPIERRE, NRA Executive Vice President

"Thousands Wrongly Listed on Terror Watch List"--Newsday
"U.S. to Block Gun Buyers Tied To Terror"--New York Times

Those two headlines tell the story of deep media duplicity.

When it comes to well-placed fears over widespread errors, civil liberties abuses and injustices involving tens of thousands of innocent Americans whose names have been indelibly added to huge federal "terror watchlists," the mainstream media is on the job, on point. Their concern is well-founded.

Yet that concern evaporates when the Washington-based media enthusiastically reports those very same lists will be used to bar suspected "terrorists" from buying guns under legislation introduced by U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J. In their coverage of S. 1237, there is never a hint about deeply flawed, inaccurate lists, about the impossibility of ever getting off those lists or about the abuses by federal bureaucrats who manage the lists....

"Foursquare behind". Really?

Can we assume the rest of your posts have a similar level of accuracy?

[Euromutt]

64. I have two terms for you: "malum in se" and "malum prohibitum"

Malum in se is Latin for "an ill in and of itself." Most of the stuff that falls under the heading of "doing unto others as you would have them do unto you" (theft, assault and battery, robbery, abduction, sexual assault, homicide) are mala in se.

Malum prohibitum means "an ill (because it is) prohibited." The stuff that falls into this category is generally not directly harmful to others, but is prohibited because it creates an unacceptable risk of a malum in se occurring. Thus, driving under the influence is prohibited because it, while it causes no harm to other directly, it creates an unacceptably high risk of damage to the life, limb and property of others.

A law against a malum in se requires no justification; nobody has the right to deprive another of life, liberty or property (though one may have legal authority or justification to do so in certain circumstances). To prohibit something that is not a malum in se, however, requires a compelling case that the positive effect of such a law (i.e. how well it protects and/or improves public health and safety) is worth the attendant deprivation of citizens' freedom to do what is not, in and of itself, a harmful activity.

Yes I am fully aware that anyone absolutely determined to come into possession of a firearm will do so regardless of the law. The same can be said for drugs. So why not open slather on manufacturing and distribution of anything and everything to any comer?

Speaking for myself, I am in fact in favor of treating currently illicit drugs like alcohol is already treated: i.e. legalize and regulate the trade in, and possession of, these substances. Because the fact is that most of the mala in se associated with illicit drugs are an effect of their being illegal.

What about MY inalienable right to sit in a pub and wait for some dodgey geezer in an anorak to sell me YOUR blu-ray player? Laws don't prevent theft, so why bother with laws to prohibit it?

Because theft is a malum in se. Possession of a firearm is not. Sure, you can commit mala in se using a firearm--assault, robbery, homicide--but those are illegal acts in of themselves (whether you commit them with or without a firearm), and nobody's arguing that they should be made legal.

Why? Why is it so unreasonable: That a person show good reason to own a given type/class of firearm? That he notify a registrar that he intends to purchase another, or like with motor vehicles, an actual exchange of papers that is formally notarised and registered with every legal sale public or private? That by test and/or a cross referencing of records (including medical) an individual demonstrate a basic fitness to own/use a firearm, just as with a motor vehicle?

Because in the past, such notionally reasonable restrictions have been exploited to restrict firearms ownership by certain segments of society, based on criteria unrelated to their fitness to possess a firearm. It's quite remarkable how, in some jurisdictions, anybody who was black, or Jewish, or a recent immigrant, or hadn't donated generously to the mayor or the sheriff's (re-)election campaign fund, simply could not "show good reason" to own a firearm, nor "demonstrate basic fitness" to handle one. Really quite remarkable.

It's because of those cronyist shenanigans (which persist to this day) that gun owners are highly distrustful of so-called "reasonable, common-sense" restrictions on private gun ownership. Many others have no perceptible benefit to public safety, and seem to be (who are we kidding? they are) merely ways to discourage private ownership by harassing gun owners without actually coming right out and banning private ownership entirely. You've named a few examples:

the inconvenience of cooling off periods, psych checks, ballistic fingerprinting, or even letting the G-man know how many or what types of firearms they possess.

"Cooling off" periods have no effect on violent crime, for the very simple reason that the notion of the impulsive domestic killing is a myth. Something like 75% of intimate partner killings are known to occur after the woman has threatened to leave, or has actually left her partner (which is typically preceded by an escalating pattern of physical and/or psychological abuse), and over 50% occur after the man is known to have stalked the partner. (Note that the actual percentages may be higher, because "not known to have occurred" does not mean "did not occur.")

Ballistic fingerprinting doesn't work, because guns' "fingerprints" aren't permanent. With every round fired, there is a little wear and tear on the firing pin, extractor, etc. slightly altering the "fingerprint" until it no longer matches the one on file. Forensic ballistic testing works, but only if the gun has not or hardly been fired between the crime and the ballistics test. The best way to foil ballistics is, after committing the crime, to put a couple of hundred rounds through it at the earliest opportunity. You could work the firing pin, extractor and ejector over with steel wool, but it would be obvious you'd tampered with the gun.

Psych tests... how objective would those be? Anything requiring an interview with a psychologist is going to require the psychologist's opinion, and thus be subject to potential bias.

As for registration, well, try finding someone in New York City who owns a semi-automatic rifle or shotgun of a type that the city government deemed to be an "assault weapon." Assurances made many moons ago, when the requirement to register long guns was under discussion, that such a registry would never be used to carry out confiscations were quickly and conveniently forgotten, and the registered guns duly confiscated.

[Llewlladdwr]

38. Really?

No gay or minority person has EVER killed anyone accidentally?

