Afraid Of NRA, Conservative Democratic Senators Waffle On Sotomayor Vote
Afraid Of NRA, Conservative Democratic Senators Waffle On Sotomayor Vote
Noting Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s record on the Second Amendment, Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK) told Roll Call that that he is “undecided” on her nomination to the Supreme Court (although he added that he is “leaning toward voting in favor”). Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) expressed similar uncertainty:
“I accept her judicial philosophy of fidelity to the law,” Nelson said during a telephone conference call from Washington.
Nelson said he also believes Sotomayor is committed to supporting settled judicial precedent.
But, he said, he needs to “convince myself she won’t be an activist” on the court.
“I need an opportunity to review a few things,” the Democratic senator said.
Both senators’ equivocal statements come in the wake of the NRA’s decision to “score” the Sotomayor vote in determining where each lawmaker stands on the NRA’s pro-gun agenda. The NRA claims, falsely, that because Sotomayor once upheld a New York law against a Second Amendment challenge this somehow proves that she is hostile to gun rights. That decision, however, did nothing more than apply well-established law.
Because lower-court judges are required by law to follow the commands of the Supreme Court, Sotomayor once joined an opinion which followed a Supreme Court case holding that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to the states. Nevertheless, the NRA launched a smear campaign against Sotomayor this month, claiming that she “deliberately misread Supreme Court precedent to support her incorrect view” in this case.
Frankly, the NRA is either lying, or it doesn’t know what it’s talking about. Not only was Sotomayor correct to follow the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment decision, but a unanimous opinion authored by Federalist Society darling Frank Easterbrook agreed with Sotomayor that state laws are not subject to Second Amendment scrutiny. Even the right-wing of the judiciary understands that judges are not free to ignore the law simply because the NRA doesn’t like it.
In the end, Begich and Nelson’s decision may be decided — not by Sotomayor’s actual record — but by how afraid they are of the NRA.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
In the end, Begich and Nelson’s decision may decided … by how afraid they are of the NRA.
– - Begich (D-AK) is scanning the sky at this moment, watching out for rifles poking out from helicopters.
July 29th, 2009 at 6:49 pmDoes anyone here know what it means to be a true American? A National Review columnist does not think the new GI Joe movie is American enough. he probably thinks Sotomayor isn’t either.
Here is a clip of him debating this point on MSNBC.
http://progressnotcongress.org/?p=2331
July 29th, 2009 at 6:51 pmThis country is in DESPERATE need of a new Progressive Political Party. Democrats are acting more like conservatives every day! Equating the Democratic Party with “liberals’ just isn’t an accurate statement any more!
July 29th, 2009 at 6:56 pmChickenshits.
July 29th, 2009 at 6:56 pmThe NRA – the most powerful, lobbyist, anti-peace, pro-violence group around. Without the NRA, most home-grown murdering terrorists would have no backup, no weapons, no hatred. How pathetic that so many politicians suck up to the NRA, which is basically a home-grown violence-promoter. The U.S. has the most guns, the most violence, the most killings of their own people, the most home-grown hateful terrorists against the U.S. itself. Thanks to the NRA. Do they ever think about how many Americans die each year because of their promotion of guns, killing, & violence? Of course not.
July 29th, 2009 at 6:58 pmFrom the article above:
The NRA has never had the ballz or spine to challenge the NY City laws regarding the 2nd Amendment.
If they really, truly beleive the 2nd applies to everyone in every state then they would spend boat loads of cash in NY to overturn these so called violations.
They have not. That says everything about their spineless, blustering, loud-mouthed, bullshit.
July 29th, 2009 at 7:02 pmWhy is the NRA so fcuking powerful, and why do the Dems always do their bidding? Is it because they’re armed?
I don’t own a gun, never have, but if that’s what it takes to get the attention of these Democrats and get them to pay attention to my issues, I’ll gladly buy a damn gun and head down to Washington.
Or, since healthcare reform is my most important cause, perhaps I should show up with a scalpel and hold their kidneys hostage. Or maybe go lower…
And yet I will still sign off with
PEACE
July 29th, 2009 at 7:04 pmThe real problem comes from the Democrats. Rham’s attempt to gain seats by using very conservative Democrats and agreeing to allow them great leeway to buck party issues has just opened it up to chaos.
The failure of Democrats to object to the loony tunes sung both in the conservative press and on the floor of Congress (think birther and think health care reform as euthanasia) have just contributed to the belief that Democrats are cowards. Why blame Nelson. Why blame the Blue Dogs? Where is the party leadership.
This is why the Republicans now tie the Dems on the latest NPR generic poll for Congress. We have rolled over consistently on the faux issue of bipartisanship and undermined every issue that we ran on to take control of Congress and the White House. Face it, the Republicans will make big gains in the Congressional midterms and take the WH back. I am sorry but that is what a lack of party unity and guts will do.
July 29th, 2009 at 7:04 pmThis is ridiculous. Who cares about the NRA? Wingnuts are called wingnuts for a reason….they are not screwed on tight.
July 29th, 2009 at 7:08 pmIf the bluedogs and neonuts take issue with pressing agenda items, fine, sit out and vote nay, but stop sandbagging the debate with tired wedge issues. We voted for progressive action. The wacko wing is not the future of this country. I’m sick of elected officials wasting one session of congress away after another on scaring the people instead of serving them.
July 29th, 2009 at 7:08 pmIn the end, Begich and Nelson’s decision may be decided — not by Sotomayor’s actual record — but by how afraid they are of the NRA.
Indeed. And for the NRA, it doesn’t matter that she followed precedent (or at least arguably did so), and that rational conservatives like Easterbrook agree with her. They want a screaming nun-gut in there, and anyone that doesn’t support an absolute right to individual personal tactical nukes is unacceptable and a vote for such is treason.
Not to mention, the screaming nun-guts (not your everyday sportsmen) are RW loonies in other respects and hate her just for being a nominal Democrat, furriner, and Pinko-commie leftist….
There is no appeasing the NRA. So sometimes you just need to tell ‘em to GFT.
Cheers,
July 29th, 2009 at 7:10 pmNelson has a strange perch on the waffle when it comes to considering judicial activism. Scalia joins conservative lawyers arguments to the point that he sounds more of a proponent an argument than a judge considering both sides.
July 29th, 2009 at 7:13 pmThe NRA should stick to its original purpose – to educate people about gun safety. They were not created to promote the idea that every American has the right to own a gun.
July 29th, 2009 at 7:13 pmBen Nelson is my Senator. He is a whole lot better than Pete Ricketts could have replaced him with a decent campaign so we must be careful about what we ask for. That doesn’t mean he is my favorite Senator. His double-talk here is one reason.
Does not being committed to supporting settled judical precedent mean she will not be an activist Justice by definition? Nelson’s comments lack logic.
July 29th, 2009 at 7:22 pmThe NRA represents just 5% of American gun owners and most Americans support gun policies that NRA opposes. They are among the most dangerous and anti-American organizations we have. Voting to simply curry favor with those lunatics should disqualify someone from holding high office.
July 29th, 2009 at 7:25 pmDallasNE,
You can wait until hell get’s brisk and windy before Ben Nelson makes sense or actually becomes useful in this democracy. He’s another RePugniScum sitting on the wrong side of the isle.
July 29th, 2009 at 7:31 pmEvery time these Blue Dogs have to vote on a difficult matter, they crap in their pants. They need to stop thinking about reelection and more about what is good for the country. These Blue Dogs need to think about what they stand for rather than which way public opinion is going.
July 29th, 2009 at 7:31 pmWhat the hell is the matter with these bozo Democrats? I am at the point where I’m ashamed to call myself a Democrat. Harry Truman FDR must be spinning in their graves!! A bigger collection of wussies and weenies I have never seen before in my life. If this continues, the Independent party is going to get a lot more members……or a Progressive party will emerge of people who are proud to display democratic principles previously touted by Democrats. What will remain will be a “Democratic” party of “lilly-livered, yellow-bellied” cowards who run screaming from insurance lobbyists and the NRA.
