Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Bull Gator

Gun nutter sttrikes again

Recommended Posts

Consider this analog, from another web site:

 

 

"A well-educated electorate being necessary to the preservation of a free society, the right of the people to read and compose books shall not be infringed."

 

Obviously this does not mean that only well-educated voters have the right to read or write books. Nor does it mean that the right to read books of one's choosing can be restricted to only those subjects which lead to a well-educated electorate.

 

The purpose of this provision is: although not everyone may end up being well-educated, enough people will become well-educated to preserve a free society.

 

Nor can it be construed to deny one's pre-existing right to read books if there are not enough well-educated people to be found. The right to read books of one's choosing is not granted by the above statement. The rationale given is only one reason for not abridging that right, there are others as well.

 

 

 

Very clear example - and we have the Texas Schoolboard folks writing Jefferson out of the history books (he's not Christian enough) as well as writing creationism into them...and forcing our children to read them.

 

"Regulations" on books are enforced from the bottom to the top of society. If you want to pilot a plane, you NEED to study and prove you know the information from many a book. Same with passing a college class, law test, medical school, etc.

 

Our children - in their more formative years - are effectively banned from many ideas and books by their schools and parents.

 

So this relates to gun laws how? IMHO, it means that having regulations, tests, licenses, taxes and other such things are A-OK, just like Scalia said.

 

Could you point out the difference? Or more specifically, answer T or F.

 

1. A person should not be able to own a gun unless trained and certified in it's use

 

2. A person owning a gun should have liability insurance to protect the rest of society and others from possible misuse of their property.

 

3. Limits on the amount of guns owned by normal people (not collectors or sales folks) are within the realm of the 2nd Amendment.

 

4. Limits on the amount of ammo and the way it can be sold are within the second.

 

Those seem like very easy questions. I'd vote T on all 4. I think the courts would do the same...

 

Oh, lawsuits are starting in the CT case. Serious question here - WHO should pay? Be Specific.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or more specifically, answer T or F.

 

1. A person should not be able to own a gun unless trained and certified in it's use

 

2. A person owning a gun should have liability insurance to protect the rest of society and others from possible misuse of their property.

 

3. Limits on the amount of guns owned by normal people (not collectors or sales folks) are within the realm of the 2nd Amendment.

 

4. Limits on the amount of ammo and the way it can be sold are within the second.

 

Those seem like very easy questions. I'd vote T on all 4. I think the courts would do the same...

 

Oh, lawsuits are starting in the CT case. Serious question here - WHO should pay? Be Specific.

 

1. Demonstrate the need for this rule. It seems to me our problems are not the result of a lack of skill in firearms use, but the result of criminality in most cases and craziness in a few, neither of which can be fixed by training. Training could make criminals more effective with their guns, if criminals obeyed gun laws, but they do not.

 

2. Demonstrate the need for this rule. The vast majority of privately owned guns do no harm and the exceptions tend to be the result of criminality in most cases and craziness in a few, neither of which can be fixed by insurance.

 

3. Demonstrate the need for this rule. If I bought another gun today, would that mean I am more of a danger to society? I think not.

 

4. Demonstrate the need for this rule. Limiting ammo would limit the ability to practice, but I thought training was good up in reason number one. It would not solve any violence problems in our society any more than the rest would, since the amount of ammo used in most crimes is tiny compared to the amount needed for training. If anything, it would needlessly restrict training.

 

F, F, F, and F, at least until compelling reasons to infringe on our rights are given.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider this analog, from another web site:

 

 

"A well-educated electorate being necessary to the preservation of a free society, the right of the people to read and compose books shall not be infringed."

 

Obviously this does not mean that only well-educated voters have the right to read or write books. Nor does it mean that the right to read books of one's choosing can be restricted to only those subjects which lead to a well-educated electorate.

 

The purpose of this provision is: although not everyone may end up being well-educated, enough people will become well-educated to preserve a free society.

 

Nor can it be construed to deny one's pre-existing right to read books if there are not enough well-educated people to be found. The right to read books of one's choosing is not granted by the above statement. The rationale given is only one reason for not abridging that right, there are others as well.

 

 

 

Very clear example - and we have the Texas Schoolboard folks writing Jefferson out of the history books (he's not Christian enough) as well as writing creationism into them...and forcing our children to read them.

 

"Regulations" on books are enforced from the bottom to the top of society. If you want to pilot a plane, you NEED to study and prove you know the information from many a book. Same with passing a college class, law test, medical school, etc.

 

Our children - in their more formative years - are effectively banned from many ideas and books by their schools and parents.

 

So this relates to gun laws how? IMHO, it means that having regulations, tests, licenses, taxes and other such things are A-OK, just like Scalia said.

 

Could you point out the difference? Or more specifically, answer T or F.

 

1. A person should not be able to own a gun unless trained and certified in it's use

 

2. A person owning a gun should have liability insurance to protect the rest of society and others from possible misuse of their property.

 

3. Limits on the amount of guns owned by normal people (not collectors or sales folks) are within the realm of the 2nd Amendment.

 

4. Limits on the amount of ammo and the way it can be sold are within the second.

 

Those seem like very easy questions. I'd vote T on all 4. I think the courts would do the same...

 

Oh, lawsuits are starting in the CT case. Serious question here - WHO should pay? Be Specific.

 

Why do you despise law abiding firearm owners? Especially since they make up about half of America's population?.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or more specifically, answer T or F.

 

1. A person should not be able to own a gun unless trained and certified in it's use

 

2. A person owning a gun should have liability insurance to protect the rest of society and others from possible misuse of their property.

 

3. Limits on the amount of guns owned by normal people (not collectors or sales folks) are within the realm of the 2nd Amendment.

 

4. Limits on the amount of ammo and the way it can be sold are within the second.

 

Those seem like very easy questions. I'd vote T on all 4. I think the courts would do the same...

 

Oh, lawsuits are starting in the CT case. Serious question here - WHO should pay? Be Specific.

 

1. Demonstrate the need for this rule. It seems to me our problems are not the result of a lack of skill in firearms use, but the result of criminality in most cases and craziness in a few, neither of which can be fixed by training. Training could make criminals more effective with their guns, if criminals obeyed gun laws, but they do not.

 

2. Demonstrate the need for this rule. The vast majority of privately owned guns do no harm and the exceptions tend to be the result of criminality in most cases and craziness in a few, neither of which can be fixed by insurance.

 

3. Demonstrate the need for this rule. If I bought another gun today, would that mean I am more of a danger to society? I think not.

 

4. Demonstrate the need for this rule. Limiting ammo would limit the ability to practice, but I thought training was good up in reason number one. It would not solve any violence problems in our society any more than the rest would, since the amount of ammo used in most crimes is tiny compared to the amount needed for training. If anything, it would needlessly restrict training.

 

F, F, F, and F, at least until compelling reasons to infringe on our rights are given.

 

to your point # 3 liability insurace carried my the nutter could ease the financial and emotional damage to the fathers family. same in the case of TM who was murdered by the otherwise penniless GZ

 

I have schooled you again!

 

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/article1124311.ece

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...it works like this over here: the Bill of Rights don't give US citizens a damn thing.

 

These rights, known as Civil Rights, are believed to be the rights of all people - even you - just because you were born. Examine the wording of each and its clear that they don't generate that which was not there before; rather, they each place a limit upon what the government can do.

 

<snip>

 

This may articulate some points better as well -

http://polyticks.com...ms/emb2nda2.htm

 

That's how it works. Don't like the way we do things here? Grab your rakes, torches, and pitchforks and come 'round and overthrow our system and start it over. Though there is a legal way to change the Constitution. If the gun+control-freak camp weren't so dishonest in their stated wishes, they'd simply fight toward that goal and let the chips fall where they may. .

 

Thank you for making your case as to why nothing of the 2nd can be change.

 

 

 

Great strawman appeal there. I clearly, above, cited a remedy. One remedy among others, that might actually have teeth. Do look for it.

 

 

It would appear to me that the 2nd amendment was drafted over 200 years ago and is a very simple statement of an American's right.

 

The gun lobby would have us believe there is the one concrete meaning, yet constitutional lawyers by their 100s (1000s?) are arguing the intent of the `right' as drafted, even as we speak.

 

200 or 2,000 years ago, human nature has not changed. An unarmed man can be attacked with more confidence than an armed one, said a philosopher much longer ago than this country was even thought of. By many centuries.