[slackmaster]

9. Groups Banned From Marching In The St. Patrick's Day Parade (from The Onion)

[kpominville]

14. Unlike guns - being homosexual does not kill

Your argument is completely ridiculous.

[pipoman]

16. And unlike churches

search warrants don't preach, and unlike newspapers the police must indict an infamous crime with a grand jury...Bill of Rights, you know? enumerated rights? Do you wish for liberal interpretation of some rights and conservative interpretation of others?

[kpominville]

17. Carrying a gun is NOT a civil right

Otherwise you could not be required to get a CCW.
The constitution only guarantees your right to own a gun, it does NOT give you a right to take it anywhere you damn well please.

[PavePusher]

25. "...keep and BEAR..."

And the "permit" issue is being worked. First Vermont, then Alaska and Arizona, next, the nation. Muuuaaaahahahahahaha!

[kpominville]

30. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

You forgot that small part...

[PavePusher]

31. It is not a restrictive statement.

You forgot that small part...

[shadowrider]

32. I'm adding you to my list of anti's whose posts make me chuckle

You're Nr. 3 on the list.

[friendly_iconoclast]

34. I'll stipulate the militia requirement- if a few reasonable, common-sense adjustments are made.

1. Eliminate the sexist and ageist language that limits the militia to males between 17 and 45. You did know that those
men are already automatically enrolled in the "unorganized militia", right?

2. Since militia members are expected to have the personal arms active service troops have, they must be allowed to buy at least the
semi-automatic versions of the M4 carbine and/or M16 rifle, M9 or UMP service pistol, and perhaps a short-barrelled shotgun for
close-quarters combat. Let's not forget ammunition for all the above.

This could be run by a greatly expanded Civilian Marksmanship Program that already sells surplus rifles at a discount price.
It would be sweet to score an M16 (or AR15) at a government rate!

3. Militias that don't drill are pretty much useless, so the government should provide (as well as require) a long weekend
of drill and target practice once or twice a year.

Yeah, you'd have to sleep in a tent and eat MREs- but you'd have a chance to bond with your fellow militiamen and -women while
working on your gun handling and fieldcraft.


And to think some people feel Second Amendment advocates aren't willing to compromise!

[spin]

46. I like your ideas ...

When I was in the Air Force, we had to qualify once a year on the range. I was married at the time and I used to gripe about the requirement as I was an electronic tech and we were taught to run rather than fight. (Leave fighting to the Air Police or the Marines.)

When I came back from the range, my wife (at the time) always asked me how things went. She noticed that I actually enjoyed shooting. We were offered the opportunity to stop by the range and shoot for free as long as we cleaned the weapon afterward. I foolishly never took advantage.

I'm now 64. I too would love the chance to buy an AR-15 semi-auto rifle at a reduced rate and the chance to complete in government sponsored competitions. Living in a tent and eating MREs sounds fine with me for a weekend. I would consider it a vacation.

I agree that we should allow women into the militia. I personally like women and the ones I helped to learn shooting sports were easier to train than most men and better shooters with practice.

Lets go for it, if only on a voluntary basis.

[friendly_iconoclast]

57. I expect my interlocutor to help out, since he seems to like the militia idea

It's certainly a very democratic idea, the citizens being the bulk of the Army.

[one-eyed fat man]

74. An observation

I have noticed that the bulk of those who pop off with the militia requirement seem to have diligently avoided military service themselves.

Since some may have only come of age after 1972, perhaps they might reveal why they never served.

When I was growing up virtually every male adult was a veteran of some branch of service. Now veterans make up less than 20% of the population and their median age is 56.

[friendly_iconoclast]

76. True, and two more thoughts on the subject...

As far is I can tell, those noisiest about the militia requirement have done bupkis to actually bring about a Swiss-style
(or revive the Colonial-era) militia in the US.

I suspect they really don't dig the idea of large numbers of ordinary citizens with modern battle rifles in their
homes, and only bring up the militia requirement as a dodge.

[Recursion]

125. I'm the only person under 50 at my Legion post most nights

It's unfortunate.

[DissedByBush]

83. You're supposed to be able to fight against an oppressive government

And you think semi-automatics will do when they have automatics?

At the time of the writing of the Second Amendment, the average person -- the militia -- owned the same class of rifles used by the world's armies.

[PavePusher]

84. There are +80M gun owners.

There are a few 100K infantry, and you seem to assume that the entire military would be on the government side.

I bet it wouldn't be anywhere near that "neat and clean" (meaning "all out cluster-fuck, if you know anything about civil wars).

[friendly_iconoclast]

86. And quantity has a quality of its own in warfare.

A notion fully understood by the likes of Ulysses S. Grant during the American Civil War, the Soviet Stavka during the
Soviet-German Great Patriotic War, and the North Vietnamese during what they call the American War.

The victors in all three examples had a cadre of military professionals and a whole lot more ordinary soldiers, some raw draftees and some with militia experience.

They didn't have to be trained to the highest possible standard, they just had to be trained and drilled to the point
where most of them would not flee in panic during the first firefight. Having been in a militia helps with that.

Bluntly put, sometimes having the most cannon fodder means you win...


I'd suggest Chris Bellamy's Absolute War, Soviet Russia in the Second World War for the interested reader.

[PavePusher]

87. Don't forget that a LOT of those +80M...

are former military vets, many of those with recent and very Darwinian training in modern urban, asymetrical and guerilla warfare. They would be quite effectively self-organising even if parts of the active duty forces do not split away.

[proteus_lives]

37. Old and failed canard.

Try again.

[X_Digger]

52. No, actually, we didn't..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

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

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

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

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

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

or

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(footnotes removed)

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

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

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

Both the Heller and McDonald decision shed more light on the subject.

[DissedByBush]

82. You forgot the definition of "well regulated" and "free state"

At the time "well-regulated" had the meaning of well-functioning or prepared.

It had NO connection with the meaning of "controlled by the government through rules and regulations."

The meaning of "the security of a free State" is not in the context of an army to protect from foreign invasion.

Notice the the "free" state like as opposed to the "non-free" state that we would be under a tyranny of government.

Restated in modern parlance that would read more like:

"A people prepared to defend themselves, being necessary to secure their freedom against an oppressive government, ..."

[friendly_iconoclast]

26. "...It does NOT give you a right to take it anywhere you damn well please." No one said it did.

But if you are in compliance with relevant law, you damn well do have the right to take it where said law permits it.

And prohibitionist wowsers don't get to declare that laws don't apply because they don't like guns.


You know, it's the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Popular Approval.

[cleanhippie]

29. I love it when ignorance is on such proud display......

as it is here.

[Callisto32]

41. By that rationale, neither is assembly a civil right....

I don't think you understand just how much rights are infringed upon in the U.S.

[pipoman]

44. So then, should I take that as a 'yes'?

(the question) Do you wish for liberal interpretation of some rights and conservative interpretation of others?

[Pavulon]

62. 2 supreme court cases pretty much dump this meme

you have a better chance of getting all the blacks to the back of the bus again, move on this one is done. Or you can join up with the folks who really hate roe v wade.

[Euromutt]

66. There's more than one way to carry

In most states, you need a permit to carry a concealed firearm, but not to carry openly. I think it's acceptable for the state to require a permit for (or even prohibit) one mode of carry, provided the other mode has no such requirement.

And, of course, nobody argued that you have "a right to take it anywhere you damn well please." For starters, on privately owned property, the property owner (or tenant) has, in principle, the right to demand firearms not be brought onto the property (I say "in principle" because when we're talking about a business that is open to the general public, things get a little more complex), and most gun owners are fine with that. Most gun owners also don't object to being prevented from carrying in areas containing detainees who might want to escape (e.g. police stations, courthouses, penal facilities) and on commercial aircraft, which might be subject to hijacking. But a major factor in gun owners not objecting is that such secure zones actually have security measures to physically prevent people from bringing weapons into the area, and not just a few signs saying "no guns allowed" and some barely schooled unarmed "observe-and-report-only" security "guards" (who usually don't excel at the "observe" part).

[rrneck]

27. Kill who? nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

6. This has already been beaten to death in two other threads

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x333900
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x334922

The following articles are listed/cited:

http://www.candgnews.com/Homepage-Articles/2010/07-28-10/Arts-Beats-gun-advocates.asp
http://www.freep.com/article/20100815/COL10/8150491/1319/Royal-Oaks-choice-Guns-or-families-at-festival#ixzz0wh2GBuL5
http://www.freep.com/article/20100815/NEWS05/8150432/Gun-activists-take-aim-at-metro-Detroit

The latter one contains the key point that the Police Chief does not see open carry as a problem for the event.

[cleanhippie]

28. Keep your hyperbole out of my civil rights.

[Euromutt]

35. What makes it "MY festival"?

I've heard phrase of this kind before; "keep your guns out of my neighborhood," "keep your guns off my college campus," etc. But what makes it "your" festival/neighborhood/campus, more than it is anyone else's, to the point that you feel entitled to dictate to others how they should behave?

Or, in other words, who the fuck died and made you king?

[proteus_lives]

36. Why are Rights a "fetish" to control freaks?

:shrug:

[Callisto32]

42. Because if you control the language of a conversation, you control the conversation.

It is just an extension of the "we want to have control over other people" syndrome common of prohibitionists of all stripes.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pavulon]

69. Why should I not be able to ccw there?

please list a coherent reason why my possession of a concealed firearm is a problem to you.

[PavePusher]

72. Can you name a place where you can guarantee that crime will never happen...

or that you can guarantee my safety?

Then yes, that would be a reasonable place to bar weapons.

No-one is pushing guns on anyone else. I don't have enough guns to give to other people, I only have enough for myself, generally.

And when were you made the Arch-Determiner of Reasonable Limits? Hubris, much?

[cowman]

77. I seriously doubt that

you own several guns or have a CHL, that being said, show me just one post where any of us have tried to push guns on everyone. You can't because it never happened. Try, just try to be unbiased. And just who the hell are you to decide what makes sense and what doesn't as far as where I can carry by gun? You sere are full of yourself by saying that arguing against you is arguing against reasonable limits.

[Callisto32]

39. Ah, the wonderful...

"google returned X results on my poorly constructed search query" method of research.

I'm citing to this already.....

[virginia mountainman]

48. What a thread...

Watching how ham fisted the Gun Control supporters have become, and how skillfully Civil Liberty advocates are at decimating the emotional, weak arguments the "controllers" use.

No wonder, they have been on a 16 year loosing streak, with the American public.

Just a reminder of how far we have come over the years...



Bonus Points given for "Wild Wild West" comment!!

[friendly_iconoclast]

53. Looks like some gun control fans also like Robert Bork. Including some DUers, sadly

Yes, that Robert Bork. Today I bought the issue of Harper's Magazine that has Dan Baum's "Happiness is a Worn Gun: My Concealed Weapon and Me" (discussed earlier here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x332576

I read the article, and one passage leapt to my attention. From page 36 of the print edition (emphasis added):

.....My friends who are appalled by the thought of widespread concealed weapons aren't impressed by this argument, or by the research demonstrating no ill effects of the shall-issue revolution. "I don't care," said one. "I don't feel safe knowing that people are walking around with guns. What about my right to feel safe? Doesn't that count for anything?"