July 29th, 2009 at 7:33 pmwhy would any democrat “blue dog” or otherwise care what the NRA has to say about them?
it would be a cold day in hell before any of those backwoods bubbas voted for a democrat candidate.
July 29th, 2009 at 7:35 pmIt’s politics. Ben Nelson is a slight improvement over the Nebraska GOP (fellows like Fortenberry, an admitted birther) and Beigich is a VAST improvement over Ted Stevens.
That said, I really doubt Beigich would vote against Sotomayor. Nelson might.
Damn DINO.
July 29th, 2009 at 7:36 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
I still think we can use the birther idiocy in the gun legislation debate. I would love to see the Reichwing heads explode if someone proposed legislation requiring an official “long form” “vault copy” of their birth certificate to purchase weapons or ammo.
July 29th, 2009 at 7:42 pmStop yelling, JANINE. It’s bad enough that your ideas are insane, you don’t need to prove your mental imbalance by screaming like a toddler.
July 29th, 2009 at 7:44 pm#18 pags2,
The Blue Dogs vote only for their fat cat supporters’ positions (mostly corporations and religious orgs) and they are immune from supporting the working class or the real people in their district due to voter ignorance and/or blind loyalty.
Racism is a big play in their Blue Dog game plan.
July 29th, 2009 at 7:46 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
This comment has been voted down. Click to read.
JANINE says:
SOTOMAYOR IS A DARN JOKE ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. MOST OF HER JUDGEMENTS WERE OVERTURNED IN THE SUPREME COURT. SHE IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL JUDGE AT ALL, BUT A DO IT MY OWN WAY AND WITH MY OWN OPINIONS JUDGE. SHE WILL HURT OUR COUNTRY IN THE LONG RUN….. GET THE HECK OUT OF THE WAY AND LET OUR CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS DO THEIR JOB PROPERLY.
Usually the people who scream and yell about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights know nothing about either of them.
July 29th, 2009 at 7:49 pmWith DINOs like these, who needs Republicans?
When I first read that the NRA (which I consider on the same level as PETA, that being way too radical single issue groups) was going to rate the vote to confirm Sotomayor, I knew that some Senators like Nelson and Begich would reconsider because they are afraid of being tossed out in the next election.
I’ll suspect that they will in the end vote to confirm her. Nelson might not though, considering the handful of Republicans that can override his one dissenting DINO vote. I honestly don’t think he is necessary for this vote anymore, and I hope that I am not wrong…
July 29th, 2009 at 7:50 pmJanine sez, “MOST OF HER JUDGEMENTS WERE OVERTURNED IN THE SUPREME COURT.”
Oh, really? How many of her “judgments” were appealed to the Supreme Court? How many of those appeals did the Supreme Court actually agree to hear? And of those, how many were overturned?
Just curious.
July 29th, 2009 at 7:50 pmI would like to congratulate Sonia Sotomayor (in advance) on becoming a supreme court justice. She will be confirmed,and she will be a positive for the supreme court. Now in advance I would like to say to the racists (beck,hannity,limpdick,orielly,savage,and the rest of you losers) Suck on it btch.
July 29th, 2009 at 7:51 pmHi JANINE
July 29th, 2009 at 7:52 pmWANNA CATCH AN EARLY BIRD SOME NIGHT? WELL LATE AFTERNOON…
JANINE, take a pill, “granny”. you’re about to bust a blood vessel.
July 29th, 2009 at 7:53 pmJanine, You apparently think your age gives you license to do as you please and ignore the usual courtesies. It doesn’t.
As people age, their true character comes more to the forefront — if you are genuinely a nice person, it’s pretty obvious when you’re old, but if you are a mean-spirited, self-centered person, it’s hard to disguise that with age.
Do you yell at the kids to “get off your lawn” too?
July 29th, 2009 at 7:54 pmoh, and by the way, janine, the supreme court tends not to hear cases with which they are in agreement with the circuit court ruling. it would be a grand waste of their time if they did, wouldn’t you agree?
July 29th, 2009 at 7:55 pmJANINE:
Your ignorance is astounding.
1. The vast majority of any appellate court judge’s rulings are never subjected to appellate review. Sotomayor sat on over 3000 cases.
2. The Supreme Court will not grant cert in a case that it believes was correctly decided. The Court will take on cases where it wants to clarify the law in a particular area. Rici was an excellent example where the Supreme Court established a new test for when a city could justify denying promotions because of test issues. Sotomayor and the appellate court followed the law. The Supreme Court changed the test.
3. Both Roberts and Alito had high rates of being overturned, but for the same reason as Sotomayor and other appellate judges.
Please get real. You sound overboard.
July 29th, 2009 at 7:55 pmJANINE is lying, Dave von Ebers, though I suppose she may not realize it. In her long career Judge Sotomayor has only had nine ruleings reviwed. To be fair, six of those were overturned but that hardly impeaches the hundreds of rulings that have passed all scrutiny.
BTW. The average rate of overturn is around 80% so? Judge Sotomayor is actually ahead of the average.
July 29th, 2009 at 7:56 pmOops! That should say, “rulings reviewed”. Sheesh!
July 29th, 2009 at 7:57 pmole janine gets her “facts from glenda becky. and we all know how thorough his research is.
July 29th, 2009 at 7:57 pmMarie says:
Janine, You apparently think your age gives you license to do as you please and ignore the usual courtesies. It doesn’t….
My birth certificate burned in the Chicago Fire, but that doesn’t make me wiser—just older. I didn’t become a problem child until I turned 50.
July 29th, 2009 at 7:57 pmJANINE says:
Stop being hysterical. See your doctor, he can prescribe medication that will help.
July 29th, 2009 at 7:58 pmI’m no spring chicken myself and retired a few years ago. I treat people with the respect they deserve. From my perspective you deserve none. I might change my mind if you behave civilly yourself but, I won’t hold my breath.
July 29th, 2009 at 8:01 pmOdd.
The troll seems to read perfectly well ALL the other posts, but needs to TYPE IN ALL CAPS in order to read his own tripe.
On topic.
What is wrong with those jackasses giving in to the NRA?!
July 29th, 2009 at 8:03 pmThey might as well support the BIRFERS too.
Damn it johnny dol1ar. I was trying to lead that way. HE claims to be a she by the way. Good catch all the same…
July 29th, 2009 at 8:07 pmGET SOME COMMON SENSE AND REALIZE WE ALL DON’T SEE AS WELL AS OTHERS.
Janine, you can alter the text size on any web page. Press and hold the CTRL key, then scroll the mouse wheel until your satisfied that the text is large enough. Oh and hit the caps lock key to turn the caps off. Sure, you can do what you like, but it’s considered rude to use all caps all the time.
July 29th, 2009 at 8:09 pmOK. Sorry.
I’ll let you have your fun for the rest of the night.
July 29th, 2009 at 8:10 pmI won’t address the trolls and I’ll leave you to drag them around.
The NRA is more often in collusion with the dem senators (e.g., Chuckie Schumer) whereas the Gun Owners of America is much more pro second amendment coupled with responsibility. The second amendment was written with the express purpose of providing a populace with the means to remove tyranny from from government.
Most of the progressives/libs who probably post here haven’t a clue about the real status of Constitutional rights in the country. They probably missed reading about the Patriot Act II, The Military Commissions Act, the Warner Defense Authorization Act and the various Presidential Directives. If they had a clue, they wouldn’t support Obama – who has decided to retain all of the degredations to the Constitution that Bush, et. al., enacted. There are many other egregious examples. Continuation of Torture. Continuation of Zbiqniew Brzezinski’s conquest plan for Central Asia. And the list could go on and on and on.