 

Didn't read the link, either, did we? Here's part of it, highly relevant to the discussion (though the whole Levinson paper is worth reading, even if just to pass the time in the head -

 

 

 

II. The Rhetorical Structures of the Right to Bear Arms

 

My colleague Philip Bobbitt has, in his book Constitutional Fate, [30]spelled out six approaches -- or "modalities," as he terms them -- of constitutional argument. These approaches, he argues, comprise what might be termed our legal grammar. They are the rhetorical structures within which "law-talk" as a recognizable form of conversation is carried on. The six are as follows:

 

1) textual argument -- appeals to the unadorned language of the text; [31]

 

2) historical argument -- appeals to the historical background of the vision being considered, whether the history considered be general, such as background but clearly crucial events (such as the American Revolution). or specific appeals to the so-called intentions of framers; [32]

 

3) structural argument -- analyses inferred from the particular structures established by the Constitution, including the tripartite division of the national government; the separate existence of both state and nation as political entities; and the structured role of citizens within the political order; [33]

 

4) doctrinal argument -- emphasis on the implications of prior cases decided by the Supreme Court; [34]

 

5) prudential argument -- emphasis on the consequences of adopting a proferred decision in any given case; [35]

 

6) ethical argument -- reliance on the overall "ethos" of limited government as centrally constituting American political culture. [36]

 

I want to frame my consideration of the Second Amendment within the first five of Bobbitt's categories; they are all richly present in consideration of the Amendment might mean. The sixth, which emphasizes the ethos of limited government, doe s not play a significant role in the debate of the Second Amendment. [37]

 

A. Text

 

I begin with the appeal to text. Recall the Second Amendment: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." No one has ever described the Constitution as a marvel of clarity, and the Second Amendment is perhaps one of the worst drafted of all its provisions. What is special about the Amendment is the inclusion of an opening clause -- a preamble, if you will -- that seems to set out its purpose. No similar clause is part of any other Amendment, [38]though that does not, of course, mean that we do not ascribe purposes to them. It would be impossible to make sense of the Constitution if we did not engage in the ascription of purpose. Indeed, the major debates about The First Amendment arise precisely when one tries to discern a purpose, given that "literalism" is a hopelessly failing approach to interpreting it. We usually do not even recognize punishment of fraud -- a classic speech act -- as a free speech problem because we so sensibly assume that the purpose of the First Amendment could not have been, for example, to protect the circulation of patently deceptive information to potential investors in commercial enterprises. The sharp differences that distinguish those who would limit the reach of the First Amendment to "political" speech from those who would extend it much further, encompassing non-deceptive commercial speech, are all derived from different readings of the purpose that underlies the raw text. [39]

 

A standard move of those legal analysts who wish to limit the Second Amendment's force is to focus on its "preamble" as setting out a restrictive purpose. Recall Laurence Tribe's assertion that the purpose was to allow the states to keep their militias and to protect them against the possibility that the new national government will use its power to establish a powerful standing army and eliminate the state militias. This purposive reading quickly disposes of any notion that there is an "individual" right to keep and bear arms. The right, if such it be, is only a states's right. The consequence of this reading is obvious: the national government has the power to regulate--to the point of prohibition--private ownership of guns, since that has, by stipulation, nothing to do with preserving state militias. This is, indeed, the position of the ACLU, which reads the Amendment as protection only the right of "maintaining an effective state militia...[T]he individual's right to keep a nd bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated [state] militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected." [40]

 

This is not a wholly implausible reading, but one might ask why the Framers did not simply say something like "Congress shall have no power to prohibit state-organized and directed militias." Perhaps they in fact meant to do something else. Moreover, we might ask if ordinary readers of the late 18th Century legal prose would have interpreted it as meaning something else. The text at best provides only a starting point for a conversation. In this specific instance, it does not come close to resolving the questions posed by federal regulation of arms. Even if we accept the preamble as significant, we must still try to figure out what might be suggested by guaranteeing to "the people the right to keep and bear arms;" moreover, as we shall see presently, even the preamble presents unexpected difficulties in interpretation.

 

B. History

 

One might argue (and some have) that the substantive right is one pertaining to a collective body -- "the people"-- rather than to individuals. Professor Cress, for example, argues that state constitutions regularly use the words "man" or "person" in regard to "individual rights such as freedom of conscience," whereas the use in those constitutions of the term "the people" in regard to a right to bear arms is intended to refer to the "sovereign citizenry" collectively organized. [41] Such an argument founders, however, upon examination of the text of the federal Bill of Rights itself and the usage there of terms "the people" in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments.

 

Consider that the Fourth Amendment protects "[t]he right of he people to be secure in their persons," or that the First Amendment refers to the "right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It is difficult to know how one might plausibly read the Fourth Amendment as other than a protection of individual rights, and it would approach the frivolous to read the assembly and petition clause as referring only to the right of state legislators to meet and pass a remonstrance directed to Congress or the President against some government act. The Tenth Amendment is trickier, though it does explicitly differentiate between "state" and "the people" in terms of retained rights. [42] Concededly, it would be possible to read the Tenth Amendment as suggesting only an ultimate right revolution by the collective people should the "states" stray too far from their designated role of protecting the rights of the people. This reading follows directly from the social contract theory of the state.( But, of course, many of these rights are held by individuals.)

 

Although the record is suitably complicated, it seems tendentious to reject out of hand the argument that the one purpose of the Amendment was to recognize an individual's right to engage in armed self-defense against criminal conduct. [43] Historian Robert E. Shallhope supports this view, arguing in his article The Ideological Origins of the Second Amendment [44]that the Amendment guarantees individuals the right "to possess arms for their own personal defense." [45] It would be especially unsurprising if this were the case, given the fact that the development of a professional police force (even within large American cities) was still at least half a century away at the end of the colonial period . [46] I shall return later in this essay to this individualist notion of the Amendment, particularly in regard into the argument that "changing circumstances," including plausibility. But I want now to explore a second possible purpose of the Amendment, which as a sometime political theorist I find considerably more interesting.

 

Assume, as Professor Cress has argued, that the Second Amendment refers to a communitarian, rather than an individual right. [47] We are still left the task of defining the relationship between the community and the state apparatus. It is this fascinating problem to which I now turn.

 

Consider once more the preamble and its reference to the importance of a well-regulated militia. Is the meaning of the term obvious? Perhaps we should make some effort to find out what the term "militia" meant to 18th century readers and writers, rather than assume that it refers only to Dan Quayle's Indiana National Guard and the like. By no means am I arguing that the discovery of that meaning is dispositive as to the general meaning of the Constitution for us today. But it seems foolhardy to be entirely uninterested in the historical philology behind the Second Amendment.

 

I, for one, have been persuaded that the term "militia" did not have the limited reference that Professor Cress and many modern legal analysts assign to it. There is strong evidence that "militia" refers to all of the people, or least all of those treated as full citizens of the community. Consider, for example, the question asked by George Mason, one of the Virginians who refused to sign the Constitution because of its lack of a Bill of Rights: "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." [48] Similarly, the Federal Farmer, one of the most important Anti-Federalist opponents of the Constitution, referred to a "militia, when properly formed, [as] in fact the people themselves." [49] We have, of course, moved now from text to history. And this history is most interesting, especially when we look at the development of notions of popular sovereignty. It has become almost a cliche of contemporary American historiography to link the development of American political thought, including its constitutional aspects, to republican thought in England, the "country" critique of the powerful "court" centered in London.

 

One of the school's most important writers, of course, was James Harrington, who not only was in influential at the time but also has recently been given a certain pride of place by one of the most prominent of contemporary "neo-republicans," Professor Frank Michelman. [50] One historian describes Harrington as having made "the most significant contribution to English libertarian attitudes toward arms, the individual, and society." [51] He was a central figure in the development of the ideas of popular sovereignty and republicanism. [52] For Harrington, preservation of republican liberty requires independence, which rests primarily on possession of adequate property to make men free from coercion by employers or landlords. But widespread ownership of land is not sufficient. These independent yeoman would also bear arms. As Professor Morgan puts it, "[T]hese independent yeoman, armed and embodied in a militia, are also a popular government's best protection against its enemies, whether they be aggressive foreign monarchs or scheming demagogues within the nation itself." [53]

 

A central fear of Harrington and of all future republicans was a standing army, composed of professional soldiers. Harrington and his fellow republicans viewed a standing army as a threat to freedom, to be avoided at all almost all costs. Thus, says Morgan, "A militia is the only safe form of military power that a popular government can employ; and because it is composed of the armed yeomanry, it will prevail over the mercenary professionals who man the armies of neighboring monarchs." [54]

 

Scholars of the First Amendment have made us aware of the importance of John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, whose Cato's Letters were central to the formation of the American notion of freedom of the press. That notion includes what Vincent Blasi would come to call the "checking value" of a free press, which stands as a sturdy exposer of governmental misdeeds. [55] Consider the possibility, though, that the unlimited "checking value" in a republican polity is the ability of an armed populace, presumptively motivated by a shared commitment to the common good, to resist governmental tyranny. [56] Indeed, one of Cato's letters refers to "the Exercise of despotick Power [as] the unrelenting War of an armed Tyrant upon his unarmed subjects..." [57]

 

Cress persuasively shows that no one defended universal possession of arms. New Hampshire had no objection to disarming those who "are or have been in actual rebellion," just as Samuel Adams stressed that only "peaceable citizens" should be protected in their right of "keeping their own arms." [58] All these points can be conceded, however, without conceding as well that Congress -- or, for that matter, the States, -- had the power to disarm these "peaceable citizens."

