See complete forecast
Copy and paste the link:
You are naive if you do not recognize the Obama administration constantly lies about many things and is very anti-gun, would not use these enhanced checks to establish a national registry of firearms owners. It is against the law, but that hasn't stopped them yet. A look at England, Australia, and groups such as the Nazi's, show that guns once registered are often seized. This is unconstitutional in our country for good reason. Our country's Founding Fathers were ahead of their time in getting the U.S. constitution and Bill of Rights established, including the right to bear arms. They certainly recognized that weapons technology and most other things, would be improved with the passage of time. I side with the NRA, GOA, and other pro gun groups on this one. I agree that fighting against a tyrannical government is one reason for the second amendment. I was one of the armed good guys, a peace officer, for thirty years. I have always believed that law abiding citizens have the right to own and carry firearms to protect themselves, and their families.
Given the definition of militias in Article 1, Section 8, and the fact that they were intended to be trained, regulated, and controlled by the government, the view that the 2nd amendment was intended for citizens to protect themselves from our government seems quite off-base.
It was intended to allow for the creation of militias, trained, regulated and controlled by the government.
There may also be some recognition of a pre-existing right of self defense as well.
Jafs What do you base this on? Any writings to support your point?
Here are some quotes to suggest the opposite.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
-- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
This is my favorite.
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
--Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution.
It specifically grants Congress the powers to arm, organize, train, govern, and discipline militias.
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
What is that? Chinese? Right, people, keep, bear, arms. Is "people" some new synonym for militia?
A well-regulated militia being essential to the defense of a free state,...
A well regulated militia is required by the constitution, and is defined by it's own clause. The second part protects another right of the people, that is, to keep and bear arms.
It's clearly part of the same sentence, and there's a connection between the two clauses.
They're not separate amendments.
If they'd wanted them to be separate, they could have done it that way, and they didn't. Clearly the right to bear arms is connected with the need for well regulated militias.
The SCOTUS disagrees with you.
Not the first time, and won't be the last :-)
I also disagree with the Kelo decision, the CU decision, the Rausch decision, etc.
Also, I said in an earlier post there is some recognition of an individual right of self defense as well. And, the decision in Heller is a 5-4 decision, indicating significant disagreement among the justices. In some ways, I think that 5-4 decisions are too close to a tie to be very meaningful.
The 6th amendment is similar in that it delimits different rights with commas.
There's a difference between listing rights separated by commas, and the kind of sentence structure in the 2nd amendment.
Many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights list a number of rights.
Yeah, we have 50 of them. They are called The National Guard. The constitution lists a well regulated militia as one of our rights, then goes on and lists our right to bear arms.
Two rights, one amendment. Stop trying to forfiet one.
Doesn't change the meaning.
How exactly is Obama anti gun? Never found any way to document that Obama is anti gun.
He does seem to be anti ownership of military assault type weapons. A sensible position.
Military assault style weapons allow for multiple human deaths quickly and have no place
in the hunting of wild game. In fact may be against the law to hunt wild game with assault weapons.
To be anti gun would be anti hunting for wild game which is not the Obama position.
"How exactly is Obama anti gun? Never found any way to document that Obama is anti gun... He does seem to be anti ownership of military assault type weapons. A sensible position."
Black guns with pistol grips... that's style right there.
Look at his voting record in the Senate and then look at the state illinois that he comes from and his actions there. Oh and yes please tell me what is a military assault style weapon. Is it a gun that fires a 5.56 NATO round? Is it black? Does it have a detachable clip? Is it semi-auto? Please give some facts for your statement.
He's waiting for new talking points.
Who owns military assault weapons? How many crimes have been committed with a military assault weapon.
The AR 15 is and always has been a civilian weapon. So point me to a crime using military weapons.
In 2004, the NRA opposed renewal of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. And the NRA has done so under Obama = not smart thinking.
In fact I am now in favor of challenging their tax exempt status considering they have become a right wing influenced organization reduced to doing nothing but spending big bucks on political campaigns.
Merrill on what grounds can you challenge their tax exempt status? Many non-profits are allowed to lobby. Surprised you didn't know that.
As opposed to left wing influenced organizations that claim AR-15's kill innocent children, but it's okay to abort (i.e. kill) innocent children?
