Today on Blogcritics
Home » Is A Reasoned Approach Possible With Gun Control?

Is A Reasoned Approach Possible With Gun Control?

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Daddy was right. Ain't no use in talking about religion, politics, whether that dress makes yer wife look fat, or guns… unless you're sitting among a bunch of hunters all dressed up in their "out-to-kill" finery, oiling stocks and cutting cross-hatches into their bullet points.

Take abortion. The gyrations politicians go through to avoid waving the banner for either side would be hysterical if it wasn't so obvious… and boring. "I'm for abortion only in the event a woman is impregnated by a creature from another planet — or the dark lagoon. Otherwise, while I personally would never have an abortion, I support a woman's right to be confused." I daresay there must be some kind of middle ground that doesn't leave women between a rock and hellfire and brimstone, but no one's brave enough to suggest it.

Likewise, in one of the few thundering blunders made by the Founding Dads, we have the Second Amendment, in my humble opinion, a veritable smorgasbord of words that can be construed to arrive at any conclusion one wants. What the hell does it mean?

"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."

If one focuses on the first two phrases, it's clear that gun ownership applies to the state's militia, probably as protection against feared federal hegemony, although it didn't work all that well in the Civil War. If one focuses on the last phrase, it's clear that the people's right to own veritable arsenals can never be withdrawn. Put the two together, and you have… mush.

A case in D.C. may wind its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The District passed a law banning all hand guns except for current and former police while allowing rifles and shotguns as long as they're either "unloaded and disassembled or bound by trigger locks." An appeals court killed the law, and the city has asked the Supreme Court to hear it. Surprise, surprise, the Bush Administration opposes the law.

And the two sides, one standing on one edge of the Grand Canyon, and the other on the far side, cavil endlessly to anyone with ears about the death of children, the right to protect one's self in one's home, etc. etc. ad nauseum. There is, at last, nothing new to be said.

So, how does one rationally address this issue? (Pardon me while I fall off my chair laughing.)

Let us begin by acknowledging that the other side (whichever side you're on) has deep, powerful, often unconscious emotional reasons for their positions. And, while you're at it, admit you're in the same quandary. We pretend to argue logic and reason, but what's driving those arguments are perceived threats to important personal values. If we could talk about those values and those emotions, we'd at least make a start at having a discussion rather than a televised political debate among Presidential wannabes. We may even find that we have some of those values (self-preservation, family protection, security) in common but that the triggers for those values are different.

Next, how about we throw the 2nd Amendment into the trash heap of well-meant but stupid historical statements. There is no right way to interpret it, and we're just being intellectually dishonest if we pretend there is.

Then, given common values and no Constitutional guidelines, we seek compromise. The pro-gunners fear that banning handguns is but the first step in taking away all their guns. How are the anti-gunners going to assure them that isn't the case? (There are anti-gunners who do take that position; you probably don't want them in the room when you're negotiating.) The moderate anti-gunners focus on handguns because they're most easily misused by children, adults engaged in a free-for-all, or a simple, stupid, tragic accident. Plus, it's a lot harder to carry around a concealed shotgun than pistol.

Except for vegetablearians, the blather about hunting is just so much, well, blather. Eat a steak you got from your local supermarket or kill a deer and eat the deer. There's no difference. I admit to being nauseated by those who trophy hunt, who simply kill for the sport of it. If that's a sport, so is smoking and drinking. But I wouldn't let my personal distaste for those chickens (like there's real danger in going after deer) interfere with my desire to strike a compromise with the pro-gunners that guarantees their right to rifles and shotguns.

About Mark Schannon

Retired crisis & risk manager/communications expert; extensive public relations experience in most areas over 30 years. Still available for extraordinary opportunities of mind-numbing complexity. Life-long liberal agnostic...or is that agnostic liberal.
  • Jack Burton

    “Well, reprimanded then.”

    Catey, you’re trying to use logic here where it won’t work.

    A gun hater can use the most vile language, say the worst things, and in general abuse a gun enthusisast in any way and they get praised for it. “Speaking truth to power,” you know.

    And it’s all got to be true since it’s about a gun owner and heaven knows how we kill and eat babies for breakfast. We deserve to be abused.

    But call one of them a “bigot”? My goodness. They get vapor lock and the fainties right away. Out come the handkerchiefs and the tears start in flowing.

    And then the “correcting” posts start. “You know, you really shouldn’t use such vicious language as “bigot. Someone feelings are going to be hurt.”