There are a lot of reasons for worrying about Sotomayor as well as the rest of Middle Manager Obama’s plans. She certainly did not endorse the second amendment and…
“Judge Sotomayor also has shown an unacceptable hostility to Second Amendment rights. In the recent Heller Supreme Court ruling, it was found that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms. However, in two cases Judge Sotomayor has lent her name to extremely brief opinions that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right. Her rulings, and the lack of explanation on them, indicate that she is hostile to the Second Amendment and will not protect it with the same energy as she might for any of the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights. She has not stated that she believes a clearly spelled out right, such as the Second Amendment, is fundamental, but she is willing to recognize that something that is not clearly spelled out, such as a right to privacy, is fundamental. I fear that her appointment to the Supreme Court could undo the progress from the Heller decision that recognizes Americans have the right to defend themselves.” (J. Arnold)
This is not a right v left issue. That whole paradigm was invented for your distraction. And you are dutifully being distracted. So, get a clue. The second Amendment was put there for your protection.
July 29th, 2009 at 8:14 pmOh no not at all. They are a common resource and should be utilized in such a way as to benefit all.
July 29th, 2009 at 8:15 pmMaybe someone could tell the SHOUTER ‘Janine’ that there’s settings on her (his? I suspect a troll) ‘pooter that can be used to increase font/display size for those that need large print. But I’d note that [s]he claims to have difficulty seeing what [s]he wrote (and shouldn’t she know what [s]he wrote?) but doesn’t seem to have any difficulty seeing what everyone else is saying….
Stoopid, clueless, or just dishonest? (these are, of course, not mutually exclusive) We report, you decide.
Cheers,
July 29th, 2009 at 8:15 pmmedicis says:
There are a lot of reasons for worrying about Sotomayor as well as the rest of Middle Manager Obama’s plans. She certainly did not endorse the second amendment and…
You are wrong. She was following Supreme Court rulings and these rulings were joined by other judges on the Federal Appellate Court. She did not make any rulings that were inconsistent with previous court cases on the Second Amendment. It is up to the SCOTUS to change the law which is exactly what they did in the Ricci case.
July 29th, 2009 at 8:22 pmThe second Amendment was put there for your protection.
July 29th, 2009 at 8:23 pm—
All I want to know is what I have to do to get my rocket launcher…
Actually, medicis, her rulings were that States and municipalities can pass weapons laws without violating the 2nd Amendment. The SCOTUS agrees.
And, as a lifelong gun owner, I’m sick of the “they’re going to take away our guns” BS. There’s a Hell of a lot of ground between the largely unregulated sale of guns and outright bans. And, frankly, I’ve seen very little call for outright bans.
On the other hand, when faced with an increasing number of mass shootings using legally purchased weapons, I think it’s reasonable to examine gun laws. Personally, I would like to see a nationwide standard for those ineligible for gun ownership (felons and mental patients) and a national data base to keep track of them. I also think that all sales of guns and ammo should be by registered dealers with no exceptions fro private sales and/or gun show sales.
July 29th, 2009 at 8:25 pmHi Janine, Im sure your a fan of fox noise. according to the talking heads on fox if President Obamas health plan goes thru than our senior citizens will die. That means if you do choose to take that option for your healthcare then you are going to die,right? So according to idiots like beck you dont need to concern yourself with these issues because you wont be around anyway. Do you see how ridiculous that sounds?
July 29th, 2009 at 8:28 pmWell thats the repugs talking. I hope you wingnuts believe in luck,your going to need it if the repugs get their way.
The second amendment had a place and a purpose.
I hate to break the bad news (not really) but it has become an anachronism.
The gun nuts that believe or rather mask their insecurities behind bigger and more powerful guns “to protect themselves from
Big Government” are first on the list of suspects with capability to hurt other citizens.
Please think for a second, gun-nuts.
July 29th, 2009 at 8:29 pmMost local police departments have you OUT GUNNED.
Of course I am not advocating martial law with curfews in the USA, but I am telling those gun-nuts that if the day comes when the GOVERNMENT comes to take away your guns, you better come out with your hands in the air and wearing nothing but your shorts.
I have another argument for you, johnny dol1ar. Air Strikes. These Red Dawn warriors never think about the air strikes.
And, I might add, that the framers of the Bill of Rights never, in their wildest nightmares, imagined the firepower that modern weapons provide to any nut with a few extra bucks.
July 29th, 2009 at 8:34 pmExactly, pete.
Just as
dbadass
likes to say: “Why is it that I can’t buy a rocket launcher to defend my family from the BIG GOVERNMENT coming to take away my guns”
July 29th, 2009 at 8:45 pmohnny dol1ar says:
The second amendment had a place and a purpose.
I hate to break the bad news (not really) but it has become an anachronism.
I would disagree. There is nothing in the Supreme Court ruling that indicates your 2nd Amendment rights are absolute. Your right to own a gun is still subject to reasonable regulation by the states and government bodies. The real problem is that gun laws for rural areas do not match the needs of urban areas. The lax gun laws in some areas are what feeds the trafficking in illegal guns to areas that have strict laws. It is impossible to reconcile the laws because the strict laws have to be applied in areas that do not need such laws. However, this is the only way to control illegal guns all over the country.
July 29th, 2009 at 8:51 pmDINOs need to be treated exactly like Republicans, because that is all they are. We must vote all the DINOs out of power, along with the rest of the fascist theocratic Republicans.
July 29th, 2009 at 9:02 pm57. pags2
You are correct in your assessment regarding the disparity of regulation from urban to rural areas.
But I am qualifying the second amendment as an anachronism when the gun-nuts refer to their “need” to protect themselves from an oppressive government.
In that regard, the gun-nuts and the NRA actually paint themselves into a corner by the narrow definition of
If we place that quote within its historical context, “arms” can be interpreted from a knife to a small cannon.
But in our society, the NRA and gun-nuts have limited themselves to guns; sometimes very powerful guns. Most of the other weaponry available to the GOVERNMENT is not available to the gun-nuts and in fact is illegal to possess or trade.
I am not suggesting a complete ban on gun ownership.
July 29th, 2009 at 9:17 pmI only wanted to address the gun-nuts fallacy of “I want to protect my self from an oppressive government”
I sort of forgot to mention it but I also feel I need at least a half dozen switchblades just in case the government gets all up in my face on stuff……
July 29th, 2009 at 9:24 pmSay, Janine, honey, tell us: Where was President Obama born…?
Enquiring minds want to know!
July 29th, 2009 at 9:31 pmThe historical interpretation of arms would be guns. But if you do not have an absolute right to bear arms then the issue is always going to be what is reasonable. NRA want every type of gun available and some of them are extremely dangerous outside of a military context. The NRA will never concede that any legislation is reasonable. This is what drives the 2nd Amendment debate. The Brady bill was allowed to die and there is no great impetus to reenact the law because Dems are afraid of offending potential voters. This is not an issue that Dems need to get involved at this time because there are much larger issues that need attention.
July 29th, 2009 at 9:39 pmI feel the need to own a gun, more out of fear of wingnuts than out of fear of an oppressive government. The fascist theocratic Republicans are armed and dangerous.
We already know wingnuts are willing to kill doctors, who knows who will be their next victim(s)? Wingnuts even threaten to secede from the United States with an armed insurrection.
If you are a progressive, and you have the means, I recommend arming yourself. We stand on the precipice of civil war.
July 29th, 2009 at 9:39 pm60 dbadass
You must NOT live in California.
http://www.knifedealsplus.com/California-Law.html
July 29th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
Oh so now they wanna take my knives away…
July 29th, 2009 at 9:56 pmLevi the Dungbeetle says:
If you are a progressive, and you have the means, I recommend arming yourself. We stand on the precipice of civil war.
Lexi,
I have the utmost respect for you, but I will never buy a gun. Violence never justifies more violence. That philosophy may very well get me killed some day, I know, and if it does, I know that I will die with my principles intact.
July 29th, 2009 at 9:59 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Sorry, I meant “Levi”. Gotta remember to use that preview pane.
July 29th, 2009 at 10:00 pmHi Deuce Coupe
July 29th, 2009 at 10:04 pmHow so? Why? Can you be more specific?