 

Surely one of the foundations of American political thought of the period was the well-justified concern about political corruption and consequent governmental tyranny. Even the Federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of foisting an oppressive new scheme upon the American people, were careful to acknowledge the risk of tyranny. James Madison, for example, speaks in Federalist Number Forty- Six of "the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation." [59] The advantage in question was not merely the defense of American borders; a standing army might well accomplish that. Rather, an armed public was advantageous in protecting political liberty. It is therefore no surprise that the Federal Farmer, the nom de plume of an anti-federalist critic of the new Constitution and its absence of a Bill of Rights, could write that "to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always posses s arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..." [60] On this matter, at least, there was no cleavage between the pro-ratification Madison and his opponent.

 

In his influential Commentaries on the Constitution, Joseph Story, certainly no friend of Anti-Federalism, emphasized the "importance" of the Second Amendment.[61] He went on to describe the militia as the "natural defence of a free country" not only "against sudden foreign invasions" and "domestic insurrections," with which one might well expect a Federalist to be concerned, but also against "domestic usurpations of power by rulers." [62] "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered," Story wrote, "as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power by rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." [63]

 

We also see this blending of individualist and collective accounts of the right to bear arms in remarks by Judge Thomas Cooley, one of the most influential 19th century constitutional commentators. Noting that the state might call into its official militia only "a small number" of the eligible citizenry, Cooley wrote that "if the right [to keep and bear arms] were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check." [64] Finally, it is worth noting the remarks of Theodore Schroeder, one of the most important developers of the theory of freedom of speech early in this century. [65] "[T]he obvious import [of the constitutional guarantee to carry arms]," he argues, "is to promote a state of preparedness for self-defense even against the invasions of government, because only governments have ever disarmed any considerable class of people as a means toward their enslavement." [66]

 

Such analyses provide the basis for Edward Abbey's revision of a common bumper sticker, "If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns." [67] One of the things this slogan has helped me to understand is the political tilt contained within the Weberian definition of the state -- i.e., the repository of a monopoly of the legitimate means of violence 6 [68] -- that is so commonly used by political scientists. It is a profoundly statist definition, the product of a specifically German tradition of the (strong) state rather than of a strikingly different American political tradition that is fundamentally mistrustful of state power and vigilant about maintaining ultimate power, including the power of arms, in the populace.

 

We thus see what I think is one of the most interesting points in regard to the new historiography of the Second Amendment -- its linkage to conceptions of republican political order. Contemporary admirers of republican theory use it as a source of both critiques of more individualist liberal theory and of positive insight into the way we today might reorder our political lives. [69] One point of emphasis for neo-republicans is the value of participation in government, as contrasted to mere representation by a distant leadership, even if formally elected. But the implications of republicanism might push us in unexpected, even embarrassing, directions; just as ordinary citizens should participate actively in governmental decision-making, through offering their own deliberative insights, rather than be confined to casting ballots once every two or four years for those very few individuals who will actually make the decisions, so should ordinary citizens participate in the process of law enforcement and defense of liberty rather than rely on professionalized peacekeepers, whether we call them standing armies or police.

 

D. Structure

 

We have also passed imperceptibly into a form of structural argument, for we see that one aspect of the structure of checks and balances within the purview of 18th century thought was the armed citizen. That is, those who would limit the meaning of the Second Amendment to the constitutional protection of state-controlled militias agree that such protection rests on the perception that militarily competent states were viewed as a potential protection against a tyrannical national government. Indeed, in 1801 several governors threatened to call out state militias if the Federalists in Congress refused to elect Thomas Jefferson president. [70] But this argument assumes that there are only two basic components in the vertical structure of the American polity--the national government and the states. It ignores the implication that might be drawn from the Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments; the citizenry itself can be viewed as an important third component of republican governance insofar as it stands ready to defend republican liberty against the depredations of the other two structures, however futile that might appear as a practical matter.

 

One implication of this republican rationale for the Second Amendment is that it calls into question the ability of a state to disarm its citizenry. That is, the strongest version of the republican argument would hold it to be a "privilege and immunity of United States citizenship"--of membership in a liberty-enhancing political order -- to keep arms that could be taken up against tyranny wherever found, including, obviously, state government. Ironically, the principal citation supporting this argument is to Chief Justice [Roger] Taney's egregious opinion in Dred Scott, [71] where he suggested that an uncontroversial attribute of citizenship, in addition to the right migrate from one state to another, was the right to possess arms. The logic of Taney's argument at the point seems to be that, because it was inconceivable that the Framers could have genuinely imagined blacks having the right to possess arms, it follows that they could not have envisioned them as being citizens, since citizenship entailed the right. Taney's seeming recognition of a right to arms is much relied on by opponents of gun control. [72] Indeed, recall Madison's critique, in Federalist Numbers Ten and Fourteen, of republicanism's traditional emphasis on the desirability of small states as preservers of republican liberty. He transformed this debate by arguing that the states would be less likely to preserve liberty because they could so easily fall under the sway of a local dominant faction, whereas an extended republic would guard against this danger. Anyone who accepts the Madisonian argument could scarcely be happy enhancing the power of the states over their own citizens; indeed, this has been one of the great themes of American constitutional history, as the nationalism of the Bill of Rights has been deemed necessary in order to protect popular liberty against state depredation.

 

D. Doctrine

 

Inevitably one must at least mention, even though there is not space to discuss fully, the so-called incorporation controversy regarding the application of the Bill of Rights to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. It should be no surprise that the opponents of gun control appear to take a "full incorporationist" view of that Amendment. [73] They view the privileges and immunities clause, which was eviscerated in the Slaughterhouse Cases, [74] as designed to require the states to honor the rights that had been held, by Justice Marshall in Barron v. Baltimore in 1833, [75]to restrict only the national government. In 1875 the Court stated, in United States v. Cruickshank, [76] that the Second Amendment, insofar as it grants any right at all, "means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government..." Lest there be any remaining doubt on this point, the Court specifically cited the Cruickshank language eleven years later in Presser v. Illinois, [77]in rejecting the claim that the Second Amendment served to invalidate an Illinois statute that prohibited "any body of men whatever, other than the regular organized volunteer militia of this State, and the troops of the United States....to drill or parade with arms in any city, or town, of this State, without the license of the Governor thereof..." [78]

 

The first "incorporation decision," Chicago, B & Q.R.Co. v. Chicago, [79] was not delivered until eleven years after Presser; one therefore cannot know if the judges in Cruickshank and Presser were willing to concede that any of the amendments comprising the Bill of Rights were anything more than limitations on congressional or other national power. The obvious question, given the modern legal reality of the incorporation of almost all of the right s protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments, is what exactly justifies treating the Second Amendment as the great exception. Why, that is, could Cruickshank and Presser be regarded as binding precedent any more than any of the other "pre-incorporation" decisions refusing to apply given aspects of the BIll of Rights against the states?

 

If one agrees with Professor Tribe that the Amendment is simply a federalist protection of state rights, then presumably there is nothing to incorporate. [80] If, however, one accepts the Amendment as a serious substantive limitation on the ability of the national government to regulate the private possession of arms based on either the "individualist" or the "new-republican" theories sketched above, then why not follow the "incorporationist" logic applied to other amendments a nd limit the states as well in their powers to regulate (and especially to prohibit) such possession? The Supreme Court has almost shamelessly refused to discuss the issue, [81]but that need not stop the rest of us.

