22 Dec

The Truth About The Right To Keep And Bear Arms

                                       

“I don’t think legitimate sportsmen are going to say, ‘I need an assault weapon to go hunting,’” Cuomo said, according to the New York Times. “There is a balance here — I understand the rights of gun owners; I understand the rights of hunters.”

Cuomo indicated the state will likely force some kind of permit process on owners of semi-automatic “assault weapons.” In addition to generating revenue and expanding the size and reach of government, the effort will allow the state to confiscate the weapons of citizens who do not comply.

Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it,” the governor said.

constitutionThis is the governor of one of the largest states (population-wise) in the country! We have devolved to a point in the gun rights argument that we’re reverting back to the very thing from which e sought independence. The Declaration of Independence lists several grievances that led to the Revolutionary War.

King George was an oppressive ruler. He quartered troops in private homes to keep the citizens in check. He forced sailors to take up arms against fellow contrymen. He taxed them into oblivion without any representation. He made up laws on the fly to deal with trouble makers and denied them due process.

In Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803), St. George Tucker, a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia offcer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District Court judge (appointed by James Madison in 1813), wrote of the 2nd Amendment that, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.”

Yes, I’m a nerd. I read and RESEARCH the meanings of the Constitution, especially the most fundamental and important of our rights. Delving into the Appendix, Tucker explains further the meaning of the 2nd Amendment (emphasis is mine).

This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty …. The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.

secondamendmentSound familiar? Today’s progressive movement has sought to turn the 2nd Amendment’s meaning into something it isn’t. Our lofty politicians – protected with their throngs of security guards, armored vehicles, and other protections – and their lapdog media have succeeded at convincing the “low information voters,” as Rush Limbaugh likes to say, that this right is meant to apply to hunters only. Or in your home only.

In addition, they have tried to tell us that even if we were hunters, we “don’t need those kinds of weapons for hunting.” Nearly every argument I have with a progressive gun grabber usually incorporates the statements that there is no use for any type of magazine that can carry more than 10 rounds or to own a weapon that looks black and evil. Personally, I think that’s racist that they are trying to ban so-called “black rifles.”

Another constitutional scholar to our Founders, William Rawle, wrote a book in 1829 called, “A View of the Constitution of the United States of America.” In this book, he talks about the reach and authority of the 2nd Amendment while also discussing the limitations on those that would attempt to circumvent it. He, rightly so, points out that the 27 words that make up the 2nd Amendment are composed of two, separate clauses; not one run-on sentence. Of the first clause (a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free state), he writes:

Although in actual war, the services of regular troops are confessedly more valuable; yet, while peace prevails, and in the commencement of a war before a regular force can be raised, the militia form the palladium of the country. They are ready to repel invasion, to suppress insurrection, and preserve the good order and peace of government. That they should be well regulated, is judiciously added. A disorderly militia is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country. The duty of the state government is, to adopt such regulations as will tend to make good soldiers with the least interruptions of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life. In this all the Union has a strong and visible interest.

Some would point to the National Guard and say that this is what constitutes the “well regulated Militia” of the 2nd Amendment. However, such is not the case. The National Guard is frequently called upon to take on standing military operations. Our politicians and government have done a stellar job at preventing “the people” from forming their own “well regulated Militias” by labeling such groups as extremist, hate, or seditious collections. Can anyone honestly say that if our government became so corrupt as to turn on its own people that the National Guard would be in place to oppose the regular military forces? We all know that the Guard’s troops are equipped with mostly secondhand equipment and arms. If – and this is a very long shot – the country was ordered into martial law either the National Guard would be called up to augment the active forces or would be defeated without support if it stood up for the people.

This is why militias comprised of “the people” are included in the Constitution. Imagine if the people were allowed to form these militias in Los Angeles before the LA riots. Neighborhoods of people could defend their homes and businesses. Heck, one only needs to look at this picture from the riots of what property owners were doing to defend and protect their property. These citizens were protecting Korea town.

Korean-men-defending-Koreatown-during-the-1992-LA-riot

There are videos online of the LA Riots of literal gun battles between looters and armed merchants protecting their assets. There were no police officers anywhere nearby and it was left to the citizen to protect himself and his belongings.

But, Rawle pointed out the distinctions in his book between the two clauses in the 2nd Amendment and there are two. Of the second clause – the right of the people to keep and bear arms – he said the following:

The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious (ie: criminal – CJ) attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.

Rawle also understood that such rights are encumbered with certain responsibilities. Just because you have a right to “keep and bear arms” doesn’t mean you have a right to be an ass. Obviously, there is a certain etiquette to exercising all of our rights. For example, you can’t shout “FIRE” or “BOMB” in any crowded environment so as to induce panic. Rawle identified the limitation to exercising your 2nd Amendment rights this way:

This right ought not, however, in any government, to be abused to the disturbance of the public peace.

An assemblage of persons with arms, for an unlawful purpose, is an indictable offence, and even the carrying of arms abroad by a single, individual, attended with circumstances giving just reason to fear that he purposes to make an unlawful use of them, would be sufficient cause to require him to give surety of the peace. If he refused he would be liable to imprisonments.

In other words, ordering a Big Mac with fries and a Diet Dr. Pepper with a pistol in your hand would probably be defined as a “disturbance of the public peace.” Walking around the mall with an AK strapped to your back would probably also qualify as “an indictable offence.”

Rawle makes it quite clear that “the People” refers to individuals and not the military, or Militia. This isn’t someone over 200 years after the amendment was written trying to opine as to the true meaning of its words. This is of a man who was present during the debates and knew what the Founders meant when it was written.

onenationundersocialism

Another founding contemporary was Justice Story, a Supreme Court Associate Justice appointed by James Madison in 1811. He wrote a book called “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States” in 1833. Again, this is a man that was present for the ensuing discussion and explanatory speeches by the Founders and writers of our Constitution. He obviously never imagined that we would have such Constitution-hating liberals filling offices to which they were sworn to protect and defend the very thing they hate.

The modern-day Democrat party talks more about the need to change the Constitution – and specifically the need to change the 2nd Amendment – than they talk about defending and supporting it. Without studying the words of those actually present during the 1880s to 1890s, they deign to just make up stuff and simply define that sacred document as “living” and “breathing.” Mayor Bloomingturd and Governor Cuckuomo obviously never “duly reflected upon the subject” of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

In his essay “Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution,” which was published in the Federal Gazette on June 18, 1789 Tench Coxe wrote that it is the responsibility of the people (again, speaking as individuals) to be the final check on government. He writes:

As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

I could go on and on. There is simply no factual basis behind the 2nd Amendment referring specifically to hunting or even that it was intended to restrict certain arms simply because of their physical appearance. Today’s liberal elite and their zombie-like followers won’t “carry [them]selves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed” as Thomas Jefferson wrote to William Johnson in 1823 (please read the great book, “The Complete Jefferson” to find other nuggets of intellectual knowledge on the founding of this country). Instead, they assign new and evolving meaning that suits their collective agendas.

“The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” — Thomas Jefferson

Perhaps, this is really why the rulers in Washington are so intent on taking away our weapons. Let there be no doubt now as we engage our intellectual inferiors on this subject about the true meaning and intent of our Founders when they debated and passed the Bill of Rights and specifically the 2nd Amendment. It’s time to put gun control to bed once and for all.

And as for the belief that “if we just ban high capacity magazines, the shooter won’t kill as many people” I offer you the following video on just how long it takes a trained or practiced shooter to change the magazine on these so-called “assault rifles.”

YouTube Preview Image
This entry was posted in 2nd Amendment, Constitution, Mass Murders. Bookmark the permalink. Saturday, December 22nd, 2012 at 10:02 pm
| 2,482 views

339 Responses to The Truth About The Right To Keep And Bear Arms

  1. Skookum says: 2

    Excellent piece CJ, I am learning a great deal about the Second; Especially, obvious is the Left’s continuous effort to divert, deflect, and obfuscate the meaning and intent of the Second with their own excuses for totalitarian measures, designed to make the country safer for tyrannical statism.

    Greg’s example above is a perfect example: to the casual observer, the author is allowed to imply that we want the right to engage our government with arms; however, this is a gross misrepresentation of the truth by rather clumsy manipulation of the writer’s pen. We and the founders want to be ready to confront tyranny.

    A tyrant can’t impose his will on the people unless he ignores or alters the Constitution. When a leader bypasses our normal governmental procedures for the passage of laws to impose his will or personal ideas of how the country should be run, he has begun to implement the prerequisite for tyranny.

    Presently, many of our legislative leaders tacitly condone the president’s overreach by not protesting such actions. While many of us, who are not struck with the silliness of celebrity, recoil with disgust and revulsion implied by one man ego who sees himself above and beyond the normal workings of our government and feels entitled to impose his own will on the people of our country.

    Such attitudes by our leadership coupled with a populace who worships a strong leader, regardless of faults and corruption, is the impetus for tyranny. While some skip down the Primrose Path of tyranny with expressions of glee and wonder, there are many who step back into the shadows to make a more objective assessment.

    This Constitution and this country wasn’t designed and maintained to be fundamentally altered and or destroyed by one man’s figurative pipe dreams. This country was meant to stand on the foundation of the Constitution, but when we have an adoring but uninformed public, the importance and relevancy of our Constitution can be eroded and neutralized by one charismatic tyrant who wants to “fundamentally” transform America.

    To him, and his faithful followers, we the legitimate gun owners who understand the Second Amendment represent a major roadblock in the installation of a totalitarian form of statism of the benevolent dictator or tyrant.

    ReplyReply
  2. Tom says: 3

    America wants stronger regulation of the sale of firearms. That is not unconstitutional. Painting it as “taking our guns” is just evasive hysteria. Inventing a false argument to rage against is telling. If you had to argue against what’s actually being proposed, then you’d have to argue for something that does nothing but make our society a breeding ground for mass murder as the cost for granting the gun industy free reign to make billions fulfilling suburban Rambo fantasies.

    ReplyReply
  3. Scott in Oklahoma says: 4

    Well done CJ, but it isn’t just the 2nd under attack. The 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 9th are also under attack, read them carefully and you’ll see what I mean. We cannot let these attacks go unanswered, I’m just not sure which angle we should take in defense.

    ReplyReply
  4. retire05 says: 5

    @Tom:

    Tommy Boy, just exactly where in the Second Amendment does it say the federal government has the right to regulate arms in any respect? The powers of the federal government are enumerated quite clearly in the Constitution, but since you seem to know that they have the power to do what is not written, I am asking you to show me where you found that rule.

    ReplyReply
  5. Scott in Oklahoma says: 6

    @Tom: Gee Tom, 300,000,000 privately owned firearms were NOT used yesterday to commit crimes. And since we have something that resembles a free market system here, you know, that old supply an demand thing, do you believe for a minute the gun manufacturers would survive if people quit buying? Obviously, there’s a market.
    Also, would you care to explain, in all your brilliance, how more laws and restrictions are going to stop people who, by the nature of the crimes they commit, could care less about existing laws? That is the arguement you have to win.

    ReplyReply
  6. Tom says: 7

    @retire05:

    I never said “in any respect”. Nice try. If regulation was unconstitutional than all regulation would have been struck down, as indeed some was in Columbia v Heller. If you want to argue otherwise, best of luck. SCOTUS thinks otherwise.

    ReplyReply
  7. Tom says: 8

    @Scott in Oklahoma:

    I’m sure there would be a market for sarin gas, Scott. Why isn’t that sold at Walmart? Or heroin? At least heroin doesn’t get away from its owner and slaughter twenty children. I’m 25 miles from Newtown right now, visiting relatives, and there is no logical reason for someone to have an AR 15 here. If your argument is “I want it because I want it” then say that, but expect that your neighbors might think their children’s lives shouldn’t be secondary to your gun fetish.

    ReplyReply
  8. retire05 says: 9

    @Tom:

    Apples and oranges. I never mentioned SCOTUS. I referred to the U.S. Constitution, something SCOTUS oft times seems unaware that it is supposed to uphold.

    Tommy Boy, you are the King of Obfuscation, aren’t you?

    ReplyReply
  9. retire05 says: 10

    @Tom:

    And there is no logical reason for anyone to own a Corvette which can reach speeds of 130 mph, but I don’t see you working to out law them or place governors on all vehicles which can exceed national speed limits.

    Where does the Constitution state that our ability to own things is limited to only those things we need?

    ReplyReply
  10. Skookum says: 11

    @Tom: The response from the Left on the restriction of weapons has been all over the board. There is a major problem with people who have little or no knowledge of firearms trying to regulate them.

    I will give you an example: The AR15 is a major fly in the pudding for most people who know nothing about weapons. The reason is because of the look of the weapon. It doesn’t have the fine Walnut or Maple stock that characterizes antique and expensive hunting weapons. It is a bare bones weapon that to me looks like it was made in a maintenance shop by self-taught designer. It “looks” lethal; however, the standard round is the 223, a light weight bullet with fast velocity that is easily deflected. It is a semi-automatic weapon: meaning, you pull the trigger once and it fires once. Most hunting weapons use a bolt action mechanism; however, you can purchase much heavier weaponry, like the 30-06 ( a much more effective round if you are shooting big game moose or grizzly or men) with the same semi-automatic action with a walnut stock. The 223 can be deflected way off target by the smallest twig and the AR15 has limited ability at ranges over 300 meters: the 30-06 (06 refers to the year, 1906 the round was developed) can knock an animal down by shooting through a ten inch tree and is extremely accurate at a 1,000 meters. The hunting rifle with the walnut stock is beautiful, people can’t resist reaching out to touch the wood. The AR15 to me, a man who has been around weapons all his life, looks like a tool found in a plumber’s toolbox. I would prefer the 30-06 in a grim situation, because in my opinion, it is a much more lethal weapon, but if I need to carry 200 rounds for 60 miles a day for several days, give me that plumber’s tool.

    It is the image of the AR15 that scares everyone, it is not a military weapon. Soldiers and Marines would be damn mad if you handed them such an inferior weapon and expected them to take it on patrol. A sniper would make do with the 30-06, for it is an effective weapon for his job.

    We have the scary weapon and we have the lethal weapon, there are advantages and disadvantages with each one, but in the eyes of the public, the AR15 is evil. Yet to me, it isn’t a serious weapon.

    Of course, my overwhelming experience has been hunting big game, animals that aren’t affected by images and animals that can sometimes be a lot more dangerous than men, especially when they are wounded.

    ReplyReply
  11. Tom says: 12

    @retire05:

    The right to bear arms is not the right to bear whatever deadly projectile has been conceived in the past two centuries. Assault rifles may very well fall on the wrong side of that divide. Seeing as they serve no purpose but to efficiently kill people, the government would have good reason to consider testing that hypotheses. Like I said, just because you happen to like them doesn’t seem like much of an argument weighed against 26 murders. You can disagree with regulation, but you can’t disprove that it is perfectly constitutional. If you could, you would have made that point long ago, just like if you could prove that an AR 15 served any legitimate purpose in our society you would have made that point too.

    ReplyReply
  12. Skookum says: 13

    Retire: There are several cars sold that will do way over 130 and some that will do over 200, but they limit motorcycles to 185. Is this discrimination?

    ReplyReply
  13. Tom says: 14

    @Skookum:

    Thanks for the information. I’ve said multiple times gun experts should be participants in any efforts to craft legislation to lend meaningful expertise. As for the AR 15, it seemed powerful enough a week ago to the lay eye, but I would submit it’s the capacity and rate of fire, not the gauge, that’s most concerning. If you can kill 20 plus people in five minutes I don’t think a potentially easily evaded guard on premises is going to make a huge difference.

    ReplyReply
  14. Skookum says: 15

    @Tom: The Second Amendment wasn’t written to protect the rights of hunters. The Second is written to prevent tyrannical usurpation of our Constitution. Weapons are designed to be effective or lethal. Since the first crude weapons, the evolution of firearms has been a continuous effort to make the rifle a more effective weapon.

    Sport hunting or putting venison on the table didn’t enter into the consciousness of the founding fathers, protecting the Constitution and our form of government was their only concern.

    ReplyReply
  15. CJ says: 16

    Tom: ” I’m 25 miles from Newtown right now, visiting relatives, and there is no logical reason for someone to have an AR 15 here.”

    You being within 25 miles of Newtown has no more bearing on this argument as me being 25 miles from Fort Hood would make me an expert on Muslims in the military. My entire post explains the “logic” of why someone could and should have an AR.

    “If your argument is “I want it because I want it” then say that, but expect that your neighbors might think their children’s lives shouldn’t be secondary to your gun fetish.”

    I want it because I can and they are fun to shoot. Now, explain to me how my mere ownership of several ARs is somehow endangering my neighbor’s kids. I’m dying to hear that since you basically just called me a child killer.

    ReplyReply
  16. CJ says: 17

    Tom: ” The right to bear arms is not the right to bear whatever deadly projectile has been conceived in the past two centuries. Assault rifles may very well fall on the wrong side of that divide.”

    By that logic, the Constitution does not protect Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, or the Jehovah’s Witnesses to worship freely since those religions weren’t around in the 1700s.

    ReplyReply
  17. Skookum says: 18

    @Tom: The clips are misleading as well. A clip is basically a long metal or plastic box with a spring inside. The twenty or thirty round clip sounds impressive, but when you fully load that clip the spring becomes weak and tends to malfunction. We have read where these killers have had jams and malfunctions, it is probably a result of being unaware of this fact of weapons, especially when they are left loaded for extended periods of time. If you have a twenty round capacity, it is best to only load sixteen or seventeen rounds or you will have a jam.
    The greater the capacity, the greater strain there is on the spring. It is much more effective to tape two clips together, so that one is upside down. This in effect allows you a 34 round capacity that can be rotated in the length of time it takes to get a sight picture.

    If you notice, nearly all the killers have been dumb asses when it comes to the knowledge of weaponry (thank goodness) or we could have much worse disasters. They also fold when faced with the threat of real and intimidating resistance (armed); at this point they either surrender or put a round through their own gourd. In Washington, it was just the sight of a CCW man drawing a bead on the moron, that made the coward decide to end his own miserable life.

    ReplyReply
  18. Tom says: 19

    @CJ:

    Does Adam Lanza’s mother bear any responsibility for what happened? I understand she liked to target practice. I wonder if she would have thought it was worth all the fun. We live in a society and there are reasonable expectations that we can place upon our neighbors for our common safety. Why is it guns are the one exception to this general rule of conduct? If your neighbor carelessly left his pit bull out and it attacked your child, would your first response be to congratulate him for exercising his right to own a dog? Gun owners use the Second Amendment as a shield to deny all responsibility for carelessness when it pays a price. What I don’t understand is why responsible owners don’t push for a higher bar. Why don’t they say: “if you can’t live up to my high standard, you don’t deserve to share this right i am responsibly exercising”? You’re a highly trained and educated person when it comes to firearms, yet you have no issue with anyone getting their hands on any number or make of guns with zero training. That makes sense to you?

    ReplyReply
  19. Tom says: 20

    @ CJ,

    In this paranoid vision of tyranny where Obama declares martial law and orders the military to go house by house confiscation guns and shooting resisters, you would go along with this, if you are active duty? You really think the bulk of the military will? Look at the paranoia and fear that drives this insanity, really look at it, and tell me, is it real?

    ReplyReply
  20. Wm T Sherman says: 21

    @Tom:

    Do you have any experience with firearms?

    ReplyReply
  21. Skookum says: 22

    @Tom: The government that bypasses normal protocol and legislates by Executive Order does nothing to alleviate the fear of encroaching tyranny. Overreach and bypassing normal procedures destroys the individual’s faith in the president. Starting a proxy war in Libya after consulting the UN and ignoring his own government is the type of overreach that makes a percentage of the public begin to question just how much power this president presumes he can take before he meets resistance.

    The Lanza woman was an irresponsible gun owner. She did not keep her weapons secure. She also allowed her son with violent tendencies access to those weapons. Yes, she has a lot of blame in this tragedy. Taking care of family members with mental illness means you have a greater responsibility to secure your weapons. You secure them from theft: you should secure them from the unstable. It was a major error!

    ReplyReply
  22. retire05 says: 23

    @Tom:

    Actually, Tom, the U.S. Constitution doesn’t address dog ownership. Now, perhaps it should have since I am sure there were mean dogs whose owners didn’t keep them penned up during the time when the Constitution was written. Perhaps the authors of the Constitution just figured that people would assume responsibility for their own actions, unlike today where we have a “victim” culture where no one is responsible for what they do, except for perhaps, gun owners.

    I’m sure the Newtown shooter’s mother (I refuse to say his name any give him any print space) realized when her son murdered her that she was paying for any mistakes she might have made. But you make it sound like paying for her mistakes with her life was not a great enough payment. What would you have society do? Dig her up and put her on trial?

    You’re a highly trained and educated person when it comes to firearms, yet you have no issue with anyone getting their hands on any number or make of guns with zero training.

    And would you also require training by a professional prior to allowing someone to get a driver’s license that puts them in a multi-ton vehicle capable of running a person over and killing them? How far do you want to take that? You see, Tom, not being a gun owner yourself, you are incapable of thinking like 99.9% of us. You fear what you don’t understand. And that is normal. But to constantly rail on those who do understand gun ownership, by making outlandish demands on them, and not the people who enacted laws that are not enforced, you place the blame on the wrong people.

    Let me give you a senario: a shooter enters a mall and starts shooting shoppers. A shopper has a CCW and is armed. After the shooter is taken out, and the armed shopper is interviewed, does he say “Well, I saw him shooting people but I waited until he pointed his weapon at me and then I shot him. It really wasn’t my place to defend all those other people.”

    You can’t comprehend what you don’t know or understand. Not once, never, has an armed citizen waited while a mad man killed others until the armed citizen thought he would be harmed. The entire idea is to end the threat, no matter who it is toward. You can’t seem to comprehend that. After the Killeen Luby’s shootings, Texas changed its law on CCW. And what happened, Tom? Crime went down. In just one year, 2010-2011, the murder by gun rate has decreased in Texas by 13%. In California, who has much stricter gun laws, the murder by gun rate is double what it is in Texas, although it does not have double the population, and has decreased by only 3%. The biggest threat to a would be killer is an honest, legally armed citizen who will most certainly muck up the killer’s plans.

    If you were intellectually honest, which you are not, you would want to have a conversation about what works, and what doesn’t (like stricter gun laws that affect only law abiding citizens), and how the gun laws that are already on the books have done nothing to prevent bad people from getting their hands on illegal weapons to do bad things. Until you can enforce the laws already on the books, more laws is just hyperbole.

    ReplyReply
  23. retire05 says: 24

    @Tom:

    No, the fear comes from an administration that willing allowed guns to be placed in the hands of the Mexican drug cartels, all the while trying to blame that action on gun dealers who were ordered by the ATF to allow straw purchases. Do you think all those weapons have remained in Mexico, and will never make their way north to your area? I think Brian Terry’s family would disagree with that premise.

    And who will protect you if a bad guy with a F & F gun wants to take your stuff? The police? What is the response time in your area (be sure to name your area so we can keep you honest)? A bad guy, with a F & F weapon, can kick in your door and make you dead as a rock before you can dial 9, much less 911.

    There are bad people who want to do bad things to good people. But good people who own firearms intend to make the playing field just a bit more level.

    ReplyReply
  24. Scott in Oklahoma says: 25

    I just have a minute… Skook, you and others might be a little premature throwing the shooter’s mother under the bus. I have yet to hear how she chose to secure (or not, fair enough) her weapons. I don’t have a gun safe, nor is it likely that I’ll buy one just for that purpose. I do have a garage full of tools, with some of those tools I can defeat any safe in short order; yeah, serious tools. So regardless of how she secured her guns, the possibility exists that he just broke in to get them. I won’t pass judgement on her until I hear how she kept her weapons.

    ReplyReply
  25. retire05 says: 26

    @Scott in Oklahoma:

    The problem is that when a tragedy like Newtown, or Columbine, or Aurora happens, the knee jerk reaction is to find someone/something quickly to blame. Here is the bottom line:

    you can’t predict evil, and yes, evil walks among us, and you can’t second guess someone who is mentally unstable. And you can’t legislate away evil doers or their deeds. Laws are, for the most part, reactive, not proactive. So a tragedy happens, legislatures react, and most of the time their cure is worse than the illness. Our laws on the rights of those mentally ill are so absurd that it is almost impossible for a school official, boss or anyone else to warn others of potential danger.

    Don’t believe me? John Hinckley, Jr. shot President Reagan and Jim Brody. No, Hinckley didn’t kill them, but it was not for the lack of trying. Now, Hinckley is released to visit his mother, allowed to freely walk the streets with no physical monitoring, and the authorities rely on a cell phone GPS tracking system to know where he is. One man, a forensic psychiatrist, has deemed Hinckley to no longer be a threat to society, and has recommended he be released from St. Elizabeth’s permanently. Insanity, pure insanity. Hinckley should never see the light of day unless it is through the window of his cell.

    Tom wants to dump all the responsibility on gun owners for the shootings that are committed by those with illegal weapons. Frankly, that is not just wrong headed, it is dangerous. What about the courts, and the politicians who lobby for laws, that let dangerous people out on the streets of our nation on a daily basis? Do they really think that 30 years in jail and a few sessions with a shrink makes those evil people less evil?

    ReplyReply
  26. Skookum says: 27

    @Scott in Oklahoma: It’s true, we don’t know what measures she took to secure the firearms, and there is no way to stop a guy with good tools. However, she had a potential problem, and refused to face up to the possibility of hat could go wrong. Either way, she played the odds and many people lost.

    If you have a mentally unbalanced person in the house, it is time to either have the weapons secure enough or kept away from home. That includes drug users and drunks. We as weapon owners have responsibilities, and one of those is to make sure our weapons don’t fall into the wrong hands. Most weapons are stolen to either sell or commit crimes.

    We don’t have in the info because of the MSM’s efforts to make this into a political agenda; consequently, we have been fed an enormous amount of lies, not bogus information, just outright lies to mount this crusade against weapons. Every instance of a gun owner having weapons stolen is a black mark against us.

    ReplyReply
  27. DaNang67 says: 28

    As far as I’ve been able to tell, no-one has released any official information that the victims were shot with a rifle. I have read that the shooter had several pistols along. I have also read that the rifle had been left in the Mother’s car. A rifle is only of more use at distance while a pistol is a much more efficient weapon at close quarters.

    It’s also possible that the goal of the shooter was to inspire just the reaction we are seeing today from the silly socialists who propagandize here. He was, after all, a vegan who hated his survivalist mother enough to shoot her in the face multiple times. If the FBI investigation into his background and browsing habits uncovers a moonbat loonie, it won’t become public knowledge. Bet on that.

    Think about that. The leftist stooges may be helping the child killer realize his dreams! Who knows?

    ReplyReply
  28. Skookum says: 29

    @Scott in Oklahoma: The 22 nd will be under attack within three years.

    ReplyReply
  29. CJ says: 30

    @DaNang67: I have contacted the Connecticut State Police about this. There are now reports saying he used the .223 rifle to kill those kids. Those stories didn’t surface, of course, until AFTER the gun control argument started gaining steam. Earlier reports were that the rifle was found in his car. So, I’ve sent media inquiries to the state and local police for a clarification just on this issue. So far, I’ve been passed off to two separate agencies and I’m waiting on the response from the third.

    ReplyReply
  30. retire05 says: 31

    While some focus on the errors made by the mother, where the hell was the father? We have heard about the mother, and her life, watched as the media accused the brother of being part of the shooting rampage, but nothing about the father, and what role he played in his son’s life. Where was the man who was tasked with being a role model for his young son?

    Have fathers become so inconsequential in our society that we are not questioning his actions, his handling of his responsibilities? Surely, he knew his son was mentally unbalanced and on medications. Surely he knew that the shooter’s mother was having a hard time with him. So where was he? I don’t see the media digging around trying to find out where he was when his son planned such carnage.

    DaNange67, the shooter was not stupid. He was crazy. He destroyed his hard drive before he started his killing spree. Apparently, he took a simple hammer and trashed it into pieces. I read one report that the FBI is concerned that they will not be able to retrieve any information from it.

    ReplyReply
  31. The Old Coach says: 32

    @Greg: Every man is entitled to his own opinion, but he is not entitled to make up facts out of thin air to support it.

    The antis always seem to have one fact in common – they’ve never read more history than will fit on the back of a cereal box. EVERY tyranny in the world has come about (and is maintained) because the people were reduced by the masters to physical impotence. Does ol’ Tommy know that the two worst mass murders in the modern world, (outside of wars), were committed by policemen? No, he doesn’t, because he can’t see beyond his own nose, and doesn’t care to. Tommy, if your home and family someday need defending against a howling mob, carrying military weapons gifted to them by corrupt army officers, and acting under the protection of crooked politicians, and I promise upon my honor that I will not use my M4 to help you. Will that satisfy you? Think it can’t happen? That’s parts of Mexico today.

    ReplyReply
  32. Tom says: 33

    @Wm T Sherman:

    I fired guns in the Boy Scouts and they gave us, as you can image, extensive safety training, much of which I recall, although we’re talking over 25 years ago. There are likely people buying guns as i write this who haven’t a tenth of the training I possess and i have not handled a gun in decades.

    ReplyReply
  33. retire05 says: 34

    @Tom:

    Unless you are an over-the-road trucker with a CDL, can you tell us what extensive training, taken from a professional, that you have in order to be able to drive a multi-ton vehicle? What training have you received in order to use a hammer, a baseball bat, a kitchen knife, an axe or any other tool that can be, and has been, used as a weapon?

    Because with all the stabbing deaths that occur in this country, I think you should refrain from using a knive unless you have been properly trained by a professional knife handler.

    ReplyReply
  34. Aaron says: 35

    @Greg: Greg – That is exactly what our forefathers meant… EXACTLY!

    ReplyReply
  35. another vet says: 36

    This all boils down to control. One segment of our population believes we should have one set of beliefs, those being theirs. Be it gun control, raising taxes on one group to redistribute their wealth to another, telling you what you can and cannot say (i.e. being PC), telling you what can or cannot eat and drink, telling religious groups what their birth control positions are to be, etc. etc. The government is their means to force their beliefs onto the rest of us. History is ripe with examples of one group trying to shove their beliefs down the throats of others. In many cases it doesn’t turn out so well.

    ReplyReply
  36. another vet says: 37

    @Skookum: When you think about it, muskets were the “assault weapons” of the Revolutionary War. They weren’t as accurate as the rifle but they had a much higher rate of fire. Same goes for the Sharps in the CW. The argument that “assault weapons” weren’t around back when the Constitution was written isn’t valid.

    ReplyReply
  37. Martha says: 38

    Today’s progressive movement

    That should read:

    “Today’s progressive OPPRESSIVE movement”

    To be truthful about them.

    ReplyReply
  38. Wm T Sherman says: 39

    @Tom:

    There are likely people buying guns as i write this who haven’t a tenth of the training I possess

    Gee Tom, you’re the greatest.

    Your contempt for the average American often seeps through, but not usually so clearly. Perhaps the idea that the knowledge could be passed down or acquired without a centralized formal organization escapes you. I learned on my own by reading, discussing with others, and familiarizing myself with the equipment. For general safe handling of a rifle or shotgun that can be quite sufficient for a motivated individual. If I were going to carry a concealed handgun I would consider getting formal training, but that is not absolutely necessary either.

    People handle other things competently without formal training: chainsaws, gasoline, pesticides, power tools…

    ReplyReply
  39. Ted C Burhenn says: 40

    There are a lot of people out there that have no idea what an assault rifle is or is designed for. As a collector, I have a M-1 with the original stock, that I have never shot. It is the equivalent to a 308. It’s primary purpose was a sniper weapon. Didn’t have a large clip, if you were good, didn’t need one. Designed to take out the enemy at 100 yards plus. The new sniper weapons are good for 3000 yards or 3/4 mile or better. My M-1 is perfectly suited for hunting and looks like a normal hunting rifle. MOST OF YOU would not call it an assault weapon. The second amendment gives me the right to protect all our rights from a government that would take over our citizens. It has happened in other countries and could happen here except we are protected by the second amendment, “The right to bear arms” not to hunt bears. I will continue to hold my weapons as a symbol of our right to a free society. We have enough laws on the books to regulate guns and immigration, we simply do not enforce them. To write more laws will only serve to make the do-gooders feel like they have accomplished something. Why not take on the first amendment and shut down Hollywood glamour of 1000 deaths in 2 hours or video game that reward mass killing? Do you know that Hollywood lobbies spend twice the money that the NRA does? Oh, well your mind is made up and nothing will change it. So is mine, except our forefathers saw fit to allow me to protect the second amendment. If I give it up, then you too will suffer the loss of the first.

    ReplyReply
  40. Skookum says: 41

    @Wm T Sherman: Good point, other than military training, I’ve never had one-second of training, but I feel confident and have built my own bows, crossbows, rifles, pistols, shotguns, black powder weapons and knives. The military no longer has training in bows, crossbows, and black powder weapons. I also reload my own ammo, but I don’t consider myself to be a gun aficionado.

    ReplyReply
  41. Tom says: 42

    @Wm T Sherman:

    Contempt? If you think it’s contemptuous to believe that people handling dangerous tools that can harm others should have training, why don’t you put your money where your mouth is and get on a plane piloted by someone whose knowledge of flying was “passed down or acquired without a centralized formal organization”? Oh, I forgot, one can’t pilot a plane without a pilot’s licence. Damn oppressive government. It won’t even allow a man the freedom to buy his own plane and fly it, perhaps occasionally into an elementary school. Don’t blame the plane, and don’t blame the untrained fool. Blame the fact that you’re not flying too. Anyone who isn’t flying a plane has only himself to blame if he’s earthbound and something just happens to crash into his house.

    What about that contempt I keep reading about for those who don’t have guns, or in your parlance, those who refuse to defend themselves? Is that your point, that the cannon fodder doesn’t really rate an opinion?

    ReplyReply
  42. james raider says: 43

    This massacre was the result of a “Perfect Storm” of events coming together uncommonly. From the son’s limitations, to the mother’s decisions including her decisions on guns and gun-training of her son, to other facts yet revealed.

    No one can legislate against a “Perfect Storm,” and no amount of rights restrictions, or policies, or decrees will ever prevent that Perfect Storm. Still, it is no surprise that progressive statists use the event to stomp on individual liberty and freedom, pushing for government overreach – damn the consequences.

    @retire05:

    Until you can enforce the laws already on the books, more laws is just hyperbole.

    Don’t ask these progressives to hand out serious jail time to criminals. Liberals are a criminal’s best friends.

    ReplyReply
  43. Hard Right says: 44

    Folks, tom is just another hate filled bigot who wants to decide what rights people he hates should have.
    On a previous thread he stereotyped gun owners as “Rambo” wannabes and nutty in general.
    He is your typical leftist wannabe fascist, blind to what drives him. He tells himself his desire to violate you right is driven by “what’s right” as opposed to bigotry. He also justifies it further by pretending it isn’t a right you have.
    The left always justifies it’s fascism.
    BTW tom, repeating the same thing over and over doesn’t make things a fact. On three threads now your claims have been destroyed. You are fooling no one but yourself.

    If I have the time, I will write up the left’s attempts at banning guns over the last 30 years. What you will see is that they come up with proposal after proposal that is a Trojan horse. It sounds reasonable, then you learn how it is really meant to ban very large numbers of guns on false pretenses.

    ReplyReply
  44. Skookum says: 45

    @Ted C Burhenn: I trained with and carried both of these rifles, and I consider them to be among the best rifles ever made for precise shooting at long range. However, the M14 is the 308 and the M1 Garrand is the 30-06. Can you check the stats on your rifle.

    I would love to pack either one as a hunting rifle. It would take me back to another day and age.

    The 14 replaced the M1 in the mid 60′s, but it is heavy at 11.65 pounds if memory serves well. The 308 was the size cartridge adopted by NATO to have a common round to fit our allies rifles. It is more commonly called the 7.62 NATO round.

    ReplyReply
  45. Wm T Sherman says: 46

    @Tom:

    If you think it’s contemptuous to believe that people handling dangerous tools that can harm others should have training

    They should have knowledge. Your contempt lies in assuming that typically, the knowledge is lacking because ‘that sort of people’ must be reckless and ignorant.

    get on a plane piloted by someone whose knowledge of flying was “passed down or acquired without a centralized formal organization”?

    Apples and oranges. It takes years to become a competent pilot, hours to learn the basic principles of proper gun safety. People who own guns legally generally understand them. I asked earlier if you had any experience with firearms, because you tend to express naive sentiments such as thinking it’s as difficult to learn gun safety basics as it is to fly a plane. And as a matter of fact a great deal of formal training does take place — performed in many cases by organizations such as the scapegoat du jour, the NRA. The non-formal gaining of knowledge I referred to is an aspect of another Leftist boogeyman – the so-called gun culture, which is largely based on exchange of knowledge. Like people who care about computers or any other specialty, people who are interested in guns tend to talk to like-minded people — a lot.

    What about that contempt I keep reading about for those who don’t have guns, or in your parlance, those who refuse to defend themselves?

    I’ve written absolutely nothing about people who prefer not to own guns. It’s their business and they have nothing to explain. Perhaps you are having trouble telling people apart, or perhaps you detect one or two indicators in someone and then think you know everything else about them. Which is, wait for it — prejudice.

    Is that your point, that the cannon fodder doesn’t really rate an opinion?

    You really are a silly paranoid little man. You’re worried about the wrong things. And apparently you think you can read minds. You can’t.

    Cannon fodder: the people killed in gun free zones, the people killed by Operation Fast and Furious guns, the State Department employees sacrificed in Benghazi, the people who are going to be killed by Libyan weapons distributed to Islamic extremists, any Christian or Jew in a ‘liberated’ Arab Spring country, anyone attacked by a ginned-up mob in our deliberately balkanized nation…

    You denounce us as callous and cold for favoring pragmatism and facts over emotions. But nobody’s colder than a Progressive. To them, the accumulated and future dead are “bumps in the road.”

    How corrupt and ridiculous is the Progressive establishment? This much:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/229718/hurricane-west-cornel-west-and-american-radicalism/david-horowitz#

    ReplyReply
  46. Tom says: 47

    @Wm T Sherman:

    Your contempt lies in assuming that typically, the knowledge is lacking because ‘that sort of people’ must be reckless and ignorant.
    ….
    Apples and oranges. It takes years to become a competent pilot, hours to learn the basic principles of proper gun safety. People who own guns legally generally understand them.

    And they sure know how to use them. 32,000 people killed a year by guns in the US. Is that the deep understanding you speak of? Oh, I forgot, guns don’t kill people.

    I’ve written absolutely nothing about people who prefer not to own guns. It’s their business and they have nothing to explain. Perhaps you are having trouble telling people apart, or perhaps you detect one or two indicators in someone and then think you know everything else about them. Which is, wait for it — prejudice.

    Point our exactly where I specifically accused you of writing about people who don’t own guns. When you can, perhaps the rest of your rant will have meaning.

    You really are a silly paranoid little man. You’re worried about the wrong things.

    You’re right. We should probably shut up about all those children who were murdered. What a waste of time, trying to figure out how to prevent that in the future. Some idiots keep linking all those gun murders in America to guns, while pointing out that industrialized nations that don’t have guns, don’t have children shot in the face. No one wants to think about that while they’re polishing their favorite piece in anticipation of the annual Christmas moose hunt.

    ReplyReply
  47. Tom says: 48

    @Wm T Sherman:

    You denounce us as callous and cold for favoring pragmatism and facts over emotions.

    You mean those facts like nations with strong gun laws have remarkably lower gun deaths than the US? Not “sort of lower”, remarkably lower, like over 100 times lower. Or states with stronger gun laws have less gun violence than states with weaker gun laws? What exactly is this “pragmatism” you speak of? Unless of course you own stock in both the gun industry and the funeral industry, then I can understand. That is pragmatic. Great business model.

    ReplyReply
  48. Wm T Sherman says: 49

    @Tom:

    32,000 people killed a year by guns in the US.

    That is also the total number of suicides by any method. About half of suicides use firearms. There are about 10,000 homicides per year that use guns. Accidents, which would tend to indicate your assertion of poor training, are a realtively minor contributor.

    http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

    Point our exactly where I specifically accused you of writing about people who don’t own guns.

    Here:

    in your parlance, those who refuse to defend themselves?

    My parlance, you say. I wrote no such thing.

    We should probably shut up about all those children who were murdered. What a waste of time, trying to figure out to prevent that in the future.

    Nobody on this side of the argument wants the conversation suppressed. It has been discussed at length and you are no doubt perfectly aware of that. We disagree about how to prevent it in the future and would like to see reasoning, facts, and empirical evidnce applied to the problem, and not your preferred mode: emotion, hysteria, and demonization of people who have reached a different conclusion from you.

    pointing out that industrialized nations that don’t have guns, don’t have children shot in the face.

    Incorrect. European nations with strict gun control laws have had mass murders with firearms. You must be aware of that. Switzerland, which requires men of military age to keep military assault rifles in their houses, is so far not among them.

    ReplyReply
  49. Wm T Sherman says: 50

    You mean those facts like nations with strong gun laws have remarkably lower gun deaths than the US?

    Countries like Mexico for example.

    Or states with stronger gun laws have less gun violence than states with weaker gun laws?

    The author states:

    As usual, I point out that correlation does not imply causation, but simply points to associations between variables.

    Remember that.

    I’ll put your study up against this one, which reaches a different conclusion: http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

    What exactly is this “pragmatism” you speak of?

    That gun free zones do not preserve life, they get people killed. That stricter gun control laws, in this country, do not save lives. That mass murderers like the individual in Connecticut almost always surrender or commit suicide when confronted with deadly force, whether it’s the police or a civilian concealed carrier – they do not fight it out. That someone who refuses to even consider the possibility of a paradoxical or unanticipated empirical truth in conflict with what they call “common sense” is not pragmatic, and actually lacks common sense as well.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>