A couple of footnotes about the founding fathers and the right to bear arms. Have you been to Williamsburg? There you will see in the middle of an intersection, an interesting building called an armory. Its where the British forced the colonists to keep their weapons. The second amendment gave the new citizens the right to keep them and to be trained in a militia. After all, there were native Americans and Frenchmen to occasionally battle, and in 1812, the British. The idea of defending against the tyranny of the government as an excuse to oppose any control of weapons is made up from whole cloth. It was never the intent. Some of the strident anti-gun leaders have been such renowned liberals as Ronald Reagan and Sarah Palin. Mitt Romney signed a ban on assault weapons as Governor of Massachusetts, but its Obama that everyone is afraid of. Paranoid much?
Mitt Romney isn't president. He did a lot of things that kept him from winning the election.
True, the founding fathers didn't envision the type of weapons we have today but they also didn't envision the type of technology we use to exercise our first amendment. What they did do was to allow the citizens the right to bear the most sophisticated arms at the time - the same ones available to the enemy.
Are gun owners really paranoid? Feinstein introduced a bill in congress that would have resulted in now legal guns, including those used for hunting to be banned. States have banned guns resulting in gun owners having to either sell their guns out of state or have the, confiscated. These laws have resulted in other guns from being banned and rendered useless because they banned the magazines.
Want to reduce crime then enforce the laws on the books and keep violent criminals in jail. 4 years for attempted murder by shooting someone is too short of a sentence.
We need to work on the root causes of violence and until we stem violence don't try to stop me from protecting myself and my family.
I have to admit that the oft used line "If it saved just one life..." makes my skin crawl. It's as emotionally abusive, trite and ridiculously obsequious as any line ever used to justify one's position.
Getting rid of seat-belts, cars, knives, ground meat and airplanes would save "just one life". Will we be doing that soon? Will we be ending the most destructive force on the planet (overpopulation) any time soon? Outlawing Monsanto would save a crappieload more LIFE than any gun legislation!
This emotional BS is distracting us from issues that are actually destroying our WORLD! "Just one life" isn't worth calling off a drone strike. "Just one life" isn't worth one piece of green or gold.
Get a clue. Get a (just one) life.
We have NO POWER! We have NOTHING! Some of us are trudging along beneath the black ops ceiling of corporate power and carving out "just one life" for ourselves and perhaps a few more members of our families/tribe. It won't last unless we get control of those who are destroying our world.
Are you BLIND?
You are being held as an emotional hostage. Those who don't care about losing thousands or millions of lives in the pursuit of power (land, money, influence, money, land, control, land, money, dictatorship, money, land) are pushing us into an ever less powerful position in this world. A few of us are still in the process of being enslaved, the rest (most) of us are already there.
Big government/corporations are our masters. It's not supposed to be that way. They promise to offer "protection". Unfortunately, it's at the cost of a sane existence. Unfortunately, the insane among us will assist the powerful in creating the fear necessary in the wresting of the last vestiges of power and control from our dead, cold hands. I'm not really talking about guns. I'm talking about freedom. I'm talking about control of our lives, our lifestyles, the way we play, the way we operate our communities, the way we make a living, the way we improve, rather than destroy the land and water and sky.
I'm not trying to change the world. I've totally given up. I believe we are doomed. I have guns. I don't intend to use them to survive (for long) if things turn nasty. I think we've already lost. We let institutions become "people"...gigantic, greedy, privileged, powerful people with delusions of righteousness.
Have fun trying to keep your toys and/or righteous indignation. I'm sure you'll be able to save "just one life".
WHEW! I like to kick out a rant, now and then. I'll now go back to trying to make people laugh and watch what's left of nature's beautiful life, without selling it to prevent the beauty of death.
There are lots of ways of saving one life. I wonder how many the LTE writer would support.
Lower speed limits.
Crash helmets for occupants.
Alcohol interlocks for all cars.
Ban all sugary drinks and foods.
Ban mountain climbing
The point is we accept risks because we value liberty. You shouldn't demand others give up their liberties unless you are willing to give up yours and to be consistent in promoting safety in the hopes of saving just one life.
Well, there are distinctions to be made.
If somebody wants to put their own life at risk, that's their business. But, when activities put others' lives at risk, it's a different story.