 

Returning, though, to the question of Congress' power to regulate the keeping and bearing of arms, one notes that there is, basically, only one modern case that discusses the issue, United States v. Miller, [82] decided in 1939 . Jack Miller was charged with moving a sawed-off shotgun in interstate commerce in violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934. Among other things, Miller and a compatriot had not registered the firearm, as required by the Act. The court below ha d dismissed the charge, accepting Miller's argument that the Act violated the Second Amendment.

 

The Supreme Court reversed unanimously, with the arch- conservative Justice McReynolds writing the opinion. [83]Interestingly enough, he emphasized that there was no evidence showing that a sawed- off shotgun "at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." [84]And "[c]ertainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute t o the common defense."[85] Miller might have had a tenable argument had he been able to show that he was keeping or bearing a weapon that clearly had a potential military use. [86]

 

Justice McReynolds went on to describe the purpose of the Second Amendment as "assur[ing] the constitution and render[ing] possible the effectiveness of [the militia]. [87] He contrasted the Militia with troops of a standing army, which the Constitution indeed forbade the states to keep without the explicit consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia -- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion." [88] McReynolds noted further that "the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators how plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."[89]

 

It is difficult to read Miller as rendering the Second Amendment meaningless as a control on Congress. Ironically, MIller can be read to support some of the most extreme anti-gun control arguments, e.g., that the individual citizen has a right to keep and bear bazookas, rocket launchers, and other armaments that are clearly relevant to modern warfare, including, of course, assault weapons. Arguments about the constitutional legitimacy of a prohibition by Congress of private ownership of handguns or, what is much more likely, assault rifles, might turn on the usefulness of such guns in military settings.

 

E. Prudentialism

 

WE have looked at four of Bobbitt's categories -- text, history, structure, and case law doctrine -- and have seen, at the very least, that the arguments on behalf of a "strong" Second Amendment are stronger than many of us might wish were the case. This, then, brings us up to the fifth category, prudentialism, or an attentiveness to the practical consequences, which is clearly of great importance in any debate about gun control. The standard argument in favor of strict control and, ultimately, prohibition of private ownership focuses on the extensive social costs of widespread distribution of firearms. Consider, for example, a recent speech given by former Justice Lewis Powell to the American Bar Association.He noted that over 40, 000 murders were committed in the United States in 1986 and 1987, and that fully sixty percent of them were committed with firearms. [90]Justice Powell indicated that "[w]ith respect to handguns," in contrast "to sporting rifles and shotguns [,] it is not easy to understand why the Second Amendment, or the notation of liberty, should be viewed as creating a right to own and carry a weapon that contributes so directly to the shocking number of murders in our society." [91]

 

It is hard to disagree with Justice Powell; it appears almost crazy to protect as a constitutional right something that so clearly results in extraordinary social cost with little, if any, compensating social advantage. Indeed, since Justice Powell's talk, the subject of assault rifles has become a staple of national discussion, and the opponents of regulation of such weapons have deservedly drawn the censure of even conservative leaders like William Bennett. It is almost impossible to imagine that the judiciary would strike down a determination by Congress that the possession of assault weapons should be denied to private citizens.

 

Even if one accepts the historical plausibility of the arguments advanced above, the overriding temptation is to say that times and circumstances have changed and that there is simply no reason to continue enforcing an outmoded, and indeed, dangerous, understanding of private rights against public order. This criticism is clearest in regard to the so-called individualist argument, for one can argue that the rise of a professional police force to enforce the law has made irrelevant, and perhaps even counter-productive, the continuation of a strong notion of self-help as the remedy for crime. [92]

 

I am not unsympathetic to such arguments. It is no purpose of this essay to solicit membership for the National Rifle Association or to express any sympathy for what even Don Kates, a strong critic of the conventional dismissal of the Second Amendment, describes as "the gun lobby's obnoxious habit of assailing all forms of regulation on 2nd Amendment grounds." [93] And yet... Circumstances may well have changed in regard to individual defense, although we ignore at our political peril the good faith belief of many Americans that they cannot rely on the police for protection against a variety of criminals. Still, l et us assume that the individualist reading of the Amendment has been vitiated by changing circumstances. Are we quite so confident that circumstances are equally different in regard to the republican rationale outlined earlier?

 

One would, of course, like to believe that the state, whether at the local or national level, presents no threat to important political values, including liberty. But our propensity to believe that this is the case may be little more than a sign of how truly different we are from our radical forbearers. I do not want to argue that the state is necessarily tyrannical; I am not an anarchist. But it seems foolhardy to assume that the armed state will necessarily be benevolent. The American political tradition is, for good or ill, based in large measure on a healthy mistrust of the state. The development of widespread suffrage and greater majoritarianism in our polity is itself no sure protection, at least within republican theory. The republican theory is predicated on the stark contrast between mere democracy, where people are motivated by selfish personal interest, and a republic, where civic virtue, both in common citizen and leadership, tames selfishness on behalf of the common good. In any event, it is hard for me to see how one can argue that circumstances have so changed us as to make mass disarmament constitutionally unproblematic. [94] Indeed, only in recent months have we seen the brutal suppression of the Chinese student demonstrations in Tiananmen Square. It should not surprise us that some NRA sympathizers have presented that situation as an abject lesson to those who unthinkingly support the prohibition of private gun ownership. "f all Chinese citizens kept arms, their rulers would hardly have dared to massacre the demonstrators... The private keeping of hand-held personal firearms is within the constitutional design for a counter to government run amok... As the Tianamen Square tragedy showed so graphically, AK 47's fall into that category of weapons, and that is why they are protected by the Second Amendment." [95] It is simply silly to respond that small arms are irrelevant against nuclear armed states; Witness contemporary Northern Ireland and the territories occupied by Israel, where the sophisticated weaponry of Great Britain and Israel have proved almost totally beside the point. The fact that these may not be pleasant examples does not affect the principal point, that a state facing a totally disarmed population is in a far better position, for good or ill, to suppress popular demonstrations and uprisings than one that must calculate the possibilities of its soldiers and officials being injured or killed. [96]

 

---------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

If we are to assume that laws or structures of government are obsolete and therefore may be ignored outright, then we leave open the door to the same abuse reinterpretation of any one of the others; henceforth, that is why my recommendation is that the gun ban people strongly support a Constitutional convention and move for repeal. Then, they and their elk can draft a new format of firearms laws that stipulate and specify all the restrictions they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider this analog, from another web site:

 

 

"A well-educated electorate being necessary to the preservation of a free society, the right of the people to read and compose books shall not be infringed."

 

Obviously this does not mean that only well-educated voters have the right to read or write books. Nor does it mean that the right to read books of one's choosing can be restricted to only those subjects which lead to a well-educated electorate.

 

The purpose of this provision is: although not everyone may end up being well-educated, enough people will become well-educated to preserve a free society.

 

Nor can it be construed to deny one's pre-existing right to read books if there are not enough well-educated people to be found. The right to read books of one's choosing is not granted by the above statement. The rationale given is only one reason for not abridging that right, there are others as well.

 

 

 

So this relates to gun laws how?

 

 

 

It's nothing at all to do with comparing guns to speech; it's about interpretation of the way we settle constitutional questions. Therefore, if you're willing to answer "true" to the original questions asked, then one must also be willing to support these in kind, as thus:

 

1. A person should not be able to own a book unless trained and certified in it's use

 

2. A person owning a printing press should have liability insurance to protect the rest of society and others from possible misuse of their property.

 

3. Limits on the amount of pens owned by normal people (not collectors or sales folks) are within the realm of the 1st Amendment.

 

4. Limits on the amount of paper and printer ink and the way it can be sold are within the First.

 

 

Oh, lawsuits are starting in the CT case. Serious question here - WHO should pay? Be Specific.

 

The people who committed the crime. In theory, a little should be contributed by the media, collectively, for making celebrities out of them; remember, the gun control people tell us that no freedom is absolute and if abuse of freedoms is an actionable thing, then it's actionable both ways. And also, those who wrote the "gun-free" zone law. I don't know their names. Though, there is no way to quantify the damage done by these two factors in a way that would express monetary liability. They're just stupid things to have around, whether you could sue because of them or not.

 

The WHO is an interesting assumption to begin with - there is not necessarily a lawsuit remedy for everything. Can anyone say there is a dollar amount that would make any one of us hurt less, to have lost a friend or relative like this? The best remedy for these peoples' losses is to make it stop, as I've been saying for years (not just since Sandy Hook). Change the system. Do what can be done at this time, right now. Examples are above. There's plenty of time to circumvent the accepted interpretation of the outdated document in the coming months, years, whatever. There's plenty of time to enact bans, mandate psych tests, all that crap.... but the press can STFU any time of their own choosing, and, the people who want to maintain further "gun-free" zones can accept the liability for denying existing permit-holders (i.e. Va Tech prof) the exercise of their self-taken responsibility, anyplace they have a legal right to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Kansas gun nut shoots intruder in his home

 

I'm thinking it might be time to demonstrate once again that I really can post a steady stream of these, so here they come. This seems like a good thread for them.

 

That would be awesome. Could you give us 27?

 

Sorry for the delay, I've been busy. Has anyone been keeping count? I haven't but I guess about 6-8 examples have been posted in response to your question, not counting ones posted that preceded the question. Only new self defense stories.

 

As always, there are plenty more. Two for today:

 

Woman hiding with kids shoots intruder

 

She emptied her gun into him, hitting face and neck, but that did not stop him from fleeing the scene after she did. He was soon captured.

 

Burglar stopped by chicks with pink gun

 

His own defense attorney called him a "career criminal" but his career took a bad turn when he decided to victimize the wrong people: armed ones. They held him at gunpoint until the cops came to get him. No shots fired. Is that a defensive gun use? I think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I think you meant it as a joke ... which makes you a heartless prick.

 

That time of the month for ya, huh? Time for you to try the new ManTex, the male menstruating device that sops up not only your tofu scented unicorn tears, but your estrogenic emotions. But hurry, supplies are limited......

 

Pssst, ricky - I think pinnoccio is a chick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I think you meant it as a joke ... which makes you a heartless prick.

 

That time of the month for ya, huh? Time for you to try the new ManTex, the male menstruating device that sops up not only your tofu scented unicorn tears, but your estrogenic emotions. But hurry, supplies are limited......

 

Pssst, ricky - I think pinnoccio is a chick.

 

Then she's in the wrong place if she's looking for Oprahness Niceyness....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's nothing at all to do with comparing guns to speech; it's about interpretation of the way we settle constitutional questions. Therefore, if you're willing to answer "true" to the original questions asked, then one must also be willing to support these in kind, as thus:

 

1. A person should not be able to own a book unless trained and certified in it's use

 

2. A person owning a printing press should have liability insurance to protect the rest of society and others from possible misuse of their property.

 

3. Limits on the amount of pens owned by normal people (not collectors or sales folks) are within the realm of the 1st Amendment.

 

4. Limits on the amount of paper and printer ink and the way it can be sold are within the First.

 

 

 

Devil's advocate, here, but what about TV & radio broadcasts? The FCC limits what words you're allowed to say, and what movies you can show...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That Frenchie, is a licensing issue. That is to say the FCC has the right to set guidelines in order to obtain and hold a broadcast license. In essence they are not restricting speech. You can say whatever you like, so long as you don't use an assigned frequency to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not seeing how that invalidates the analogy.

 

No, but cable does.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Kansas gun nut shoots intruder in his home

 

I'm thinking it might be time to demonstrate once again that I really can post a steady stream of these, so here they come. This seems like a good thread for them.

 

That would be awesome. Could you give us 27?

 

Today's armed self defense stories included:

 

Burglars detained by neighbor armed with shotgun after stealing from his neighbor

 

No shots fired and he was not defending himself, but defending property from criminals is a public service and it is unlikely he could have persuaded them not to run away if he had a knife or a bat or some other weapon. Even though bats, hammers and other blunt instruments are used in more murders each year than rifles, they are not as good as guns for combating crime, which is why cops have holsters and carpenters have hammer loops.

 

And another defense of property story:

 

Hotel worker grabs her gun from her lunchbox and scares away would-be robbers

 

Again demonstrating the superiority of guns over other weapons and the ultimate truth that Sam Colt made us equal. It's hard to imagine a woman scaring off two men with any tool other than a gun, but this one and others like her manage it with guns all the time. No shots fired, no one hurt, criminals still at large.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Kansas gun nut shoots intruder in his home

 

I'm thinking it might be time to demonstrate once again that I really can post a steady stream of these, so here they come. This seems like a good thread for them.

 

That would be awesome. Could you give us 27?

 

Today's armed self defense stories included:

 

Burglars detained by neighbor armed with shotgun after stealing from his neighbor

 

No shots fired and he was not defending himself, but defending property from criminals is a public service and it is unlikely he could have persuaded them not to run away if he had a knife or a bat or some other weapon. Even though bats, hammers and other blunt instruments are used in more murders each year than rifles, they are not as good as guns for combating crime, which is why cops have holsters and carpenters have hammer loops.

 

And another defense of property story:

 

Hotel worker grabs her gun from her lunchbox and scares away would-be robbers

 

Again demonstrating the superiority of guns over other weapons and the ultimate truth that Sam Colt made us equal. It's hard to imagine a woman scaring off two men with any tool other than a gun, but this one and others like her manage it with guns all the time. No shots fired, no one hurt, criminals still at large.

 

Oops! looks like all the stories don't exactly have a happy ending:

 

A 29-year-old Blair man was taken into emergency protective custody Sunday night after he allegedly shot up his home with a shotgun because he thought burglars were outside.

 

Capt. Kevin Willis of the Washington County Sheriff’s Office said the man was taken into custody without incident, and no injuries were reported. Willis declined to release the name of the man, whom he characterized as being “very distraught” because he thought burglars were trying to break into his home.

 

The man, who was alone, was taken into custody without incident about 15 minutes after law enforcement officers arrived on the scene. He was taken to an Omaha hospital for psychiatric evaluation.

 

Deputies were called to the Country Estates Mobile Home Park about a half mile south of Blair at 11:45 p.m. after someone called 911 to report numerous shots being fired. Willis said deputies reported hearing several shots fired as they set up a perimeter and began to evacuate neighbors.

 

 

Read more: http://www.omaha.com/article/20130107/NEWS/701089969/1707#man-thinks-burglars-are-outside-shoots-up-home

 

Sam Colt woulda held his head in shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The man, who was alone, was taken into custody without incident about 15 minutes after law enforcement officers arrived on the scene. He was taken to an Omaha hospital for psychiatric evaluation.

 

Deputies were called to the Country Estates Mobile Home Park about a half mile south of Blair at 11:45 p.m. after someone called 911 to report numerous shots being fired. Willis said deputies reported hearing several shots fired as they set up a perimeter and began to evacuate neighbors.

 

Thanks for once again proving that the common thread here is mental illness. When is Diane Feincunt going to submit her mental health overhaul bill?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that One Goh bloke has been evaluated as not fit for trial due to mental illness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Oops! looks like all the stories don't exactly have a happy ending:

 

A 29-year-old Blair man was taken into emergency protective custody Sunday night after he allegedly shot up his home with a shotgun because he thought burglars were outside.

 

Capt. Kevin Willis of the Washington County Sheriff’s Office said the man was taken into custody without incident, and no injuries were reported. Willis declined to release the name of the man, whom he characterized as being “very distraught” because he thought burglars were trying to break into his home.

 

The man, who was alone, was taken into custody without incident about 15 minutes after law enforcement officers arrived on the scene. He was taken to an Omaha hospital for psychiatric evaluation.

 

Deputies were called to the Country Estates Mobile Home Park about a half mile south of Blair at 11:45 p.m. after someone called 911 to report numerous shots being fired. Willis said deputies reported hearing several shots fired as they set up a perimeter and began to evacuate neighbors.

 

 

Read more: http://www.omaha.com...-shoots-up-home

 

Sam Colt woulda held his head in shame.

 

Good guys with guns stopped a crazy guy with a gun, which is the way that they generally get stopped. No person was hurt. Seems a happy ending to me. What's unhappy about that ending?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's nothing at all to do with comparing guns to speech; it's about interpretation of the way we settle constitutional questions. Therefore, if you're willing to answer "true" to the original questions asked, then one must also be willing to support these in kind, as thus:

 

1. A person should not be able to own a book unless trained and certified in it's use

 

2. A person owning a printing press should have liability insurance to protect the rest of society and others from possible misuse of their property.

 

3. Limits on the amount of pens owned by normal people (not collectors or sales folks) are within the realm of the 1st Amendment.

 

4. Limits on the amount of paper and printer ink and the way it can be sold are within the First.

 

 

 

Devil's advocate, here, but what about TV & radio broadcasts? The FCC limits what words you're allowed to say, and what movies you can show...

 

 

Sorry about the late response.

 

As #6 suggests, the FCC isn't telling us that we may not speak (or pray or vote, etc). Their function is to regulate a finite resource, the failure to do so resulting in a failure of the science behind it. During the earliest days of broadcast (and communications) radio, there was pretty much a free-for-all during which only a limited number of entities could successfully operate, at least to do so and be received reliably. Starting with the Communications Act of 1912 (guess what "sparked" that law...) and upward, the intention in both 2-way comms and in broadcasting has been to ensure that the interests of the public are served, and not just those with the best antennae or the more powerful vacuum tubes.

 

CB radio in the late 70's to mid 80's is a somewhat more contemporary example of what happens when a licensing system is not enforced, then abandoned, and the whole deal left to work itself out on it's own. Chaos.

 

Newspapers, on the other hand, don't consume public space per se. 100 different publishers are free to compete with the local market. None of them, through the finite laws of physics, will stop any of the others from finding an audience if they contain material that the public wants to read. As a matter of fact, letters to the editor may be refused or even edited for clarity censored, because theirs is not a public resource. Don't like what the paper has to say or it's policies, we can start our own.

 

It could be argued that, while the needs of radio brought about technical standards and licensing, it has resulted in more people being able to share ideas rather than fewer... because the system works (more or less), rather than being a huge clusterfuck of people trying to shout over top of one another.

 

I would rack up those 7+ "dirty words" and bare titties on broadcast TV as one of those "compromises" we're so often asked to accept. Sure, the comparison will never be physically equal (as in, why are bare tits equal to a silencer??) but, as it concerns the protection of rights versus the establishment of privileges, we have accepted certain limitations to absolute freedom on our shared roadways, in our skies (i.e. FAA) and on our shared airwaves alike and yet, you may drive, swim, sail, or cuss on your own land as much as you like.

 

So, why do people object to licensing guns or their owners the way we accept FCC, FAA, or DMV licenses? This has been covered ad nauseum. To review, there is no demonstrated pattern of action in history that links licensing these other things, with a later action to close the licensing process, shut down the registry, or to even collect up the licensed objects. And since human nature is the same now as it was, back when an ancient man said that a disarmed man can be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man, many of us do not feel like taking the Dianne Fuckstooge types' word for it that their cause is purely benevolent. Licensing of firearms all but never results in greater numbers of persons being able to benefit from the system. It's kind of the opposite, really. By design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Kansas gun nut shoots intruder in his home

 

I'm thinking it might be time to demonstrate once again that I really can post a steady stream of these, so here they come. This seems like a good thread for them.

 

That would be awesome. Could you give us 27?

 

Home owner shoots two of three home invaders

 

Violent attack on pharmacy thwarted by gun nutter one criminal assumes room temperature, the other still at large

 

Robber shot by CWP holder

 

That last story doesn't seem quite right to me.

 

While Smith was handing over a small amount of cash, he pulled his gun out of a holster, said detective Brian Boesch of the Columbus police robbery squad. Smith is a concealed-carry permit holder, Boesch said.

 

The robber fled, police said, but then pointed his gun back at Smith as he ran.

 

“When I pulled my pistol he took off running and I shot and it hit him,” Smith later told a 911 dispatcher.

 

Hmmm. It's not that easy to hit someone with a pistol, especially while running the other way. Based on the comment to the 911 dispatcher, it seems like he might have shot the guy and later decided to add the bit about the fleeing robber pointing his gun back at him as justification. But maybe the robber did point his gun back at him. Stranger things have happened.

 

Sorry it is taking so long to reach the 27 number you requested, Sol, but we'll get there soon enough. By the way, why 27?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Kansas gun nut shoots intruder in his home

 

I'm thinking it might be time to demonstrate once again that I really can post a steady stream of these, so here they come. This seems like a good thread for them.

 

That would be awesome. Could you give us 27?

 

15 year old shoots home invaders with mean looking AR-15

 

He protected himself and his 12 year old sister, who was home at the time. The criminals were later apprehended when they went to the hospital with gunshot wounds, as is often the ending of such stories. Good thing he knew where the gun was and how to use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Kansas gun nut shoots intruder in his home

 

I'm thinking it might be time to demonstrate once again that I really can post a steady stream of these, so here they come. This seems like a good thread for them.

 

That would be awesome. Could you give us 27?

 

Georgia home owner comes home to find man armed with shotgun in his home. He used his own pistol to disarm the perp, but the criminal foolishly decided to charge at him when he called the cops. Perp perforated with own shotgun. Don't break into homes and don't charge at someone who is holding a shotgun on you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't bring a cattle prod to a gunfight

 

Armed store clerk thwarts robber who was armed with a cattle prod

 

The Leon County Sheriff's Office says 27-year-old Lance Tomberlin went into a store just outside Tallahassee on January 2, produced the cattle prod and demanded money from the clerk. Officials say he shocked the clerk several times before the clerk pulled a handgun.

 

 

No shots fired and the robber escaped but was later caught by police.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't bring a cattle prod to a gunfight

 

Armed store clerk thwarts robber who was armed with a cattle prod

 

The Leon County Sheriff's Office says 27-year-old Lance Tomberlin went into a store just outside Tallahassee on January 2, produced the cattle prod and demanded money from the clerk. Officials say he shocked the clerk several times before the clerk pulled a handgun.

 

 

No shots fired and the robber escaped but was later caught by police.

 

That story really mooooved me.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not everyone banging on your door is a harmless burglar

 

Sometimes they react to being scared off by an occupant of the home by shooting at said occupant. This is one of many reasons why several of us in the Home Defense thread said that perhaps trying to scare off a person banging on the door could be hazardous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you let them know you are home, they'll go away.

 

Unless they don't, in which case a gun is a good tool to have around.

 

Around 1:45 a.m. Sunday the Davenport family awoke to a banging at the front door. They asked the man what he wanted and he made it clear-- he wanted inside. From there, they called police and jumped into action to protect themselves.

 

"My husband said police are on the way, I have a weapon and the guy said 'F that I'm coming in this house' and he was breaking the glass and he had his arm inside the house trying to unlock the door," homeowner Melissa Davenport said.

 

The gun owners subdued the assailant until police could arrive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you let them know you are home, they'll go away.

 

Unless they don't, in which case a gun is a good tool to have around.

 

Around 1:45 a.m. Sunday the Davenport family awoke to a banging at the front door. They asked the man what he wanted and he made it clear-- he wanted inside. From there, they called police and jumped into action to protect themselves.

 

"My husband said police are on the way, I have a weapon and the guy said 'F that I'm coming in this house' and he was breaking the glass and he had his arm inside the house trying to unlock the door," homeowner Melissa Davenport said.

 

The gun owners subdued the assailant until police could arrive.

 

I saw no mention of them using the words "please" or "simon says" in that article. It is almost like they wanted him to break in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

If you let them know you are home, they'll go away.

 

Unless they don't, in which case a gun is a good tool to have around.

 

Around 1:45 a.m. Sunday the Davenport family awoke to a banging at the front door. They asked the man what he wanted and he made it clear-- he wanted inside. From there, they called police and jumped into action to protect themselves.

 

"My husband said police are on the way, I have a weapon and the guy said 'F that I'm coming in this house' and he was breaking the glass and he had his arm inside the house trying to unlock the door," homeowner Melissa Davenport said.

 

The gun owners subdued the assailant until police could arrive.

 

I saw no mention of them using the words "please" or "simon says" in that article. It is almost like they wanted him to break in.

 

That poor assailant, we only need to understand the reasons WHY he wanted to open that door... maybe there was a Scooby Snack inside? Walk in his moccasins. ...

 

Clearly he was lured into the house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't bring a cattle prod to a gunfight

 

Armed store clerk thwarts robber who was armed with a cattle prod

 

The Leon County Sheriff's Office says 27-year-old Lance Tomberlin went into a store just outside Tallahassee on January 2, produced the cattle prod and demanded money from the clerk. Officials say he shocked the clerk several times before the clerk pulled a handgun.

 

 

No shots fired and the robber escaped but was later caught by police.

 

That story really mooooved me.....

 

Udderly rickdickulous.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you let them know you are home, they'll go away.

 

Unless they don't, in which case a gun is a good tool to have around.

 

 

Mark, what say you? I'll bet you liked that the homeowner fired two warning shots instead of just killing him. That's a fuckload more generous than I would have been.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The gun owners subdued the assailant until police could arrive.

 

Several East Ridge officers arrived on scene within four minutes of the call and arrested Scruggs.

 

It reinforces the old saying that goes: "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

 

In that four minutes, the homeowner "fought" with the assailant and fired two different warning shots and then finally cornered him on the porch. I find the "fighting" with a guy trying to come through your door and warning shots to be exceedingly stupid decisions on the homeowner's part..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

oh well, when your support is behind the criminal anything goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't bring a cattle prod to a gunfight

 

Armed store clerk thwarts robber who was armed with a cattle prod

 

The Leon County Sheriff's Office says 27-year-old Lance Tomberlin went into a store just outside Tallahassee on January 2, produced the cattle prod and demanded money from the clerk. Officials say he shocked the clerk several times before the clerk pulled a handgun.

 

 

No shots fired and the robber escaped but was later caught by police.

 

So....... the robber bolted the scene but failed to get a whole lot of ground afterwards?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The gun owners subdued the assailant until police could arrive.

 

Several East Ridge officers arrived on scene within four minutes of the call and arrested Scruggs.

 

It reinforces the old saying that goes: "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

 

In that four minutes, the homeowner "fought" with the assailant and fired two different warning shots and then finally cornered him on the porch. I find the "fighting" with a guy trying to come through your door and warning shots to be exceedingly stupid decisions on the homeowner's part..

 

I was never taught to fire a warning shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you let them know you are home, they'll go away.

 

Unless they don't, in which case a gun is a good tool to have around.

 

 

Mark, what say you? I'll bet you liked that the homeowner fired two warning shots instead of just killing him. That's a fuckload more generous than I would have been.....

 

I can fill in for him. 18 years ago, Wayne said bad stuff about federal agents. There's your answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another school shooting :(/>

 

http://www.foxnews.c...ntucky-college/

 

 

And one at a business school. Why weren't those places "gun-free" zones? It's working sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo very well elsewhere.

 

Oh yeah... They were.

 

 

My reasonable proposals include sentiments very much like these:

 

 

March 18, 2010

The Honorable Bruce W. Bannister,

SC House of Representatives

Post Office Box 11867

Columbia, SC 29211

RE: H. 3994

Dear Representative Bannister,

 

It is apparent from the materials I reviewed regarding the Chamber of Commerce’s position on

H. 3994 that the Chamber of Commerce has strayed from protecting the financial interests of its

member businesses and instead is promoting social engineering. If the Chamber of Commerce is

truly interested in protecting the financial bottom line of its members, then the Chamber of

Commerce should be supporting passage of H. 3994 because H. 3994 protects businesses from

expensive litigation without jeopardizing safety.

 

Current South Carolina law - Section 23-31-215® - states:

“No provision contained within this article shall expand, diminish, or affect the

duty of care owed by and liability accruing to, as may exist at law immediately

before the effective date of this article, the owner of or individual in legal

possession of real property for the injury or death of an invitee, licensee, or

trespasser caused by the use or misuse by a third party of a concealable weapon.

Absence of a sign prohibiting concealable weapons shall not constitute

negligence or establish a lack of duty of care.”

 

Section 23-31-215® only protects a business that refuses to post a sign prohibiting concealable

weapons. A business that does post against concealable weapons has in fact taken affirmative

action and thus has a legal duty towards those impacted by the posting. Section 23-31-215®

offers no protection at all to businesses that do post.

 

Workplace shootings usually follow a pattern that would not be prevented by creating “gun free”

zones at the workplace. They rarely involve a disgruntled employee suddenly walking out to the

parking lot, retrieving a gun from his vehicle, and immediately returning to shoot co-workers.

Rather, workplace shootings usually occur after a disgruntled employee has had time to go home,

become more agitated, and then returns to the workplace with a firearm and evil intent.
When a

disgruntled employee returns to the workplace with the intention of shooting others in violation

of God’s law, a company sign proclaiming the workplace a “gun free” zone will do nothing to

stop the employee or protect potential victims.
(emphasis added)
Therefore, the creation of “gun free” zones is

useless in promoting company safety, but could be costly in other ways.

 

 

It is established law that an entity that creates an attractive nuisance has a duty to protect against

the foreseeable harm that could be caused by the attractive nuisance. A plaintiff's lawyer will

surely argue that creating a “gun free” zone
is the equivalent of creating an attractive nuisance

because it gives the criminal a safe place to prey upon disarmed victim
s
(emphasis added)
. Thus, a business that

posts signs prohibiting firearms in private vehicles or carried by concealed weapon permit

holders might well be held financially liable for the harm caused to a victim of crime who claims

the business contributed to his injury.

 

There is no valid research showing “gun free” zones save lives. In fact, the best available

research shows exactly the opposite. That is, “gun free” zones are more dangerous.

H. 3994 is good for businesses because it greatly reduces risk for the businesses. If H. 3994 is

enacted, businesses would no longer be forced to assume the risk of choosing whether or not to

ban firearms from private vehicles. Businesses would be protected from potential expensive

litigation over liability for the misuse of firearms since state law would govern the possession of

firearms in private vehicles.

 

The emotional knee jerk response that “violence prevention principles certainly would suggest

that employers should prohibit the presence of weapons, even in personal vehicles” is

unsupported by both the law and the facts. Additionally, such a position threatens the financial

bottom line of any business that adopts it.

 

H. 3994 protects businesses by limiting potential liability, and H. 3994 is consistent with the best

available research in promoting public safety. The Chamber of Commerce should stick to

protecting the financial bottom line of businesses and stop promoting social programs contrary to

the interests of business. The Chamber of Commerce should stop opposing H. 3994 and endorse

it instead.

 

Any organization that claims to represent the interests of businesses should support legislation

that protects businesses from expensive lawsuits. H. 3994 is just such a bill. The Chamber of

Commerce should support it, and the House should pass it.

 

Sincerely,

Robert D. Butler, J.D.

VP GrassRoots GunRights

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that One Goh bloke has been evaluated as not fit for trial due to mental illness

 

"One Goh"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that One Goh bloke has been evaluated as not fit for trial due to mental illness

 

"One Goh"?

 

Van you elaborate?.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that One Goh bloke has been evaluated as not fit for trial due to mental illness

 

"One Goh"?

 

Van you elaborate?.....

 

Don't know what he's talking about. Sounds earily familiar though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should have remembered that name. I'll not jump to the "Aussie slang" conclusion on him quite as quickly next time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't bring a shovel to a gunfight

 

A HOMEOWNER in the Powelton section of West Philadelphia fatally shot a man who had broken into his house Tuesday night, police said.

 

Cops said the man was upstairs in his home, on Wiota Street near Spring Garden, when he heard the intruder break into the house through his kitchen door about 9 p.m. The intruder made it to the living room, with a spade shovel in hand, and started up the stairs to the second floor when police say the 37-year-old homeowner shot him three times in the chest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't bring a shovel to a gunfight

 

A HOMEOWNER in the Powelton section of West Philadelphia fatally shot a man who had broken into his house Tuesday night, police said.

 

Cops said the man was upstairs in his home, on Wiota Street near Spring Garden, when he heard the intruder break into the house through his kitchen door about 9 p.m. The intruder made it to the living room, with a spade shovel in hand, and started up the stairs to the second floor when police say the 37-year-old homeowner shot him three times in the chest.

 

Isn't that a bit racist? Being as it's up along Spring Garden and all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't bring a shovel to a gunfight

 

A HOMEOWNER in the Powelton section of West Philadelphia fatally shot a man who had broken into his house Tuesday night, police said.

 

Cops said the man was upstairs in his home, on Wiota Street near Spring Garden, when he heard the intruder break into the house through his kitchen door about 9 p.m. The intruder made it to the living room, with a spade shovel in hand, and started up the stairs to the second floor when police say the 37-year-old homeowner shot him three times in the chest.

 

Depends on the shovel.

 

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/179192-DIY-Shovel-AK-photo-tsunami-warning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't bring a shovel to a gunfight

 

A HOMEOWNER in the Powelton section of West Philadelphia fatally shot a man who had broken into his house Tuesday night, police said.

 

Cops said the man was upstairs in his home, on Wiota Street near Spring Garden, when he heard the intruder break into the house through his kitchen door about 9 p.m. The intruder made it to the living room, with a spade shovel in hand, and started up the stairs to the second floor when police say the 37-year-old homeowner shot him three times in the chest.

 

Depends on the shovel.

 

http://www.northeast...tsunami-warning

 

Amazing ingenuity and a good write up as well. But way too much time on his hands. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another home defended.

 

Two home invaders shot, one held at the scene for police, the other captured a short distance away.

 

There would be a lot fewer burglars getting shot if homeowners stopped baiting them by keeping valuables INSIDE their houses. Baiting deer is illegal, why do we allow it with burglars. Ban keeping valuables inside homes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

those poor people in need of my possesions. They want to have fun too...

 

Thank god there are some here who speak out on their behalf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oklahoma City, and darn good thing it was not New York City.

 

Police said five people were trying to burglarize a home at the 1500 block of SE 45 when the female homeowner shot one of them with her gun.

 

Two perps in the hospital in critical condition.

 

Only 7 rounds, or even ten, would be cutting it kind of close when facing five intruders. This demonstrates the utility of standard capacity magazines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

Oklahoma City, and darn good thing it was not New York City.

 

Police said five people were trying to burglarize a home at the 1500 block of SE 45 when the female homeowner shot one of them with her gun.

 

Two perps in the hospital in critical condition.

 

Only 7 rounds, or even ten, would be cutting it kind of close when facing five intruders. This demonstrates the utility of standard capacity magazines.

 

Oh well we had to "do something"...

 

Who cares if people die because of this, rights taken away are never given back. That's all that matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This gun nutter is young but still bagged five people.

 

http://usnews.nbcnew...e-children?lite

Look, although the kid used an AR-15, he could have easily killed the 5 others with a large unroasted chili pepper. Or a fist full of tamale. Don't blame the gun.

 

This asshole is equating the shooting with unrelated events.

"It's a horrible thing," Gomez said. "You see all this stuff that happens all over the country, the shootings in the schools and theaters, and then it happens right here. It's sad."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another child shot dead

 

http://fox4kc.com/20...t-girl-in-head/

 

 

Firearm safety instructor Bruce Luedeman says that a tragic situation like this is all too common – and preventable.

 

“Its very simple to store a handgun safely,” said Luedeman, who says that a cable-lock – available for free at local police stations – can prevent a gun from going off.

 

I agree that keeping guns from young children is important, but it's important for gun owners to know that you get what you pay for from a free lock, or less, and sometimes you don't even get what you pay for by buying "better" ones.

 

Gun locks that suck

 

Gun safes that suck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

and Chicago, with the toughest gun laws in the country?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and Chicago, with the toughest gun laws in the country?

I thought the tough gun laws were overturned?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and Chicago, with the toughest gun laws in the country?

I thought the tough gun laws were overturned?

and Chicago, with the toughest gun laws in the country?

I thought the tough gun laws were overturned?

 

Which tough gun laws were overturned?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and Chicago, with the toughest gun laws in the country?

I thought the tough gun laws were overturned?

 

Which tough gun laws were overturned?

 

Chicago banned closed the registry of handguns. The Supreme Court told them that they could not do that via the Heller and McDonald cases, which overturned one part of their laws. Chicago responded with this:

 

Chapter 8-20: Weapons

 

Definitions...

 

“Home” means the inside of a person's dwelling unit which is traditionally used for living purposes, including the basement and attic. A “home” does not include: (i) any garage, including an attached garage, on the lot; (ii) any space outside the dwelling unit, including any stairs, porches, back, side or front yard space, or common areas; or (iii) any dormitory, hotel, or group living, as that term is defined in section 17-17-0102-A.

 

...

 

8-20-020 - Unlawful possession of handguns.

 

(a) It is unlawful for any person to carry or possess a handgun, except when in the person's home.

 

No guns in the garage or back yard, since those are not part of the home, and the narrowest possible reading of the Heller case is that the second amendment only applies in the home. Since the Heller case also mentioned a handgun, Chicago interpreted that to mean that they only had to allow one, so that's all they allowed.

 

Their decision to allow guns only in the home was recently overturned in Moore v Madigan. Now they have six months to comply by rewriting their laws again.

 

It's likely that they will go the New York way, saying that only people who demonstrate a need for second amendment rights actually have them.

 

Which of our other rights requires that we demonstrate a need to exercise them?

 

Cue crickets...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

Can we shut down the First Amendment for certain people?

 

They don't need to say the things they do or believe in the faith that I don't approve of....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet another high school friend of our daughter's gets killed to death the other night. One of the nicest guys you'd ever wanna meet. But jfc, that makes three in the past year----one by gunshot, two by stabbings. Yet.....the Nursetta is wise enough not to blame either weapon. Pretty fuking smart for a young college gal, doncha y'all think?....

 

 

 

One man shot to death, another stabbed during brawl at Alpine Village Center near Torrance

 

By Rob Kuznia, Staff Writer

Posted: 01/21/2013 05:42:22 AM PST

Updated: 01/21/2013 10:42:38 AM PST

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

20130120__Alpine5_300.JPG

Emergency crews and Sheriff's deputies on the scene after a shooting near Alpine Village Center near Torrance. (Photo by Street Heat Productions)

 

One man was shot to death and another was stabbed by separate assailants during a brawl that erupted early Sunday outside a punk-rock concert in Alpine Village near Torrance.

The fight spilled into the parking lot of the Alpine Village Center at 833 Torrance Blvd., in an unincorporated county area, at about 12:15 a.m., according to the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department.

The shooting victim was taken to a local hospital, where he was pronounced dead. A second male victim was stabbed during the fight and was taken to a local hospital in stable condition.

The two incidents are being investigated as separate crimes occurring at the same venue, the department said.

An official with the Los Angeles County Coroner's Department said the victims' names are being withheld as the investigation continues.

No arrests have been made. Investigators said descriptions of the gunman have been vague.

Sheriff's deputies said the punk band Agression, from Oxnard, was headlining the event. Other acts scheduled to perform were Circle One, Dirty Rebels and Rompe Cabezas.

Alpine Village Center offers dining, shops and several halls for concerts, and sheriff's deputies said there was much activity there Saturday night.

By Sunday afternoon, life was back to normal at the German-themed shopping center featuring gift shops, restaurants and a supermarket - all in quaint buildings with turreted rooftops a block or

 

Advertisement

so away from the Harbor (110) Freeway.

In the parking lot, vendors sold their wares at the swap meet that occurs every Sunday.

At the Alpine Village Inn, senior citizens polka-danced on the small ballroom floor to the music of a live keyboardist. The punk-rock concert occurred in a neighboring building called the Klubhaus, which typically hosts private events such as weddings and banquets.

Ivan Fernandez of Torrance, who works at the nearby swap meet, said although he wasn't at Saturday night's concert, he attended a similar punk-metal show at the same venue about a year ago, and a melee broke out in the parking lot then as well.

"That night, there were kind of two groups: the metal heads and the gangsters," he said. "They clashed."

Fernandez said that in last year's brawl his friend - who also worked at the swap meet - was dragged into the fight and took a few kicks to the head.

"He had a concussion, and lost his memory," Fernandez said. "He couldn't work no more."

Alpine Village is clearly a party venue: Its Facebook page features photo after photo of young people slamming beers, dirty dancing and eating sausages.

Anyone with information about Sunday's incident is encouraged to contact the sheriff's Robbery-Homicide Bureau at 323-890-5500. To provide information anonymously, call Crime Stoppers at 800-222-

TIPS (8477), or text the letters TIPLA plus your tip to CRIMES (274637). This can also be accomplished by using the website http://lacrimestoppers.org.

rob.kuznia@dailybreeze.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of gun nutters... just who are they really, when it comes to mass murder?

 

Let's review:

 

 

 

 

I should probably be offended, though I've never shot anyone.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

holy crap what is wrong with your fucking family? Cant you stop hanging out with douchebags? I mean three of your best buds were cutdown beacause of your shared coke and guns lifestyle.

 

I trust the youngster is not following in your footsteps cause being a gangster or a metalhead is no way to go through life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not my family, it's Hell-A. Home of the best most restrictive gun laws this side of Central Brooklyn Park Harlem Island......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really?

 

 

If you and your buds had not been admitted coke and gun fiends your telling me your buds wouldn;t be alive?

 

If your daughters friend wasnt hanging out with metalheads and gangsters wouldn't he be alive?

 

Your family seems to have bad luck. I don't know anyone who was murdered..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really?

 

 

If you and your buds had not been admitted coke and gun fiends your teklling me your buds wouldn;t be alive?

 

If your daughers friend wasnt hanging out with metalheads and gangsters wouldn;t he be alive?

 

Your family seems to have bad luck. I dont know nyone who was murdered..

Its the addict's song. Played over and over again. Drugs, guns, booze, whatever the vice. Its a spiral down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Figured you couldn't back up the post!

 

You apologize to any and all of the groups you have mentioned whenever you feel like it.

 

You must be retarded. I said anyone who has more than three guns.

 

Fuck you and your retarded elk.

What do you have against retarded people?

What does he have against retarded animals?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites