Guns don’t kill people
People with Guns kill people. People with guns that shoot 800 50mm rounds in 20 seconds kill people.
Hundreds line up to watch Supreme Court gun ban caseWASHINGTON – Hundreds of people have lined up outside the Supreme Court for arguments on the constitutionality of the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns.
I’m sorry that people get shot, but giving government sole control of large areas of our lives has never worked and never will. The government was in charge of regulating banks. The government is in charge of enforcing our Constitution and banning torture. Now you only want the government to have guns? Lemme’ know how that works.
can’t be any worse…
The Supreme Court isn’t supposed to decide whether individual gun ownership is a good idea. In fact it probably is not, a lot of the time. They are supposed to decide if it is constitutional or not.
And the Second Amendment is pretty much a full-carry permit for every American. Again, I’m not sure that’s entirely a good idea, but that’s what it says.
says seperation of church and state too I think
it also says:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
It also says:
Amendment VI (1791)
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence
it also says:
Amendment XVI (1913)
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
so you tell me why what it says about bearing arms fucking matters…
Because, donviti, if only government officials can have guns (and government official cronies), things will get real scary in a real hurry.
Now you only want the government to have guns?
Have you been on a military base recently? In comparison with whatever “armed citizenry” there is now, if the government decided to turn its guns on the rest of us, they functionally DO have all of the guns.
If government weaponry was the deciding factor, past totalitarian regimes would not have a basic rule of preventing anyone not “authorized” from having guns. But all of them do.
dis,
so them having an atomic bomb agains my 9mm isn’t scary? give me a break. My right to bear arms has nothing to do with me standing up and against my government.
them reading and listening to everything I do now is less scary then them having all the guns?
that was a weak arguement man.
It isn’t about a deciding factor — it is about getting real about a way too romanticized idea that armed citizenry will be able to make a government stand down from tyranny. If this government gets to the point where it is pointing guns at us, you’ll be inviting instructors from Hezbollah over here to conduct insurgent training. Because your guns won’t be turning back many tanks.
Both of you: “cold, dead hand.”
My right to bear arms has nothing to do with me standing up and against my government.
So you think the Second Amendment is about hunting squirrels?
It isn’t necessarily about standing up against your government, although that’s part of it.
It’s recognizing that the government can’t always be there with its guns to defend you so you have a right to do it yourself.
“them reading and listening to everything I do now is less scary then them having all the guns?”
Try EQUALLY scary. Besides, the guy who breaks into my house at night will be less interested in my emails than in the possibility that I may have a 9mm available.
“Have you been on a military base recently? In comparison with whatever “armed citizenry” there is now, if the government decided to turn its guns on the rest of us, they functionally DO have all of the guns.”
Cassandra–that, respectfully speaking, is a load of crap. Given that our armed forces are actually composed of American citizens, the large-scale potential for those weapons being used against us is actually very small. Moreover, in a purely technical sense, we’ve already discovered in Iraq that an armed citizenry can cause the best military in the world all the problems it can handle.
The Second Amendment is more than simply the right to own firearms. It is a statement that American citizens possess the inalienable right to decide for themselves (and pay whatever are the applicable consequences) when the use of deadly force is necessary.
You have the ability to give up that right for yourself–don’t like firearms, don’t own one.
anon,
It’s recognizing that the government can’t always be there with its guns to defend you so you have a right to do it yourself.
now that’s funny. I thought I needed to give up all my civil liberties so I could be safe. So if I let big brother spy on me without a warrant, why do I need a gun?
Ia anyone watching “John Adams, Independence” on HBO. A 7 part series of factual history and how our wonderful republic began. If they didn’t have guns, the British would have mowed them down! It is interesting that “Delaware” (in the series) had been left to them own devices, we would be saying “hail to the Queen”. I encourage everyone to please check out the series which is very timely for this election.
I was a total pacifist up and until Ronald Reagun’s presidency…it was then that I understood why the founders put the right to bear arms in our Constitution.
In 2008, with the Consitution all but shredded, with economy headed towards a depression thanks to George War Hoover, with food prices skyrocketing, layoffs at all time highs, bank foreclosure, stock market in free fall, who knows where this country will be in Nov, 2008.
Like Steve Newton, “don’t like firearms, don’t own one”. This is where right meets left!
but Mr. Newton,
if you say all of this and mean it:
The Second Amendment is more than simply the right to own firearms. It is a statement that American citizens possess the inalienable right to decide for themselves (and pay whatever are the applicable consequences) when the use of deadly force is necessary.
you see that is where you are wrong concerning all the Supreme Court hullabaloo though. the 2nd ammendment is a literal statement.
sort of like Grex literally believes that T-rex was sitting amicably along llama’s with Noah piloting his 100 foot boat.
You aren’t allowed to interpret that Ammendment….
It is right to bear arms. PERIOD. Just ask the NRA
Given that our armed forces are actually composed of American citizens, the large-scale potential for those weapons being used against us is actually very small.
Also overly romanticized. If you want to count on government to give up on its alliegence to its Commander in Chief in favor of Americans, then go right ahead. Perhaps these same guys will sell you some previously well-rated mortgage securities too. The business of tyranny is often a question of sheer opportunity, and when you have access to the bigger toys the opportunity is that much bigger.
Besides, we already have more than our fair share of examples of fine Americans turning against other Americans. If your point is that a true arms race may have made the difference against tyrannical government agents, then I’ll buy that. But somehow I don’t think that anyone would be interested in 2nd Amendment entitlements if these cops were made to stand down at gunpoint.
And the fact that you read out the well-regulated militia” part of the amendment is noted.
Whenever I see the video of that trooper threatening and then tasering that guy in front of his pregnant wife I always wonder how that might have turned out if she was packing.
Oh yeah, she’d have been shot or gone to jail, but the NEXT cop who wanted to taser an unarmed guy would have something to think about.
dv
I hate like hell to admit it, but I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say here: “you see that is where you are wrong concerning all the Supreme Court hullabaloo though. the 2nd ammendment is a literal statement.”
can you put it in simple people’s english?
cassandra–“Also overly romanticized. If you want to count on government to give up on its alliegence to its Commander in Chief in favor of Americans, then go right ahead. ”
You said military bases. I spent two decades in the US military. I submit that most American troops would question and/or refuse the type of orders you are talking about.
As for the BATF or the FBI HRT the evidence is certainly not so clear. Which is why I support a much weaker central government. I find it ironic that most of the people posting here decry the idea that our government can snoop, detain, and even kill American citizens, but think it should be empowered even more in other areas of our lives.
However, all of this is frankly eyewash.
In the end I’m with dis: “cold, dead hands.”
No American can purchase a gun that shoots 800 50mm rounds in 20 seconds. I also find it incredibly unlikely that the framers of the Constitution would make all the other 9 items in the Bill of Rights refer to “individual ” rights and somehow make the second amendment only refer to group rights. The Supreme Court will show the correct interpretation when they finally decide the Washinton DC case. Isn’t it incredible that Washington DC has one of the highest crime rates at the same time they have a gun ban. Go figure, only criminals have guns.
My home is my castle and I should be free to protect it.
Gun ownership is also my right as long as I do not pose a threat to others.
That is the rub, the peeople who are a threat hope we have to give up the Right to Bear Arms.
Full disclosure- I don’t own a gun and never have but have fired everything from .38’s to air to air missiles. Yes, people with guns kill people not guns kill people.
Does it seem ironic that so many of the people who favor unilateral victim disarmament are so sympathetic to the plight of convicted killers? Why are so many would-be ‘gun grabbers’ hard-core ‘thug huggers’?
Check out the list of names of members of the fan club for Killer Mumia to verify this phenomenon.
When a local drug thug and bully was shot and killed (good riddance to some very bad rubbish) he was eulogized as a ‘ghetto icon’. The preacher-man officiating at his funeral later made a lot of noise against reform of a concealed carry permit system that lets political hacks have a say in the process. Said ‘reverend’ had a rap sheet as a killer and thief. I suppose he was looking out for his own.
Note that the Second Amendment did not grant a right but guaranteed one (as did the earlier English Bill of Rights) that had been infringed by certain agents of the Crown. One should also note that in the contemporary context. ‘militia’ encompassed the citizenry rather than some organized state body that was not instituted until decades later.
I submit that most American troops would question and/or refuse the type of orders you are talking about.
And I should trust that why? I have many very good friends and family in the military and work every day with these folks.
The fact that I know them all to be very fine people does not change the fact that some humans given the opportunity to terrorize the usual suspects for the usual reasons.
Trusting the military (or any other part of the government) to not turn on me isn’t supposed to be the bargain. Trusting that the impossible won’t happen is still the easiest way to tyranny. Most of us trusted our telcos not to provide our phone or internet data to the government without a warrant, and here the telcos are looking for protections from lawsuits for doing just that.
But then, I’m not a romantic about violence, its cost or the extent of its utility. There is much in the American culture of violence that overvalues (and often fetishizes) most individuals’ capacity to actually manage said violence — providing a very false sense of immunity and a real dehumanizing of “targets” real and imagined.
I think that if you want guns you should just say that you need the ability to hurt and kill people. Making pretend that your owning a gun is abit of insurance against government tyranny just sounds like you’ve been watching too many movies.
Owning a gun is also fun and provides food. The gun doesn’t have any say in the matter; its up to me how I use it (or try to use it; ever shot at a scared chicken? Things are hard to hit.)
Cassandra–“I think that if you want guns you should just say that you need the ability to hurt and kill people. ”
I did say that: “The Second Amendment is more than simply the right to own firearms. It is a statement that American citizens possess the inalienable right to decide for themselves (and pay whatever are the applicable consequences) when the use of deadly force is necessary.”
So I guess we’re in agreement, huh?
There is a clear order of precedence in the Bill of Rights. The right of the individual to keep and bear arms is Amendment # 2 for a reason. It is both personal and collective insurance for the rest of them, especially # 1.
It has always served as a deterrent to any serious thoughts of martial law /military rule in the minds of would-be despots, here and elsewhere. The first big move of any totalitarian juggernaut…the Soviets…the Nazis…has been to disarm the citizenry.
I served in the Army for most of a decade, first as enlisted Infantry in Europe, in the middle east and then here in Delaware as a National Guard commander.
The vast majority of the troops I have ever known took their oaths probably more seriously than some of our most exalted officials of government. These soldiers didn’t need complicated explanations or philosophical tracts or legal treatises to know what it means “to support and defend the Constitution of the United States”.
I believe deeply that few if any would ever combine with government forces against civilians in this country, short of temporarily quelling a fully-armed organized insurrection or mass violent criminal lawlessness.
I knew none I believed would ever ultimately follow a civilian or military dictator against their own countrymen.
It’s the international lawless rogues, murderers, and mercenaries like many of the scum floating in Blackwater that are the real threat.
Many of these cutthroats would gladly serve as the muscle for any tyranny anywhere…even here…just name the price. It is private paramilitary “contractors” like this that should be legislated and regulated into oblivion.
To third that emotion : Cold. Dead. Hands.
OUT OF MY COLD DEAD HANDS
http://delawarelibertarian.blogspot.com/2008/03/mobile-death-vans-new-capitalistic.html
Under this let me add, I think it would be a good idea for Governor Minner to tranfer all the old military hardware at the DNG to the civilian population, arm us all and turn the ship of state into a little porqipine against those damn Marylanders….they burned down Lewes not one but four time…grrr….:) With their pirate Robert Carr they destroyed the first quaker government in Lewes in 1664….We could even build our own people’s arms and munitions factories. Great idea huh? I know a state where they tried that….. it is called North Korea. Protack, I was waiting for you to suggest that as part of your platform….
I submit that most American troops would question and/or refuse the type of orders you are talking about.
OK, most would. But would they fire on those who did not?
“Most” American troops would also not be photographed grinning on top of a pile of naked prisoners.
I knew none I believed would ever ultimately follow a civilian or military dictator against their own countrymen.
Of course not, the first orders would come from a democratically elected leader. He wouldn’t be identified as a dictator until after the orders had been executed.
Our armed forces, and regrettably the civilian voters, have forgotten the Nuremberg principles.
I agree in part, anon, which is why I said “ultimately”. I think any dictator would have a hell of a time…nay…impossible time ever bringing this country under complete military control. They would require mercenaries (a la Blackwater) to carry out any extended repression of the citizenry, short of some kind of full scale war/insurrection right on our home turf. But then, so much of the public act like damn sheep who knows?