Advertisement

Archive for Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Sebelius signs machine gun bill

April 22, 2008

Advertisement

— Kansans will be able to own machine guns, other fully automatic weapons, sawed-off shotguns and silencers starting July 1.

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius signed a bill Monday to legalize the possession of such weapons. The state banned owning machine guns in 1933, but some legislators said a change was necessary because legal questions threaten to keep dealers from delivering weapons to law enforcement agencies.

Supporters believe the bill will benefit mostly collectors because machine guns typically cost at least $20,000. Also, anyone wanting to own such weapons must undergo two federal background checks.

"I can't even afford them," said Sen. Phil Journey, a Haysville Republican who is a strong gun-rights advocate and championed the bill. "There may be some very happy collectors who have significant disposable income."

The bill had bipartisan support among legislators and passed both chambers with more than the two-thirds majorities necessary to override a veto.

"I suspect that the governor knows that it's not good public policy for the state of Kansas, but she has to pick and choose the battles she takes on," said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman John Vratil, a Leawood Republican who opposed the measure.

In announcing her action, Sebelius didn't elaborate on her reasons for signing the bill. Her past actions on gun issues had raised questions about whether she would.

In 2006, she vetoed a bill allowing qualified Kansans to carry concealed handguns, only to see the Legislature override her. Last year, she rejected a bill preventing local governments from imposing additional restrictions on concealed guns, and legislators once again nullified her veto.

But spokeswoman Nicole Corcoran said Sebelius didn't receive numerous calls from law enforcement officers asking her to veto this year's measure, as she did with the concealed carry bill two years ago.

"Governor Sebelius carefully reviewed this bill, which is similar to the laws of 30 other states that require compliance with extensive federal guidelines," Corcoran said.

Those federal guidelines not only will require two background checks, but also the approval of a prospective gun owner's local sheriff or police chief.

Comments

hornhunter 6 years, 8 months ago

Some thing like this gets signed, but the Queen vetoes coal plants? dumb

Oracle_of_Rhode 6 years, 8 months ago

This is a disappointment. I suspect that rather than "collectors" getting fully automatic machine guns, it will be kooks and gun nuts and militia-types who snap them up. Oh, and the violent, psychotic loner types too. I just hope the next school shoot-em-up doesn't kill 450 kids instead of just 45.

Eileen Jones 6 years, 8 months ago

What is the world coming to? Democrat gives citizens more and more dangerous guns. The Bush administration just interpreted the Second Amendment in a way that seriously curbs your right to own a gun and effectively repeals the amendment. http://www.americablog.com/2005/12/2nd-amendment-has-been-repealed.htmlWhat has the world come to?

Jason Bowers-Chaika 6 years, 8 months ago

Testing, had trouble posting in another thread.

fu7il3 6 years, 8 months ago

Maybe it's bizarro-world where everything is backwards.waits for announcement from GOP supporting gay marriage

WHY 6 years, 8 months ago

A machine gun may cost 20000 but I can probably find a sawed off shot gun and a silencer for much less. I am sure i can find something fun to do with them. And why would cops want silencers??

Frederic Gutknecht IV 6 years, 8 months ago

There are several states that allow personal ownership of fully automatic firearms. Anybody recall a legal owner rat-tat-tatting anybody? Anybody? I didn't think so.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 6 years, 8 months ago

By the way, Sebelius knows that when she and Obama are in the White House that they'll ban all these nasty gun things so there's really no need to worry, people. It's just the politics of getting elected.

sfjayhawk 6 years, 8 months ago

Sad. Can someone please tell me why machine guns should be legal?

Frederic Gutknecht IV 6 years, 8 months ago

sfjayhawk,I'd say... "Not to your satisfaction..."Did I get it right? Do I get a prize?~)

Sigmund 6 years, 8 months ago

sfjayhawk (Anonymous) says.. "Sad. Can someone please tell me why machine guns should be legal?"Kansas has had the most "liberal" (read restrictive) gun laws in the nation. Like the concealed carry law, this law is well within Federal Law and brings us much closer to Missouri's and the other 48 States laws. Besides any law that makes this illegal is too restrictive... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kly-fVUi1I

sfjayhawk 6 years, 8 months ago

Marioin,Um, because they are made for the military and for killing people. The only reason someone needs a machine gun is for killing people, many of them.

pisafromthewest 6 years, 8 months ago

logrithmic (Anonymous) says: "Well once the violent outburst happens, and there is a mass murder, we will know whom to blame - Sibelius and the rightwing RepubLICKlan legislature."Let's see: The governor is a Democrat, and "The bill had bipartisan support among legislators and passed both chambers with more than the two-thirds majorities necessary to override a veto." But it was the Republicans' fault. Brilliant as always, dysrhythmic.But go ahead and vote for the Democrats who helped pass this bill (not as if you'd actually check to see where the Democrat you're voting for stood on the issue), then you can be sitting there after the elction sputtering "but, but, they're Democrats..." Nothing like a well-informed electorate like dysrhythmic to screw up a country.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Overall I have no problem with this legslation, with one minor exception. Can someone please tell me what legitimate, useful, legal purpose there is in a silencer?

sfjayhawk 6 years, 8 months ago

Marion, honestly dont know any firearms stats - but I would think that most reasonable people would agree that machine guns, silencers, and sawed off shotguns are not something that should be legal to own. Can you tell me why someone would want a machine gun/silencer for any reason other than to participate in criminal activity? Do you need one for any legitimate reason? Machine guns are military weapons that are meant for war, something I would guess you have never been in.

Sigmund 6 years, 8 months ago

sfjayhawk (Anonymous) says: "Um, because they are made for the military and for killing people. The only reason someone needs a machine gun is for killing people, many of them"I would dare to say there are more machine guns in the hands of private citizens in this country than in the hands of the military. It is instructive to note that there was another "gun" bill that Gov. Kathy signed that is not getting the same play in the press. It would prevent the State of Kansas from the confiscation of firearms during a declared state of emergency such as occurred in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.http://www.kslegislature.org/bills/2008/2280.pdf

Sigmund 6 years, 8 months ago

pisafromthewest (Anonymous) says:"Overall I have no problem with this legslation, with one minor exception. Can someone please tell me what legitimate, useful, legal purpose there is in a silencer?"Despite Wichita, Kansas City, and Topeka, Kansas is a rural state. There is a significant part of the populations that lives "in the country" (read as no cable television) and I suspect "those folk" (read as people whose nearest neighbor is measured in miles not feet) will legally use suppressors and fully automatic weapons like such populations in 35 other states and worldwide where immediate response from Law Enforcement means an hour wait while a Deputy from another county responds.And as has been noted, all existing applicable Federal Laws (including two background checks) still apply for a private citizens in Kansas to own these weapons.

sfjayhawk 6 years, 8 months ago

Yes marion, I have no time to follow the statistics on firearms, I spend my time doing much more exciting things like watching the grass grow. Machine guns are made for the millitary to use in killing people more efficiently than single shot, or semi-auto. Does not sound like a capability that civilians require - unless you are John Dillinger (used machine guns that were purchased legally) or other people with criminal intent. I have heard machine guns are "fun" for people that are trying to compensate for personal 'size' issues. May I suggest buying a muscle car, or a trip to the Spearmint Rhino as a much less anti social reaction than the purchase of a silenced machine gun to compensate for this problem? An implant might be another option for you to explore.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 6 years, 8 months ago

pisafromthewest says:Can someone please tell me what legitimate, useful, legal purpose there is in a silencer?---A tree is full of nuts.A tree is full of squirrels.You can collect five squirrels per day, keeping a maximum of twenty on hand, during squirrel season in Kansas.With an accurate .22 rifle that was QUIET, you could collect your limit of free range bushy-tailed tree chickens from a single black walnut tree without causing undue noise pollution and stress to the other squirrels in the tree. They could continue to enjoy their meal, have increased portions and experience less bickering over resources.It's legitimate, useful, legal and you asked!~)

Frederic Gutknecht IV 6 years, 8 months ago

sfjayhawk says:...I have no time to follow the statistics on firearms, I spend my time doing much more exciting things like watching the grass grow.---Don't forget all that time you spend on your penis compensation obsession!~)

Lindsey Buscher 6 years, 8 months ago

the "nuts" and "kooks" have always been able to, and will always be able to obtain any gun of any sort ILLEGALLY. it's best that the govt does what it can do to monitor guns like this because clearly the NRA is such a powerful lobby that not only can they buy off politicians, but they've got many Americans convinced that gun possession is a God-given right.oh well. Sibelius for Vice Prez!

a_flock_of_jayhawks 6 years, 8 months ago

"And why would cops want silencers??"This is going to sound awful, but silencers are occasionally used to take out attack/guard dogs that are near drug houses and where criminals may be holed up so that the dog barking doesn't tip off the criminals of LEO presence and LEO are not attacked during surveillance or apprehension.Machine guns are needed by law enforcement because of the fact that they are becoming more prevalent among criminals and LEOs are out gunned in those situations.

pisafromthewest 6 years, 8 months ago

Sigmund (Anonymous) says: "Despite Wichita, Kansas City, and Topeka, Kansas is a rural state. There is a significant part of the populations that lives "in the country" (read as no cable television) and I suspect "those folk" (read as people whose nearest neighbor is measured in miles not feet) will legally use suppressors and fully automatic weapons like such populations in 35 other states and worldwide where immediate response from Law Enforcement means an hour wait while a Deputy from another county responds."I got no problem with that, as I said earlier. My question was specifically limited to silencers. And I would think that one of "those folk" who was trying to drive an intruder from their home with automatic weapons would want the intruder to hear the noise! :)However, JJE007 and a_flock_of_jayhawks, I can see the logic in those reasons ... thanks. (Although I suspect that squirrel hunting may not be the most cost-effective use of a $20,000 weapon and a CAT-III license.)

Frederic Gutknecht IV 6 years, 8 months ago

pisafromthewest says...I suspect that squirrel hunting may not be the most cost-effective use of a $20,000 weapon and a CAT-III license.---HA HA!~) The squirrels deserve a respectful, extravagant and quiet quietus..

BrianR 6 years, 8 months ago

Will Rolland the Headless Thompson Gunner be permitted to carry this gun to class?

Devon Kissinger 6 years, 8 months ago

pisafromthewest (Anonymous) says:"Overall I have no problem with this legslation, with one minor exception. Can someone please tell me what legitimate, useful, legal purpose there is in a silencer?"Hearing protection.

BrianR 6 years, 8 months ago

"And what if a crazy cat burglar breaks into my humble abode in the middle of the night..and he has a gun?" I recommend tons of clutter. The cat burgler will break a toe or trip, fall and break his or her neck, problem solved.

Sigmund 6 years, 8 months ago

pisafromthewest (Anonymous) says:"I got no problem with that, as I said earlier. My question was specifically limited to silencers. And I would think that one of "those folk" who was trying to drive an intruder from their home with automatic weapons would want the intruder to hear the noise! :)"Opps, true enough! In my defense I think the legitimate use of a suppressor to be obvious, to reduce the noise and flash of shooting a firearm. Much of my use of firearms is target practice and most of that is indoors. The sound can be deafening and even with with hearing protection can damage hearing. Combine that with the flash from an explosion just feet from your eyes and ears and the senses become momentarily overloaded. Using of a firearm in self defense most homeowners do not have time to put on hearing protection and being closer to the explosion of powder in the chamber they get the worse of the flash and bang which can be disorienting. Reducing that reduces the recovery time for ones senses (hearing, sight, etc) which improves awareness and decision making. The flash and bang reveals the position of the shooter which when faced by multiple assailants is not necessarily a "good thing" (tm) for someone defending oneself. The bottom line is that just because you or I have no legitimate need for a fully automatic weapon or a silencer doesn't mean nobody does and therefore should be made illegal.http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/model-diversitybk-2.jpg

notajayhawk 6 years, 8 months ago

BrianR (Anonymous) says: "I recommend tons of clutter. The cat burgler will break a toe or trip, fall and break his or her neck, problem solved."And sue you. And win. Better to blast him, save yourself the headaches and tons of money. What a world we live in.

pisafromthewest 6 years, 8 months ago

Okay, okay, thank you everyone! Now I see what the legitimate uses for a silencer are! (That's really why I asked, I wasn't being sarcastic.) Now I want one! :)

a_flock_of_jayhawks 6 years, 8 months ago

NOJ says..."And sue you. And win. Better to blast him, save yourself the headaches and tons of money. What a world we live in."Unfortunately, you are correct.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 6 years, 8 months ago

For an accurate weight and feel of the weapon in preparation for using it (stockweld & dope), you probably don't want to have the silencer if you are using it for home/personal protection. As long as you get a good first shot off, especially if you score a headshot, the sound of the weapon is the least of your concerns. Plus, you end up having to clean it along with the gun after practicing.

Sigmund 6 years, 8 months ago

a_flock_of_jayhawks (Anonymous) says:"For an accurate weight and feel of the weapon in preparation for using it (stockweld & dope), you probably don't want to have the silencer if you are using it for home/personal protection. As long as you get a good first shot off, especially if you score a headshot, the sound of the weapon is the least of your concerns."Non-wet suppressors that thread to the end of a custom barrel are commercially available and don't require much preparation other than threading. A head shot is easy against a single paper silhouette, but one or more live assailants are a different story (shoot for the center of mass). Cleaning the weapon afterwards is the least of my concern. I have a pretty good idea of just how disorienting shooting a .45 in a dark house can be and if I had practiced with a weapon with a integrated or had the time to attach suppressor that was fitted I would choose it every single time.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 6 years, 8 months ago

Sigmund says..."A head shot is easy against a single paper silhouette, but one or more live assailants are a different story (shoot for the center of mass)."Well, I am an expert marksman, so I always go for the headshot when I get it ;) "Cleaning the weapon afterwards is the least of my concern."After each practice? Not me.

eddiez 6 years, 8 months ago

Awesome! Sound suppressors are great. Still, it's a legal hassle to own them anywhere in the USA.

Logan5 6 years, 8 months ago

I bought a neat mortar on Ebay the other day with 50 rounds of HE. Wait till July 4!

Logan5 6 years, 8 months ago

Seriously, where does it end. The military and police keep their weapons relatively secure. What happens when private citizens start loading their gun cabinets with these. That's right, somebody's gonna steal 'em. Remember the old adage about bringing a knife to a gun fight? Next it will be about bringing a Mac-10 to thermonuclear war.

notajayhawk 6 years, 8 months ago

lrN51EXCXydF;Well said. Unfortunately I fear there will be a lot of deaf ears.

Logan5 6 years, 8 months ago

Again I ask, where does it stop? How much fire power is too much? RPG's, grenades, tanks, small tactical nuclear devices? Should I be able to purchase a Ryder truck filled with fertilizer and diesel fuel complete with a cell phone activated remote trigger?

pisafromthewest 6 years, 8 months ago

Logan5 (Anonymous) says: "Seriously, where does it end. The military and police keep their weapons relatively secure. What happens when private citizens start loading their gun cabinets with these. That's right, somebody's gonna steal 'em.""Remember the old adage about bringing a knife to a gun fight? Next it will be about bringing a Mac-10 to thermonuclear war."On the one hand you do have a valid point that I've often mentioned myself ... at one time, all the illegal guns in the hands of criminals started off originally being legal guns. However, just like the thermonuclear war you so handily (if melodramatically) brought up, the proverbial genie has left the bottle and isn't going back in. The guns are out there, and it would seem foolish to take them away from law-abiding citizens when there's no way to get them all back from the criminals."Should I be able to purchase a Ryder truck filled with fertilizer and diesel fuel complete with a cell phone activated remote trigger?"Well ... you already can. (You might consider starting off a little smaller, though.) Which again makes it seem pretty pointless to ban guns, or for that matter RPG's and grenades, when someone can make a handy little building-killing bomb from readily available and legal-to-purchase materials.

Logan5 6 years, 8 months ago

I am not a lawyer, but it appears to me that this legislation takes a step beyond justification by the usual rhetoric from the NRA about self defense and hunting. Under what valid and legal circumstances is the possession of these weapons justified by a private citizen?

crepinsekz1 6 years, 8 months ago

Some of yall are completely ignorant. Why do people need automatic weapons... there just gonna go around killing tons of people!!! idiots... like its so hard to make a gun automatic anyways you can easily and I say easily make any semi automatic gun automatic within 30 minutes if that. this law just allows law abiding citizens to acutally own automatic weapons without being scared of getting 10 years in prison... and why would we want automatic weapons? there not good for hunting. just killing people!!....how about just shooting them have you ever shot a gun there lots of fun now imagin being able to just unload on a target range it would be ungodly.. so all you uptight jerk offs need to just keep quite..

tutulee 6 years, 8 months ago

Machine guns and silencers ARE used to kill people efficiently. That's why those who would prefer not to compromise in their self defense prefer them.It's just my opinion, but I feel that the the problem here that is getting everybody so emotional is largely a difference in life experience. As mentioned before, those living in extremely rural areas could benefit from owning an assault rifle with a can at the end. They must be prepared to protect themselves from a wider range of possible threats than those living in urban environments in addition to not having immediate access to law enforcement to deter and respond to criminality. This is the reality they live with and many people have think their preparedness is paranoia because they differ in their life experience.Admittedly, few people can afford true machine guns (as differentiated from assault rifles), but I doubt that this legislation serves as a slippery slope. Anti-gun proponents often talk about a slippery slope of lethality in which they perceive a future in which people can legally purchase mortars, anti-tank missiles, explosives, etc in the name of self defense. I'm not sure if this slippery slope actually exists because if it did at a state level I suspect that far more conservative states would have passed such legislation already and their citizenry would already be stocking private arsenals.Ultimately, I suspect the truly self-defense oriented person is very much satisfied with owning an assault rifle because the physical threat they perceive they must prepare against is not the government or Al Qaeda (although they are popular targets in conservative pop media) but the common violent criminal. Given this threat criteria, it is not inappropriate for this person to want the best weapon for the task given their situation, which in many cases may be an assault rifle.Keep in mind that the the AR-15s that are most commonly purchased by the civilians are not fully automatic and can be had between $800-$2000 (check gunbroker.com). These are already accessible to the general public, much more so than a fully automatic machine gun in terms of background checks, tax paperwork and sheer price tags ($20,000 for an M249 seems an unrealistically low asking price) so I am a bit perplexed when people claim that machine gun crimes are going to increase significantly when crimes committed by legal assault rifle owners are extremely rare as it is.

Rationalanimal 6 years, 8 months ago

Just when I thought Sebillius good be any dumber, she goes and totally redeems herself.

redneck 6 years, 8 months ago

This is for law abiding citizens who can pass a background check. The criminials can already buy these weapons as long as they have enough money. They ignore the laws, that is why they are called criminals. Oh that is right, the concealed-carry law was supposed to allow wackos to pack heat. That didn't happen. It simply made the criminals wonder who might pull out a gun and shoot their ass when they decide to hold up the neighborhood liquor store. There is nothing wrong with putting a little fear into the criminals. I say it's about time somebody got it right. Oh yea, somebody might want to have silincer on their gun so they don't go deaf after target practicing. Same reason the law tells us to have a muffler on our vehicles. Happy shooting boys and girls.

FunkyChicken 6 years, 8 months ago

Silencers: as stated, they make guns less loud and more accurate. The cops use them so they aren't deafened in a SWAT situation, and we normal people use them because they make guns less loud. Unless it's a 22, they're still loud.Military weapons: the 2nd amendment is specifically about guaranteeing the right to own and operate military weapons. As to why you'd want a machine gun? They're fun, but expensive to shoot. If it wasn't for the stupid 1984 gun ban, they'd cost about the same as semi. Don't worry about criminals getting them - they've already got them.

jafs 6 years, 8 months ago

While there may be some truth in the "criminals have everything, so why take guns away from law-abiding citizens?" argument, there is a slight hole in it as well.The students responsible for the various school shootings were not "criminals" - they were troubled young people. If they hadn't had access to serious weapons, they probably wouldn't have committed those crimes.Also, the other argument against everyone having guns is:Two people (or more) get into an argument at a bar which turns violent.a. They have their fists/beer bottles.b. They have semi-automatic weapons.Which scenario is likely to result in more tragedy?

Frederic Gutknecht IV 6 years, 8 months ago

Why prevent law abiding citizens from owning firearms? I think we should make land mines illegal because people leave them laying around and never pick up their mess. It's unsightly and rude! Seriously, I think that the fact that land mines and hand grenades are indiscriminate, severe injury devices for use in hot war zones is enough justification for keeping them illegal in peaceful living areas...until the revolution becomes an inevitability. Someone should invent paint ball grenades so we can practice, in the meantime!~)Why do we need a legal purpose for what the gov made legal? Besides, aren't they fun, an investment and good preparation for the apocalypse?~) In response to your last question: Since ALWAYS!

BrianR 6 years, 8 months ago

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says: And sue you. And win.Fo' shizzle?? Damn, I hate all the killin' it messes up the laminate.

pisafromthewest 6 years, 8 months ago

jafs (Anonymous) says: "While there may be some truth in the "criminals have everything, so why take guns away from law-abiding citizens?" argument, there is a slight hole in it as well."I hate to point this out, but your own argument could be used for a colander."The students responsible for the various school shootings were not "criminals" - they were troubled young people.""Troubled" or not, I think that someone who goes on a shooting rampage and kills a dozen or two innocent people has, indeed, committed a crime.And the point is, as I said earler, the genie is out of the bottle. There are already millions of guns available out there. Whether a thrice-convicted felon or a "troubled young" person, someone who's set on murder is going to be able to get a gun."If they hadn't had access to serious weapons, they probably wouldn't have committed those crimes."Uh huh.http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/apr..."Two people (or more) get into an argument at a bar which turns violent. ... a. They have their fists/beer bottles. ... b. They have semi-automatic weapons. ... Which scenario is likely to result in more tragedy?"Except bars can already prohibit the carrying of firearms on the premises. Unless you think someone's going to be sitting at the bar with an AR-15 that nobody notices.

libertarianjim 6 years, 8 months ago

This bill was proposed and supported by the Law Enforcement Lobby who need them to combat those crazy and violent medical marijuana patients who have corrupted the world.

eddiez 6 years, 8 months ago

"No lawfully owned machine gun has ever been used in this kind of crime, nor am I aware of any contraband machine gun which has been used in this manner."iirc (could be wrong), the only murder committed with a legally-owned machine gun since 1934 was by a police officer--shot his wife.

jafs 6 years, 8 months ago

Interesting article.I'm glad they found out about this and prevented it, which is one of my favorite solutions to this problem.They did so because the parents noticed their child ordering some odd things - if he had just bought a gun, they might not ever have found out about it.The problem with the "good guys, bad guys" argument is that it is too simplistic.Troubled young people with difficult family situations and difficult situations at school are worth trying to help, in my opinion, rather than giving up on.And, again, we could prevent many of these horrible tragedies - there was plenty of evidence that the VT shooter was probably going to do something - he showed the weapon to his parents, for God's sake!

jafs 6 years, 8 months ago

And, until/unless someone commits a crime, they are "law-abiding".What does that prove?

Poon 6 years, 8 months ago

sfjayhawk (Anonymous) says: I have heard machine guns are "fun" for people that are trying to compensate for personal 'size' issues. Congrats sfjayhawk for the first comment referencing (apparently) the penis on this gun related thread. Sfjayhawk, my next post will be dedicated to you.

Poon 6 years, 8 months ago

In honor of sfjayhawk, we have a little joke.Two newlyweds are getting naked in front of each other for the first time. (The man takes off his socks.)Wife: My, what big toes you have.Hubby: Yeah, I had Toelio as a kid.Wife: Don't you mean Polio?Hubby: No, love. Toelio, it is a very rare disease.(Man takes off his pants.)Wife: Wow! You have big kneecaps.Hubby: Yeah, I had Kneesles as a youngster.(Man takes off his underwear.)Wife: Oh, no, not Smallcocks too?

pisafromthewest 6 years, 8 months ago

jafs (Anonymous) says: "And, until/unless someone commits a crime, they are "law-abiding"."At what point is the line crossed? Did Timothy McVeigh become a criminal only when he detonated the bomb? How about when he drove the truck there? Or when he rented the truck? When he mixed the fertilizer with the kerosene? When he bought the fertilizer or the kerosene? When he used the internet to look up the formula for a fertilizer bomb?Similarly, was Seung-Hui Cho a law-abiding citizen up until the time he pulled the trigger? How about when he loaded the guns and put them in his backpack? When he bought the guns? When he started shopping for guns? How about when he started saving up for them?If he had been caught and arrested before he got to the first victims at Johnston Hall, would he have retained his "troubled young person" status, or might he have been a criminal?

BigAl 6 years, 8 months ago

Anyone that feels the need to carry a concealed weapon is obviously lacking in other areas. A true man does not need to carry a gun. Period. By the way, I am a shotgun owner and a veteran. I've carried a gun when it was necessary.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 6 years, 8 months ago

BigAl (Anonymous) says: A true man does not need to carry a gun. Period....I've carried a gun when it was necessary.---Come again, woman?~)You aren't the gawd of deciding what's necessary. You're not the "decider" of who's "compensating". You should NOT care about legal carry for licensed citizens. Period.

MyName 6 years, 8 months ago

while I do not agree in the need for full-automatic weapons, the second amendment of the United States Constitution clearly grants the right to keep and bear arms, so while not a "God" given right to have firearms, it is a right of Americans to have them.To quote the Second Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."From the way it reads, this is not about personal gun ownership, but about militias (and the National Guard, as their modern equivalent), being allowed to keep weapons in order to do their job without being interfered with by the national government. Any other interpretation of this amendment (to the point where anyone can own any weapon without restriction) would seem to be reaching out of context to the point of absurdity. Especially since these amendments were written in a precise legal language where every word has meaning and no word should be ignored.This is not to say that Americans are not free to own weapons, but rather to say that such rights are not guaranteed by the Constitution and are instead decided by other laws in the country or by common law.

Poon 6 years, 8 months ago

Especially since these amendments were written in a precise legal language where every word has meaning and no word should be ignored.(except for the word "people", right)

JONESDTR 6 years, 8 months ago

Almost all states residents have been able to legally own machine guns, silencers and sawed off shotguns for years. It is not what you are allowed to own that makes the criminal. Remember the criminals are breaking the law no matter what. Check the crime numbers from Australia where they have taken away the guns. Now only criminals have guns.....For those of you that think they should ban all guns, just remember Hitler took all the guns away from the Jews too!!!!!!!!!!!!It makes take overs much easier...Everyone should be required to read:Unintended ConsequencesBy John RossAnd always remember:Democracy is 2 wolves and one lamb voting about whats for dinner........Liberty and Freedom is a well armed lamb !!!!!

MyName 6 years, 8 months ago

No, a militia is a group of citizens raised from the people in order to supplement the regular army. Obviously, if the people don't have arms, they won't be able to serve in the militia. So not allowing people to keep arms, would greatly interfere with the job of a militia.So the question then becomes, considering how the militia has evolved to the point where you have to have government funds in order to be effective at keeping the country secure, what does this Amendment have to do with modern America? And the answer is very little. The NRA and the gun manufacturers may want you to believe that the framers of the constitution intended to enshrine a clause that allows all Americans keep any gun they desire, but the reality is that, while I'm sure that some of them would think it was okay to have a great deal of freedom with regards to personal firearms, the discussion about what rights you have in this matter is left to the courts and Congress, not to the Bill of Rights.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 6 years, 8 months ago

I'd say that, beyond ANY constitution, we have a right to protect ourselves, our family and out "tribe". So it is written. So it shall be done. We all have but one life to give for what we perceive as "our country". ...and we have the right to try to recognize lies!All can be called crazy by the insanity of the whoring few (rich), and so we will be are sold what we WANT! We are NOT sold what we need. We are SOLD!I'm just sayin"!~)

Rationalanimal 6 years, 8 months ago

"Um, could you point me to the clause in the Constitution that guarantees a right to own machine guns, sawed-off shotguns and silencers?"++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Sure, just as soon as you point out where the abortion clause is, separation of church and state clause, welfare entitlements, gay rights, healthcare, affirmative action clause, etc, etc. I'm sure we can find the machine gun, sawed-off shotguns and silencer rights in those sections.

Rationalanimal 6 years, 8 months ago

"I can understand the argument for owning guns, I just wish supporters would make more effort in creating an argument than "criminals have them anyway"."+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++OK, try this one: it's actually in an amendment to the Constitution. Where words mean things, the drafters said the right of the "people" to keep and bear arms. They didn't say state, government, militia. Cut it any way you choose, but the linguistic construction is undeniable.As for the criminals have them so we should legalize them comment. This is a misguided understanding of the right associated with the second amendment. Law-abiding citizens have the right to bear arms (possess guns) independent of whether criminals have them or not. So, such argument is rather moot except for anecdotal affect. The real reason, is as stated in the second amendment--"being necessary to the security of a FREE STATE." (emphasis) Such implies an armed citizenry is the last defense to centralized tyranny or repulsing invasion--which was as a matter of historical record fresh on the drafters minds. As for grenades and land mines, those could be handy keeping your in-laws away. I'm certain some on here have pretty smelly ones judging by the stereotypes associated with your political leanings.

Jim Phillips 6 years, 8 months ago

jafs (Anonymous) says: "Also, the other argument against everyone having guns is:Two people (or more) get into an argument at a bar which turns violent.a. They have their fists/beer bottles.b. They have semi-automatic weapons.Which scenario is likely to result in more tragedy?"SAY WHAT? Is the person who got his throat cut by a broken beer bottle less dead than the person who was shot with a handgun?

pisafromthewest 6 years, 8 months ago

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says: "I can understand the argument for owning guns, I just wish supporters would make more effort in creating an argument than "criminals have them anyway"."It's no more tiring than the constant "argument" that these weapons should be outlawed because criminals will be shooting up the streets with them.

BigAl 6 years, 8 months ago

JJE007... I am for gun ownership. I just don't want the state deciding who can or cannot carry a concealed weapon. I simply don't understand what type of man feels the need to carry a concealed weapon. There is no doubt in my mind that if you are carrying a concealed weapon, you are compensating for the lact of something.

Devon Kissinger 6 years, 8 months ago

I've read vpete69's post from 5:57pm 24 April 08 and I'm still trying to find an attitude or a threat. He stated only fact and on the surface it appears to based on the law as it is written.

jafs 6 years, 8 months ago

pisa,That's exactly my point!The division into "good, law-abiding citizens" and "bad criminals" is too simplistic.The sections of the Constitution having to do with the various issues raised above would be the first Amendment (no establishment of religion), our fundamental rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", and the idea that "all are created equal".Most, if not all, of the issues raised are directly related to one of the above.

PROGUN 6 years, 8 months ago

Once again, the left is spewing nonsense when it comes to gun owners rights. READ THIS, "CRIMINALS DO NOT CARE ABOUT GUN CONTROL!" Gun control only punishes law abiding citizens by taking away their second amendment rights to keep and bear arms. Why do I need a machine gun, or a suppressor? Because I have the right to own one, that's why. Get over it and STFU. Try doing REAL RESEARCH before posting. Look up the statistics on the number of "REGISTERED" machine guns used in the commision of a crime. Look up what it actually takes to own a LEGAL machine gun. How many people do you think are going to jump through all the federal hoops, wait for 3 to 6 months, and spend the kind of money it takes to just buy one, in order to go on a killing rampage. A criminal would just steal a semi auto, and convert it. It's not that hard, and any idiot with a computer can probably find the information neccessary to do so. So do us all a favor and quit posting thoughtless crap, about how the Old West is making a comeback. Try thinking up a logical argument instead. Oh wait, you probably don't know how.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 6 years, 8 months ago

BigAl says:JJE007: I am for gun ownership. I just don't want the state deciding who can or cannot carry a concealed weapon.BigAl says:I simply don't understand ... There is no doubt in my mind that if you are carrying a concealed weapon, you are compensating for the lact of something.---JJE007 says:You don't want the state deciding? That's fine...so individual gets to decide?...or you, perhaps?...or do put it to a vote of your neighbors?~) I simply don't understand how you can be for gun ownership, against the state deciding who gets to own guns and not propose "the decider".BTW...There is no doubt in my mind that anyone going by the handle "BigAl", is compensating for the lack of something. Don't be upset. I recognize that as a foolish statement, BigAl !~)

MyName 6 years, 8 months ago

OK, try this one: it's actually in an amendment to the Constitution. Where words mean things, the drafters said the right of the "people" to keep and bear arms. They didn't say state, government, militia. Cut it any way you choose, but the linguistic construction is undeniable.No, the amendment says "The Militia". "The Militia" is the subject of the sentence that makes up that amendment. It takes people to make up a militia, but the only people having the absolute right to keep weapons are in the militia. No other people have that right enshrined in the constitution. That is not to say that there is no right to keep weapons, as there are protections both in U.S. law, and also protections carried down from common law that predate the constitution, but to take anything more out of the 2nd amendment is to read it how you want it to mean, and not how it is. And as proof, there are currently no Supreme court decisions that reference the Second amendment as justifications for overturning (or upholding) gun control laws in this country.

MyName 6 years, 8 months ago

JJE007>I'd say that, beyond ANY constitution, we have a right to protect ourselves, our family and out "tribe".In my opintion, this is a better legal justification than those who try to misconstrue the Second Amendment to protect the rights of anyone to own any gun in the country. The right of self defense predates the constitution and is not dependent upon the legislature or any other government body.

BigAl 6 years, 8 months ago

JJE007... Ok, I really don't think we are that far apart on our gun beliefs. Maybe I am not stating it well but I just don't think anyone needs to carry a weapon. I definitely don't want the state deciding and I don't want someone that I don't know (for instance, you) deciding. But, I am all for gun ownership. Just don't hide it and carry it anywhere near me or my family.For example: If you come to my home carrying a concealed weapon, I will have to believe that you are there to harm me or my family. Things will not go well for one of us. Am I wrong in thinking that? And no, my home isn't, and won't be, posted. I shouldn't have to tell anyone that I don't want them carrying a concealed, loaded, weapon in my home.

Poon 6 years, 8 months ago

Although the first, second, and fourth amendments contain the phrase "right of the people", none of the ten ammendments in the bill apply to the people. They apply only to government sponsored or government approved organizations. The first amendment provides freedom of speech only to newspapers and other organizations sanctioned or approved by the Federal Government.The second amendment allows only individuals within a militia sanctioned or approved by the Federal Government.The third amendment might as well be disposed of because Poon thinks it is stupid.The fourth amendment only alows you to be secure in your person, house paper and effects if the Federal Government approves.The other six amendments can also be disposed of because Poon thinks they are stupid.

Poon 6 years, 8 months ago

Make that "allows" not "alows" Poon neads to lern to spel.

vpete69 6 years, 8 months ago

Before people attempt to interpret the constitution, they should look up the word militia in the dictionary, and look it up in their history books. I love the overflowing wealth of ignorance we have on this site.

vpete69 6 years, 8 months ago

I know nobody is going to look it up in fear of losing their credibility, so I'll do it. Here it is:militia [mi-lish-uh] noun1.a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.2.a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.3.all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.4.a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.Isn't it amazing how you can just D-E-S-T-R-O-Y the anti-gun, anti-constitution, liberal crowd with something as easy as google?

BigAl 6 years, 8 months ago

vpete69... I am one of those that believes in gun ownership. I own guns. I just don't like concealed carry. How am I being d-e-s-t-r-o-y-e-d? Where am I being anti-gun or anti-constitution?

BigAl 6 years, 8 months ago

vpete69: I will add that if you enter my home with a concealed, loaded weapon, I will assume that you are there to harm me or my family. Either way, you will probably encounter the true definition of d-e-s-t-r-o-y-e-d.

vpete69 6 years, 8 months ago

  1. I wouldn't go into someone's house with a concealed firearm2. If its concealed, you would never know.3. Just because someone carries a concealed weapon with a valid CCL, does not mean they have the intent to cause harm.4. Without reasonable belief (a concealed weapon carried by a CCL holder is not reasonable belief) that someone intends to cause you serious harm, you can 'legally' do nothing. If I break into your house, its a different story. But if I am invited in, and you somehow discover that I am carrying a concealed weapon legally, you have no justifiable cause to defend yourself with the kind of force you speak of. If you were to threaten me or show a gun, I have just as much right to defend myself as you do...even in your own house. You can ask me to leave for trespassing, and if I do not comply, you have the right to defend your property with the necessary force. Sure, you could 'try' to shoot and kill me. But most likely you would be going to jail for a long time for unjustifiable homicide. The way you talk, you obviously think that CC licensees are a threat. We believe in the right to self-defense just as you. But we believe 'it' can happen anywhere, not just in the home.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 6 years, 8 months ago

Threat is in the eye of the beholder and if we look at this particular threatened eye, we find an empty plate...beholders and beobatchers starving for proof. Where is the proof that CC licensees are a threat?

squizzlej 6 years, 6 months ago

dear everybody that thinks machine guns are not for civilians.When the second amendment was written EVERY ABLE BODIED MAN WAS THE MILITIA. and we had just fought and won a war AGAINST OUR OWN GOVERNMENT. little thing called the revolutionary war? anyone? so the right to bear arms was meant so that the citizens themselves could A: defend the country from invasion, in addition to the continental army.B: suppress insurrection from within.C: defend the COUNTRY from the GOVERNMENT should it become tyrannical and corrupt.machine guns are for killing efficiently and that is exactly why the citizens should be able to have them, in case the citizens have to defend themselves against the government.nazi germany anyone?Or against invasion. or insurrection.and guess what, the government does all kinds of background checks before you can have one, including mental health and past domestic assault checks.everybody says,why have guns, call a cop! what do you do when the problem is the cops?

MyTakeOnIt 6 years, 6 months ago

The fact--and one that the anti-gun crowd don't want you to know--is that US citizens who own and carry firearms lawfully prevent or interrupt literally hundreds of thousands of crimes annually in the US (yes, you read that right - even according to a survey conducted by the liberal LA Times) in the United States, and they themselves are very rarely arrested for gun-related crimes.The fact is that after 9/11, gun ownership nearly doubled in some parts of the country. Naturally, this touched off a flurry of dire predictions about gun crime, none of which have ever materialized.The fact is that there has never been shown to be any correlation between laws that prohibit lawful gun ownership and lower rates of gun crimes.The fact is that there is only ONE group of people who will obey laws prohibiting gun ownership - the law abiding people. And you'd want guns to be exclusively in the hands of criminals....just why was that again?I realize that guns offend the sensibilities of some delicate flowers. The loud sounds they make frighten you. You have the misconception that guns are unstable systems, and that if you touch one you'll put your mother's eye out. They seem, well...primitive somehow. They are a stark reminder that bad things happen to good people, and that the police cannot be counted upon to protect us from violent criminals. You don't like any of these things about guns, and because you don't trust yourself to own or use one, you don't trust anyone else to do so either. You have absolutely no good arguments against the ownership of guns whatsoever, and your hyperventilation is strictly emotion-driven.Grow up.Here endeth the lesson.

woodrat 6 years, 6 months ago

I realize that guns offend... some delicate flowers. === You mean the "Special Needs" people who can't add up the facts?:1) Guns are machines & some are very simple machines. There is no magic.2) We have been educating criminals in industrial arts a very long time.3. Anybody can make a gun. Easiest is a single shot & next is a machine gun. There is ONE reason anybody wants a machine gun & doesn't have one: They won't to break the law & can't afford the cost. Illegal guns are way cheaper than legal ones, often less than the transfer tax on a legal gun. The loud sounds... frighten you. === Which is why you should get a suppressed subgun.People may come within hearing distance of the range * report your shooting. This wastes everybody's time & takes LEOs away from real problems. Discrete is wise.Quiet is also great to take out chicken house raiders late at night. A "poof" doesn't give livestock a coronary or scare the wife & kids to death.They are a stark reminder that bad things happen to good people, === Particularly those who think being "good people" is all the protection they need. LEOs call them "victims." the police cannot be counted upon to protect us from violent criminals. === But they will often come out later to take a report and "process the crime scene" which may involve sending bodies to the medical examiner. Anybody taking a look at the actual patrol area and number of cops available at any given time will quickly realize the chance of getting a response in time to stave off a violent act is ZIP. Nada. Nil. None.You don't like... guns... because you don't trust yourself to own or use one, === Which is GREAT in my opinion. We can't legislate stupidity out of existence so the few who recognize their inadequacies are a real blessing.you don't trust anyone else to do so either... your hyperventilation is strictly emotion-driven.Grow up.=== Excellent advice!!!!Now we can lay 'em on the table and see who really needs to compensate OR you can accept the fact that I am compensating for two bad knees, 6 bad disks, nerve damage in a shoulder and serious respiratory problems. Any average mugging would either kill me or put me in a wheelchair for the rest of my life. I'm not about to let that happen.There are no "safe" places anymore. Even your own home is a tempting target. You may think you don't have anything anybody would want but a doper won't know that until after he puts you out of his misery and ransacks your house.Two weeks ago, I spent the morning at the local courthouse in the company of an older assistant DA who happened to be black. While waiting to see if the defense would stipulate or I would have to testify the S&W recovered in the drug raid was indeed mine and had been stolen last December, the ADA made one very chilling remark, "People we see going through here have changed over the past 20 years. They no longer have a conscience."

Commenting has been disabled for this item.