  • Clavos

    “Rule Number One of teh Intarwebs is that if you don’t feed the trolls, they eventually go away.”

    Good luck with mr on that one.

    She’s been trolling here on BC for a year this month.

  • Catey

    I do believe you are right Jack.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    “Rule Number One of teh Intarwebs is that if you don’t feed the trolls, they eventually go away.”

    heh…some of us never seem to go away…yours truly is like a good mold…scrub all you like, paint over it….we still come back for more

    sorry…didn’t mean to interrupt the flames…

    we now return you to your regularly scheduled pointless bitchfest

    Excelsior?

  • Jack Burton

    Here is an intersting resource for those interested in this issue…

    In Search of the Second Amendment is the first documentary on the American right to keep and bear arms. It stars twelve professors of constitutional law, and scholars such as Steve Halbrook, Dave Kopel, Clayton Cramer and Don Kates. The story of the American right to arms is told by these experts, and illustrated by re-enactments and original historical documents, many never before filmed. The film also explores the contributions of the African-American experience, including the 14th Amendment (1868). Two civil rights workers discuss the untold story of their movement: how civil rights workers armed themselves and fought off Klan attacks. Produced and directed by David T. Hardy.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    interesting link, Jack..how’s the olde Pork Chop Express running?

    but Jack does raise the intrinsic root of the Question here

    do “We the People” have the Individual Right to self defense?

    i’m the wrong one to Ask in this occasion..i’d like to see a return to carrying swords and legal Duels, makes for people being more polite, if nothing else…

    that being said, the current trend among some to want laws regulating firearms in the name of public safety is understandable, the sheeple attempting to legislate away the Wolves by banning sharp teeth, it misses the crucial nut of the dilemma by forgetting that , “oh shit, we’re talking about insane criminal scum here…that’s why they brought an electric mini-gun to rob a liquor store!”… what’s breaking a few gun laws mean to the likes of them?

    to my Thinking..the crux of the matter is in the “well regulated militia” bit…figure out what that means and you solve the problem

    does it mean just the police force and military? – doubtful, in some instances the Founders planned against the government being able to exert totalitarian control over the People… how about just having to register as a weapon owner like you would your car, or family pet?

    i know the usual argument is that then the government knows you have a weapon(s) and will round you up first!

    but there is also the deterrent factor here…you have 100 million registered weapon owners and it proves you ain’t got enough bullets in all the government to take them out cleanly

    i am not certain what the Answer is here, but i do know that a civil and thoughtful Conversation on the topic is part and parcel of basic civic duty… i just don’t see this Issue as that critical at this point in time

    your mileage may vary…

    Excelsior?

  • Jack Burton

    how about just having to register as a weapon owner like you would your car, or family pet?

    Or register as a church goer? A newspaper reader? And only “registered” people can write a letter to their Congressman?

    It’s all in the reflexes, you know.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    i hear yer point , Jack…but ya gotta have a license ta drive…the case can be made that immediate possibility of deadly force should at least be just as registered…and it appears, prima facia, to follow the wording of the Amendment to the freaking literal letter

    if driving is a “privilege” which can be revoked at whim…then one can argue that the current protections of weapon ownership (unless you are a felon, and you are of appropriate age, you can buy a firearm) simple registration does not infringe on any right to keep and bear your arms as you see fit as your part of the “well regulated militia”

    both sides appear to raise valid concerns, as i said earlier…the actual language of the second amendment in it’s entirety is the only real clue and guideline we have on this thorny Question

    Excelsior?

  • Jack Burton

    do “We the People” have the Individual Right to self defense?

    “Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.”

    - Samuel Adams and Benjamin Franklin, ‘The Rights of the Colonists’, (actual title; ‘The Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting’). Nov. 20, 1772

    “Excusable homicides are in some cases not quite unblamable. These should subject the party to marks of contrition; viz., the killing of a man in defence of property; so also in defence of one’s person, which is a species of excusable homicide”

    - Thomas Jefferson, Note to Crimes Bill. Washington ed. i, 152. Ford ed., ii, 209. (1779). [5579. MURDER, Excusable. -- JCE5579.

    "Also, the conditions and circumstances of the period require a finding that while the stated purpose of the right to arms was to secure a well-regulated militia, the right to self-defense was assumed by the Framers."

    - John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice. [As quoted in Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846); State v. Dawson, 272 N.C. 535, 159 S.E.2d 1, 9 (1968).]

  • REMF

    #245;
    Dittos, Catey. But Chris doesn’t have to be as careful as Dave Nalle.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    Jack in #259 – exactly my point as to why we should have private ownership of weapons and the inalienable right to self defense

    that’s my personal View

    all i have been saying is that we live up to the “we regulated militia” part..and that the real heart of this Conversation should really be about how we, as a society, handle that part of it…

    catch the drift?

    Excelsior?

  • bliffle

    Gee, this gun discussion seems to have swamped out all other discussions on BC.

  • Clavos

    “Dittos, Catey. But Chris doesn’t have to be as careful as Dave Nalle.”

    Yes he does, emmy.

    I’ve got my nose up both their asses; sometimes simultaneously, which satisfies my kinks, but grosses them out.

    Sigh. Nobody understands you when you’re strange. Maybe I’ll go find me a sheep.

    Got any sheep up there in shitkicker country, emmy?

  • Jack Burton

    i hear yer point , Jack…but ya gotta have a license ta drive…

    Not really. In virtually every state you need no license to drive if you are on your own property. Nor do you need to register the vehicle.

    the case can be made that immediate possibility of deadly force should at least be just as registered…

    People have been dealing out immediately deadly force for ages without needing to register their weapons of choice.

    I never read in my Bible a quote from Cain that said, “Criky, Abel, where’d you get that bloody Glock?” :-)


    and it appears, prima facia, to follow the wording of the Amendment to the freaking literal letter

    I’m not sure where you get the word “register” in the Amendment. You have to read these things in the language of their day, not ours. Well regulated meant well trained, nothing else.

    if driving is a “privilege” which can be revoked at whim…

    Driving is a privilege but it can hardly be “revoked at whim.” We do have due process here, remember.


    then one can argue that the current protections of weapon ownership (unless you are a felon, and you are of appropriate age, you can buy a firearm) simple registration does not infringe on any right to keep and bear your arms as you see fit as your part of the “well regulated militia”

    Name one other Constitutionally specified right that is subject to “registration”, simply or otherwise.

    And do you know that Illinois is just weeks away from banning virtually all semi-auto guns, including rifles, handgun, and shotguns? This means Uncle Joe’s deer hunting rifle in the back closet, and the neighbors skeet shooting long gun, and every pistol except for revolvers.

    Illinois has an extremely rigid licensening system for gun owners. Just how do you think they are going to enforce this ban?

    They already have the name of every gun owner in their computer. “Simple registration” eh? Simple door-to-door pickup, eh?

    “Mr. Jones, we see here you have three rifles that fit the criteria. Please give them to us.”

  • Clavos

    “Name one other Constitutionally specified right that is subject to “registration”, simply or otherwise.”

    Voting.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    whew…ok Jack..i’ll go one round of the Dance…

    “Not really. In virtually every state you need no license to drive if you are on your own property. Nor do you need to register the vehicle.”

    and in many states you don’t need any kind of license to have that firearm on your own property (tho zoning laws may limit you firing it in town, etc)..i get your point, but you seem to recognize, but not mention, that taking that car off your own property places you under the restrictions of law…

    “People have been dealing out immediately deadly force for ages without needing to register their weapons of choice.

    I never read in my Bible a quote from Cain that said, “Criky, Abel, where’d you get that bloody Glock?” :-)”

    well do i know this one…and in some states i DO have to register if i move there, but those are intensely learned skills that most don’t possess…with a day or two training just about anyone who can see can use a pistol with reasonable deadly effect…hence the problems with handguns for many folks..other issues revolve around concealment

    “I’m not sure where you get the word “register” in the Amendment. You have to read these things in the language of their day, not ours. Well regulated meant well trained, nothing else.”

    please cite your source on what well regulated meant…that’s an interpretation i’m not familiar with…interesting but doubtful…as careful as the Founders were with their Words..they well knew the difference between training and regulation and would have used the appropriate term

    “Driving is a privilege but it can hardly be “revoked at whim.” We do have due process here, remember.”

    glad you think so…and remember that you brought up due process…we’ll be coming back to it…

    “Name one other Constitutionally specified right that is subject to “registration”, simply or otherwise.”

    strawman, imo…no other Right has the term “well regulated” in it, does it?

    point of Order: i only mention one proposed solution here, the process of registration…come up with another that satisfies the “well regulated militia” part of the language and we can talk about that…i’m open to all reasonable suggestions..that’s the only thing discussions of this topic are really good for, eh?

    “They already have the name of every gun owner in their computer. “Simple registration” eh? Simple door-to-door pickup, eh?

    “Mr. Jones, we see here you have three rifles that fit the criteria. Please give them to us.””

    remember previously when i mentioned “due process”?

    Excelsior?

  • Jack Burton

    all i have been saying is that we live up to the “we regulated militia” part..and that the real heart of this Conversation should really be about how we, as a society, handle that part of it…

    We have mandatory gun training in school starting about the fourth grade and advancing thru high school. We bring back the rifle clubs that were in so many high schools 40 years ago.

    We’re letting Hollywood, the thug rappers, and the “street” teach our kids about guns. No wonder we’re having such a problem.

    We do away with the stupid state laws that take a Goldielocks approach to gun control. “This gun is too biiiig, and this gun is too smaaaallll… ohhh, we can’t find a gun that is just riiiight.”

    And… nope… won’t say it. It’s too late at night and my discernment filter isn’t kicking on as well as it should. I’ll stop here.

  • Jack Burton

    Voting.

    It’s always a pleasure to know that I helped educate at least one person a day and raised him from the mirey muck of civic ignorance. :-)

    This spins it a little different than what I would, but the basic info is pretty correct .

  • Clavos

    Hairsplitting. I noticed you did that with gonzo, too, with the straw man about driving on private property.

    I didn’t say voting for president, did I?

    u.s. constitution:

    article 1, section 2:

    “Clause 1: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.”

    “article XVII:

    The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.”

    The point is: the right to vote IS guaranteed by the constitution, and registration IS required to do so.

    meh.

  • Jack Burton

    and in many states you don’t need any kind of license to have that firearm on your own property (tho zoning laws may limit you firing it in town, etc)..i get your point, but you seem to recognize, but not mention, that taking that car off your own property places you under the restrictions of law…

    Not neccessarily. If I tow my car from my home to the shop it doesn’t have to be registered. It’s when I put the car into actual use on the road that the government can sink it’s tax claws into my wallet. And that is 99 percent of the purpose of auto registration anyway.

    But you’re right. Not requiring registration in your home and on your property, and requiring a license (not necessarily for the gun itself) off property is the way many states work it.

    Is it Consitutional? No. Do most people live with it? Yes.

    well do i know this one…and in some states i DO have to register if i move there, but those are intensely learned skills that most don’t possess…with a day or two training just about anyone who can see can use a pistol with reasonable deadly effect…hence the problems with handguns for many folks..other issues revolve around concealment

    Lot’s of small concealable items are deadly without any training. If the nanny state registered all of them it would certainly take up enought of their time to ensure they would not be up to further mischief.

    please cite your source on what well regulated meant…that’s an interpretation i’m not familiar with…interesting but doubtful…as careful as the Founders were with their Words..they well knew the difference between training and regulation and would have used the appropriate term

    “Training” meant “regulation.” Smack you on the forehead.

    Take a look at this

    And I can assure you that anyone in the military who has dealt extensively with training knows that “regulation” still means the same thing today as it did back then.

    remember previously when i mentioned “due process”?

    You mean the same due process clause that California ignorned when they banned the dreaded “assault rifle” and forced everyone to either move or sell theirs out of state.

    BTW, you could give lessons to quite a number of folk here on how to dialogue. Signficant parts of the concept have escaped them.

  • Jack Burton

    Hairsplitting. I noticed you did that with gonzo, too, with the straw man about driving on private property.

    I refer to it as being precise…a concept that a lot of people have problems with. And please tell us how not registering a car on private property is a “strawman”? I am sure others want to know also. Be specific. Walk us thru the entire thread about that topic so we can understand.

    The point is: the right to vote IS guaranteed by the constitution, and registration IS required to do so.

    Nice try but neither one of your two examples from the Constitution say that the people have a right to vote. You may call it hairsplitting but just what do you think the courts do?

    And the courts have ruled there is not a Constitutional right. If you have a problem with that, and you obviously do, take it up with the courts, not me. I can’t help you any with that one.

  • Clavos

    I refer to it as being precise.

    “You say potahto, I say potayto.”

    Refer to it any way you want, I say it’s hairsplitting…a concept that a lot of people have problems with.

  • Jack Burton

    Refer to it any way you want, I say it’s hairsplitting…a concept that a lot of people have problems with.

    Fine… have problems with it. But when you’re dealing with legal matters (as we are) then grownups realize that living in the real world requires living by the real world rules.

    And precisness is what helps win in the arena of the court… not the ability to emote your “feelings.”

