Today on Blogcritics
Home » Good News For the Constitutional Amendment that Ensures All the Others

Good News For the Constitutional Amendment that Ensures All the Others

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

There have been several pieces of good news lately relating to 2nd Amendment rights in the United States. By now everyone should be aware of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling striking down the 32 year old Washington, D.C. ban on citizens keeping guns in their homes. Florida has a new law which allows gun owners to transport their legally registered guns to work as long as they keep them locked up in their cars. There are exceptions to the law – those who work in schools are still prohibited from bringing their firearms onto school grounds. Lastly, Governor Sonny Perdue of Georgia signed legislation in May that allows the state’s 300,000 concealed weapons permit holders to carry hidden guns on public transit, in state parks and restaurants that serve alcohol. Congratulations to those political leaders in Florida and Georgia and the 5 justices on the Supreme Court that got it right for a change by supporting the Amendment to the Constitution that ensures all the others.

How does the 2nd Amendment ensure that the other nine amendments of the Bill of Rights are honored by the federal government? We consult the Declaration of Independence for that answer:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.

Our Founders knew that historically, government as an institution is prone to abusing power and denying natural rights to its own citizens as well as citizens of other countries. So, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Washington and their brethren built a two tier system to guarantee that the same would not happen with the government they were instituting. First, Americans would have the ability to “alter” their government through the ballot box. If that option became unavailable to them they could take up arms and “abolish” it. Fortunately, in the United States, we have had a history of regular elections and smooth transitions to power. But, our past is no reason not to be vigilant about protecting 2nd Amendment rights, since a slow steady erosion of gun rights is as dangerous to the health of our republic as a sudden confiscation of the same right.

Besides ensuring the perpetuation of the Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment has a practical purpose – preventing catastrophes. Let’s face it, the police cannot be everywhere at all times. Nor would we want them to be. That is called a police state and would surely result in the loss of our constitutional rights. So, there are times when the citizenry must take criminal matters into their own hands. An example would be the courageous passengers that battled the terrorists and brought down their hijacked plane on an empty field in Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001, saving the lives of many. With more liberal gun carrying laws at the time, the Virginia Tech Massacre of 2007 might have been prevented. The assailant, Seung-Hui Cho, might have been deterred from making his attack if he knew that he could encounter another gun-slinging student or faculty member. However, Cho was mentally unstable and probably would have carried out the slaughter anyway. Can it not be argued that the more than 30 people who were gunned down that day would have had a better chance at survival if at least one person in the vicinity of the tragedy had been packing a piece? With a totally disarmed population at his mercy, Cho was able to kill many innocents and wound many more before taking his own life.

The mass killing at a Luby’s Cafeteria in Texas is the greatest testament to the practicality of the 2nd Amendment and liberalizing gun carrying laws in the U.S. On October 16, 1991, George Jo Hennard stormed the restaurant and gunned down unsuspecting patrons. As part of the human carnage that day, Suzanna Gratia Hupp lost both of her parents at the hands of the gunman. Gratia Hupp owned a gun, but kept it in the trunk of her car while she had lunch with her folks. She was obeying Texas law at the time which prohibited her from carrying a firearm into a public place. A good shot, Gratia Hupp is confident that had she been allowed to carry her firearm into Luby’s, the lives of many, including her parents, would have been saved. Again, a defenseless group of people found themselves at the absolute mercy of a madman. Common sense policy would have given them the ability to defend themselves.

Many will say we no longer live in the Wild West. It is crazy to allow just anybody to carry a gun anywhere. This is a reasonable position. Many states do need to strengthen their vetting procedures for who can and can’t get a gun permit. Clearly, Cho and Hennard fell through the cracks and should never have been given a permit based on their previous mental history. Even though businesses are used by the public, they are still private property. Owners should maintain the right to deny guns on their property if they choose. As a business owner several years ago, I carried a 9mm pistol for protection at all times. I was trained to use the gun and could have used it to protect life or property. Training is important for all gun owners.  Even though great care should be taken when giving the state the authority to tell us what to do, perhaps a good compromise in order to get more liberal gun carrying laws nationwide would be to require gun carrying permit applicants to receive training and show proficiency with the gun they intend to carry before they are granted a permit.

Hopefully the easing of restrictions on where gun owners can carry their firearms in Florida and Georgia will become a trend across the U.S. Most, if not all, gun owners realize the immense responsibility that comes with the right to keep and bear arms. By liberalizing the gun carrying laws, the 2nd Amendment would be respected. Further, ordinary Americans would be empowered to potentially avert massacres and save lives. At the very least, liberal gun carrying laws would serve the same purpose as nuclear weapons during the Cold War. A would-be assailant would think twice before striking if he knew that at least one member of his target audience might be loaded with equal firepower. That is called deterrence and it worked for the 44 year long Cold War. We can assume it will work in preventing crime.

Powered by

About Kenn Jacobine

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Ken,

    I don’t share your enthusiasm. I just made a comment on another thread on this very issue:

    “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.”

    The Supreme Court in its wisdom looked over a 27 word sentence and dispensed with the first 13 of them. As there is no other rationale presented in the Constitution regarding the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” the 5 justices took it upon themselves to simply “imagine” that the Founders had other justifications in mind.

    The thought of the average college student or college professor “packing heat” sends chills up my spine. Nor am I comforted by the thought that now more and more people will likely be walking around armed – at the movies, at Mickey Ds, at WalMart, at a ball game enjoying a few beers. It’s nuts.

    Do you really imagine that the millions of folks out there who own guns in this country could somehow, by virtue of that armament be able to “take on” the government? And whose decision would that be? Are we to perhaps depend on the wisdom and judgment of members of one of the Michigan militias? How would it be organized? How could absolute carnage be avoided? Every nutball sporting an arsenal could decide that he (or she) will lead the charge by eliminating those who in his or her demented little mind are the cause of all our woes – be it blacks, gays, christians, jews, women, whoever happens to be walking along the street or Rob Schneider.

    The idea of a “well regulated militia” in today’s world is wholly ludicrous.

    The Supreme Court is now responsible for opening up the dam. As the water spills over we will perhaps be both witness to and victim of the flood downstream.

    Baritone

  • Doug Hunter

    That’s right Baritone, resistance is futile. Don’t question government, trust it.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    I don’t say “don’t question government.” Government should be questioned at every turn. Does that mean holding it at gun point? What kind of society would we be living in if any and all levels of government were under the constant threat of attack? First of all, who in their right mind would work for such a government? Who in their right mind would even consider running for office?

    The entire basis for our government is predicated upon peaceful execution and transfer of power. Overall, it’s worked reasonably well now for over 220 years. Are there flaws? Are their excesses? Are there injustices? Yes to all. But, given that, are we ready to storm the Congress and the White House and throw the bums out? That may appeal to a certain kind of cowboy crazy Michigan militia type, but I think most of us would be appalled at even the thought of it. That would truly be destructive to our Constitution.

    B

  • Clavos

    “What kind of society would we be living in if any and all levels of government were under the constant threat of attack?”