Robert Bork tried out that argument in 1971, in defense of prosecuting such victimless crimes as drug abuse, writing in the Indiana Law Journal that “knowledge that an activity is taking place is a harm to those who find it profoundly immoral.”

It’s as bad an argument now as it was then. We may not like it that other people are doing things we revile—smoking pot, enjoying pornography, making gay love, or carrying a gun—but if we aren’t adversely affected by it, the Constitution and common decency argue for leaving it alone. My friend may feel less safe because people are wearing concealed guns, but the data suggest she isn't less safe....

That explains the delicate flowers that claim that somehow being around someone else who is carrying a handgun is harmful, the
notorious DUer that thinks guns cause crime, and the sheer bile and hatred that open carriers somehow produce from some people, including the author of article in the OP.

[Euromutt]

54. Wow, I didn't know Bork was THAT big of an asshole

“knowledge that an activity is taking place is a harm to those who find it profoundly immoral.”

Unbe-fucking-lievable. I find it profoundly immoral that Robert Bork was allowed to practice law and publish ridiculous ideas like that. So by his own reasoning, society should punish him for doing it.

[jazzhound]

58. No different than the "Mosque at Ground Zero" manure

from the RW. This story is a classic example of how some Dems morph into Republicans on the firearms issue -- turning a complete non-issue into a prediction of impending doom, losing their minds while shrieking inane nonsense.

[kpominville]

68. Nothing to worry about CCW holders? BS!

CCW HOLDER KILLS THREE POLICE OFFICERS IN PITTSBURGH
Pittsburgh, PA • April 4, 2009. Richard Poplawski, a CCW licensee, opened fire on officers
responding to a domestic disturbance call placed by Poplawski’s mother, killing three. Poplawski, 23, met officers Stephen Mayhle, 29, and Paul Sciullo III, 37, at the doorway of the home where he was “lying in wait” and shot them in the head immediately; an officer who heard the call for help on his way home, Eric Kelly, 41, rushed to the scene and was also killed. Poplawski, wearing a bulletproof vest and armed with an assault rifle and two other guns, held police at bay for four hours as the fallen officers were left bleeding nearby, their colleagues unable to reach them. In 2005, Poplawski was discharged from the Marine Corps during basic training and a girlfriend filed a protection-from-abuse order against him.

CCW HOLDER KILLS TEN IN ALABAMA
Kinston & Samson, AL • March 10, 2009. Michael K. McLendon, 28, killed 10 people over a
20 mile trail in rural southern Alabama. He first killed his mother and the family dogs then
drove 20 miles and shot five members of his extended family. Next, his violence became
random as he sprayed bullets at cars, stores, and police officers, killing neighbors, a man walking down the street, a woman at a store, and a passing motorist. He was armed with a handgun, a shotgun, and two assault rifles. He grazed one officer’s shoulder and another officer in pursuit did not know at the time of the shootings that his wife and 18-month-old daughter were among the victims. They were on their porch across the street from where McLendon’s extended family lived. Geneva Police Department stated that McLendon was licensed to carry handguns

Tennessee • December 2008. Two-hundred Tennesseans who have licenses to carry loaded
concealed weapons have active orders of protection against them; the Department of Safety
learned that it had not revoked their licenses as required by federal law.

CCW HOLDER KILLS FBI AGENT IN PENNSYLVANIA
Indiana Township, PA • November 19, 2008. Christine Korbe, 40, shot and killed a federal
officer when a team of FBI agents entered her home to serve a federal arrest warrant on her
husband as part of a 27-count drug indictment, and Mrs. Korbe, a CCW licensee, fired one shot toward the front door. Mrs. Korbe said she thought someone was breaking into the home.

CCW HOLDING WHITE SUPREMACIST KILLS THREE IN IDAHO
Moscow, ID • May 20, 2007. A card-carrying member of the Aryan Nation with a lengthy
criminal record, Jason Kenneth Hamilton, 36, went on a killing spree with a semi-automatic
military rifle. Hamilton shot his wife in their home before opening fire on the Latah County
courthouse, killing one police officer and wounding three others. Hamilton then took refuge in a nearby church, killing a church sexton before turning the gun on himself. Hamilton had a long criminal history across four states, including arrests for violent crimes, domestic violence, drugs, and weapons offenses, yet he was licensed to own fully automatic weapons and to carry concealed weapons.

http://www.bradycenter.org/xshare/pdf/facts/2009-ccw-crimes-misdeeds.pdf

[virginia mountainman]

70. HOLY CRAP, someone is posting Brady Crap in here again....GROAN...

You evidently DON"T realize, that your far more likely to be shot by the Police, than a CCW holder??

Since you posted pure hyperboil...Let me give you some numbers...

Compared to the entire population, Texas CCW holders are about 7.6 times less likely to be arrested for a violent crime. The numbers breakdown as follows:

• 214,000 CCW holders
• 526 (0.2%) felony arrests of CCW holders that have been adjudicated
• 100 (0.05%) felony convictions

Fact: the four year violent crime arrest rate for CCW holders is 128 per 100,000. For the general population, it is 710 per 100,000. In other words, the general public is 5.5 times more likely to commit a violent crime than a CCW licensee.

I still can't believe that ANYONE here would post crap from that REPUBLICAN organization here.

Why are YOU, giving a them the time of day?

LOL, you even said you have carried a CCW permit...are >YOU< a killer too??

[cowman]

78. I seriously doubt that

this poster has a CHL just by his posts and if it don't seem true it probably ain't.

[virginia mountainman]

79. Your probably right..

After all, if he has no qualms about misleading, and lying about something, why not that..

[cowman]

80. I've found that

posters who say they are CHL holders and own several guns and then in the same breath question the need or why we would want to carry a gun, be it in a bar or wherever, are usually not being honest about being pro-2ND Amend.

[Pavulon]

71. Deal with it. You drive a car? Yes. If you die in an interesting manner

it will be in your car. You will be happily turning left and some kid will run the light shatter your skull with an old ford expedition. The goo leaking from your ears will be the same color as it would be if you were shot. You die when you brain swells up.

In reality if you are white and middle class or upper class you will die of heart attack, stroke, or cancer. Very boring.

Citing brady is like using the kkk to source an article on the civil rights movement. You said you have a ccw, so you are afraid of yourself?

[friendly_iconoclast]

75. Attempting to gin up a moral panic, are we?

It might have worked if you and the Brady Bunch had tried it on people who don't understand the differences
between 'anecdote', 'data', and 'statistics'.

Unfortunately for you and the Bradys (and fortunately for us), most of us here do understand the different meanings
of those terms.

We also know what 'consumer fraud' and 'false advertising' are, two long-running staples of Brady Campaign propaganda.

-1 to you and them.

[friendly_iconoclast]

81. And here is a repost that shows the difference between fearmongering and valid statistics

Posted a few months ago, but the links are valid. Read and learn:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=304007&mesg_id=304061

Euromutt (1000+ posts) Tue Mar-23-10 08:13 AM
Response to Reply #1
17. Try the DoJ's Bureau of Justice Statistics
Here's a chart on nonfatal firearm violent crime rates, 1993-2008: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/firearmnonfatalrt.cfm

And here's a chart of homicides by weapon type, 1975-2005: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/weapons.cfm#weapons
Note that that chart shows absolute numbers, not rates/100,000 population. For that, see the chart on homicide rates, 1900-2006 http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/hmrt.cfm
Money quote: "Homicide rates recently declined to levels last seen in the mid-1960s"

Now, note that with the second chart, the number of homicides committed with handguns from 1998 onward is comparable to those in the dips in the mid-1970s and mid-1980s, but increased population since then means that the rate of handgun murders is lower now than it was in the 1970s and 1980s. I focus on handguns because when we're talking about weapons that require a permit to legally carry concealed, we're talking handguns.

I'd also add that the absolute number of handguns in private hands is circa 2-3x what it was in 1975, so there is even less
reason to fear an individual legally carrying a handgun.

[hack89]

88. City yields, allows guns at annual Ford Arts, Beats & Eats festival in suburban Detroit

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jPentoqsX3bO83kjcZ0G4oZpQAzw

[Bold Lib]

95. Another victory for the Constitution. Great news.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

89. Well the Republicans won out again

The festival is allowing guns because Republican-like people whined about not being able to carry guns to the festival.

[PavePusher]

90. I am not "republican-like".

I do not whine. You... seem to be.

I support Civil Rights in all manifestations. You... do not seem to.

I suggest you try to change the Constitution and the laws, if you disagree with them.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

91. Hmm...

Backing a Republican-appointed Supreme court decision to overturn some of the gun laws in the country (DC, Chicago).

Anyway, I knew you'd complain... I've always gritted my teeth at the use of calling people who support more restrictive gun laws, "GOP-like" when it is blatantly false.

Of course I support civil rights, including my right to public safety. Of the 29 years on this planet, I never carried a gun and yet I'm doing fine. I am just wondering the psychology behind the need to carry a firearm everywhere possible. What do you think of places that ban guns? (My old clinic and my old gym in the states both ban firearms). Do you think exercising at a gym with a handgun strapped to your waist is ok? Having a checkup with a firearm strapped to your waist is ok?

Also... I think comparing the need to carry firearms everywhere with previous civil rights movements such as desegregation and gay rights is totally unrelated.

[oneshooter]

92. Please show me where, in the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights

The "right to public safety" is written. Is it right next to the "right to be protected by the Police"?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[FunkyLeprechaun]

93. I could say almost the same

Please show me where, in the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights the "right to carry a gun everywhere" is written. It is most certainly not in the 2nd amendment.

I'll be waiting.

[cowman]

94. Show me where

anyone in this forum has EVER advocated the"right to carry a gun everywhere".
I'll be waiting but I won't be holding by breath because you can't.
And why do you give a shit, you live in the utopian country of the U.K.

[X_Digger]

96. The right to keep AND BEAR

That was simple.

Next?

eta: I purposely ignored your straw man re 'everywhere'.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

114. Not quite

I have a different interpretation of THAT amendment (that comes from being a History student) than you. You have your interpretation, I have mine.

So it's not necessarily as simple as you thought it would be.

[PavePusher]

117. Explain it, please? n/t

[X_Digger]

118. Sure it is..

Take it up with Justice Ginsburg-

from the Heller decision:

In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998) Justice Ginsburg wrote that “surely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment … indicates: ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)).

Feel free to interpret that however you like- legal scholars (including a few sitting SCOTUS judges) think differently.

[PavePusher]

120. Never mind, just read your post #116.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


Whew...! Yer killin' me, Smalls!

[Bold Lib]

97. No, you cannot come close to saying the same thing.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is very clear. If you wish to curtail a person's right to "bear arms" you must show a compelling interest. And before you start on the "public safety" meme you may want to consult the McDonald decision on how the Supreme Court handles a constitutional right with regard to safety. You may also want to find some statistical evidence that proves your so called "public safety" issue.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

115. If you look at the entire amendment

It doesn't quite match what your supposed arguments are.

But if it keeps you happy, so be it.

[jazzhound]

99. So gun control is working so well in the UK

that you're advocating for it in the United States?

As they say...........misery loves company.

[Bold Lib]

100. IIRC one of the reasons for the Revolution was to get rid of the

draconian laws that were imposed on the colonies.

[cleanhippie]

102. Its right there!

in the part that says "shall not be abridged".

[PavePusher]

104. Ummm, "infringed", but we know what you're driving at. 8>) n/t

[cleanhippie]

106. sorry, lack of coffee this am!!!!!

but thanks for the support.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

116. A well-regulated militia shall not be infringed

See... that's my interpretation.

[X_Digger]

119. Pissing up a rope will wet your nose.

That's my interpretation (of your interpretation.)

I shouldn't have to tell a 'student of history' this, but what the hell..

You see, the Bill of Rights is not a limitation on the people, it's an admonishment to the government.

How do I know that? It's right there in the preamble.

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

The Bill of Rights was intended as a 'the government shall not' document- "to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers"- not a 'the people can' document. Abuse of whose powers? The government. Restrictive clauses on whom? The government. Perhaps you should study your history more. (Extra credit: Why did some framers fear enumerating certain rights in the Bill of Rights? Hint: You seem to have fallen afoul of those very fears.)

Now.. since it's an admonishment to the government, why would it set out a "right" for a state? And why would it say 'the people'? States don't have rights, they have powers. (Amendment X- "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.")

So your *cough* interpretation is what, "We won't stop ourselves from forming a militia"?? That doesn't even make sense.

[friendly_iconoclast]

121. I've already offered a compromise on the militia requirement upthread

See post #34 for details

I think it would be most excellent for Congress to order the Department of Defense to use, say, $20-50 billion a year from their
budget to set up and run a revived militia open to all adult citizens not disqualified by some infirmity to join.

You going to help push the idea?

[Euromutt]

126. Unfortunately for you, that's not what the Second Amendment says

It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The prefatory clause explains why it is actually in the government's interest not to infringe upon that right of the people, namely that it provides the government with a recruiting pool for the militia that contains individuals already versed in the skills of firearms handling and marksmanship.

[cowman]

98. I'll tell you what

the next time I want to carry my LEGALLY OWNED GUN I will check with the Dept. of Needs as to whether I NEED to carry it that day, oh dammit, I forgot, there is no Dept. of Needs, just a Bill of Rights that says I can own and carry a gun and a state license that says I can carry it concealed.

[Bold Lib]

101. I'm sure you do consider the comparing of one civil right to another "totally unrelated". It

shows the blatant hypocrisy of those that wish to ignore the Second Amendment.

I'm sure you support SOME civil rights, but only they ones you agree with - even the made up ones. Of my 40 years on this planet I've never needed a fire extinguisher, yet I keep one in my car and at home.

[Euromutt]

103. I can hear the gnashing of teeth from over here

I've always gritted my teeth at the use of calling people who support more restrictive gun laws, "GOP-like" when it is blatantly false.

Who are we fucking kidding? The bulk of gun control regimes in various jurisdictions across the United States have been aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of "untrustworthy" classes of person, such as blacks, Jews, recent immigrants, people who aren't golfing or bridge partners with the mayor or the sheriff, people who don't own their own news media outlet, etc.

Even when such measures have been perpetuated, or even initiated by people who came to power on a Democratic ticket, it's not unreasonable to describe mindset underlying such laws as "GOP-like."

[shadowrider]

105. If I may respond

Of the 29 years on this planet, I never carried a gun and yet I'm doing fine.

So far. Remember, all it takes is ONE time even if you've been on the planet for 100 years

I am just wondering the psychology behind the need to carry a firearm everywhere possible.

You never, ever, ever know when, where or if the direct threat to your life will come. It's called "being prepared" to save your own life.

What do you think of places that ban guns?

It's their business and I support their right, and choice, to deny entry to CCW people. That said, by MY choice, I won't spend my money where they're banned.


I think comparing the need to carry firearms everywhere with previous civil rights movements such as desegregation and gay rights is totally unrelated.

So, you only support SOME civil rights, those with which you agree and to heck with the rest?

Interesting.

[cleanhippie]

107. Rational responses to valid questions. I wonder if the poster will do you the same courtesy

and give you rational responses back? I will not hold my breath.....

[cowman]

108. Ya just gotta love it

when you hit the anti's with facts and then ask them to back up the usual drivel with facts, thay run awaaaaaaaaaaaaay and hide.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

122. Okay... I'll try to give it to you very gently...

Number one, I am first generation Irish American. I often visited Northern Ireland when people thought, "OH MY GOD!!! OHMIGOD!!! There's SO many car bombs." I did not need to bring my gun to defend myself in NI. I did witness the panic and terror that occurred after Omagh, I felt frightened of parked cars after Omagh but nevertheless I held my head up and went shopping despite that threat.

Number two: My mum had insults thrown her way (because of her religion) and she was often scared to walk down the street. She's a survivor of Bloody Friday, yet she didn't carry a firearm wherever she went despite the continual threats to her life. What does that tell you? She saw carnage and YET she doesn't carry a firearm in the US despite being a US citizen.

I've witnessed how the troubles have torn apart my family and friends (my relative was killed in Omagh and parents' university friends were killed in pub bombings and being shot by the Orange Order). Yet, my surviving relatives don't feel the need to carry a firearm.

That tells me something about people wanting to carry firearms. It's like people who have agoraphobia, being scared to leave the house. It's kind of like that... being scared to leave your house without a firearm.

I think that should be a new psychological disorder, the fear of leaving your house without a firearm. Millions of people can function just fine without having a concealed weapon in the US whereas people like you want to bring a gun to some sort of festival celebrating Arts and Music. What's next? Bringing a firearm to see your newborn child? Bringing a firearm to your office? People like you advocate giving teachers a firearm to survive school shootings. Every time someone's shot dead, what's your answer? That person should have had a firearm to defend themselves when you really do not know the circumstances behind their death. It's just overkill sometimes, disregard the pun. My wish for Americans is leaving the house without having the psychological fear of leaving the house without a gun (I have read here that people bring their guns because they want to protect themselves from some sort of imminent threat, imagined or not).

Hope that clears up my position. By the way, I have shot before (clay pigeons) and understand why people like having that power, the feeling of the gun being shot, the smell of the gunpowder and annihilating a target. It's that position of power that I had that I felt like I was on top of the world. And that's unhealthy.

[armueller2001]

123. So...

because you and your family ignored the possibility that you might be attacked, others should do the same as well?

You say that "Millions of people can function just fine without having a concealed weapon in the US". That's correct. But there's millions who CAN'T survive just fine, in 2008 there were over a million violent crimes in the U.S. (1,382,012 reported in 2008, source:http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm). Many people prefer not to take their chances and to prepare for the possibility that they may have to defend themselves against an assault, robbery, or rape.

I keep a fire extinguisher in my car and several in my house. I've never had a house fire. Does that mean I'm "scared" to live in my house without a fire extinguisher or smoke alarm? No, it means that I thought about the possibility of a fire happening, and PREPARED for that possibility to minimize the chances of bodily injury or death. Much like people choose to carry a firearm in case they may have to defend themselves or their families. Although the "position of power" that you felt you were "on top of the world" may be a reason YOU would choose to carry a gun, I can speak for only myself in saying that is not the case. Protecting myself and my family against dangers is MY reason for carrying, the same reason I wear my seat belt, carry a first aid kit and fire extinguisher in my car, etc. And no, it's not because I'm paranoid or scared. I'm prepared.

[kpominville]

130. Your seat belt and first aid kit are not a threat to me

Your gun is. You have an accident with your seat belt and my family is in no danger, but you have an accident with your gun and you could end up killing someone. There are appropriate times and places to carry, but an art festival where they alcohol is being served (and has never had any history of violence) is NOT one of them.

[armueller2001]

135. Well, statistically

those who carry concealed firearms aren't a threat to you either. TX and FL have been keeping data on their CCW holders for years, and they consistently prove to be around 5-7x less likely than the general public to commit a crime.

Did you know you're more likely to get shot by a cop than to get shot by a CCW holder?

If you think an art festival is not an appropriate place to carry, where would you consider to be an appropriate location to carry? Keep in mind, past history without violence does not make a difference on future possibility of violence.

[oneshooter]

137. My firearm is no threat to you, or anybody else.

As long as you are not a threat to me. If YOU decide to threaten myself or my family with bodily harm then my firearm becomes a very real danger to you, and only you. Otherwise it is just metal and wood, and concealed.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[kpominville]

129. Nobody has answered this simple question

What do you need to defend yourself from at an art festival?

[armueller2001]

136. There are many incidents that can happen anywhere

even at an art festival (or on the way to or from an art festival, or at any locations one may choose to stop before or after an art festival). Incidents such as robbery, rape, assault, murder, etc. Unfortunately, criminals are not confined to "bad" areas and they are highly mobile. Also it's unfortunate that none of us have a crystal ball accurate enough to tell us when we will be a victim of a violent crime, and to make sure we are carrying that day.

What would someone need to defend themselves from on a college campus? (Virginia tech, NIU)

What would someone need to defend themselves from at a church? (New Life Church in Colorado. Shooter was stopped by a CCW holder)

What would someone need to defend themselves from at a shopping mall?

[jazzhound]

138. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your question suggests that

you are thinking along these lines:

"Arts festivals are patronized by art lovers --- a generally non-violent group of people. The chance of being assaulted at an arts festival is very low, ergo there is little/no need to carry protection."

What is preventing some miscreant from showing up at an arts festival with bad intentions? Substitute the following question for your question: "What do you need to defend yourself from at a church?" Then google "New Life Church shooting Colorado."

It is either naivety or arrogance in the extreme to presume to know when/where an assault may/may not occur.

[chibajoe]

143. Crime at festivals

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356503,00.html

http://www.hometownlife.com/article/20100808/NEWS03/8080479

http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/article_bfe84f79-7c39-5624-96ba-cedf89ad624c.html

http://www.whistlerquestion.com/article/20100818/WHISTLER01/308189968/1030/WHISTLER/three-seriously-hurt-in-double-stabbing-assault

http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2010/aug/15/music-festivals-neighbourhood-watch-schemes

because nobody is ever going to be the victim of a crime at a festival. :sarcasm:

[friendly_iconoclast]

109. Are you *sure* that's the metric you want to use for the validity of SC decisions?

Backing a Republican-appointed Supreme court decision to overturn some of the gun laws in the country (DC, Chicago).

Let's see another opinion those dastardly Republicans on the Supreme Court gave (emphasis added):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

Kelo v. City of New London
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)<1> was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another to further economic development. The case arose from the condemnation by New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property so that it could be used as part of a comprehensive redevelopment plan which promised 3,169 new jobs and $1.2 million a year in tax revenues. The Court held in a 5–4 decision that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified such redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The City eventually agreed to move Kelo's house to a new location and to pay substantial additional compensation to other homeowners. The redeveloper was unable to obtain financing and had to abandon the redevelopment project, leaving the land as an empty lot...

....On June 25, 2005, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the principal dissent, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas. The dissenting opinion suggested that the use of this taking power in a reverse Robin Hood fashion— take from the poor, give to the rich— would become the norm, not the exception:

“ Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."....

....Clarence Thomas also penned a separate originalist dissent, in which he argued that the precedents the court's decision relied upon were flawed and that "something has gone seriously awry with this Court's interpretation of the Constitution." He accuses the majority of replacing the Fifth Amendment's "Public Use" clause with a very different "public purpose" test:

“ This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a 'public use.' ”

Thomas also made use of the argument presented in the NAACP/AARP/SCLC/SJLS amicus brief on behalf of three low-income residents' groups fighting redevelopment in New Jersey, noting:

“ Allowing the government to take property solely for public purposes is bad enough, but extending the concept of public purpose to encompass any economically beneficial goal guarantees that these losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities. Those communities are not only systematically less likely to put their lands to the highest and best social use, but are also the least politically powerful."....

Do you concur with the majority of the Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of New London?

[Bold Lib]

110. Ouch. That post stings!

:toast: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[friendly_iconoclast]

112. And let's not forget- Dick Cheney supports the right to same-sex marriage n/t

[Glassunion]

113. You said "Dick"... Gigity.

[jazzhound]

140. Once again, the deafening roar of an orchestra of crickets.

Bravo sir. Bravo!

[friendly_iconoclast]

142. Thanks. It's always a good example to use on those bitching about Heller and McDonald

Another awkward question they'll never answer. It drives 'em away faster than a tanning bed drives away a vampire...

[Bold Lib]

111. By that logic you would appose this republican then right?

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2010/08/l_brooks_patterson_slams_gun-t.html

Well. . .

[jazzhound]

141. Violent assaults occur daily in "unexpected" places.

Of the 29 years on this planet, I never carried a gun and yet I'm doing fine. I am just wondering the psychology behind the need to carry a firearm everywhere possible.

So public policy should be based on your personal experience?

Such a progressive attitude.

(Actually -- irrational, self-centered, authoritarian and (presumably) hypocritical in the extreme)

[kpominville]

127. Republicans get gun crazy whenever there is a Democratic President

They start wanting to take their guns everywhere in case they have to fight "the man".

[Euromutt]

131. So this happened during the Carter and Clinton administrations as well, did it?

I'm sure you can provide references to evidence to that effect, it's news to me. In fact, as far as I'm aware the open carry movement really only started to gain steam during the past five years, at the outside, so most of its existence up to this point has been while Bush the Younger was in office. I'd also be hesitant to describe most of the open carry movement as dedicated Republicans; here in the Pacific Northwest, at least, quite a few are consider themselves Goldwater Republicans, and thus no great fans of the Cheney/Rove/DeLay Republican machine, and there's a fair number who self-identify as libertarian (and thus respond to the Republicans' claim to be "the party of small government" by quoting Harry Browne's line about the Republicans "only" wanting to grow the federal budget by 3% annually, against the Democrats' 4%). Oh sure, you had what David Neiwert calls "the 'Patriot' Movement" back in the 1990s, but they weren't particularly advocating open carry.

Besides, even assuming that your claim concerning "Republicans wanting to take their guns everywhere" were correct, with an overwhelming majority of being "shall issue" with regards to CCW permits these days, why should these "gun crazy Republicans" need to push for open carry? After all, when "the man" comes around, it would be to your advantage that he can't immediately see that you're packing.

[jazzhound]

139. Calm, reasoned thought here.

How very Republican of you!!

Be ashamed. Be very ashamed.

[Name removed]

128. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shadowrider]

132. Why do I sense a "deleted post" is coming?

[shadowrider]

133. And if attendance ISN'T down and there are NO incidents, what then kemo sabe?

Will you come back to this thread and admit you were wrong?

[Euromutt]

134. By "appease" you mean "comply with state law," right?

That's the issue with leasing public property: you may find yourself forced to comply with the same rules by which local government (the entity from whom you're renting it) is required to abide. State law says you can carry openly in the public thoroughfare, and state law says local government can't say otherwise. The irony of the situation is that if the organizers hadn't tried to bar firearms in the first place, or if the city had told them that they couldn't while they were working out the lease contract, this whole story wouldn't have received anywhere near the attention it has, and very likely, most visitors wouldn't even have noticed that a few other attendees were OCing. You'd be surprised how few people do, particularly when the OCers keep in small groups at most. Most people don't make a habit of scanning other people's belts, or if they spot a holster, they assume it's a cell phone, PDA, multitool, or whatnot.

Mind you, one possible good thing to come out of this--and the incident in Minneapolis where the Parks & Rec department told the organizers of a Pride event that they were going to have to let some homophobe fundie preacher hand out leaflets because the First Amendment still applied on public property*--is that it sets a precedent under which to challenge the leasing of any public property to the Boy Scouts of America.

* - Though I think it was a seriously shitty move on the part of the Parks & Rec department to charge Twin Cities Pride $36K just to use the park, and only then inform the organizers they were going to have to let the fucker in.

[dmallind]

124. keep your scaredy cat paranoia about inanimate objects out of MY festival. NT

[Xenotime]

144. Excellent progressive thread.