So, I oppose banning sugary drinks, but would support alcohol interlocks for all cars.
So you don't support seat belt laws?
Lets ban cars because bad drivers and drunk drivers put me at risk. Yes, bad gun owners kill, but not as many as bad drivers. If the point is to save lives why not focus on where the most lives can be saved.
Gun deaths have declined over the years. Lets figure out why and do more of whatever caused it to happen.
I do, if and only if drivers not wearing seat belts put others at risk in a collision.
I would gladly support much more restrictive driving laws, given the many injuries/deaths due to drunk and distracted drivers. Since I'm not in favor of banning guns, just training/regulation, my position is consistent on the two issues.
Source for the idea that gun deaths have declined? I seem to recall statistics in the opposite direction.
But that specifically talks about homicides, not all gun deaths. One would have to also include suicides and accidental deaths if we're talking about "gun deaths".
It's interesting, though, that many, including myself, had the opposite feeling.
Also, of course, the link provides a good argument that simply because something is declining, that doesn't mean we're not still concerned about it, or that we shouldn't do something to do even better. And, it points out that mass shootings have increased at an alarming rate, even though overall homicides have decreased.
Anybody have an idea of why gun homicides are down? It would be good to know.
There is a substantial increase in suicide rates, especially in the middle-aged. Perhaps the continual degradation of our freedom and opportunity resulting from increasing competition due to overpopulation is making an aging population more inwardly sad than outwardly violent.
"Lower speed limits. Crash helmets for occupants. Alcohol interlocks for all cars. Ban all sugary drinks and foods. Ban mountain climbing Ban skiing."
having just been through NW Arkansas and Missouri in the last two days I can
personally attest to how gullible segments of the population are to following
the pied piper nature of the NRA expecially when people there make it publically
known on bumper stickers and in gun shop conversations that the real underlying
issue of the anti Obama fervor is race and much of what these people state now
is just an updated smoother version of the uncensored racism of their forebearers
from prior to 1965. We went looking for blackpowder stores and the one we sought
out was leveled by the Picher, OK, and Seneca, MO, tornado back in the early 2000's
near Neosho, MO. I heard the veiled racism at one shop we went to. Some people
are just smart enough to believe everything the NRA and Fox News says as we watched
a morning crowd eat at a cafe next to the historic first Wal Mart on the Bentonville, ARK,
square. It's eye opening to see the crazy foment firsthand.
Why were you looking for black powder?
because we hunt with 32, 36, 48, and 54. cal long rifles. not the inline suburbanite
blackpowder weak guns they sell at cabelas. wow you ignored all of the indicting
truthful behavoir I witnessed in the ozarks and made some veiled implication
about gun powder that didn't get past me. own your crazies.....don't try the nra
flip it on the accusers nonsense. I've seen or heard it too many times in gun shops
and on am radio.
Man you see the boogie man everywhere don't you. I was simply curious as to why you wanted black powder. Not too many people use it anymore.
And if you read my posts you'd realize I just come out and say what I am thinking.
As for your race baiting remarks they are old. You have said them before even writing a letter to the editor about it so there really isn't much to say about your belief that if you disagree with Obama you're racist that hasn't been said already.
It is a tired meaningless notion you have. Nothing else needs to be said about it.
The problem with any law is if we except any law, we accept this other law that nobody is proposing right now and then the imaginary fear tactic in the dark will come and eat us all.
If you were a General in the Army, and a president had just stolen an election (and I don't mean whiny losses over hanging chads, I mean systematically stealing the election, and was ruled so by the SCOTUS, would you use forces in your command to support that president? I doubt any would. I know I wouldn't.
Too many Americans are like me for tyranny to ever have a chance.
Lets think about this for a minute. Do we really believe removing the individual sales exemption for background checks will have any significant result in Chicago, Detroit or DC?
If not then why do it? Why not really examine the problem and search for real solutions if the true goal is reducing crime and not disarming people?
Lets figure out why there are so many more gun deaths in Chicago than similar cities like Houston.
New York reduced gun violence by doing stop and frisks - that is getting guns and criminals off the streets. What solutions work and what ones don't?
You know what would get my attention is any politician or celebrity calling for gun bans to walk the walk. Give up their armed protection when asking me to give up mine. Joe Biden give up the automatic weapons that protect you and just use a shotgun.
If only a certain subset of American citizens have the right to own guns, then we should have consistent national laws that do their best to ensure that.
So, you're in favor of "stop and frisks"?? Clearly unconstitutional, as far as I can tell. Your fervor for the 2nd amendment doesn't seem to extend to the 4th, hmm?
Nah Id rather leave it to the states to set the laws within constitutional limits. Where in the constitution does the federal government have the authority to regulate guns?
I almost wrote about NYs law being unconstitutional which I believe it is, but didnt feel like typing anymore
Well, that's odd, because in your first post, you seem to be suggesting that NY is a good example to emulate in order to reduce gun violence.
No, simply used it as an example that we have to get guns out of the hands of criminals if we want to reduce crime. The end doesn't justify the means and yes, I probably should have elaborated but its only an online forum so I don't always worry about being perfect.
Just like you and four (which is admiable) and two (not so much).
When you realize you are just his opposite, you will realize you were wrong, then start advocating the correct position. I have faith in you.
Give me one reason government has by virtue of the constitution to take or ban weapons besides the commision of a felony or like act by a mentally ill person.
Not at all.
Whatever limits have been set, like the ones you mention, are in place - only a certain subset of American citizens have the legal right to own guns. So, it's only common sense that we should ensure only those folks get them, as much as possible.
The purist position would be that even felons and the mentally ill should be able to own guns, and that the government has no right to take that right away from them - nobody ever seems to argue that. Once it's ok to deny them that right, it's ok to make sure that the folks trying to buy guns don't fall into those groups.
The reason no one argues it is because it is a silly idea. Yeah, you're a felon but we want you to have guns. Yeah you're a pedophile but you can teach. There are consequences for actions.
Good point. If you are willing to limit my second amendment right to own a weapon than why do you resist limiting my fourth amendment right to be secure from "unreasonable" search?
I happen to believe that all of our rights have rational limits. Meaningful background checks and "stop and frisk" seem to be in that set.
How do you decide what to pick and choose?
Not all American citizens have the right to own a weapon. Background checks are a way to ensure that only those who have that right can exercise it (legally).
All American citizens have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Stop and frisk violate those rights, in my view.
Interesting. How did you reach the some and all words. Constitution says nothing about background checks.
Now I happen to agree with meaningful background checks and some level of stop and frisk. I think I am consistent in that I consider the word reasonable which the courts seem to use to interpret all limitations on the bill of rights
Convicted felons, and those who have been adjudicated mentally ill and dangerous aren't allowed to legally own weapons.
That's not in the Constitution, it's been decided by the courts. A purist view would hold that all citizens have the right, but nobody argues that - I wonder why not.
On the other hand, the 4th amendment applies to all citizens. And, in my view, stop and frisk searches are clearly unreasonable and thus unconstitutional.
Well we can aRGUE FOREVER BUT i STAKE MY CASE ON THE WORD "REASONABLE"
caps NOT INTENDED
I don't see boogeyman.....I see rural people who don't think or exhibit the ability
to observe the world objectively....it's all too easy to believe the hannity's and
lapierres hook line and sinker. when discussions or issues go beyond
nra or fox talking points rely on the fear that's always existed in segments
of us population. use obsolete or irrelevant labels to color people much
as irrational and paranoid people have since the salem witch trials. I saw the
Obama Gun salesman poster with my own eyes. you can't run from that
can you? you can't refute the crazy I heard at three or four gun shops between
Joplin and Bella Vista, Arkansas. Keep ignoring the reality of how crazy the
NRA and fear mongers are viewed and I'll keep reminding you. This posturing
has nothing to actually do with the Second Amendment. It's simply a recruiting
tool for the GOP, Tea Party, and Doomsday preppers who are intolerant of minorities.
You can't refute what I physically witnessed this week.
Sure I believe you. It is just that it doesn't matter. It is irrelevant to the discussion.
tuschkahouma,I suspect you are a liberal who finds racism in someone saying pass the ketchup. I work with the people you are talking about every day, not a racist bone in the crowd. Today it is about character for us, the only people I see playing the race card is the liberal left.
That is how you keep em on the plantation.
Those of you who do not want any limits on guns, do you agree with me that the mother who bought her 5 year old a gun and left him unattended with it, should be charged with child endangerment? I don't think she was, and I think the NRA would have a fit, if she was. This 5 year old is going to live with the guilt all his life, but the NRA will defend the rights of 5 year olds with guns. It's the mother's and probably the dad's fault, but the kids will pay.
Bring about severe punishments for irresponsible owners of legal guns, and I might agree with you, but the NRA wants to arm everyone, felons and crazies alike. Of course we know why the former president of the NRA wants felons to own guns. His felon son is getting out of prison soon, and he wants to put another gun in his son's hands, so he can shoot at more cars.
I am sure there are some who don't want any limits on guns, but I am not one of them. Interesting question about the mother with the 5 year old. We're they wrong to leave a loaded gun in reach of the child? Absolutely. Should the child be taken away and the parents punished. My gut says yes, but then I think about precedent. If we punish these parents then shouldn't we punish the parent that lets the kid wander into the swimming pool and drown. Or the parent that lets a kid drive an ATV and is killed because they wreck on it. I am okay with punishing the parents of the 5 year old kid but lets be consistent regardless the tool of death.
But, more than punishing parents after the fact, we should be doing everything we can to help avoid these senseless and avoidable tragedies.
Parents get their kids taken away all the time for being negligent or abusive.
I am on your side and I don't think the NRA would defend her actions.
plantation comment....not racist at all....I see people who are insecure in dealing
with the world that is not ward and beaver cleaver and go back to stereotypes
and prejudices and when confronted by me go back to their old tried and true
words. not very original. I lived in Louisiana for seven years and went back
and forth between here and Mississippi for three decades. I know who these
people are. Deny the racism I see firsthand. Don't own it. Reverse it on the
people who are the targets of it. Pretty weak of you. Expected though. Explain
the racist Obama billboard at Junction City on I-70. Explain the uncensored
viterol I hear and see at gun shops and gun shows I go to and have done so
for three decades. Liberals don't go to gun shops and shows do they?
How wrong are you?
"Liberals don't go to gun shops and shows do they?"
I know one who does......
tusk - what is viterol? Is it like Geritol?
tuschkahouma, ya got any thing that could be a specific example of racism?
one guy do not see how that blankets the rest of us. Like I said I work with these people they could care less they only want respect and for you to carry your fair share.
I'm not sure what's going on here.
tuschahouma, are you equating the advocating of gun rights with the NRA? Are you then saying that, because some NRA members in Missouri and Arkansas and other backward states are racists, that their goal is evil? What's your point?
Even though I am not an NRA member, I do support gun rights.
Also, I know that there are racists in all walks of life and in all organizations. I see them everywhere. I hear them everywhere.
Do you believe that because some who support the NRA are racist, that supporting gun rights are as evil as racism? Do you then believe that we should not be able to buy black powder and lead?
I'm not following your logic. Are you saying that because racists exist in an organization, that everyone in that organization is supporting racism...and that they are, therefore, wrong about everything they support? That sounds quite close to quintessentially racist thinking.
Can we try to separate out the good from the bad in our arguments?
nra leadership are just salesmen for gun manufacturers
I support gun rights and own guns and collect guns. I don't like the nra because
for half of my lifetime they've politicized the gun issue in a facist kind of way
and they seem oblivious to reality.
To what reality are you referring?
BTW, I think the NRA is as evil as many other huge corporations, but that they actually may be fighting for something that could accidentally foil the plans of much larger corporations. Trust the IDIOCRACY! :)
Excerpts from reality:
The 2nd amendment exists at the federal level and the state level. It is therefore unconstitutional (illegal) to make any gun control laws at those levels. We don't use government to limit rights at the federal or state level. They are rights that don't come from government, and therefore can not be limited by government. That is why we have laws in place at the government level against people's illegal actions; gun control laws seek to limit peoples rights, by saying you can not have this gun or that clip, which wrongly affects people who have done nothing wrong. Laws are in place now that punish wrong behavior (as it should be), like: Do not steal, do not murder, etc. God says it like this: 1. Love God with all your heart, all of your soul, all your mind, all your strength, all your might. 2. Love your neighbor as yourself. We need to return to God and have respect for God to limit evil actions in people's hearts, not gun control.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.
Find more businesses on Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment ·