From comments on my Barack Hussein Obama post:
“…Never has there been an assault on the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution. I do ask everyone to read it before suggesting that owning a fully automatic 30 round clip weapon somehow is defending their family.”
I don’t care who ya are, that’s funny right there.
When the document was written, the primary self defense weapon was the flintlock musket. So yeah, I don’t think our founding fathers had the AR15 or Mikhail Kalashnikov’s masterpiece in mind.
Then again, I don’t think they had typewriters, word processors or the Internet in mind when they formulated the First Amendment.
Never has there been an assault on the 1st amendment to the US Constitution. I do ask that everyone read it before suggesting that owning a computer and internet access somehow is expressing their right to free speech.
See how utterly silly that sounds? It’s about principles, not the particular tool we use.
Also, I’d challenge you to find me some cases where a fully automatic weapon with a thirty round magazine was used in the commission of a crime. You won’t find many, if you find any at all.
Bank of Hollwood ShoootoutBut all illegall modified for full auto fire…
It’s incredibly rare. The ATF has some stats on this and long guns in general are rarely used, let alone fully automatic ones. Hand guns remain both the overwhelming choice for criminals and lawful citizens who use them for self defense. It seems we’ve not learned the lessons of Prohibition. When you outlaw a <><>thing<><> you create a black market, increase crimes of violence, and in general cause more of what you are trying to stop. Cities like Washington, DC, New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles that more or less prohibit their citizens from having fire arms for self defense also have high rates of crime and murder. That is not coincidental, it’s cause and effect.
As TOTWTYTR states, prohibition exacerbates the problem. Honest people obey laws while criminals, by definition, do not. Disarming or limiting available arms for the public will result in more targets for criminals. To control crime we must control criminals. LAPD eventually did that in the North Hollywood incident you cite. Both of the perpetrators, Phillips and Matasareanu, had extensive rap sheets, and would not have been deterred by restrictive gun laws. SIDEBAR: A few months after the incident, Matasareanu’s family sued the LAPD for violation of his civil rights.MBhttp://muledungandash.blogspot.com/
I’m not a particular gun nut, but I’m married to a cop and have three kids who love to shoot, so I do have respect for the gun toters out there. It seems to me that the registered, legal gun owners are not the problem. Here in Texas a fair amount of people have concealed carry licenses and they are never a problem. It is the twitchy, cracked out, criminals who are the problem when it comes to fire arms. So I don’t support tighter legislation when it comes to legal gun owners. What I do support are tougher penalties for people who use guns in commission of a crime. And for any parents of kids who use guns in commission of a crime. Janet in Texas
Mt Carmel Massacre? Yearning For Zion Raid? Me Lai?Oh, you wanted Civilian Crimes… St Valentines Day Massacre.
I’m not a huge gun fan. I grew up in an intercity neighborhood in Philadelphia where gun fire was a common background noise to every day life. That said, I am SO tired of the gun “control” movement. Legal guns are RARELY used in crimes. The guns that are out on the streets aren’t legal and THAT is what we need to fix. Putting further restraints on what average people can own is a waste of time. We have a system in place that works pretty well as far as I can tell. Even though for personal reasons I do not wish to own a gun, I am not afraid that my landlord on the same property as me is a registered gun owner. Quite the contrary. Its nice to know if brick hits the fan he’ll be behind me with that shotgun. (I live in southern California on a city that borders Los Angeles). Good to know if another riot breaks out it won’t just be the rioters who could be armed.
Support your right to keep and arm bears.
That would be a good argument, if the 2nd Amendment were about defending your family.It’s not.
A fully automatic 30 round rifle is necessary if you are unfortunate enough to live somewhere that has a high gang population and they commit home invasions for the hell of it. The areas do exist, I live in one of those areas.I would rather have the option and never have to use it, than to not have the option when I do need it.
It’s not about defending my family. It’s about protecting “We the People” from an oppressive government!
“Oh, you wanted Civilian Crimes…St Valentines Day Massacre.”Oh, you mean the one that occurred <>between two organized crime gangs……in 1929<>Your score: Google Fu: 8.5Relevancy: 2.0
I don’t believe in owning guns. But I will fight to the death for your right to do so.
The thing about the gun grabbers that annoys me is their prattle about the Constitution being a ‘Living Document’, by which they mean that they have the right to redefine what it means in light of their momentary concept of political expedience. The Founders included a mechanism for amendment. If you aren’t prepared to go to the trouble of getting an amendment passed, you really need to sit down and shut up. The idea that my idiot neighbor – who can’t back out of his driveway without putting a wheel in the ditch – has a right to own a military grade rifle makes me uncomfortable. But not nearly as uncomfortable as the notion that a political elite in Washington has the authority to ignore the clear intentions of the founders to protect the rights of the common citizen to own and carry military grade weapons.Until the Gun Control movement is ready to try to pass an amendment, I’m not even ready to talk about the effectiveness of Gun Control laws. The integrity of the Constitution and Bill of Rights is mare important than the smaller issues of Gun Control. If the political elite aren’t ready to play by the rules, to hell with them and the horse they rode in on.
AD, heres my take on it. i personally dont believe anyone needs an assault rifle for self defense. give me a 12 gauge anyday. the problem is that once they outlaw one gun, the rest wont be far behind. sometimes i dont think common sense prevails on either side. but thats just me.
Anthony,Please show proof of random home invasions by gangs? 95% of the time, gangs are going after each other, not random people on the street or in their homes. If you avoid the gang, they avoid you. After all, they don’t want to draw any unneeded attention to themselves.30 round automatic weapons are not necessary for protection, unless, of course, you’re in an opposing gang.Oh, and TOTWTYTR… check crime stats for NYC. You’ll find many more cities that have worse violent crime issues than NYC, many smaller cities, many cities that don’t have such strict gun laws. NYC is actually one of the safest cities in the country. Do some research before you post.
<>30 round automatic weapons are not necessary for protection, unless, of course, you’re in an opposing gang.<>Dude, you might wanna check your Constitution — it’s a Bill of <>Rights<>, not a Bill of <>Needs<>. And even if it were, who the hell are you or anyone else to lecture anybody on what they need? I’d think they can determine that on their own as free people.
If the Constitution is a living document, subject to change and interpretation depending on which way the wind blows, why then are politicians required to swear an oath to defend it, if doing so wasn’t to protect it in all its original form and glory?
Yes, as OrangeNeck said, it is a living document. If it weren’t, the Supreme Court wouldn’t have to determine the constitutionality of various laws.Has the Supreme Court said that laws banning fully automatic assault weapons are unconstitutional? So far, they haven’t. Guess they don’t violate the constitution.
AD – I won’t oppose your desire to own guns. I don’t oppose my own family’s desire. However, I still don’t understand why gun owners shouldn’t be licensed and insured, like people who own/drive cars. Granted, more people own the deadly weapon known as an automobile. Good drivers have taken driver’s ed and are licensed. Why not gun owners? Make it mandatory for the owner-to-be to take a gun safety course and test and own insurance in case of damage or injury, just like a car. Owning and using a gun should be a privilege, not a right (in my mind), just like a car.
Dawn, As you pointed out, driving a vehicle is a privilege not a right.Rights are ,by thier very nature, not licensed.However, if that was to pass, and I was to be a licensed gun owner,(in say Alaska, or Texas) that would mean I would be able to own one in any state. Just like I can drive my vehicle in any state regardless of which state issued my license.I also would be able to drive any vehicle out there,(some states still do not require separate licenses for various classes of vehicles).Does this mean that the states laws concerning firearms would not apply if I was visiting?I also do not require anything from the state to own or operate a vehicle on my property. Does this mean I wouldn’t require a firearms license if I only use it on my property? Naturally I would have to insure by some means that the projectiles do NOT leave my property, but until one does, I would be legal.Just a few things to think about.Dennis (the librarian Shusher)
<><>Woodlawnmedic<> said:<>give me a 12 gauge anyday. the problem is that once they outlaw one gun, the rest wont be far behind.<>Yep. I don’t care for black rifles. I think they’re finicky, delicate, overpriced pieces of [bleep] which, despite their aesthetic and engineering flaws, still manage to burn through food-budget-busting quantities of ammo.<><>However,<><> if my otherwise qualified neighbor wants to own one, that’s his affair. The same government that can call his AR-15 a “deadly assault weapon” can–<>and eventually will<>– call my CZ varmint gun a “lethal sniper rifle”.We may not have the same tastes, but we’ve <>damn<> sure got the same enemies.
Where to begin? With some ill-perceived “need” to own a battle rifle or the equally foolish idea that the Constitution is a living document that needs to be “interpreted” so we serfs can better understand our places in society?Okay, in that order then. Yes we do “NEED” 30-round magazines on our battle rifles. Not because it’s a right, though that is sufficient, but because eventually, whether it’s imminent or not, we (that’s you and me and our kids and grandkids) will be placed in armed opposition to the government du jour. History is full of examples of populations that have risen up and forcibly overthrown their government. It’ll happen here too… it’s just a matter of time. Some say that we’re so much more advanced than people were in those days that we’ll find ways to get around all that bloodshed, but that’s not really true. Alexander the Great had the same emotions, wants. desires and faults that each of us has. The only real difference between his world and ours is a few thousand years of technological advances. If we could pluck him from the head of his army and turn him loose here he’s do just fine after he overcame the language differential and learned hou to clean his rifle. Individual people change while humanity as a whole never does.When that time comes and our kids have to take up arms to protect their families from whatever despot is in power at the time they cannot be limited to single-shot shotguns and/or 5-round fixed magazine rifles. They’ll need the same stuff the guys on the other side have; M-4s, AK47s, RPGs, hand grenades, etc. Judge Alex Kozinsky of the Ninth Circuit Court says it better than I ever will; “The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed—where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once”.As far as interpreting the Constitution goes… it’s in plain English, not Sanskrit or ancient Greek. Ever notice that the only people who want it “interpreted” are the same ones who want to change it? Our past few governments have given only the barest lip-service to it and I doubt this one will be much different. I say, if they’re not going to use it they should just leave it alone for the next generation to discover.Registration and licensing. Ah, yes, that’ll solve everything, won’t it? I’m sure all those Bloods and Crips will rush right down to the police station to register their stolen guns.NOT!!The interesting thing about this issue is that they (the bad guys) are completely within their rights (as defined by the Bill of Rights) in *NOT* registering their guns, even if all us law-abiding citizens are required to do so. You see, if they have been convicted of a felony in the past, they’re forbidden to have one now and – by registering such a weapon – they would be incriminating themselves in violation of the fourth amendment. That was an opinion held in a court of law here in the U.S.Back in ’39 the German army took a hike through Belgium and France. In those days citizens were permitted to keep guns at home if they were registered with the local police. Of course there were a few guys who violated the law and kept unregistered guns at home. When the bullets stopped flying the local commandant of the occupying army took the registration lists and began picking up those legally registered guns.After a few months of having an iron boot-heel on their faces, the people wanted to fight back,,, except they had no guns.Enter those bad guys who never registered their guns. All of a sudden they weren’t such bad guys anymore. All of a sudden they were heros! With their meager supply of pistols they were able to liberate a rifle with ammo and than a Schmeisser and a few grenades until finally they had a well armed resistance group.I’m not trying to say that the Second World War was won because of few guns hoarded by a cheap smuggler. I’m trying to tell you that a bunch of subjects suddenly became citizens.Which do you want to be?
Ahh AD did u post this just to get your kids fighting?? LOL But this is fun to read!
For all those folks that labor under the misguided thoughts that we should “treat guns like cars”, I refer you to the following helpful article:http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/TreatingGunsLikeCars.htmOnce you get thru that and STILL have that warped mindset, then you may utilize your favorite search engine and type: “treat guns like cars” (including the quotes) – you will get quite an education that way…
I’ve found that guns usually scare criminals and bureaucrats. That’s a good thing.
<>I don’t believe in owning guns.But I will fight to the death for your right to do so.<>Just for grins, how’re you gon’ do that? With harshly worded letters? Those’ll only go so far, y’know.
I do not own any guns. I do own copies of the Constitution.I think this is the most important document in the US, and the most important part of that is the Bill of Rights.Health care is not one of those rights, but gun bearing and gun owning are rights protected by the Second Amendment to that Constitution. The first 10 Amendments were required <>by the people<> in order to <>allow<> the government to have the limited power that the Constitution allotted to the federal government. The Supreme Court seems to have been more interested in justifying the biases of the different justices, than about protecting the rights of the citizens they serve.Some people say that these guns would be useless in a modern conflict, if we were to fight our own government, or a government from abroad. The Soviet Union was not overthrown by the Ronald Reagan or by the US. The USSR was overthrown by its own people. When fighting against one’s own government, being outgunned is not the tremendous obstacle that it seems. <>Being unarmed is a different story.<>
1. Re: 30 rds: Against a military assault (foreign or domestic), you absolutely could need a 30 round rifle to defend your family.2. Re: Flintlock Musket… which happened to be the very best one-person firearm, military or otherwise, available. That’s the standard the 2A enshrined.3. The whole military/assault rifle complaint is goofy for any number of reasons, but I’d love to see the WWI and WWII kill numbers for the Springfields, Lee-Enfields, Mosin-Nagants and Mausers. I have a sneaking suspicion that the 5-10 round bolt-action rifle is the deadliest one-person gun in history.
Anonymous,<>2. Re: Flintlock Musket… which happened to be the very best one-person firearm, military or otherwise, available. That’s the standard the 2A enshrined.<>That is your opinion, but do you mean that they <>enshrined<> the <>very best one-person firearm, military or otherwise, available<> or that they <>enshrined<> the <>Flintlock Musket<> or something else?Of course, when it come to the Bill of Rights, <>need<> has nothing to do with it, or they should have come up with some sort of needs testing.
What always gets me about Second Amendment discussions is the way everybody concentrates on the “right to keep and bear arms” bit. Very little attention is ever paid to the part about a “well-regulated militia”. Seems like my local shooting range ought to offer some classes on basic tactics, set up some rallying points, and hold regular drills so that we’re ready when whoever invades, because let’s face it: the weapon is less important than the wielder.Could it be that the real patriots are the paintball nuts and the Society for Creative Anachronism?
Well, I’m certainly in favour of some sort of weapons control, though I’m open to discussion as to where to draw the line.One thing I’m not clear on is why people get so upset by control over handguns and rifles and so on, but I see very little protest over the complete banning, amongst civilians, of other weapons. Should civilians be allowed to own hand grenades? M61 Vulcans? Missiles? Tactical nuclear weapons? I suspect we all draw the line somewhere, though I could be wrong.I’m not trying to be extreme here, but to gain some understanding. Give me your thoughts on this.