    Good question. Now, flip it:

    “What kind of society would we be living in if any and all levels of society were under the constant threat of government attack?”

    We’re not there yet, but there have been incidents which accurately reflect that scenario, and which should be ringing alarms.

  • zingzing

    so you can transport your gun to work… but then you leave it in the car? what if it’s a hot day? what if you get back to your car and your gun is dead from the heat?

    if you can’t be more than 1,000 feet from your gun for 8 hours a day, you need some help. or a deringer.

    …really. what’s the good of carrying your gun to work if you can’t bring it in with you? what kind of situation is there that makes this sensible?

  • zingzing

    clavos: “”What kind of society would we be living in if any and all levels of society were under the constant threat of government attack?”

    We’re not there yet, but there have been incidents which accurately reflect that scenario, and which should be ringing alarms.”

    now how is it that so many gun nuts veer towards republicans? well, i guess that the more rights bush takes away, the more people he tortures, the more he locks up without due process, the more he taps our phones and monitors our existence… it gives the gun nuts all the more reason to vote him in, just so they can feel like they have a reason to keep their guns…

    “we love our guns! keep fucking us over just so we can keep our guns (to prevent you from fucking us over! if we so choose!)”

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Clav,

    Describe for me exactly how you or anyone or any group is going to fight the government with your guns.

    It is likely that if the government decided to “take over” militarily, that it’s superior firepower, tactical and logistic abilities would render such resistence – yes – futile – both comical and tragic. Do you imagine clandestine guerilla groups fighting the good fight for freedom and the American way? By then, any semblence of a constitutional government or society would be long down the tubes.

    I must say, that I rather agree with zing above. It tends to be conservatives who embrace a more fascist, highly controlled social order.

    It seems to me that in your particular case Clav, that you could, if need be, jump into your boat and be out of here in a whipstitch. Most of us land lubbers don’t have that option.

    Nevertheless, I think your concerns at least border on an alarmist level. Do you truly believe that we are on course for a government crack down on individual freedoms? Is it coming from the right or the left? Or does that matter?

    There are those – including Ruvy – who actually expect the Bushies to declare martial law, suspend the election and pretty much end all individual freedoms in the name of national security. Does that fit within the scope of your fears?

    B

  • Clavos

    “What kind of society would we be living in if any and all levels of government were under the constant threat of attack?”

    Good question. Now, flip it:

    “What kind of society would we be living in if any and all levels of society were under the constant threat of government attack?”

    We’re not there yet, but there have been incidents which accurately reflect that scenario, and which should be ringing alarms.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    I must say, that I rather agree with zing above. It tends to be conservatives who embrace a more fascist, highly controlled social order.

    This is a rather selective viewpoint. There is one segment of the conservative population which favors more restrictions in a few limited areas, but on the whole the right (not necessarily all conservative) favors far less government control and fewer restrictions on individual actions.

    Coming from a left-leaning perspective you don’t see it, but the reality is that the American left is far more interested in curtailing rights and limiting the liberty of individuals on a broad basis.

    Now, to go back to the article itself.

    Kenn seems to have missed it, but the DC gun ban suit had less impact than he thinks. DC immediately rewrote the law with different ridiculous restrictions. Under current DC law you must get any gun registered and go through a background check far in excess of the normal federal background check for gun purchases. Any gun with a clip of 12 or more cartridges is prohibited, ruling out many common handguns. Finally, you have to keep any gun in your home either locked up or disassembled. As one person described it, it’s like you have to make an appointment in advance if you want to defend yourself from a home invader.

    The original plaintiff in the previous suit has filed a new suit against DC on the basis that their new restrictions amount to an effective ban, in direct violation of the Supreme Court’s ruling.

    Oh, and Baritone. Read the founding fathers on gun rights. There’s no question at all that they intended the second clause of the amendment to apply to private ownership of guns for self defense.

    Dave

  • Clavos

    now how is it that so many gun nuts veer towards republicans? well, i guess that the more rights bush takes away, the more people he tortures, the more he locks up without due process, the more he taps our phones and monitors our existence… it gives the gun nuts all the more reason to vote him in, just so they can feel like they have a reason to keep their guns…

    Um, zing:

    Isn’t Janet Reno a Democrat?

    Didn’t she order the attack on Mt. Carmel?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan Miller

    Baritone,

    I think the Supreme Court pretty much got it right in District of Colombia v. Heller. You disagree, and no useful purpose would be served by dissecting the Court’s opinion here; it did what it did.

    Reasonable limitations on gun ownership are permissible, and it now has to be decided what they are to be. We most likely agree that lunatics and convicted criminals should not be permitted to have guns.

    As noted in a different thread, I don’t own a gun, never have, and don’t want to. Even though I live in a remote area where a “911 call” would be pointless, I don’t feel that I need one. I did, however, have a conversation with another expat living in Panama who had looked into how gun registration works here. Please keep in mind that this is second hand information which may or may not be reliable. However, it was interesting and might be worth considering in the U.S.

    As I understand the situation, registration of a firearm requires:

    (1) That the applicant secure a letter from a psychiatrist stating that his marbles are in the right places and that possession is unlikely to present a public danger;

    (2) That the firearm be fired at a designated place and that the police department retain the slug and cartridge for subsequent ballistic comparison should there be reason to believe that the weapon was used unlawfully;

    (3) That the applicant demonstrate reasonable competence in use the the firearm, including the safety procedures involved.

    Obviously, these requirements are no less likely to be abused than any others, and probably do very little to prevent the unlawful possession of firearms, which we probably agree is a substantial problem.

    Nevertheless, they seems worthy of consideration.

    Dan

  • zingzing

    “Didn’t [janet reno, dem] order the attack on Mt. Carmel?”

    yes, yes she did. it certainly didn’t go as planned, i hope. she wasn’t the one who started the fighting… that had been going on for some 50+ days.

    your point?

    my point is that the same republican officials who fight for your rights to have guns are the ones that give you the most reason (“lately,” you could say,) to have them, if you want to say you’re only keeping guns to protect yourself from the government (not to make up for the small size of your genetalia or anything).

    there is some sort of logical disconnect there.

  • Clavos

    my point is that the same republican officials who fight for your rights to have guns are the ones that give you the most reason (“lately,” you could say,) to have them, if you want to say you’re only keeping guns to protect yourself from the government (not to make up for the small size of your genetalia or anything).

    We probably could have kept this discussion on a higher plane, without resorting to snide remarks, but perhaps you’re merely projecting.

    You’re right; lately, the nominally republican government has been the one attacking the citizens; I notice that the citizens they most attack are right wingers.

    Government is inherently evil, and must be kept in check by the governed; that’s the reason for the Constitution – all of it.

  • zingzing

    dave: “the reality is that the American left is far more interested in curtailing rights and limiting the liberty of individuals on a broad basis.”

    on the side of the left, we have the restriction of rights concerning:
    guns

    on the side of the right, we have:
    habeas corpus
    wire tapping
    gay rights
    immigration
    torture
    blurring of church and state
    capital punishment
    stem cell research
    abortion
    unjust wars (preemptive strike?)
    environmental
    PATRIOT act

    i’m sure it goes on. please let me know where you see the left restricting rights, other than in the arena of gun control. i’m sure you can think of some.