Deuce,
It is you we fear, not Obama or his “goons”. You represent all that is worst about America. You are a representative of the first fascist party in America. You and your ilk have ruined America’s reputation, you have destroyed America’s economy, and you threaten us all with your domestic terrorism.
You make me sick.
July 29th, 2009 at 10:04 pmOkay, I will start with a confession. I do not know the full history fo the Second Amendment. I know what it says (and I feel I know that better than many of its supporters):
As I understand (and I implore the more knowledgeable people here to correct me if I am wrong), the Framers of the Constitution never intended that our country have a full-time, year-round Army all the time. That’s why Congress is only allowed to fund an Army for up to two years at a time.
It was intended, therefore, that the States each have a militia for purposes of repelling an invasion. (This is why the Constitution says that the appointment of officers would be up to the States.) Now, the militias were not meant to be full-time jobs, either. They would consist of farmers and businessmen who would, should the call go out, grab their guns, report to their military units, and defend the country until the federal government had enough time to raise an Army and take over national defense.
And that is why the Second Amendment is there. So that those who were part of these regulated militias could have their guns ready, at home, to take to the fight. I do not believe that the Framers ever intended that every citizen have a gun to protect them from each other. That is what the Law is for. It is supposed to deter crime by providing appropriate penalties for those who mistreat other people. Nor did the Framers intend that we all have a gun to protect us from our own federal government. I believe that is a myth put forth by the pro-gun/pro-death lobby. We have enjoyed more than two hundred years of peaceful transfers of power. (Even in the case of assassinations, it wasn’t the people who killed the President who took over, the Vice president always did.) The Framers gave us Democracy as a way to control who gets into power in Washington. They also hoped that the electorate would be better informed than the one we have today. I truly believe they would be appalled at the ignorance of the average American.
That’s my understanding of it and, as I said, I may be wrong. I hope that if I am, someone will provide a link to a reputable source of information on this. (And no, the NRA would not qualify.) Thank you.
July 29th, 2009 at 10:14 pmI might add, Wayne, that they would have sent their militia after anyone who assembled an arsenal of state of the art military equipment like one can now buy.
July 29th, 2009 at 10:17 pmhere are some quotes from early notable americans. this should give you an idea what they had in mind when they wrote the second amendment:
Benjamin Franklin: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary
safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” (Nov 11 1755, from the Pennsylvania Assembly’s reply to
the Governor of Pennsylvania.)
Thomas Jefferson: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither
inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and
better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man
may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (1764 Letter and speech from T.
Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)
John Adams: “Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self
defense.” (A defense of the Constitution of the US)
George Washington: “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the
people’s liberty teeth (and) keystone… the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable… more than
99% of them [guns] by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very
atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference [crime]. When firearms go, all goes,
we need them every hour.” (Address to 1st session of Congress)
George Mason: “To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them.” (3 Elliot,
Debates at 380)
Noah Webster: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in
almost every country in Europe.” (1787, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the US)
George Washington: “A free people ought to be armed.” (Jan 14 1790, Boston Independent
Chronicle.)
Thomas Jefferson: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” (T. Jefferson papers,
334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)
James Madison: “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of
July 29th, 2009 at 10:21 pmother countries, whose people are afraid to trust them with arms.” (Federalist Paper #46)
So they would have agree I should be able to have a few switchblades and a rocket launcher and it seems even a little tad of weaponized anthrax I suppose …
July 29th, 2009 at 10:23 pmWell, then, I stand corrected. Those Founding Fathers were a bunch of crazy mutherfockers. I still think it’s a bad idea to allow people to arm themselves. Maybe nine-year-old girls wouldn’t get killed in churches by stray bullets.
Thank you for the edification. I’ll stay out the discussion now.
July 29th, 2009 at 10:29 pm@71
judging from these quotes it seems that the founding fathers intended the second amendment to do more than arm an army. it seems they thought that when the people are armed, it was a deterrent to crime, and protection from a tyrannical government,(albeit they were probably referring to a foreign tyrannical gov)
July 29th, 2009 at 10:31 pmDeuce Coupe says:
With Obama and his left wing goons in power, we all better arm ourselves.
Tell that to the families of those fallen Pittsburgh Police Officers, you lunatic.
July 29th, 2009 at 10:35 pmThe problem is that all data points to our lax gun laws having no positive effect on crime. Quite the opposite, in fact.
I own guns and intend to keep them but I can’t come up with a single rational reason not to have a national standard for gun ownership. At the very least we have to eliminate the loopholes of private sales. It’s just insane that people can legally buy weapons from trunks, alleys, and flea-markets.
July 29th, 2009 at 10:41 pmI would have to disagree with that pete. It seems to me that the areas with the strictest gun control laws in the united states have the highest violent crime rates(Chicago, New York City, D.C and L.A) where as areas with less strict laws have lower violent crime statistics.
July 29th, 2009 at 10:47 pmYou have to look at the bigger picture. Civilized nations with stricter gun laws, almost without exception, have lower crime rates then we do. Regional gun laws do nothing to limit the supply. And, I might add, that many of the worst areas for crime have seen a decrease since tighter regulations went into effect.
And local crime stats are certainly no reason to not implement a national standard and a database to back it up. There just isn’t any rational argument against requiring all gun sales to meet a reasonable, and rigidly enforced, national standard.
July 29th, 2009 at 10:55 pmthats where the problem lies Pete “Reasonable standard” currently most gun sales are held to a reasonable standard. and the gunshow loophole is a myth BTW. all guns sold by a dealer regardless if they are sold at the store or the gun show are subject to background checks. I agree with the personal sales be sbject to the same standards of commercial sales. as for a decrease in crime in those strict gun law areas well the entire U.S. has seen a significant and more substantial and quicker decrease in crime than the cities with strict laws. as for other civilized nations that is like comparing apples to oranges. we do not have the same socio-economical factors that they have which are key contributing factors in crime.
July 29th, 2009 at 11:02 pmIn fact. The closest thing that I want to a ban is that high capacity weapons sales should all meet the standard of a typical “conceal/carry” permit and I would like to see clip size and quantity limited. I would like those clips to be sold with the same scrutiny as the weapon too. Another of my pet ideas is a “safe law” that would require all weapons not in use be locked up.
Other than that I just want every possible resource put into limiting the number of convicted criminals and mentally ill people who are legally buying weapons due to some loophole.
July 29th, 2009 at 11:05 pmI’ve been to gun shows and seen the wholesale, casual, exchange of weapons myself. I’ve also watched the “hill folk” buying cases of ammo and clips by the gross.
July 29th, 2009 at 11:08 pmwe do not have the same socio-economical factors that they have which are key contributing factors in crime.
July 29th, 2009 at 11:14 pm– Can I get this list as well. Now what about my knives, bacteria, and rocket launcher?
Western Europe and the World’s other industrial democracies don’t have the same socio-economic factors we do? I suppose that may be true for the .005% that’s really different but the biggest factor they don’t face, and we do, is millions of unsecured firearms in the hands of criminals and lunatics.
July 29th, 2009 at 11:20 pmWayne A. Schneider says:
As I understand (and I implore the more knowledgeable people here to correct me if I am wrong), the Framers of the Constitution never intended that our country have a full-time, year-round Army all the time. That’s why Congress is only allowed to fund an Army for up to two years at a time.
It was intended, therefore, that the States each have a militia for purposes of repelling an invasion. (This is why the Constitution says that the appointment of officers would be up to the States.) Now, the militias were not meant to be full-time jobs, either. They would consist of farmers and businessmen who would, should the call go out, grab their guns, report to their military units, and defend the country until the federal government had enough time to raise an Army and take over national defense.
And that is why the Second Amendment is there. So that those who were part of these regulated militias could have their guns ready, at home, to take to the fight. I do not believe that the Framers ever intended that every citizen have a gun to protect them from each other. That is what the Law is for. It is supposed to deter crime by providing appropriate penalties for those who mistreat other people. Nor did the Framers intend that we all have a gun to protect us from our own federal government.
You argument that the Framers did not intend that every citizen could have a gun has been rejected by the SCOTUS. That was the argument that DC government made, along with various amicus briefs by other major cities. The NRA maintained that cities and governmental entities could not ban all handguns and that any regulations concerning guns gets a high degree of scrutiny by the courts because of your 2nd Amendment rights. Statutes governing guns must be reasonable to outweigh your constitutional right. The ordinance in question just like Chicago and a few other cities cannot effectively ban all guns.
July 29th, 2009 at 11:25 pmeurope is distinctly different than the U.S. they have a different government structure a different social structure and economy is structured differently also. as for gross sales of ammo. I buy my ammo in bulk and that is purely for economical reasons. when you buy ammo buy the case you can save upwards of 15 cents per round and i go to the range with my wife once a week to plink at targets burning through 250 rounds a week. that adds up to a lot of pennies saved.
July 29th, 2009 at 11:29 pmcould you be more specific about these differences between the US and Europe and how it translates into stats relevant to this discussion? Also might you comment on why the 2nd amendment doesn’t seem to apply to switchblades, rocket launchers, and infectous pathogen? Thanks.
July 29th, 2009 at 11:34 pmwell one school of thought of what is covered by the second amendment is the term arms. when the 2A was written arms were considered what were the typical weapons of the common soldier which would consist of bayonets and musketloaders. by todays standards it would be M-16’s(AR15’s the civilian model. where you are going with switch blades ?? it is not illegal to own a switchblade it is illegal to carry one. as for rocket launchers and pathogens well they are not typical of the common soldier
July 29th, 2009 at 11:47 pmSo can we agree that live gernades are kosher? What about bazookas and flame throwers. I had little plastic green dudes that had those. Isn’t it more likely that some dudes just get boners over guns? Otherwise arms are arms and the words as the gun freaks want them read say I can have arms and it is my right so why don’t all these losers toughen up and give me my arms? It is my right afterall isn’t it?
And about those landmines…
July 29th, 2009 at 11:54 pmOkay so now I am to understand that those framers somehow intended that shit to meant what the average soldier was packing? Does that mean we can outlaw all the shit the common soldier isn’t carrying? This is an idiotic premise from the get go…
July 29th, 2009 at 11:58 pmDefine “common soldier” and “typical” weapon but please first give me that list about Europe and the US and the socioeconomic issues that result in so much gun crime in the US? Thanks…
I think it’s interesting that JANINE — even though she seems to be gone — needed to type in ALL CAPS in order to read and type her shit, but read pete’s response to her just fine.
Return to your gun fight.
Thanks.
July 30th, 2009 at 12:00 amagain grenades and flame throwers are not typical of the common soldier. those weapons are typically given to demolition specialists etc. I am sure that some “dudes” get boners over guns as some get boners over cars etc.. my wife hardly gets boners over guns but she does really enjoy the competitive aspects of them as well as I. I am also drawn to the historical aspects of them and the mechancical engineering too. but that is just me and my wife.
July 30th, 2009 at 12:00 amMaybe we should try another approach. Tell me again why the framers wanted these arms available? If it was because they were all freaked out about out of control government, why wouldn’t they want the good village folks to have the upper hand? This what the common soldier has shit is a stupid argument and no one has ever moved that as the intent of the framers…Well until now.
July 30th, 2009 at 12:05 amkey is purchasing guns from private sellers. which is no different than purchasing from your neighbor. the myth is gun show. by simply changing the law for gun shows would accomplish nothing. the law would have to be changed to include all private sales. so it is not a gun show loophole because the same laws apply at gunshows as they doe everywhere else in the U.S. MORON
July 30th, 2009 at 12:11 am@ republican hates facts & Dbadass
refer to post 73 these quotes are from the founding fathers and they clearly state that second amendment covers more than a standing army. maybe you should brush up on your history.
Thomas Jefferson: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither
inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and
better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man
may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (1764 Letter and speech from T.
Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)
seems the 2A is also intended for personal defense and a crime deterrent
July 30th, 2009 at 12:17 amSeems you should brush up on your logic since if what you believe is true then the logical conclusion is that I should be able to own whatever arms I choose and you have come up with some fuc ked up half ass detour because you know this is about nothing more than a bunch of folks who get moist over guns… I notice we have never seen an explanation of those European/US socioeconomic differences which you feel are at the root of our gun crime problem
July 30th, 2009 at 12:21 amgangs, criminalization of drug use, drug trafficking all of which are much larger problems in the U.S compared to western europe.
July 30th, 2009 at 12:26 amWhy do you believe that is the case?
July 30th, 2009 at 12:31 amNow about this “common soldier and their “typical” arms deal? Where did you come up with that? It says arms damn it. I want my rocket launcher and my anthrax. Otherwise all these 2nd amendment posers ought to STFU or admit it is about nothing more than their little hobby…
excellent deterrent we have more guns than pretty much anywhere and yet our crime stats are…
Who believes this shit except those that choose to be blind because they get a charge out the warm feel of their gun…
July 30th, 2009 at 12:34 ammany nations have higher crime and murder rates than the U.S. and typically it can be traced to gang violence and drug trafficking such as is the case in eastern European nations. Secondly when examining the constitution you must do so in the context that it was written. if you break down the words in the 2a and examine them with a dictionary from the time that it was written you will find that all of my arguments are valid. Thirdly if you refer to quotes of the founding fathers and articles such as the federalist papers you can learn more about what the constitution is about. simply because you do not like it and want to literally translate with todays definitions so that you can twist it for your argument … well that just doesn’t cut it.
July 30th, 2009 at 12:40 amJust tell me why I can’t have a rocket launcher, and some anthrax and do so in the way you claim the Constitution must be interpreted. I call bullshit on the whole premise as there is no logical way to claim an AK a protected right but other arms not so..And please spare me that bullshit common soldier shit. The words as you want them read say “arms”. Now put up or shut up if you don’t mind.
July 30th, 2009 at 12:45 amThe Framers drafted the Amendment when muskets and pistols were common, but they were not as powerful as those guns of today. It is impossible to discern what the Framers would think about guns as they are today. But, the SCOTUS has to deal with the law as it is written and intended when it was drafted. At best, we have an 2nd Amendment that allows people to have guns as a constitutional right. By extension, we are allowed to own all sorts of guns. But we do not know what the SCOTUS will do if they are faced with an assault weapon ban. There are a lot of unanswered issues now that the court has ruled on the right.
July 30th, 2009 at 12:46 amArms
In Colonial times “arms” usually meant weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for “ordinance” (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not.
July 30th, 2009 at 12:53 amNeither was Shalhope’s law journal article the first to express such a view (see The Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Harvard Law Review, (1915), by Lucilius Emery).[2]
i guess you can have your flame thrower and rocket launcher
July 30th, 2009 at 12:55 amwell not the rocket launcher
July 30th, 2009 at 12:55 amAn armed society is a polite society.
July 30th, 2009 at 12:55 amwell not the rocket launcher that would be ordinance
July 30th, 2009 at 12:56 amyou can call bullshit all you want but it doesn’t change the meaning of the words when they were written. do a little research and brush up on your history.
July 30th, 2009 at 1:04 amDbabyass just in case you missed it the first time:
Arms
In Colonial times “arms” usually meant weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for “ordinance” (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not.
Neither was Shalhope’s law journal article the first to express such a view (see The Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Harvard Law Review, (1915), by Lucilius Emery).[2]
well good night everyone. it has been fun.
July 30th, 2009 at 1:08 amOff Topic
Anyone else had this situation before?
I made a post and it appeared like this:
86. johnny dol1ar says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
it keeps showing the same way as long as I am logged in.
If I log out and close my browser, then come back, the post does not appear on the thread.
Hmmmmm… another undocumented feature…
July 30th, 2009 at 1:26 amSorry TP. I am going to explore this “feature” a bit more.
115. johnny dol1ar says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Here we go again:
First off, we all know this issue of gun ownership is quite complicated (Yes, Captain Obvious is here)
A national register of gun owners detailing what type and how many guns someone owns, quantity and frequency of ammo purchases, including background checks is going to feed NRA gun-nuts with exactly what they “fear” – Big Government intrusion into their private lives.
I also agree that most of the even petty crimes involving guns receive more attention in urban settings as opposed to rural environments. In addition, those crimes seem to be committed by relatively “young” people.
Yes, I am pulling this opinion out of my rear.
The recent tragedies involving older persons were that freak Van D – whatever his name is – and Scott Roeder.
Aside of those, most criminals using guns in an urban environment seem to be under 40.
Then we get into the interpretation of the second amendment and its relevance to our present situation. I’ll just say one more time that I think it is an anachronism.
July 30th, 2009 at 1:32 amI see.
The offending word is D* o *u *c *h *e.
July 30th, 2009 at 1:35 amIt is nice to learn that the Dems learned their lesson after ‘94.
The Constitution is the whole Constitution. This isn’t religion. You can’t pick and choose which parts you like. Sotomayor has shown time and time again that she is not for supporting the whole Constitution and that is not a good thing to have in a court that is supposed to rule on laws that are supposed to be made in line with the Constitution.
The SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) is supposed to be unbiased and Sotomayor is not unbiased.
Activist judges no matter what side of their political affiliation have no place.
July 30th, 2009 at 2:04 amDixie Blood –
We will challange Newyorks gun laws, right after we win the Chicago case.
Pags2 — The Heller decision did address modern firearms. And those are protected as well. They said the First Amenemdn protects modern form of sommunications, the Fourth protects from modern forms of searc and the Second is no different.
The founders could no more conceive of the internet, radio or TV. If you wish to restict us to muskets, then apply the same stadard to the First Amendment. 7 day waiting periods for editorials and comments on baords like this one
July 30th, 2009 at 7:16 amJANINE says
You are a liar and you are an idiot. Virtually everything you said about Sotomayor is BullShite. Stuff it up your tarhole you ignorant brainwashed moron
July 30th, 2009 at 7:38 amDeuce Coupe says
Well Doose. You are stupid. Most of the trolls here are stupid and you fit right in a stupid troll. No brain, just spewing the idiocy you have been brainwashed with. You do get that you are pathetic dont you?
July 30th, 2009 at 7:43 amTheseus says:
No she hasnt. You are a liar and a brainwashed moron.
July 30th, 2009 at 7:45 am“theoretically”
July 30th, 2009 at 9:17 am— Seems someone needs to brush up on the definition of this word…
dbabyass
Thats all you can come up with? I explained why certain “arms ” are not covered and you then refer to the irrelevant part of the quote on the basis of theory?? weak man weak! sorry that you were so wrong on this one!
July 30th, 2009 at 9:25 amWhat is weak about pointing out that you yourself used the word theoretically thus indicating that you are generating your own interpretation of what the intent of the “framers” was and aren’t really sure what is covered and what not as technology has advanced.. Again I ask if it is a defense against a too powerful government what sense would it make to move forward the suggestion that they only wanted to give them “arms” and not “ordinances”. If it is intended as a check against an out of control government would it make sense to tie the hands of the noble townsfolk?
July 30th, 2009 at 9:56 amwhy is dbadass so hard to spell?
July 30th, 2009 at 10:01 amfirst off that is not my interpretation that is the interpretation of the harvard law review as I clearly cited. secondly as the language of the times dictates and from other evidence provided through quotes and the federalist papers the 2A is not solely “intended as a check against an out of control government” it is clearly meant for a much broader function in our society. furthermore using the language of the time the 2A is limited to what we now consider to be small arms I.E. guns and does not cover rocket launchers and flamethrowers(sorry you cant have your WMD’s). These views are of qualified and respected legal experts and historians, as clearly and properly cited. It is sad that your interpretation is limited to the definitions of today, kind of butchering of the Constitution is rapidly deteriorating our current Government.
July 30th, 2009 at 10:06 amSo I can have my sawed off shotgun. Thank god…I really need that.
July 30th, 2009 at 10:10 amNow as to those armor piercing rounds…
July 30th, 2009 at 10:11 amsawed off shotguns are excellent for home protection just be sure to get a semi or a pump and also make sure that it use a clip. but be sure to use buck shot ammo as it is more forgiving in aim and it will not penetrate walls injuring family members or neighbors. plus they are simple and easy to use
July 30th, 2009 at 10:14 amarmor piercing rounds should be strictly regulated in my personal opinion. however pre-fragmenting rounds or composite rounds should be readily accessible.
July 30th, 2009 at 10:15 amso in closing there are no “arms” that a any citizen should not be allowed to own as to do so would be to violate their rights but that in your opinion my right to fire whatever sort of rounds I wish from my unlimited gun selection can and should be infringed upon. Well at least I have learned that no matter how unneeded or lethal and impratical it may be my right to have shit I don’t need is golden. I can’t wait to mount that Gattling gun on my porch
July 30th, 2009 at 10:23 amonly when “arms” is defined as when it was when the 2a was written and again that would eliminate the possibilty of owning a gatlin gun. as for the ammo that is just my personal opinion. and what is impractical or lethal has nothing to do with it or we would not have alcohol or sports cars or many other thing that we have in our society. also what is impractical for some may be practical for others.
July 30th, 2009 at 10:28 amAnd about those bayonets. Since these are just piercing and cutting implements and since they were “typical” of the “common” soldier. I suppose it would follow that any piercing and cutting tool should be legit as well I assume. Thus if I can have a permit to carry a firearm I ought to be able to keep my half dozen switchblades on me. I find they are very helpful in preventing all those criminals from hurting me…
July 30th, 2009 at 10:30 amPlease remind me again why the gatlin gun is out but the Ak is cool. Thanks.
July 30th, 2009 at 10:31 amwhat is impractical for some may be practical for others.
July 30th, 2009 at 10:33 am—
So if we apply this logic to the “pursuit of happiness” part then anything goes… See this is where the idea of the common good trumps in my opinion…
a gatlin gun is not easily carried as defined by arms in the period that the 2a was written. haven’t you been paying attention???? pleas refer to post 110 if more clarity is needed. beyond that I can not help you any further.
July 30th, 2009 at 10:36 amEasily carried? How the hell are we gonna measure that? What is not easily carried by some may be easily carried by others. I hardly want some little feller’s lack of stamina and upper body strength infringing on my rights to own whatever arms I damn well choose. There should be absolutely no limits doncha think?
July 30th, 2009 at 10:41 amNo I am fine with the definitions of that era. I like the 2a as it stands. however there is a raccoon that keeps getting into my trash and i am sure that a tommy gun would make quick work of him but maybe i will settle on a have-a-heart trap instead
July 30th, 2009 at 10:47 amWhile registering guns is a grand idea, our founding fathers had no clue about the level of violence, crime and gang activity that would arise in this society.
Food for thought: Whether you live in a gang infested city and hate guns, or are a card toting NRA member, one fact remains undeniable.
The second ammendment’s purpose was not to allow citizens the right to own a gun for hunting, protection from wild animals, outlaws or any assortment of “bad guys”, this went without saying. The purpose (albeit seemingly paranoid) was/is for to enable the citizens of this nation to protect themselves from a central government that goes astray, a government which violates the rights of the citizens. The intention was for the citizens to have a right to own not only hunting rifles, but military rifles with bayonnets and even a cannon (as if the average farmer, butcher, baker or candlestick maker could afford one).
This is not an opinion, but a fact which is corroborated by the writings of founding fathers, such as Jay, Jefferson etc.
Understanding the time this ammendment was written and what these men had gone through to achieve freedom, and how close they came to failing, it becomes not as crazy a concept as one might originally think. This ammendment is for the citizenry to protect itself from a government gone astray.
In seeing what the recent Neoconservatives and Republocrats have done, The Patriot Act, HR6166, Bush 2 spying on innocent American citizens and host of other frighteningly Orwellian legislation…our founding fathers seem all the more insightful of human nature and corruption.
July 30th, 2009 at 1:56 pmTrueLiberty says:
I have heard that argument before and find it flawed. I think by its own wording they meant the 2nd so the citizens could be a citizen defense like the Natioal Guard. Even were it true that is now basically insane. If you care to take your 30/30 or your .45 up against an F-16 or an Abrams tank then you will reasonably be weeded out of the gene pool.
I dont really like 2nd amendment arguments. I dont want to take everyones guns and those so far gone they oppose any common sense gun restrictions and think their 2nd gives them the right to a tactical nuclear weapon are beyond sanity. So the debates even if civil are arguments from two different worlds.
July 30th, 2009 at 3:01 pmSo, having read these entertaining statements I see that;
1) A persons rights changes the moment they walk into a city by the waving of a magic wand right?
2) The 2nd amendment only applies to the Federal government, but isn’t that an oxymoron? The US Constitution controls the actions of the activities that compose a government, federal or state and protects the rights of the individual right? So as there is no declarative statement or creation of a caste system specifying politicians are automatically imbued with superior or different rights by any constitution, federal or state what gives? After all, the federal government is made up of individuals from each state. How then as there is no caste system, does the 2nd amendment by default not apply to all individuals or “We the people”? Don’t those politicians have the same exact rights as non politicians as affirmed by the US Constitution right?
3) Incorporation was a theory brought about by what actions? Does anyone here know much less understand the undertones and beginnings of incorporation theory? Please explain!
4) Crime is less prevalent in a city right?
5) Self Defense is illegal, at least that is what Chicago, New York City and Washington D.C. feel? There must be multiple US Supreme Court rulings that makes self defense illegal right?
6) The government is responsible for the individuals safety 24/7 even though the US Supreme court has ruled approx 10 times they do not, right?
7) The best police response time of 4 minutes guarantees that the police can prevent attacks on each individual.
8) We don’t have any evidence of incomplete data being reported to the FBI UCR by any of the gun ban locals do we?
9) All the other amendments were written as individual rights, but the second amendment was written as a collective right? (research the drafts of the amendments at the Karpeles Museum)I have never heard a rational, much less logical explanation of why this would be true, please explain?
10) Crime rates are less in other countries, yet the US ranks 25th in murder rate in the world in 2003. Of course since all reporting agencies in the world mirror the US data collection and classification, much less reporting requirements, we can take as granted the accuracy of any data on violent crime from another country to be reasonably comparable, much less accurate right?
11) USDOJ Gang activity report published Jan 2009 identified up to 1 million gang members are responsible for up to 80% of violent crime. The main support for the violent gangs is illicit drug revenue. So please explain how strict gun laws that only the law abiding follow stops this violence?
12) Since there were approx 447,000 violent crimes reported to the FBI UCR in 2007 involving firearms, guess that eliminating guns will eliminate the 953,000 remaining violent crimes? What about the 5.2 million unreported violent crimes as per the USDOJ Victimization survey? (BTW these are crimes not involving firearms, see the survey structure they use)
13) England is a perfect example of how gun control works right? After all, they banned guns in 1997 and went from 445,000 violent crimes reported to 1.4 million in 2007 with 20% of our population (Home Office Database). That increase in aggravated assault, rapes, and burglaries has no impact on the cost to society right?
14) Australia & Canada banned guns in 1997 also, Canada violent crime rate stayed the same at 951 VCR per 100k, and Australia’s increased 22% to around 823 VCR per 100k people in 2007 (their home office databases). Why hasn’t violence fallen in these gun control countries? Wasn’t the US VCR went from 611 VCR per 100k in 1997 to 465 VCR per 100k in 2007?
15) We see how effective gun control laws are here in the US especially the Brady Background check right (see USDOJ Background check and firearm transfers 2007)? After all, 87.17 million checks, 1.45 million rejections. Of which approx 831,000 were felons and since 1999 only 9,470 of those rejections were prosecuted. You do the numbers, but that beg’s the question, how many of those 822,000 felons who weren’t prosecuted went on to buy illegally and commit a violent crime with a firearm?
16) Guess we can automatically expect any new gun control laws to be consistently and properly prosecuted just like the Brady Background check right?
17) We see how effective prohibition and the drug war have been right?
18) There is absolutely no evidence that defensive gun uses occur at all right? Especially ones like the 4 times in my life, doing nothing illegal, no shots fired, attack stopped, then current laws of duty to retreat, and no real prosecutable crime that would stick against the attackers (minor trespass or threatening) in our broken liberalized court system right? Guess you can 100% guarantee I and my family wouldn’t have been physically harmed right?
19) All people are created equal in strength and fighting skills so no need for the weaker intended victims to compensate by arming themselves right? (BTW I am ex military, w more training and expert qualifications in weapons than some swat teams have today)
Just wanting to make sure we have the first few facts straight before continuing!
July 30th, 2009 at 3:35 pmSo are we arguing that if the drug war is bunk we should jut give up?
July 30th, 2009 at 3:47 pmJarhead1982 says:
You dont HAVE any facts you have delusional fantasies. The 2nd amendment was qualified by linking it to a militia purpose. Notice freedoms of speech press petition assembly and religion are NOT. You act like the 2nd means you ahve an absolute right to own any type of gun you want. You dont Emerson makes that clear. So your childish mischaracterizations dont make any points other than you are a fool
July 30th, 2009 at 3:57 pmyes but militia had a different meaning then than it does now. during the period when the @a was written a militia was considered every day ordinary citizens and a “standing army” was the full time government run military. Taking that into consideration along with such articles as the federalist papers, along with the wording “the right of the PEOPLE” it is clearly meant to cover just that every day ordinary citizens.
July 30th, 2009 at 4:57 pmIf the meanings of words change through time should not our interpretation of these words change as well?
July 30th, 2009 at 5:29 pmWhy should I be afraid of a peaceable person with a rocket launcher? And why should I think that because owning one is illegal that the bad guys won’t have one? (it is actually legal though highly regulated, you can have cannon too. Got Money?) Seems to me, that if the Mexican drug cartels are able to secure them from arms sources to their south and from their own government even, it would be a simple matter to smuggle them into this country, afterall, they smuggle the dope a lot of you guys seem to be smoking. What’s the difference? Did you happen to catch the news about 6 months back about the fella who had a shed full of RPG’s in the Pacific Northwest? Legal or illegal don’t have beans to do with what people have, or what they will do with what they have.
I have no idea why you people seem to be so afraid of guns, or people with them. Are you aware there are some 80 million firearms owners in the US and that they are in possession of some 250-300 million firearms? Are you aware that in 2007 there were only 40,000 firearms deaths, 17,00 of these were suicides? That makes only 22,000 possible murders (the numbers for that are lower yet, visit http://www.fbi.gov ) Even including the suicides, this means that only 16 thousandths of one percent of the firearms in this country were used as a cause of death (40,000/250,000,000). Now consider this, there are some 300 million people in the US. If 40,000 die as a result of a gunshot wound, that is only 13 thousandths of one percent of the population. The damn news is the problem, hyperventilating over every stupid thing people do, but then that’s their job. I began to feel a lot safer in the world when I just turned the TV off.
Sotomayor is going to be confirmed and neither the NRA nor the far right wing can do anything about it. I’ll be glad when it’s over and we can move on the the next over hyped and over rated piece of rumor mongering.
As to the 2nd, the intent was and is for the people to be free to own, carry and use arms. The 2nd includes the language “shall not be infringed” the purpose being that in order for the threat of armed insurrection to be an effective balance against the tyranny of government, that government cannot know who or how many or where the arms are possessed. The revolution started over the British attempt to take an arms and powder storage of the colonials. The “shot heard round the world” was fired over the issue of guns. Considering the founders fears of an all powerful government and their experience in ridding themselves of one, is it reasonable to think that they would give the government they created the ability to disarm them?
To read into the 2nd Amendment government control of arms is to say that the people must ask the government for permission to have their arms at the point they decide insurrection is the only possible means to rid themselves of a tyranny. That’s completely nonsensical.
And don’t tell me that the fear of a tyranny is foolish either. During the last century governments killed 250,000,000 of their own citizens, all being disarmed first. Sen Diane Fienstien is on record as saying she would force the people to turn over their guns if it were legal to do so. How many of our politicians are smart enough to keep their mouth shut when it comes to what they think?
I would suggest a good reading of the Declaration of Independence. The founders fought for their political, religious and civic freedom over far less than we now endure from our own government.
The 2nd Amendment is as outdated as freedom of speech, but then if one watches and listens carefully, it is obvious that the government wants control of that too. Are you willing to give that up as well?
July 30th, 2009 at 5:56 pmI suppose I am supposed to be more afraid of the big bad government…
July 30th, 2009 at 6:29 pmsaid pooh…
July 30th, 2009 at 6:29 pmStagoculus says:
Which was my point. They meant ordinary citizens BECAUSE they were considered the alternative to a standing army. AGAIN Emerson makes it CLEAR that each citizen has NO right to weapons that cannot be shown to have a militia use. That makes it CLEAR that absent that cities or states can make laws restricting gun ownership. Again I dont want to take anyones guns but lets stop pretending that the kind of common sense gun control the NRA is rabid against doesnt come at a very high cost and those people demanding their right to a rocket launcher have a screw loose.
July 30th, 2009 at 7:36 pmjohnph says:
You are a nut. I could no more explain common sense to you than I could explain blue to a blindman
July 30th, 2009 at 7:37 pmPlease have patience: As a teenager and young adult I was fascinated with weapons and my WWI heroes, and all the WWII spirit in response to 12/7/41.
I saved my newspaper income until I could buy a machete for $4.50 at an engineering drafting store. Later at about 20 years old I bought an Ames Civil Cavalry sword for $10.00 (just gave it to a grandson). Joined the NRA and literally worshiped a member who was a crack shot (machinest and very soft hearted guy who only shot targets). In the Navy (aviator) I met and paled with others who were fascinated by rifles and pistols.
I went to gun shows at every chance to see and wish to be able to afford items like beautiful Kentucky rifles, and Japanese matchlock guns. My most prized find was a WWI German aviator’s helmet. I remember buying a silver wire inlaid dagger for $35 and selling it two tables later for $45 at a “gun show”.
Then, as I grew older, I watched the old time historical arms collectors at gun shows give way to “Survivalists” kooks. Illegal Brass knuckles went on sale as “paperweights”. At a Houston gun show I saw a dealer that I later recognized as the Waco nut leader who burned many children to death. Then came Oklahoma with some NRA members supportive of the bombing. I had quit the NRA earlier because of their fanaticism. President Bush Senior ( a vet Naval aviator, like myself, but who had experienced combat, unlike my 5 years) QUIT the NRA!!!
At my last trip to a Houston gun show (no cameras allowed), many dealers were displaying red flags with yellow sickles and “Clinton” stamped on them, a flour sack level white trash woman trying to sell xeroxed phamplets showing how to extract information by stringing people up to tree limbs by their thumbs, etc., AND above all – - – a middle aged man in beret and camoflauge clothes touting a VHS video taape on HOW TO CONVERT A 12 GAUGE SEMI-AUTO SHOTGUN INTO A BELT FED 12 GAUGE MACHINE GUN.
That’s your CURRENT NRA. Every KKKer, Aryan Nation Nazi, and kooky “survivalist” is a member.
Disgusting!!!!
July 31st, 2009 at 9:33 pmlufrank, Wanna discuss Waco? Ruby Ridge?
Red flags with yellow sickles and “Clinton” on them? What, is free political speech repugnant to you? You seem to be quite comfortable to venting your political views spleen on the NRA. How do you justify denying others the right of free speech while practicing a brand that is in the same vein of that you condemn. Most people call that hipocracy.
As strange as it may seem to you, not every gun owner is an NRA member, and not every NRA member agrees with every position that the political arm of the organzation takes. And just because someone is selling something at a gunshow, that neither makes them an NRA menber nor someone who’s wares the NRA would approve of. Some might like to think of them as that powerful, I assure you they are not.
As to Daddy Bush disavowing his NRA membership, I’m highly inclined to believe his membership was politcallly motivated anyway. He was afterall, a politician. Don’t forget, he supported an assault weapon ban, and was at the helm when FBI agents murdered Randy Weavers family at Ruby Ridge. He is probably a gun owner much more in the vein of your liking.
Considering the economic, political and plain ol’ weather environment, what is kooky about survivalism? Do you eat every day? Having some food stored back in a pantry is a good thing if ya get laid off. That my friend is survivalism. Oh, I know you are going to day, “But I don’t mean that”. Well, what do you mean? Are you aware that in the past threee years there have been several bills put forward that would require people who keep chickens, goats and other livestock for family food to register those animals? And that the same legislation makes it federal crimes not to do so? That the same legislation would require that paperwork be attached to every sale of such an animal? That it would be a federal crime not to do so? That you couldn’t legally give produce from your garden to your neighbor? It would be a federal crime to do so. Sounds ridicuous doesn’t it. If you want I’ll find the HR bill number for you, let me know.
How about the Katrina affair? How many times do we see news images of families stranded after a major natural disaster? Think there is no need for survival planning? Oh, I know, you don’t mean that. So what if you get lost in a national forest replete with cougars and grizzlies. Do you think one might need to know simple things like how to build a fire? How to use a firearm? Having a firearm that is up to the task? Perhaps you don’t mean that.
How about the two legged predators who roam our streets, murder us in our homes, rape and murder our children? How you gonna survive them? Which would you rather have in your hand at the moment a goblin breaks into your home, an AR-15 or a phone? Oooh, I know, pepper spray. But I’m sure in your mind that survivalism is just kooks playin’ Rambo…. You prolly didn’t mean that either.
What is most funny about your spleening is that the groups you associate with the NRA will have nothing to do with the NRA because it is generally seen as too main stream and in collusion with the system for them.
You can get all kinds of stuff at a gun show, you can get all kinds of stuff on the internet. Prove it for your own satisfaction, do a search on bomb making or full auto conversion. Palidin Press sells lots of small books on those very lines. It is not illegal to possess such knowledge, this is a free society, or have you forgotten that?
I’d also suggest that you find and read the book “Timothy McVeigh American Terrorist” It was written by his lawyers, with his permission, after his death. He said the NRA were traitors to the freedom of gun owners. That sounds like a real endorsement to me. NOT!
You, like many others who may own a gun or two, seem to know very little of how the constitution works, what it protects, what powers it gives the federal government and what powers it leaves out of reach of that government. Ultimately that is the beef most people have with Sotomayor. In her own words in her confirmation hearing, she said she didn’t agree that the 2nd protects the right to self defense. In fact,on the first point, the senario she blurted out to evade the question, would be grounds for a first degree murder charge in any jusrisdiction in the country, the senario was not one of self defense. On the second point, she said that she was unaware of any ruling that SCOTUS had issued that said as much. Should we assume that she has not read the DC v Heller decision? In pointed directed to the issue of self defense no fewer than 18 times. Third, the Presser v Illinois case that was used by the 2nd circuit to say the 2nd amendment doesn’t extend to the states, plainly says “that even laying the present questions out of view, the states cannot ban firearms as doing so would deprive the US of it’s militia” see http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/35FinalPartOne.htm
Knowing these things, why should we not question Ms Sotomayor’s views of the Constitution and demand straight answers? I doubt that she is the liberal version of Robert Bork, but it is an awful lot of power to give to one person.
July 31st, 2009 at 11:14 pmAnd don’t forget, that even though it is well settled law that killing someone in an act of self defense is not premeditated murder Sotomayors own little senario suggests that she could be open to that kind of interpretation. Her admitted stand on the issue in the ruling she made on the 2nd circuit strips you of the means to provide a self defense. Do you think that she would rule agaisnt the Federal governement if you sold a few chickens to your neighbor? Still feel comfortable with her on the bench?