    Still haven’t quite figured out just how I used a “strawman” yet, though, eh?

  • Clavos

    And you still haven’t noticed that not once on this thread have I advocated restricting (not even more licensing) gun ownership, but you’ve typed me more than once as a “gun bigot.”

    Go ahead, check it out. I’ll wait.

    I received my first weapon for my eighth birthday, more than fifty years ago, and have owned weapons continuously since.

    I said it upthread, and others have too: you hurt the cause more than you help, with your blowhard, arrogant attitude, and your facile, stereotypical assumptions.

    Good luck with that.

    I sincerely regret we’re on the same side of the issue.

  • REMF

    “Got any sheep up there in shitkicker country, emmy?”

    Come on up, flat-lander. I’ve got an extra pair of boxing gloves, let’s go three rounds and find out who can fight and who can’t.

  • gonzo marx

    for Jack in #270 – well now..i would not advise trying to smack me ..forehead or anywhere else, but the mat is always open to those who want to try

    but i digresss…

    i completely disagree with you postulate about “well regulated”…the link you gave is by no means definitive or even authoritative…yet even there the very first line is from a court ruling which states…“”Regulate, as ordinarily used, means to subject to rules or restrictions,
    >to adjust by rule or method, to govern [...]”
    > Simkins v. State, 249 P. 168, 35 Okla. Cr. 143.”

    which describes my position and understanding of the definition…not yours

    in the article you linked to, the author goes on with even further fallacy by utilizing a usage of the term concerning multi-barrel firearms…which did NOT exist in the time period that the Founders wrote the words under discussion

    again, i must stand on the position that if they meant training, they would have said so specifically based on the meticulous use of language in the entirety of the document

    so you know..i HAVE a background in the military..and was raised with firearms by a Dutch Grandfather who was one of a long line of gunsmiths/swordsmiths…even there “regulated fire” is NOT “well trained” shooting, but timed and tempered use of rounds for maximum efficiency, which is trained behavior, but the regulation is about rate of fire and careful; targeting of each round

    thus my entire point..it is the ENTIRE wording of the second amendment that needs discussion, the “well regulated militia” part being key, since they are the Object of the “shall not be infringed” portion

    no Tricks, no convolutions or hidden esoterica here…simple parsing of the basic language is all that is required, then determine how to implement the Intent inherent in the words themselves…

    Excelsior?

  • Clavos

    Here’s an interesting piece from a very unlikely source: the Times of London.

    Jack Burton and all his little lockstep clones should find it positively orgasmic.

    It says, in part:

    “America’s disenchantment with “gun control” is based on experience: whereas in the 1960s and 1970s armed crime rose in the face of more restrictive gun laws (in much of the US, it was illegal to possess a firearm away from the home or workplace), over the past 20 years all violent crime has dropped dramatically, in lockstep with the spread of laws allowing the carrying of concealed weapons by law-abiding citizens. Florida set this trend in 1987, and within five years the states that had followed its example showed an 8 per cent reduction in murders, 7 per cent reduction in aggravated assaults, and 5 per cent reduction in rapes. Today 40 states have such laws, and by 2004 the US Bureau of Justice reported that “firearms-related crime has plummeted.”

  • Jack Burton

    And you still haven’t noticed that not once on this thread have I advocated restricting (not even more licensing) gun ownership, but you’ve typed me more than once as a “gun bigot.”

    And not once on this thread has anyone actually seen you defend the ownership or use of guns. You make little drive-by remarks here and there but you’ve never really added much of substance to the thread, have you?

    I received my first weapon for my eighth birthday, more than fifty years ago, and have owned weapons continuously since.

    And this is supposed to impress me how? I know a lot of long term gun owners who would sell out the handgun crowd in a nanosecond if they thought it meant they could keep their precious hunting rifles and shotguns.

    Zumbo, who has owned guns longer than both of us, is a perfect example of a gun owner who felt fine with the idea that it was okay to “ban” some weapons just because of his unfamiliarity with them and their “evil” looks.

    I said it upthread, and others have too: you hurt the cause more than you help, with your blowhard, arrogant attitude, and your facile, stereotypical assumptions.

    I’m always happy to leave it to the judgement of the greater body of the readers.

    But note that you’re the one who didn’t have a clue as to how guns shows work and was more than willing to have the readers believe that something was “wrong” with them.

    You’re the one who thought that the police was had a duty to protect each individual contrary to court opinions.

    You’re the one obsessing with fantasy bots from pro-gun websites trolling the ‘net.

    And you’re the one who was wrong about the majority of police not wanting the average person to have a CCW.

    I sincerely regret we’re on the same side of the issue.

    The only side I see you on is the same as the boozer who hangs out at the bar passing out free information to everyone who doesn’t want it, and most of it is wrong anyway.

    Thank you, but I’d rather not be on that “side.”

  • Jack Burton

    which describes my position and understanding of the definition…not yours

    Which he then goes and breaks down using contemporary examples and examples thru the years of just how that means “training” and the component parts.

    again, i must stand on the position that if they meant training, they would have said so specifically based on the meticulous use of language in the entirety of the document

    Regulated meant well-trained. So they did use the proper, meticulous word. You trying to put a 2007 meaning on it doesn’t change the understanding that the FF had.

    “regulated fire” is NOT “well trained” shooting, but timed and tempered use of rounds for maximum efficiency, which is trained behavior, but the regulation is about rate of fire and careful; targeting of each round

    1) you just contradicted yourself in one sentence. That takes a special skill. :-)

    2) “trained behaviour”? Didn’t see a thing in there about registering the guns they were shooting.

    I can give you a couple hundred more cites from scholars across the board that say that well regulated is speaking of the training and associated behaviour. Would that help?

    And BTW, multi barrel firearms certainly were available during the colonial era and even earlier. From the very first days of firearms people could figure out that if you can shoot one bullet, two bullets would be even better.

    They weren’t very effective and were not accepted as a standard firearm, but they were there.

    It took Sam Colt to develope the first real multi shot firearm and he used the idea of one barrel, revolving cylinder.

  • gonzo marx

    Jack..well am i aware that there were multi-barrel weapons at the time, my bad for not speaking(typing) clearly…multifire multiple barrels weren’t around (think Gatling gun rather than the multibarrel pepperboxes)..thta was my intent

    and bring on your references, the more substantial the better…well trained and well regulated are NOT synonymous…now or in 1776, imo..i’ll have to be shown otherwise

    sol, it appears we have come right down to the point i was speaking about at the very beginning…defining “well regulated Militia”

    when you install a regulator on a car ..does that make it well trained?

    i’m just at a loss to ever find circumstance where the two terms are used identically..especially in the time period of the Founders

    hence my thinking from there..i’m still open to alternatives from advocates…so i’ll ask YOU , Jack…what conditions would qualify to your understanding as a “well regulated Militia”?

    Excelsior?

  • Jack Burton

    Jack Burton and all his little lockstep clones should find it positively orgasmic

    Guns are just ordinary tools. I’m not sure why so many people want to refer to sexual activity and guns.

    But gardening? You come up with a story about how to improve compost, or turn my slightly-better-than-ordinary tomatoes and peppers into prize winners and you’ll see orgasmic delight all right.

  • moonraven

    You fellows have managed to get youyr tangas in a knot, as usual.

    Just to add a little dose of reality here:

    I was raised in an NRA family (grandMOTHER lifetime master who held several national records for indoor target shooting, expert grandfather, and I first fired a 22 calibre German target pistol at age 3), I also taught classes in firearms usage and safety when I was a teenager to other teenagers who wanted to get deer and elk hunting licenses and in the early 70s I wrote the Washington State Firearms and Bowhunting Safety Manual.

    My grandfather was a collector of antique firearms, and he and I spent many hours adjusting powder and testing them by shooting at targets.

    During my 11-day stint as an E-5 in the US Army in order to get a story on the elimination of the WAC I outshot every guy on the base at Fort McClellan (Canadian Bull targets, m-16 rifles.)

    I THINK that makes me considerably more knowledgable about guns than at least 95% of the guys posting here. [Edited]

    Men DO equate guns with penises. Show me a western where a woman has a shootout (on Main Street or the OK Corral or any fucking place) with a man or another woman, and I will consider that there MIGHT be exceptions.

    Which there are not.

    I am 100% against guns–not because the guns are bad, but because the limp-pricked bellicose braggards who use them ARE.

  • gonzo marx

    “the Quick and the Dead” is a western flick with a female gunslinger

    there was also “Bad Girls”…some females there involved in gunplay

    two given quickly to disprove an assertion

    Excelsior?

  • Clavos

    “And not once on this thread has anyone actually seen you defend the ownership or use of guns”

    I didn’t need to; you’re doing fine (if nastily) on your own.

    “I know a lot of long term gun owners who would sell out the handgun crowd in a nanosecond if they thought it meant they could keep their precious hunting rifles and shotguns.”

    Once again, you ASSUME; this time, that I have no handguns.

    “You’re the one who thought that the police was (sic) had a duty to protect each individual contrary to court opinions.”

    Actually, I’m not; I merely am the one that pointed out they paint the slogan on the cars. My actual opinion of the police is even lower than that of the federal government and congress: they’re all corrupt, and collectively the worst enemies of the american people; far more dangerous than OBL and his gang of clowns.

    “But note that you’re the one who didn’t have a clue as to how guns shows work and was more than willing to have the readers believe that something was “wrong” with them.”

    If asking, “What about private sales and gun shows” constitutes (or in any way indicates) that I “don’t have a clue” about them, then I guess you’re right.

    “You’re the one who thought that the police was had a duty to protect each individual contrary to court opinions.”

    I don’t recall asserting that. Citation?

    “You’re the one obsessing with fantasy bots from pro-gun websites trolling the ‘net.”

    If mentioning them ONCE is “obsessing,” then I guess you’re right.

    FACT: Bots exist, and they troll the internet looking for key words and alerting the thousands of sites that use them.

    FACT: We go for weeks without seeing the likes of you and your sycophants on this site. Then, when an article about gun control is published, you all appear like so many annoying mosquitoes, within minutes.

    “And you’re the one who was wrong about the majority of police not wanting the average person to have a CCW.”

    One citation from one survey doesn’t prove me wrong; it merely presents another perspective.

    “The only side I see you on is the same as the boozer…”

    Thanks for proving my point.

  • sr

    Travis#242. Dont hold your breath for the answer to your above question.

  • moonraven

    A REAL film, gonzo.

    Not someonebody’s home movie shot in the backyard.

    As usual, you perversely miss the point in everything.

  • gonzo marx

    the first film has Gene Hackman in it, a solid budget, for all that it was a crappy movie…find the details here.

    the second had plenty of top shelf folks as well, a Hollywood budget and was more fun than the first, details here

    had Drew Barrymore and others in it…not a great movie, but not something filmed in a back yard by any means

    so i guess you are forced to consider there “might be exceptions” to your pronouncements as you stated?

    THAT was my point…YOU made a bald broad brush assertion and defied anyone to prove you wrong…i did it in seconds…

    now, fess up and stand up…you’ll feel better

    Excelsior?

  • moonraven

    Gonzo–You are not going to convince somebody who spent as many years as a film critic as I did that she is wrong.

    Shit is shit.

    Take a look at ALL the classic westerns: High Noon, The Searchers, Gunfight at the OK Corral, My Darling Clementine, One-Eyed Jacks, The Wild Bunch, Pat Garrett and Bill the Kid, etc etc etc.

    Show me ONE where the guy’s virility was not centered on his gun.

    This is a serious topic, at least for me–and it’s rerally rather tiresome to have a professional trivialist like yourself shooting off his silly keyboard.

    All you have proven is that you have time on your hands.

  • sr

    Moonraven did you forget brokeback mountain. Of course they had guns of a different nature. Should we not mention war movies.

  • moonraven

    War movies are obvious–but they do not normally include one-to-one shootouts in the middle of a dirt street and western set. Westerns of that sort are the epitome of the “I’ll show you mine if you show me yours” statement of penis size.

    It also shows why men from the US are such bad fucks–fast isn’t best.

    Brokeback Mountain is not a CLASSIC western. It is a recent film.

  • gonzo marx

    yoiu asked for one example again…the Unforgiven…there you go

    proven twice wrong in the same day by a simple gonzo…must rile the feathers

    but thanks for demonstrating clearly that even when convincingly proven wrong about something you clearly state you would correct yourself about…you appear incapable of doing more than feebly attempting to shift the goalposts…

    oh yes..the Devil is in the details, any Trickster will tell you that…for a Price

    Excelsior?

  • sr

    According to Moonraven you American males are bad fucks. Makes me want to strap on my six guns partner.

  • Dr Dreadful

    SR: Draw, stranger.

    [narrows eyes to slits, adjusts hat, blows on fingers, adopts shooting stance while surreptitiously ensuring that designer stubble is of regulation length]

  • REMF

    “Show me ONE where the guy’s virility was not centered on his gun.”
    - moonraven

    Bronco Billy.

  • Lumpy

    Sounds to me like Moonraven has a case of gun envy.

  • Clavos

    A natural progression, Lumpy….

  • Leif Rakur

    To Oldsmoblogger, 250:

    You mention Saul Cornell’s views on the Second Amendment. In his book, “A Well Regulated Militia,” he says:

    “The original understanding of the Second Amendment was neither an individual right of self-defense nor a collective right of the states, but rather a civic right that guaranteed that citizens would be able to keep and bear those arms needed to meet their legal obligation to participate in a well regulated militia.”

    That sounds like a reasonable way of looking at the amendment to me.

    As for someone saying that Cornell had his lunch eaten — well, my experience is that such a statement rarely comes from an impartial observer.

    You post a Federal Farmer quote:

    Richard Henry Lee, of Virginia: “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms… The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.” — Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788

    I’m not sure what you are driving at with this quote. It shows that Federal Farmer believed a militia was important. The Second Amendment says the same thing.

    Federal Farmer expresses his opinion that the militia should include “all men capable of bearing arms.” An interesting aspect of this is that Federal Farmer is using “bearing arms” in its military meaning of “rendering military servce,” comparable to the way “bear arms” is used in the Second Amendment.

    By the phrase “all men capable of bearing arms,” Federal Farmer could not have meant “all men capable of carrying arms.” Seventy-year-olds and eighty-year-olds may be fully capable of “carrying” arms. They are just not capable of “bearing” arms, and so they are not militiamen.

    Where the context was purely military, as it is here and as it is in the Second Amendment, the term “bear arms” was understood as a reference to military service.

    In Federal Farmer 6 (December 25, 1787), the author lists 13 “unalienable or fundamental rights” existing in the United States. Among those rights, some individual and some not, is this:

    “The militia ought always to be armed and disciplined, and the usual defence of the country.”

    Many of the rights that would later appear in the Bill of Rights are included in Federal Farmer’s enumeration. But he lists nothing there at all about personal gun rights. Why do you suppose that is?

    James Madison didn’t really say in Federalist 46 quite what you posted. What you posted was this:

    “James Madison, of Virginia: The Constitution preserves “the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation . . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” — The Federalist, No. 46″

    Madison didn’t say in the lead-up to this passage anything about what “the Constitution preserves.”
    What he really said was this:

    “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.”

    Then Madison goes on to say that the kingdoms of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms and to say that if those kingdoms had local governments (states) and state militias like America, every European tyranny would be overturned.

    So what Madison is talking about here is the value of the state militia system and state governments, not the importance of individuals being armed for personal purposes.

    As for anyone with a militia view of the Second Amendment trying to refute Jefferson, not to worry. Jefferson understood the Second Amendment as a provision for the substitution of militia for a standing army. He never referred to the amendment as protection of arms for personal use.

  • moonraven

    Gonzo, Now you are just lying to try and be a bigshot on BC.

    I saw both films titled “The Unforgiven”–neither featured shootout on Main Street by women.

    The first (1960) had Burt Lancaster searching for Audrey Hepburn–it was sort of a cut-rate version of John Ford’s masterpiece, The Searchers.

    The Clint Eastwood 1992 version also did not have shoot outs of women gunslingers.

    The point is: Any guy who needs to have a gun to bolster his virility is missing something else–probably even 3 things.

    There are NO exceptions, oh limp ones.

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

    Not to be a pedant, but the title ‘The Unforgiven’ applies only to the Burt Lancaster film. The later film with Clint Eastwood is just ‘Unforgiven’.

    Dave

  • http://sailorcurt.blogspot.com Sailorcurt

    thus my entire point..it is the ENTIRE wording of the second amendment that needs discussion, the “well regulated militia” part being key, since they are the Object of the “shall not be infringed” portion

    Um…not. The object of “shall not be infringed” is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”.

    The “well regulated” refers to the militia, not the keeping an bearing of arms.

    So, even if “well regulated” means “legislated into non-existence”…that is referring to the militia, not the right. The assertion of the founders that the militia (well trained or under tight regulatory control…either way) is a necessary ingredient for a truly free state is a REASON that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    You assert that if the founders intended to say “well trained” they would have. If so, then it follows that, had they intended to say “the right of the states to maintain a well regulated militia shall not be infringed”, that’s what they would have said.

    They didn’t.

    moonraven: Might I be so bold as to recommend some Midol?

    Also, it occurs to me that, when a pattern emerges, it is very likely caused by the most prevalent common denominator. If your observations with American males, considering your implied wide and varied experience with multitudes of subjects, result in a negative impression of their sexual prowess…perhaps the common denominator in the experiment was not the men in the equation?

    Just saying…