  • zingzing

    clavos: “We probably could have kept this discussion on a higher plane, without resorting to snide remarks, but perhaps you’re merely projecting.”

    it was a snide remark because you don’t want to keep your guns merely to protect yourself from the government. that’s why we have wilderness and survivalists and all the crazy that goes with it. if that’s you’re ONLY reason and you’re not out in the woods with a ridiculous amount of firearms… well, then i think you’re lying or covering up for something else.

    but i could have kept it on a higher plane. i assure you, my massive genetalia is not to be questioned. besides, all it does is spit.

    “You’re right; lately, the nominally republican government has been the one attacking the citizens; I notice that the citizens they most attack are right wingers.”

    where have you noticed such a thing? unless you’re talking about waco again… i never stopped to consider their political affiliations… the religious ones (bullshit that they were) were so far out there that i don’t think you could blame the right or the left for that junk.

    but what else are you talking about?

    “Government is inherently evil, and must be kept in check by the governed; that’s the reason for the Constitution – all of it.”

    yes, that’s why we have the constitution. but, i don’t think some unorganized bunch of gun nuts taking on the government, running wild in the streets with their bellies and beer stains is really going to add up to anything but a bunch of the rest of us dying and the government shooting all y’all dead. and then what do we have? i don’t want to bury bodies all day.

  • Clavos

    it was a snide remark because you don’t want to keep your guns merely to protect yourself from the government.

    Guilty. One of my favorite pastimes is killing birds and animals.

    where have you noticed such a thing? unless you’re talking about waco again… i never stopped to consider their political affiliations… the religious ones (bullshit that they were) were so far out there that i don’t think you could blame the right or the left for that junk.

    Waco, Ruby Ridge, Eldorado.

    ALL rightwingers, mostly religious, but definitely not lefties.

    yes, that’s why we have the constitution. but, i don’t think some unorganized bunch of gun nuts taking on the government, running wild in the streets with their bellies and beer stains is really going to add up to anything but a bunch of the rest of us dying and the government shooting all y’all dead. and then what do we have? i don’t want to bury bodies all day.

    Funny, but most of the people running amok shooting up the streets are totally apolitical gang bangers, drug dealers, and other city dwellers; the beer belly guys are on the ranges, and as you pointed out, in the woods – and not killing anything but Bambi and Thumper, except when attacked by government thugs.

  • zingzing

    “Funny, but most of the people running amok shooting up the streets are totally apolitical gang bangers, drug dealers, and other city dwellers; the beer belly guys are on the ranges, and as you pointed out, in the woods – and not killing anything but Bambi and Thumper, except when attacked by government thugs.”

    yeah, well, come your fantasy government vs. the people beatdown, the gang bangers will be out on the street taking advantage of the situation. so add that to your troubles. and the beer belly guys will be dumbstruck by the actual situation, and even if they can get their shit together on an individual level, their total lack of organization (form a militia if you’re really scared of this) is going to just let the government mow them down (and with a “good” reason, or “good enough”).

    “ALL rightwingers, mostly religious, but definitely not lefties.”

    well, they don’t just go in when there’s nothing totally illegal, like fucking little girls… which, funny enough, that’s the direction all these religious organizations go in…

    ruby ridge was just a big, stupid misunderstanding between two sides too willing to use too many guns.

    “Guilty. One of my favorite pastimes is killing birds and animals.”

    with what? your pistol? or your semi-automatic machine gun? eh?

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    “…totally apolitical gang bangers…”

    Not totally, Clav. A significant part of gang culture is political.

    It just ain’t Washington politics…

  • Clavos

    well, they don’t just go in when there’s nothing totally illegal, like fucking little girls…

    The HELL they don’t. That wasn’t happening, and after investigating, the court ruled against the state.

    ruby ridge was just a big, stupid misunderstanding between two sides too willing to use too many guns.

    A “misunderstanding,” eh? Oh well, that’s OK then.

    with what? your pistol? or your semi-automatic machine gun? eh?

    Stupid comment…

  • Clavos

    Point taken, Doc.

  • Jordan Richardson

    As an outsider (Canadian) from a country in love with hunting (yes, with guns!) and sport-shooting (not sure if that’s the word for it?), I find it interesting to see how many of my friends from south of the border hold on to gun rights and their guns out of fear, paranoia, and the like.

    Form a militia? Government agents going after beer belly guys? Guns used as protection from the government? No offense, but it all sounds like some ridiculous Fantasyland in which evil and death lurks around every corner.

    Then there’s the tug-of-war played with the Holy Second Amendment. “No, it means this!” “No, you idiot, it means this!” It’s pretty clear that you can frame the Amendment in its proper context and see what it means. Is this idea of “self-defense” something that should evolve with time? If the Amendment had evolved with time, would people even need guns for self-defense? This hilarious Hero notion that so many Americans have of defending their homes with guns blazing, perhaps jumping sideways through a pane of glass while a burglar tries to steal the flatscreen, is enough to keep me in stitches for quite a while, so I am grateful for that!

    This idea, like the title of the article says, that the Second Amendment is “the Amendment that ensures all others” is quite laughable given that most Americans you meet keep harping on how “free” they are. Listening to the babble on this topic and others, you’d start to think the only reason Americans believe they’re free is because they can pack heat. Is that really freedom? Freedom to be deathly afraid of your neighbour is more like it.

    I don’t think there’d even be a peep about this type of thing if more Americans knew how to use their guns properly, were less inherently violent and paranoid, and cared just as much about their other Amendments and their Constitution as they do the bloody Second Amendment. Jaysuz!

  • zingzing

    “The HELL they don’t. That wasn’t happening, and after investigating, the court ruled against the state.”

    ok, fine. they don’t go in there without a “reasonable” suspicion that little girls are getting married and raped. i’m not so sure that was NOT going on there. unless those girls got unpregnant… i know that’s not a word.

    “[ruby ridge was a] “misunderstanding,” eh? Oh well, that’s OK then.”

    yeah, well, that’s what happens when you’ve got stupid people with guns and stupid government people with guns. you going to say “misunderstandings” like this don’t happen every day?

    “with what? your pistol? or your semi-automatic machine gun? eh?

    Stupid comment…”

    how so? i have relatively few problems with rifles. i mean, there are snipers, etc, but that’s fairly rare. i’m more interested in getting semi-automatics and handguns off the streets. you don’t use those things for hunting. so how the fuck is that stupid? i’m not going to call you dumb, but damn, man, if you can’t figure that one out, you need to check out what’s going on upstairs.

  • Clavos

    This hilarious Hero notion that so many Americans have of defending their homes with guns blazing…

    And yet, it happens; on a near daily basis, somewhere in the country.

    Google it: store owners shooting would-be holdup artists, homeowners confronting burglars.

    Crime is so out of control in this country, the police can’t and do not cover everyone.

  • zingzing

    “The HELL they don’t. That wasn’t happening, and after investigating, the court ruled against the state.”

    besides, are you saying that the mormons should have had guns and should have killed those raiding the compound? how do you think that would have ended?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan Miller

    Jordan, you say

    I don’t think there’d even be a peep about this type of thing if more Americans knew how to use their guns properly, were less inherently violent and paranoid, and cared just as much about their other Amendments and their Constitution as they do the bloody Second Amendment. Jaysuz! (emphasis added)

    As previously noted, perhaps less emphatically, I don’t give a rat’s ass about guns. I do agree that those who own them should know how to use them, safely. My concern is that as we slide down the slippery slope toward interpreting the U.S. Constitution out of existence, we do a substantial disservice to our other Constitutionally protected rights, which I view as more important. Go kill all the cute little animals you and your colleagues want to. (although if you do, I hope that you eat them). I have no wish to kill them, but neither do I have any desire to impose my views on you.

    Dan

  • Clavos

    they don’t go in there without a “reasonable” suspicion that little girls are getting married and raped.

    Let me tell you about this beautiful land in the Everglades I’m selling…

    Your faith in the honesty and probity of the Feds is touching, if naive.

    how so?…i’m more interested in getting semi-automatics and handguns off the streets. you don’t use those things for hunting. so how the fuck is that stupid?

    Stupid, zing, because as you said, no one (including me) hunts with those things, yet you made the remark in response to my comment about liking hunting (“killing birds and animals”).

    Stupid, because the vast majority of the defenders of the 2nd Amendment are defending hunting and target rifles, shotguns, and target pistols. The vast majority of those who own semiauto and auto rifles and pistols are the aforementioned gangbangers and criminals, plus the odd terrorist here and there.

    Stupid because you knew damn well what I was talking about, and chose to play stupid.

  • zingzing

    “And yet, it happens; on a near daily basis, somewhere in the country.”

    meanwhile, there are probably around 40+ murders everyday in this country.

  • zingzing

    “Stupid, zing, because as you said, no one (including me) hunts with those things, yet you made the remark in response to my comment about liking hunting (“killing birds and animals”).”

    what the hell are you talking about? of course no one uses them for hunting. that’s the fuckin point.

    “The vast majority of those who own semiauto and auto rifles and pistols are the aforementioned gangbangers and criminals, plus the odd terrorist here and there.”

    yeah, so you want those easily available. wonderful.

    “Stupid because you knew damn well what I was talking about, and chose to play stupid.”

    no, you knew damn well what we were talking about, and you chose to play dumb. it doesn’t take much to extrapolate possibilities from a statement. obviously, i referenced hunting… you don’t hunt with pistols and semi-automatics. so, obviously… let’s take the logical step together here… you don’t need to have pistols and semi-automatics if all you want to do is hunt! wow! how smart you are!

    “Stupid, because the vast majority of the defenders of the 2nd Amendment are defending hunting and target rifles, shotguns, and target pistols.”

    to take the government on with?! WHAT DO YOU WANT GUNS FOR? FUN!? (see, i did the same thing.)

    so, obviously you don’t want guns just for the “to protect myself from government tyranny” malarkey. you want guns for a lot of reasons, some of them semi-valid, but not for the reason they wrote the 2nd amendment. i think that’s fairly fuckin clear.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Clav, it’s more likely that someone stopping a burglary or a crime winds up wounding themselves or an innocent bystander than they actually shoot and/or stop the robbery. Moreover, does this really stop crime or does it simply encourage criminals to get bigger guns?

    Dan (#26), once again we essentially agree (I think!). For the record, I don’t hunt and I pretty much hate guns except in video games and movies. But I come from a family filled with hunters and gun nuts who love to kill the cute little critters I adore so much. Such is life, eh?

  • Pablo

    I almost choked on my morning coffee when I read this statement by Clavy:

    “We probably could have kept this discussion on a higher plane, without resorting to snide remarks, but perhaps you’re merely projecting.”

    I have heard of the pot calling the kettle black but this statement by him takes the cake!

  • Baronius

    Zing, having a gun in your house doesn’t make you a nut. Shooting a neighbor does. And ex-convicts overwhelmingly vote Democrat.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Zing, your catalog of Democrat efforts to restrict our rights appears to be self-servingly incomplete.

    The primary assaults from the left are against free speech, property and privacy rights. Here are some specific examples:

    Stifling free speech through the ‘fairness doctrine’ and ‘free speech areas’ and other restrictions on who can say what and where and when they can say it.

    Interference in parental rights in education and child rearing. Increasing efforts to take control away from parents and put childrearing in the hands of the state through government schools.

    The greatest threat to personal liberty and property rights is, of course, excessive taxation, and that’s the basis of the left’s rule – the redistribution of wealth and equalization of society by taking money away from those who earn it and giving it to those who do not.

    Inteference with business, beyond just taxing small business into bankruptcy, with excessive workplace regulation like affirmative action to hiring restrictions, protectionist rules and regulations and forced unionization.

    There’s more, but that’s enough for now, except to make the more general point that while it’s easy to line up lots of little specific irritating policies from Republicans, they all stand on their own as individual and very limited offenses agaisnt liberty. What you see with the democrats is enormous and wide ranging attempts to totally change society and do away with entire categories of rights on a nationwide basis.

    Republicans want to violate the rights of a handful of terrorists. Democrats want to redefine and regulate away the rights of all americans. I find that far more threatening.

    Dave

  • Baronius

    Dave – Don’t forget:

    environmental regulation
    minimum wage laws
    eminent domain schemes
    “sustainable development” building restrictions
    interference with free trade agreements
    opposition to school vouchers
    opposition to Social Security privatization

    Wow, Dave, you’re right. This list just doesn’t end.

  • Jordan Richardson

    It’s funny. Most of those things sound all that horrifying to me, but then again I’m an Oppressed Canadian who simply longs for the sweet, sweet breath of American Freedom.

  • Baronius

    And OSHA and rent control. You can’t make a list of left-wing governmental restrictions without those two.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Lol, #35 should read “don’t sound all that horrifying to me.”

    Ah, what can you do?

  • zingzing

    “Zing, your catalog of Democrat efforts to restrict our rights appears to be self-servingly incomplete.”

    as is your idea that “Republicans want to violate the rights of a handful of terrorists.” obviously, attempting to amend the constitution to make marriage “between and man and a woman” affects just the terrorists. 1 million americans are on the do not fly list. the lack of stem cell research funds is killing my uncle. our republican-lead preemptive strike has killed thousands of americans (not to mention hundreds of thousands of iraqis, whose brothers and uncles and cousins are going to kill thousands more).

    yeah, ok.

    republicans like stifling free speech as much as the dems do, and i would say moreso. you’d disagree, i know, but don’t act as if republicans are freedom-loving, criticism-endorsing wonderfucks.

    you may see taxation as a violation of your rights. but republicans raise taxes all the time, and only lower them for those that can afford them the most. republicans are, like democrats, politicians. they run the government on those taxes. republicans might pay lip-service to lowering taxes, but do they really do it to any noticable degree? or are you just being taken advantage of?

    as for your others, i don’t think dems could pass such things (and keep them enacted) without republican support.

  • Baronius

    The lack of stem cell research funds is not killing your uncle. That’s just plain false. There is prohibition against federal government funding on fetal stem cell research. Adult stem cell research is legal, and funded federally, at the state level, and privately. Fetal stem cell research is legal, and funded at the state level and privately.

    “As for your others, i don’t think dems could pass such things (and keep them enacted) without republican support.”

    Right back at you, Zing. You’re familiar with Obama’s votes and positions on wiretapping, capital punishment, and faith-based programs? You’ll also recall that the Patriot Act and the Iraqi War were approved with bipartisan support. And you still haven’t explained the word “environmental” on your list of right-wing restrictions on rights.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    You know, it’s strange. Most of zing2‘s list consists of actual rights impingements. (Although I must confess I’m at a loss as to what he means by ‘environmental’.)

    Most of Dave’s and Baronius’s seems to consist of impingements on the ‘rights’ of the powerful to screw over the powerless.

    This one’s a no-brainer from my perspective.

    …Clav – don’t even think about it!!!

    ;-)

  • zingzing

    yeah, well… i was just listing stuff and i edited out a few that weren’t really rights violations… i missed “environmental.” eventually, though, the right’s lack of support for environmental causes is going to impact our lives in ways i’d rather not describe. but let’s not make this an environmental discussion.

    i said, LET’S NOT MAKE THIS AN ENVIRONMENTAL DISCUSSION.

    anyway, as far as stem cell research goes, there is far more the federal government could be doing. far more.

    shit, my uncle had to travel to australia to get some treatment. it’s fucking ridiculous, being that he lives in minneapolis, so close to so many great research hospitals, that he should have to depend on (and spend the money to go to) australia to get proper experimental procedures and treatment.

  • zingzing

    “You’re familiar with Obama’s votes and positions on wiretapping, capital punishment, and faith-based programs?”

    yeah, and you’ll notice that he’s getting accused of courting righties for that. i don’t agree with these things. i’m not the biggest obama supporter. i just think he’s… ok. better than another republican at any rate. he’ll shift back towards the left if elected, i promise.

    “You’ll also recall that the Patriot Act and the Iraqi War were approved with bipartisan support.”

    yes, foolish mistakes of a scared nation. playing right into mr. bush’s hands. you’ll notice that most of the left is fighting to get these things reversed. (or they’re at least distancing themselves from these messures. fucking politicians.)

  • Question Able

    I don’t think that some training requirements would be a bad thing, but then I keep coming back to the fact that we are giving a permit to exercise a right. Just as a lot of people feel we overlooked the first 13 words, which I can’t fathom as a restriction to an organized army, I believe they overlooked the most important in the last four. “Shall not be infringed.” Seems pretty silly to me, anyway, to go get a permit and check for signs on doors before you carry concealed into a place of business that allegedly wants your money. You can rest assured that any establishment I ever own will NOT have “No Weapons Allowed” or anything similar on the doors. We have to trust one another a bit, even if we have to all start open carry to get it to work. Without trust, there will be no respect. Without those two, there will never be any true civil peace. So, if piece = peace, then let’s all just piece out.

  • Jordan Richardson

    I’ve learned an awful lot about some of my American neighbours today and I have to say that I’m no longer in any rush to get my passport up to date. Just try not to get the rest of us killed, mmkay?

  • http://www.idiotwars.com Dave Nalle

    Zing, one of your mistakes here is in assuming that all Republicans are the same. The things you object to the most were implemented with bipartisan support and ALSO bipartisan opposition. There are plenty of Republicans who support gay marriage (a majority support civil unions), support stem cell research, even support abortion though perhaps with some limitations. And plenty of Republicans oppose the PATRIOT act or many parts of it. The war is a different and truly non-partisan issue. People would be dying there with or without our assistance. We’re now seeing far fewer deaths there per month than was average un peacetime under Saddam, and the bloodbath for the Iraqis would likely have been even worse without our involvement when homegrown civil war got going. Before you start throwing around blame, consider what you might have supported that would have been any better. Sometimes governments do what they have to do even when they might not want to, and Obama is going to disappoint the hell out of you if you don’t realize that.

    Dave

  • Clavos

    …Clav – don’t even think about it!!!

    Killjoy…

  • Baronius

    Dave, don’t confuse Zing. All Republicans support torture, and all Democrats oppose it.

  • zingzing

    you’re right dave, things aren’t completely black and white, left and right. it’s true. but to say that the the right hasn’t championed, although that might not be the right word, these things is ludicrous.

    i’m just trying to say that claiming the right as a beacon of civil rights is just stupid. come on. why do you continue to support a group of people so willing to do things like the right does them? are you picking between what you see as two evils? if so, how do you figure that the things the right does is more forgivable than that which the left does. you know as well as i do that true socialism will never come here during your lifetime. and what the fuck do you care after that? you’re all about your “personal property” and your money and your guns. those things don’t pass through to another life, and from what i gather, you probably don’t have any kids. even if you did, you know as well as i do that they would rebel against you and your political ideals anyway, so… fuck them, eh?

    baronius, you’re a little pet. i pet your bald ass. oh, you like it? i pet your bald ass again.
    [gratuitous vulgarity deleted by Assistant Comments Editor]

  • Baronius

    Oh, Zing, we can’t leave out the gigantic infringement on rights that is National Health Care. Both as it currently exists and as Obama proposes to expand it.

  • Jordan Richardson

    How is National Health Care an “infringement on rights,” Baronius? I’m asking an honest question here.

  • zingzing

    ok, baronius.

  • Pablo

    Pablo,

    Although I rarely if ever take the side of Baronius on the issues of the day, the infringement on rights that you asked about Jordan is this; I have a “right” to the money I earn, if I am paying a tax that I do not support, not only am I being coerced, I consider it an infringement on the right to keep the dough that I make.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Then wouldn’t taxation in general be considered an infringement on rights, if I were to take that mindset. Surely no average citizen wants his or her tax dollars spent on the war, corporate bailouts, and programs they will never benefit from? I mean, I may never need the fire department, why should I have to pay for the red trucks?

    Perhaps those who wish to allocate funds to a sort of health care pool or similar social program could do so and those who wish to not could, well, not.

    I have to say that it’s a difference in mindsets, too. While I have no problem whatsoever paying into a program that I know helps my fellow Canadians in their hour of need, I would have a massive problem paying into programs that I know slaughter other human beings and provide loopholes for corporate liars.

    But that’s just me.

  • Clavos

    @#51:

    Whew! It really is a “red letter” day!

    I agree with you, Pablo – without reservation.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Dave,

    What is it about the 2nd ammendment that makes it open to such broad interpretation? It is short, concise and easily understood. At the time it was written, there was in fact a need for a “well regulated militia.” Furthermore, it was reasonably practical. Now, it plainly is not. Again, no additional rationale is presented in the ammendment or anywhere else in the Constitution. Dan says the Supreme Court “pretty much got it right.” In what way? Does the ammendment have a secret compartment which holds additional justifications for arming one’s self to the teeth?

    A great number of conservatives rail about strict interpretations of the Constitution. Yet, when it comes to the good ole’ Second Ammendment, it is just fine to make a broad interpretation of it. Why? Because so many people desparately want to hold on to their guns, that they are more than willing to let any notions of a “strict interpretation” of the ammendment slide.

    I seriously doubt that many of the “Founders” would today approve of the incredible accumulation of assault weapons and worse endemic in the U.S. Keep in mind that the firearms people had in the latter portion of the 18th and into the early 19th century were single shot muzzle loading rifles and a few similarly operated hand guns. It’s unlikely that anyone armed with such weapons could do a great deal of harm beyond the first shot. The incredible firepower and deadliness of the weapons of today were inconceivable to our founders and their contemporaries. I believe they would be horrified by the arsenals maintained by people today.

    Now Dave, I get back to the idea that you brought to mind last nite. You suggest that there is some other reason why homicides and especially gun deaths are so prevelant in the U.S. as compared to other, equally armed countries. What else can it come down to other than as a nation, we are simply too immature to be entrusted with deadly weapons. Far too many frankly stupid people own guns and use them against each other with often only the slightest provocation.

    It harkens back to our cowboy mentality – the unwritten law to “shoot first…” It’s a part of our child like notion of what constitutes “being a man” in our society. Macho bullshit! It exists elsewhere, but even in typical barroom confrontations in many other countries they rarely end with guns blazing.

    Amongst all the data I laid out in the other thread, one figure seems to have passed by unnoticed. The numbers of children killed in the U.S. during a one year period at well over 5000. Five fucking thousand children! What the hell is wrong here? We are in serious trouble. Is it really wise to ease restrictions and broaden our ability to arm ourselves given our collective inability to control our anger or our reflexes?

    You all talk about rights. Rights that I find truly questionable. But the more important issue is, IMO, the lives of thousands of children and thousands more adults in this country who will become victims of our foolishness.

    B

  • zingzing

    ahh, baritone, much as i confuse you for baronius, and as much as i agree with you, you know how this will end, right?

    dave will say, “all the statistics point towards the fact that the rights of private citizens to own guns actually lower the death rate of those shot by guns, because those shot by guns owned by private citizens are not dead, but are reincarnated as texans, drive big ol’ hum vees and screw blondes for a living, cuz dey pimps, yeee-hawww!”

    or something like that.

  • Clavos

    You’re right, B-tone; 5000 child deaths in a year is too many. How many of those were gun homicides?

    In 2004 (the most recent year for which I could find data), 6,866 children under the age of 21 died in automobiles.

    Clearly, children should be prohibited from riding in, and certainly, driving automobiles.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Well, actually Clav, there is pretty good data which supports the notion that 16 year olds may not be mature enough to drive. Also, a great number of children seriously injured and killed in autos are so owing to not being properly installed in child protective seats and so on. A great many young people die in autos owing to their foolish bravado – not wearing restraints, speeding, driving under the influence, etc. It is plain that many lack adequate judgment – similar, as it happens, to many gun owners.

    Oh, and according to the Children’s Defense Fund, in 2005 a total of 3006 children (under the age of
    18) were killed with firearms. The same report noted that “[s}ince 1979, gun violence has snuffed out the lives of 104,419 children and teens in America. Sixty percent of them were White; 37 percent were Black.”

    Pretty grim, don’t you think? Or is that an acceptable number as long as we maintain our right to own guns? Apparently, it is.

    B

  • Clavos

    I very much doubt that if guns disappeared from the US overnight, our homicide rate would decrease significantly for more than a short period of a few months.

    Either guns would begin to seep back into the country from overseas, or we would devise other ways of killing each other.

    As Dave pointed out above, other countries with high gun ownership don’t have as high a homicide rate as US. I think Americans are inherently homicidal; the guns just make it easier.

    Private gun ownership is severely restricted (though not prohibited) in Mexico, yet Mexicans manage to kill themselves quite proficiently with machetes and knives; even beating each other to death. There ARE guns, but the legal ones are primarily in the hands of the military and police. There is a considerable criminal class, almost all of whom are armed.

    All in all, they’re about as murderous as we are.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Nothing seems to dent the determination of those favoring gun ownership. Clav, I don’t agree that we would manage to kill each other in the volume we presently do if guns were somehow removed from the equation. No doubt other means would be found by those determined to do away with someone.

    But so many killings are done in moments of passion, or under duress. Guns make it so much easier. Most other means take some consideration and many would mean getting up close and personal in a way guns don’t require. Almost any handgun is accurate from a few feet – far enough that you couldn’t feel the heat or smell the breath of an intended victim. Some rifles – in skilled hands – can kill literally from a distance of mile or more.

    Of course, I know that logistically, there is no viable way to rid this country of guns. They are out there in numbers in excess of the weeds in my garden; hell, in excess of the weeds in ALL the gardens.

    Opponents are always quick to note that gun laws don’t work. The fact is, though, that by the time most gun control laws achieve passage and are enacted into law, they have generally been so drastically watered down from the original as to be unrecognizable in their final form having virtually none of the teeth originally intended.

    It is simply disturbing that amongst developed nations we are the least responsible with weapons. To those who rail against any kind of vetting process or registration I say, damn, you have to have a license to cut hair. I have to maintain a license – and have taken literally hundreds of class hours – to appraise real estate. Do we, then value money, or even our hair more than we value our very lives, or the lives of our children? How can anyone believe that it is fine and dandy for anyone to own a device, the sole purpose of which is to kill another human being, without any restrictions, registrations or training? I know some commenting here have accepted registration, restrictions and training as preferable or even necessary. But any time a government body even suggests any such steps, there are always vocal groups of people, usually along with the damn NRA screaming their opposition to them. It makes no sense.

    The Supreme Court ruling has and will continue to have the effect of loosening the reigns on gun ownership nationwide. I fear for what may ensue, and sincerely hope my fears are unfounded.

    B

  • http://bloggingontheedgeofsuicide.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Clavos is right-unfortunately. If no more guns were manufactured or sold in the U.S. today, there’s still an insermountable number of them readily available…

    Just look at the nut in tennessee that left a note saying he shot up that church because he hated liberals and gays.

    sheesh.

  • STM

    Kenn, quoting on why in his view the 2nd amendment is so important: “We hold these truths to be self-evident … etc … that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.”

    Yes, indeed, which is why America is a democracy (in the modern sense, no splitting hairs please about representative republic) and why you get to vote every few years.

    It’s a rather long bow to draw isn’t it, tying the 2nd amendment directly to the declaration of independence? Sure, there’s a connection related to the specific goings on of the time (which aren’t now, BTW), but it doesn’t actually mention guns until later.

    I’d suggest the 1st amendment (you know, the all-important free speech one) is the one that guarantees all others, and the proliferation of guns in the US has done more to take away rights than uphold them – especially the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (can’t enjoy much when some bastard’s shot you dead).

    I’d bet London to a brick that the founding fathers would be turning in their graves if they knew that the 2nd amendment no longer applied to 500,000 muzzle loading single shots designed to maintain a militia force because of fears about another war with the British 200 years ago, but 300 million modern, highly lethal LEGAL weapons of all descriptions, including bazookas and machine guns, and that undoubtedly the reason the US has the highest gun homicide rate of any first-world western nation is that most illegal weapons you can add to that total also started out life as legal weapons.

    If Americans can’t see the delusion in their thinking in regard to this, given that the homicide figures don’t lie, there’s no hope. This whole argument is a crock.

    There’s no problem with gun ownership, it’s the lack of adequate control and the proliferation of guns that’s the issue. I don’t see how attempting to control this rather than ban it in any way infringes on a person’s right to bear arms, either. The 2nd amendment makes no mention of uncontrolled, unfettered firearm ownership, so you could just as easily argue the toss the other way. I don’t oppose gun ownership BTW, and have used guns on many occasions and grew up around them.

    Doubtless in some places people might need them for protection, but too many knobs think they are pretty toys that give them a feeling of power rather than highly dangerous lethal weapons, and I think most gun owners in the US just like playing with guns.

    I wonder if it’s got anything to do with the fact that a gun is also a long, cylindrical shaped object.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    B-tone @ #54:

    As much as I agree that having enough privately owned firepower lying around to annihilate half the galaxy is just asking for trouble, I don’t share your interpretation of Amendment Dos.

    If the Founding Dads were to have written it today, they would probably have phrased it something like, “Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state…” I can’t tell you whether they intended it to matter whether a citizen militia was practicable or not, but I don’t think you can do away with the core of the Amendment just because the circumstances under which it was written no longer apply.

    You might just as well argue that the free speech protections of the 1st Amendment are no longer relevant because modern Americans are all opinionated loudmouths who’ll speak their minds no matter what! ;-)

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    BTW, sorry if I’m a bit behind the conversation here. Akismet is currently blocking as spam any comment I attempt to make from my computer at home. Bummer.

  • bliffle

    Pondering this headline makes one think that the gun people are guilty of swagger over-reach. It doesn’t seem credible that the protection of Americans constitutional rights is in the hands of a few disorganized middle-class gun fans. If nothing else, the feds have them seriously outgunned.

    Better, one might think, are the civil guarantees of Freedom of Speech, separation of politics and superstition, etc. If those instruments are forfeit, what hope is there for guns? What rights could civilian guns possibly restore if by some freak they could prevail? It would seem that the only right they could assert is the right to bear arms. A nationwide Dodge City, a constant street scene at High Noon, with every citizen just itching to draw. Hey, sounds like Iraq!

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    I think most gun owners in the US just like playing with guns.

    I also enjoy playing with them. The thing is that although I’m a pretty good shot, I don’t trust myself with them, which is why I won’t have one in the house.

    I’ll only handle them on a gun range, where there’s the least chance of me doing a mischief to others or myself.

    I’ve been on the business end of what happens when a gun accidentally goes off, and it fucking hurts. Fortunately in my case it was only a .177 air rifle with a dodgy firing mechanism and I was wearing thick denim at the time, or the result might’ve been a lot worse.

  • Clavos

    B-tone,

    I think you are letting your good liberal conviction that humans are inherently good get in the way of your logic. That might be true for the totality of humanity, but there’s a reason why we here in the USA have one of the highest homicide rates, and it ain’t just the availability of guns.

    True, a number of gun homicides are crimes of passion, but plenty of spouses poison their SOs as well. Some bludgeon, cut the spouse’s brake lines, etc. There’s no end to the ingenuity that’s employed when people want to kill each other.

    I think you’re projecting your own abhorrence of killing to the millions out there who have no such compunctions: junkies looking for a fix, gangbangers (killing is even an initiation test, for crying out loud!), OC contract killers, etc. Just this past Sunday, 60 Minutes interviewed a contract killer who had killed scores of people – he showed virtually no feeling whatever when recounting his deeds; there are LOTS of people out there for whom killing is simply another means to an end.

    I doubt much more than the crimes of passion type homicides would taper off if guns disappeared in this country.

    Trying to make them disappear is an insurmountable problem, judging from the lack of success of both Prohibition and the War on Drugs.

    If you want to curtail (I don’t think they can be stopped) gun homicides, institute draconian penalties for commission of a crime with the use of a gun.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    i’m just trying to say that claiming the right as a beacon of civil rights is just stupid.

    No, it’s just a case of putting priority on a different set of civil rights and a different definition of who they apply to.

    At the most basic level, the right’s preference for applying civil rights on an individual basis rather than a group basis as the left does, makes a fundamental difference.

    come on. why do you continue to support a group of people so willing to do things like the right does them?

    Well, not all of the right does things in a way which is distressing. Those who hold really troubling views which I truly object to are a small minority who some of us are working to send off to their own party or to return to the Democatic party where they originated.

    are you picking between what you see as two evils?

    I’m not a big fan of arbitrary use of the term ‘evil’.

    if so, how do you figure that the things the right does is more forgivable than that which the left does.

    Because I find the violation of the rights of a few individuals preferable to the elimination of the rights of the entire population.

    you know as well as i do that true socialism will never come here during your lifetime.

    It doesn’t require full-on implementation of socialism for the people to be oppressed.

    and what the fuck do you care after that?

    Well, I dod have kids.

    you’re all about your “personal property” and your money and your guns. those things don’t pass through to another life, and from what i gather, you probably don’t have any kids. even if you did, you know as well as i do that they would rebel against you and your political ideals anyway, so… fuck them, eh?

    Ah, but I do have kids and I want them to be able to inherit my property and whatever money I manage to put aside for them. And while I don’t expect them to agree with everything I believe in, I do expect them to learn to think about things rationally, and I suspect that will ultimately lead them to a reasonable perspective on the world.

    Dave

  • http://bloggingontheedgeofsuicide.blogspot.com/ Jet

    Why does it take twenty paragraphs to say-The intent of the amendment was to counter British law forbidding the settlers to have guns against the red coats?

    It’s a sad comment on our society if we don’t even have enough faith in our current army to defend us, that we think we still need armament supplies to hold off the heather Britis hoardes invading us again. (sorry, no offence Doc and Chris).

    Support our troops-but don’t trust our lives to them???

    Jet
    Yes it’s really me, I’ve shortened my handle :)

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    The shorter handle is very becoming, Jet.

    But remember the Constitution was written in 1787, long after the British were no longer present in the US.

    The target was government in general, not specifically British invaders. They had a belief that any government could become a tyranny.

    Dave

  • http://bloggingontheedgeofsuicide.blogspot.com/ Jet

    Dave considering the current administration’s actions and apparent ambitions, I concede your point. I wonder if we can get this congress to revoke Bush’s immunity from being prosecuted for war crimes that the last GOP congress gave him-for reasons I still don’t understand despite my publishing an article about it?

  • http://bloggingontheedgeofsuicide.blogspot.com/ Jet

    I’ve got DSL and it took 49 seconds (a long time considering it’s instant on other websites)

    What gives?

  • http://bloggingontheedgeofsuicide.blogspot.com/ Jet

    I brought this up before but it bears repeating-I’ve dated a couple of cop (not at the same time) who were both brought in for questioning by their superiors in response to having fired their weapon on duty.

    One had to fire at a car that was coming directly at him at high speed. His recollection to his sergeant just ten minutes after was that he fired only three shots, but his dash cam showed him unloading the entire clip… and he’s professionally trained and carries a weapon continuously every day.

    Can you imagine the reaction of the average gun nut in the same situation?

    …yeah I know, the same, except he’d have more spare ammo on hand, so he’d fire two clips.

    groan

  • Condor

    “Just look at the nut in tennessee that left a note saying he shot up that church because he hated liberals and gays.”

    Given all to proliferation talk, I’m surprized no one in the church was packing. Or, given the laws surrounding trying to protect oneself, maybe someone was but was afraid to pull it in defense.

    Remember, every bullet has a lawyer tied to it.

    Did I read a entry which stated that someone “would ask whether the robber was taking the HDTV or there to harm the dwellings occupants”???? It might have been another subject…. if it was here… I have to wonder if instead of asking the perp, wouldn’t a questionaire be a better tool.

    In the course of a robbery, or assault or whatever, there is not time to ask.

    And furthermore, as a reference to 911 and the police… to avoid litagation police are under no obligation to respond to 911… ambulance chasers would have a field day on late arrivals, no arrivals, lost patrol cars etc… or differing outcomes the expected/anticipated, which is the cops show up and fix everything nice and tidy like.

    Happiness IS a warm gun, that means one close to my body, loaded and ready to assist me in keeping my life safe.

  • http://bloggingontheedgeofsuicide.blogspot.com/ Jet

    How safe are we when even Jerry Lewis (yikes) was caught packing at an airport yesterday?

  • http://bloggingontheedgeofsuicide.blogspot.com/ Jet

    Condor, I’m reminded of an Episode of Black Adder IV, in which he is distracted by Baldrick scraping something on metal with his knife.

    Black Adder: Baldrick make the explanation you’re about to give phonominally good.

    Baldrick: Well you know my Lord, they say for every man, there’s a bullet with his name on it… so I figured if I scratched my name on one of these and always kept it in my picket, I’d never get shot with it!

  • Baronius

    Wait, is Jet in Jerusalem now? Where’s Ruvy? I can’t handle so much change…

  • http://bloggingontheedgeofsuicide.blogspot.com/ Jet

    Oh bitch bitch

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    I can’t handle so much change…

    That presumably would be why you’re a conservative, Herr Baron.

  • http://bloggingontheedgeofsuicide.blogspot.com/ Jet

    Ruvy’s on vacation in Mecca

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    [sprays coffee everywhere]

  • http://bloggingontheedgeofsuicide.blogspot.com/ Jet

    You sprayed the once leader of the United Nations????? everywhere????

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    No, actually, not everywhere, just on Ann.

  • Baronius

    Dread, you took the cheap shot. I could have pointed out that your comments wouldn’t get blocked as spam if you didn’t make so many postings about male enhancement, but I didn’t. I took the high road.

  • bliffle

    I think you should start Packing Heat Jet. get with the program.

    Look at it this way: if those wimpy student protestors at Kent State in 1970 had properly armed themselves beforehand they would have been able to defend themselves when the NG opened fire to enforce The Rule Of Law.

    Sure, maybe some of them would have died, but at least they’d have been able to improve their Kill Ratio.

  • zingzing

    “I can’t handle so much change…”

    that’s a hell of a pun.

  • zingzing

    “Look at it this way: if those wimpy student protestors at Kent State in 1970 had properly armed themselves beforehand they would have been able to defend themselves when the NG opened fire to enforce The Rule Of Law.”

    mhmm… yeah, ok. it would have been a total bloodbath.

    “Sure, maybe some of them would have died, but at least they’d have been able to improve their Kill Ratio.”

    does “Kill Ratio” have to be capitalized? i’m sure a lot more people would have died, and that’s not what anyone was there to do.

    i don’t like the government wandering around killing innocent civilians either, and four is too many, to be sure, but… those soldiers were stupid kids with guns in their hands. what do you think is going to happen?

    guns make stupid people even more likely to do something really stupid.

  • http://bloggingontheedgeofsuicide.blogspot.com/ Jet

    Zing if you really want to enjoy it, try previewing your comments first!!!

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”

    I don’t see that as refering to our own government, but rather to other states (i.e. countries – i.e. England, France, Spain) Why the presumption that the militia should be maintained against our own government?

    What we have here are a load of paranoiacs who have read a few too many Stephen King or Robert Ludlum books. You all seem to buy into the notion that the government is out to get you, or all of us. You are just conspiracy theorists. On the one hand you complain at how inept the government is, yet on the other you ascribe to it nefarious, evil plans to send us all to the gulag or some such. So which is it? – the government of Spielberg’s “Minority Report,” or just a government of “Dumb and Dumber?”

    Just curious, which one of you gunslingers is going to lead the charge against the evil government? Who is going to stand tall urging true lovers of freedom to gather round at your feet (until of course, someone else decides they want to lead that charge, at which point they raise their Ithaca 12 gauge pump action shotgun and blow your face off.

    I think you all have yeehaw, cowboy delusions of grandeur. Do all of your really see yourselves as part of an “organized militia?” Give me a break! Most of you, at the crucial moment would wind up blowing your nuts off in the adrenaline rush of fear and excitement.

    B

  • zingzing

    jet, the system keeps failing to connect back to the page once i press “submit.” so, i check the “recent comments.” it doesn’t show up there. then i go ahead and submit again, hoping it will work. it works! but now i have made two comments.

    it’s happened twice today.

    and don’t stick your tongue out at me.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    zing2, if it happens again, hit the Back button, highlight the text of your comment in the box, right-click and copy. Then go to the top of the page and click on Fresh Comments. You will probably find that your comment did post. If it didn’t, then and only then try again.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Baronius (#83), in the current economic climate, cheap shots are all I can afford!

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan Miller

    Doc,

    Is it conceivable (pun intended) that your comment #91 here was posted on the wrong thread, and should perhaps have been posted following your comment #78 here?

    Just curious.

    Dan

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Dan,

    That would be completely, totally and in all other ways inconceivable.

    (“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”)

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan Miller

    Doc,

    According to an old story, a person whose English was not the best was trying to explain why his wife could not have children. He said, “She is impregnable. No, no I mean she is inconceivable. No, no that’s not it either. I know, she is unbearable.”

    Dan

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Today in the “Let it Out” section of the “Indpls Star” a fellow recounts how he ordered flowers over the phone for his wife who just got a promotion at work. He asked that the card read “I believe in you.”

    His wife was taken aback when she opened the card which read “I be leaving you.”

    B

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Awkward…

%d bloggers like this: