The Virginia legislature passed a flurry of bills stripping away limitations on gun possession in the state. After intense lobbying from the National Rifle Association and over $1 million in NRA campaign contributions, the lawmakers passed 20 gun bills expanding possession and ownership rights in the state.
The bills include lifting the ban on buying more than one gun a month, allowing guns to be taken into bars and emergency shelters and allowing more people to get concealed handgun permits.
The timing of the passage of the laws is interesting with the arguments in the McDonald case only a couple weeks away. That case, to be argued during the first week of March, will determine whether the right of gun ownership, recognized in 2008, will be applied to the states as a fundamental right. That would mean that some restrictive laws could be found unconstitutional, including outright bans on handguns or concealed weapons.
For the story, click here.
“What disturbs me is that the legislature did not address the only remaining frontier for NRA legislation: embryonic gun ownership.”
Well, that would certainly be a boost for pro-life advocates.
Embryo: Okay, doc, put that needle down and back away SLOW-like. This is my place and I’m stayin’ for my full nine months, and anyone sayin’ otherwise gets a round or two. Got it?
Is it still illegal to yell “Fire” in a crowded gun store?
Fabulous. Excellent. Marvelous!
When a central government (ours) becomes totalitarian (absolute power over every aspect of our lives), gun ownership is essential to avoid large scale slaughter by ones own government.
What leftists don’t understand is that citizens with guns are rarely ever as dangerous as government with guns. The last century proves this.
Now, I realize that leftists hate facts despite claiming that they admire them, but this is the sorry truth coming from the last century.
The more totalitarian a government the more the danger there is when only government having guns is.
The bulk of the slaughter last century BY GOVERNMENT was among people who were stripped of their weapons by government. Gee, that’s a real tough intellectual concept to grasp.
Over 100 million died last century because only government had guns. This 100 million were civilians, not soldiers. And the deaths were due to government slaughtering its own people; not a result of warring nations.
Leftists are bright but foolish. They see human flaws and do always advocate solutions that step on the gas instead of slowing things down.
“Over 100 million died last century because only government had guns. This 100 million were civilians, not soldiers. And the deaths were due to government slaughtering its own people; not a result of warring nations.”
Wow – I must have slept through this news report. Do we even have enough cemetaries to hold all those people, or were they just dumped in the East River??
Similar to those who wonder why illegal wiretaps on American citizens is okie dokie if one has ‘nothing to hide’, I find I must ask:
If you’re truly a ‘law abiding’ citizen, why the outrage over having to wait a few days to buy a gun until a background check is completed? I mean, if one has nothing to hide, surely, as a responsible, law abiding citizen wouldn’t mind …
Damn! Guess I’ll just move to Virginia, or Arizona, or maybe even Texas, for the purpose of bringing my guns into a bar so I could get to those secret, government agents who are killing millions of citizens before they get me.
We’re changing our ad campaign. It’s now: “Virginia is for slack-jawed gun lovers-bang, bang.”
Personally, I think anytime individual rights are expanded it is a good thing.
“Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA — ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the state.”
Heinrich Himmler
I would rather be a slack jawed gun lover than a chicken farmer that sent 6 million human beings to the gas chambers. Unarmed human beings I might add, that had their gun rights taken from them as one of Hitlers first orders in his “new” Germany.
Fascism wears many faces but it always wants people unprotected. They are much more easily intimidated when defanged and declawed.
The professor in Alabama was a law-abiding citizen. Three people dead, four lives ruined. And the NRA can be proud. She attended gun safety classes, practiced gun safety, practiced shooting at a range. Three people dead, four lives ruined.
Yeah, that’s what we need—-more guns. Guns for every kind of lunatic. We need guns in bars to speed up service and settle baseball trivia questions. We must have concealed carry laws, so folks can feel like an eight feet tall cowboy.
An arguement based on the actions of totalitarian governments against their own people isn’t much of a defense for two reasons:
A)While waiting to defend one’s self against the totalitarian US government, people are killing one another with those guns. That high-sounding self defense theory doesn’t bring back to life most gun victims. Not those from domestic/relationship violence or road rage or children playing with guns around the house (weak defense part II: “…the parents should have…” or “…I keep my guns….” NEWS FLASH–those children are still dead) or vigilantism.
B) What would make one think their pea shooter, and those of every other gun owners’ for that matter, is any kind of defense against the US military in the ridiculously ficticious scenario of it ever be used against the people?
Ah, yes: Virginia. Source of most of the illegal guns in New York. Where would we be without Virginia? Why, paying even more to the gun runners who’d have to go to North Carolina.
VLF2112, Do you think the 100 million is to much?
If so you may need to start doing some reading.
WWII alone is between 62 and 78 million people of which 22 to 25 million were combatants, so that leaves 37 to 56 million being civilians. This was in just over 6 years out of 100 for the century.
Lets start adding in WWI – 13 million, the Russian Civil War – 8 million, Russia during Stalin – 16 to 17 million, Chinese Civil War – 6 million, China during Mao Zedong – 45 to 52 million.
These are all estimates by experts of civilian deaths by their own governments, not combatants. There are no hard numbers, and never will be.
Now start adding in the small atrocities of less then a couple million like Liberia, Somalia, Khmer Rouge, Iraq, and on, and on.
100 million may be way to small a number.
It took me only about 5 minutes to find these numbers, so I’ll not post links.
Lastly when are you big brother loving people going to stop using this tired old argument.
“I mean, if one has nothing to hide, surely, as a responsible, law abiding citizen wouldn’t mind”.
I think it is the other way around.
As a responsible government why do you want to know my secrets, in violation of my god given, constitutionally guaranteed rights to privacy.
“…god given, constitutionally guaranteed rights to privacy…”
WTF!!! That sentence alone says volumes about the tortured logic required to justify guns.
The listing of the millions killed during the 20th century due to wars is supposed to justify citizen gun ownership? These were mostly country-on-country conflicts. The correct conclusion is NOT the fantasy that European Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and the mentally deficient would have been better defended had they had guns, but that all wars and all violence and all death from the weapons of war are wrong.
To suggest any civilian population can defend itself against a modern (even a mid-20th century) army is so not grounded in reality. So, guns kill thousands every year in hunting accidents, etc. and that’s okay as long as folks gets to keep their guns to fight against the US Marine Corp or Tomahawk missles. Is that the argument?
@ Mack
Many of those millions were killed by air-dropped bombs, heavy artillery and machine guns. Should we be demanding rights and access to those weapons too?
Could those disarmed German citizens have stopped the luftwaffe if they still had access to their hunting rifles?
Privacy rights are another ball of wax and I think most here would agree that over the last decade our privacy has been eroded for the sake of the ‘war on terror’.
The way I read the city of Chicago vs McDonald is limited:
Whether the Second Amendment is incorporated into the Due Process Clause or the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment so as to be applicable to the States, thereby invalidating ordinances prohibiting possession of handguns in the home.
It is a simple argument with complex details.
“Gun Ownership at All-Time High, New FBI Report Shows Violent Crime at a 35-Year Low, Murder at a 43-Year Low”
“More Guns: There are 250+ million privately-owned firearms in the United States. The number of guns typically rises by about 4.5 million every year, though between 2007-2008, firearm transactions cleared by the National Criminal Instant Background Check rose 14 percent.
Less Violent Crime: Since 1991, the nation’s violent crime rate has decreased 40 percent (murder, 45 percent; rape, 31 percent; robbery, 47 percent; and aggravated assault, 37 percent. From 2007-2008, the violent crime rate decreased 3 percent (murder, 5 percent; rape, 2 percent; robbery, 2 percent; and aggravated assault, 3 percent.) States with Right-to-Carry laws have lower violent crime rates, on average, compared to the rest of the country: total violent crime by 31 percent, murder, 39 percent; robbery, 55 percent; and aggravated assault, 19 percent. States that have the most restrictive gun control laws tend to have the highest ratios of robberies (confrontational violent crimes) to non-confrontational property crimes.”
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=206&issue=007
rcampbell
“What would make one think their pea shooter, and those of every other gun owners’ for that matter, is any kind of defense against the US military in the ridiculously ficticious scenario of it ever be used against the people?
Are you saying the Taliban, and their pea shooters have not really held the entire military might of the US, and a few other countries for 8 years now?
Seung-Hui Cho, would not have killed 33, and wounded 15 others if they had been carrying weapons of their own at Virginia Tech.
Suzanna Gratia Hupp put it into perspective with her visions of gun rights.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ggg0LwhrH0&feature=related
My Favorite quote from her is.
“How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual… as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of.”
rcampbell ably demolished the argument that an armed citizenry would have prevented the atrocities of the 20th century. Anyone who honestly believes that possession of a firearm will protect him and his family from a tyrannical government is so divorced from reality that he ought not be permitted to even own a gun.
On the positive side, however, a more prominent display of weapons at Little League games may improve the quality of the umpires.
Mike S.,
I think in Professional Hockey the Referees are the ones carrying the guns…..
That was funny….
Here’s a couple of simple facts. The population is aging. When the population ages, the crime rate drops.
“Anyone who honestly believes that possession of a firearm will protect him and his family from a tyrannical government is so divorced from reality that he ought not be permitted to even own a gun.”
What would General Washington say?
“Russia during Stalin – 16 to 17 million, Chinese Civil War – 6 million, China during Mao Zedong – 45 to 52 million.”
These numbers are not during wars, except against their own countries citizens, and neither are the millions of other small (by comparison) acts of genocide by some of the other governments, like the Khmer Rouge, Iraq, Somalia, Liberia, Ethiopia. There are many countries in Africa right now as I type killing their own people, because the people can’t defend themselves.
From 1967 to 2006 the U.S. Population increased by 100 million. Currently the greatest population increase is among minorities. Coincidentally, the highest rate of violent crime is also among minorities.
Violent crime at a 35 year low, and murder rate at a 43 year low during a time when the population grew by 100 million, and it’s down because “the population is aging”?
In 2000 by age
15-19 20 million
20-24 19 million
25-29 19 million
In 1990 by age
15-19 18 million
20-24 19 million
25-29 21 million
http://www.censusscope.org/us/chart_age.html
It looks like we have about the same population in the 15 to 29 age group in 1990 as we did in 2000. We’ll have to wait until the 2010 census is in, but I bet the number of minorities in that age range has increased.
rcampbell:
“The professor in Alabama was a law-abiding citizen. Three people dead, four lives ruined. And the NRA can be proud. She attended gun safety classes, practiced gun safety, practiced shooting at a range. Three people dead, four lives ruined.”
And if there was a pile up on I-95 due to a sleep-deprived driver; killing 3 people, ruining four lives. Shall we ban the automobile?
rcampbell: “Yeah, that’s what we need—-more guns. Guns for every kind of lunatic. We need guns in bars to speed up service and settle baseball trivia questions.”
Ad absurdum or a simply a mindless rant rivaling those of the tea-baggers?
rcampbell: “An arguement based on the actions of totalitarian governments against their own people isn’t much of a defense for two reasons:”
Lemme guess, you won’t be quoting Blackstone or Jefferson on this one; will you?
rcampbell: A)While waiting to defend one’s self against the totalitarian US government, people are killing one another with those guns. That high-sounding self defense theory doesn’t bring back to life most gun victims. Not those from domestic/relationship violence or road rage or children playing with guns around the house (weak defense part II: “…the parents should have…” or “…I keep my guns….” NEWS FLASH–those children are still dead) or vigilantism.”
Newsflash: while waiting for their next deep fried snickers bar, 39% of all deaths in the U.S. are caused by Major Cardiovasular Diseases. What’s the penalty for eating a deep fried snickers bar?
And just to double check to see if we have our priorities in order:
Preventable causes of death:
Smoking tobacco
435,000 deaths or 18.1% of the total deaths.
Overweight and Obesity
111,909 – 365,000 deaths or 4.6 – 15.2% of the total deaths.
Alcohol
85,000 deaths or 3.5% of the total deaths.
Infectious diseases
75,000 deaths or 3.1% of the total deaths.
Toxins
55,000 deaths or 2.3% of the total deaths.
Traffic collisions
43,000 deaths or 1.8% of the total deaths.
Firearms deaths
29,000 deaths or 1.2% of the total.
(pay close attention rcampbell…)
(Suicide: 16,586; Homicide: 10,801; Accidents: 776; Legal intervention: 270; Unknown: 230)
For those of you keeping score at home, that’s 17,423 homicides and accidental deaths by firearms, making for a net percentage of 0.6 percent of deaths
Still less than…
Sexually transmitted infections
20,000 deaths or 0.8% of the total.
Drug abuse
17,000 deaths or 0.7% of the total deaths.
rcampbell: “B) What would make one think their pea shooter, and those of every other gun owners’ for that matter, is any kind of defense against the US military in the ridiculously ficticious scenario of it ever be used against the people?”
What makes you think that the aforesaid ‘scenario’ is the only reason the people have an inherent right to keep and bear arms?
Admiral Yamamoto decided against the invasion of America precisely because of a well armed citizenry. “A gun behind every blade of grass”.
Duh and MacK
How about dealing with THE issue. How about telling us why and how you justify the deaths due to hunting, bar fights, spouse-on-spouse, road rage, personal revenge, child’s play, vigilantes, while waiting for your paranoid fantasy to occur.
BTW, in your sci-fi world where the tyranical US government comes after you, logic says not every one would oppose such a move and your neighbors would be armed and gunning for you as well.
We were recently discussing medical marijuana on this blog. Personally, I think there would be far less violence and we’d all be far better off if we banned guns and were required to smoke pot. They’d have to change the selection of stocks in the DJIA to include Lay’s and Hostess and Taco Bell, but everyone would be mellow with that.
rcampbell:
“Personally, I think there would be far less violence and we’d all be far better off if we banned guns and were required to smoke pot.”
LOL.
But then that is where the government wants us, stoned out of our minds, unable to comprehend reality and defenseless. In the mind of big government types the perfect citizen er subject.
VLF2112-
“Guess I’ll just move to Virginia, or Arizona, or maybe even Texas, for the purpose of bringing my guns into a bar so I could get to those secret, government agents who are killing millions of citizens before they get me.”
Contrary to popular belief, you don’t have to go to one of those states to carry in a bar. It’s been the norm in many states for years and has not caused any measurable problems.
rcampbell-
“The professor in Alabama was a law-abiding citizen. Three people dead, four lives ruined.”
She passed the background checks. What would you suggest would have stopped this event from occurring? Perhaps if that university didn’t allow guns on campus– oh wait, they already had that policy in place. Short of an all out ban and confiscation (or competent law enforcement in her hometown), what would have prevented this tragedy?
“A)While waiting to defend one’s self against the totalitarian US government, people are killing one another with those guns. That high-sounding self defense theory doesn’t bring back to life most gun victims.”
Those guns are saving lives as well. Even the lowest estimates of defensive gun uses far outstrip the number of deaths by gun.
“B) What would make one think their pea shooter, and those of every other gun owners’ for that matter, is any kind of defense against the US military in the ridiculously ficticious scenario of it ever be used against the people?”
Look, I don’t think it’s likely that I’ll ever have to fight my government, but this is one of the dumbest and most tired arguments. The idea behind an armed populace resisting their government is not to engage in pitched battles where people with deer rifles charge tanks. The idea is insurgency. If two madmen in a car with a single rifle can keep an entire region paralyzed in fear, imagine what 10,000, 100,000, or more dedicated and pissed off citizens could do.
Byron,
Reality is what you make of it. Sober or Stoned (toasted). Toasted is a much nicer description of the word. As people who get drunk are considered stoned. Never have understood that.
Say you have just smoked weed. Technically you are not stoned until it hits you. You could be toasted and not stoned. Its one of those in my sober unstoned or toasted mind colloquial equivalents.
rcampbell said “How about dealing with THE issue.”????
Let’s deal with the issue. Do we, as U.S. Citizens have a right to keep and bear arms? Hmmm?
“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.”
Or are you one of those who believes that only those who are members of a regulated malitia have the right to keep and bear arms? What about being necessary to the security of a free state?If so, do you think schools should only exist for the benefit of good government? What would the curriculum in those schools be?
“Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” -Northwest Ordinance 1787
As to your justification for death, there is none. Are you going to justify the deaths of all those who died of a heart attack from being obese? Or are you going to ban the foods and force people to exercise.
BTW, your idea of “requiring” people to smoke pot says a lot about your ideals.
Byron–
After listening to the blather of teabaggers, birthers, deathers, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, congressmen and women who were against the stimulus package before they began touting the funds they brought to their states because of it–it seems to me that plenty of our citizens and politicians are likely to be stoned out of their minds or unable to comprehend reality. Maybe they’ve repeated their own lies so often that they’ve begun believing them to be true.
I also think most of our legislators are stoned on money received from lobbyists and are unable to comprehend the reality of what’s happening to this country and to the lives of millions of Americans. Nothing’s getting done to help us regular folks. Maybe all you people with guns should start an armed siege of Capitol Hill and force our legislators into working for THE PEOPLE and not the corporations! Just a thought.
Byron,
http://factcheck.org/2009/05/misquoting-yamamoto/
rcampbell: “How about dealing with THE issue. How about telling us why and how you justify the deaths due to hunting, bar fights, spouse-on-spouse, road rage, personal revenge, child’s play, vigilantes, while waiting for your paranoid fantasy to occur.”
First, that wasn’t ‘the’ issue, it was many issues; none of which bearing much relevance to each other in a categorical sense. Second, could you at least form a syllogism explaining why your opponents must account for “deaths due to hunting, bar fights, spouse-on-spouse, road rage, personal revenge, child’s play, vigilantes” in arguing against the resolution that all guns must be banned.
rcampbell: “BTW, in your sci-fi world where the tyranical US government comes after you, logic says not every one would oppose such a move and your neighbors would be armed and gunning for you as well.”
So you favor arming only those who agree with you? How sporting.
rcampbell: “We were recently discussing medical marijuana on this blog. Personally, I think there would be far less violence and we’d all be far better off if we banned guns and were required to smoke pot.”
REQUIRED TO SMOKE POT? So, given the fact that marijuana smoke is multiple times more likely to cause cancer than cigarette smoke, it appears you are REQUIRING the populace to increase their chances of dying by
Chronic Lower Resperitory Disease
More than: 122,009 deaths, 5.1%
Overweight and Obesity (the munchies)
More than: 111,909 – 365,000 deaths or 4.6 – 15.2% of the total deaths.
“They’d have to change the selection of stocks in the DJIA to include Lay’s and Hostess and Taco Bell, but everyone would be mellow with that.”
Surely.
Traffic collisions (driving while stoned??)
More than: 43,000 deaths or 1.8% of the total deaths.
Great plan!
rcampbell,
Given your implicit desire, statistically speaking, to see more people dead, it’s a wonder why you don’t pick up a gun and take matters into your own hand.
Oh this is fun.
How about a rational middle ground between “I need access to my gun at all times or else Big Brother will win” and “No guns ever?”
Also, since I feel they need to be said “Correlation does not equal causation,” “the report about defensive gun use you’re getting your numbers from is seriously flawed,” and “my right to swing my fist ends where your face begins,” apply them where it seems appropriate.
Bob Esq:
it doesn’t say he didn’t say it.
“Prof. Goldstein: I have never seen it in writing. It has been attributed to the Prange files [the files of the late Gordon W. Prange, chief historian on the staff of Gen. Douglas MacArthur] but no one had ever seen it or cited it from where they got it. Some people say that it came from our work but I never said it. … As of today it is bogus until someone can cite when and where.”
Why didn’t the Japanese invade the continental United States? They invaded Alaska at Dutch Harbor.
Gyges: “How about a rational middle ground between “I need access to my gun at all times or else Big Brother will win” and “No guns ever?”
Seems to me that’s already in place with the current gun laws; specifically those regarding handguns.
Byron: “it doesn’t say he didn’t say it.”
But why cite a quote that can’t be verified?
Byron: “Why didn’t the Japanese invade the continental United States? They invaded Alaska at Dutch Harbor.”
Easier escape route along the shore of Russia? I don’t know; the Pacific Ocean between Japan and California is pretty f’n wide. Would Japan had been more reasonable in your eyes if they took that one way ticket to the Naval Yards on the West Coast just to give it that old college try?
The only issue in McDonald can a city restrict private citizens from having handguns in the home? This seem pretty basic to me.
Bob,
Exactly my point.
Which is why the knee jerk reactions by most in this thread is especially ridiculous (as you’ve been having great fun pointing out).
The Swiss come to mind, they seem to have pretty fair gun laws but make males over 18 do mandatory military service.
Bob Esq:
Yamamoto was a Harvard man. In relation to the old college try.
I actually have seen this quote in a couple of locations and it sounds like something a Japanese soldier would have said. The “behind every blade of grass” is what got me, if it had been “behind every tree” I would not have believed it. Maybe too many Toshiro Mifune movies.
Byron 1, February 17, 2010 at 12:40 pm
[snip]
Why didn’t the Japanese invade the continental United States? They invaded Alaska at Dutch Harbor.
———————————————
Really? You really need someone to answer that question? (Because territorial expansion into North America wasn’t a national goal. Because it’s a very spread out target and it would be exceptionally difficult to hold any ground. Because the targets with good military value were well defended by regular military installations. Because the Japanese didn’t hold enough Pacific islands to support the supply chain that would be needed to supply troops on the continental US. And on and on…) Remember, the Japanese military believed that the entire Pacific Northwest was a tinderbox waiting to explode into flames, so they launched balloons with flares to drift over the Pacific and set all of Washington, Idaho, Oregon, BC and Alberta ablaze! It turns out that Imperial Japan was wrong about many things about the US.
Hey – at least we’re breaking down stereotypes. There goes my assumption that folks who promote wide spread gun possession in the US typically know a bit about the military! Poof!
We can argue history all we want. The simple fact is that these changes to Virginia law will result in more deaths and maimings in DC and NYC (not to mention VA itself).
(Sorry to contribute to the noise, but being Virginia, I can’t help it: Gun promoters point to the Virginia Tech shootings and say, “If more people had guns, this wouldn’t have been as bad!” To that, I say – imagine being a police officer responding to the situation: Somewhere in this big classroom building is one or more college aged male(s) who is/are trying to kill students and faculty. Also loose in the building are armed students and faculty, engaging in a gun battle with the shooter(s) – or possibly engaging in a gun battle with each other because they don’t know who’s a shooter, and who’s a vigilante. OK! Run into the building and have fun!)
Gyges: “Exactly my point. Which is why the knee jerk reactions by most in this thread is especially ridiculous (as you’ve been having great fun pointing out).”
Gyges,
Would you believe I posted a ‘correction’ for this entry regarding the use of the word ‘guns’ instead of ‘handguns?’ Apparently, in the ‘all or nothing’ hysteria of making a point for or against, both sides lack the mental discipline to distinguish between (concealable) handguns v. rifles & shotguns.
Byron: “I actually have seen this quote in a couple of locations and it sounds like something a Japanese soldier would have said. The “behind every blade of grass” is what got me, if it had been “behind every tree” I would not have believed it. Maybe too many Toshiro Mifune movies.”
If you’re that fixated on the topic, I did run across this:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Isoroku_Yamamoto
Bob,
That’s a bad habit I’m afraid I fall into sometimes as well.
Which is especially bad considering my tendency to want to use words in an exact fashion.
TomD.Arch: “Hey – at least we’re breaking down stereotypes. There goes my assumption that folks who promote wide spread gun possession in the US typically know a bit about the military! Poof!”
Was Byron promoting widespread gun possession?
TomD.Arch: “We can argue history all we want. The simple fact is that these changes to Virginia law will result in more deaths and maimings in DC and NYC (not to mention VA itself).”
While I don’t agree with all the law changes, e.g. allowing guns to be taken into bars and emergency shelters, I fail to see how said changes would necessitate more deaths and maimings in DC & NYC.
Do I hear it said that the Virginia Legislature is empowered to promulgate laws in DC and NYC?
Gyges,
But more importantly you KNOW the difference; as opposed to the gun ownership extremists (who intentionally blind themselves to the distinction) and the hysterical anti-gun faction that has insufficient knowledge or any interest in differentiating between any types of guns–i.e. ‘they’re all EVIL.’
A million dollars can still buy a lot…politically speaking.
NRA members were so happy with the passage of these bills that they just wrote new lyrics for the Beatles song “Can’t Buy Me Love.”
Here are the new words to that old tune:
Can buy us votes, votes!
Can buy us votes!
***
We’ll buy some votes in the legislature. It’ll make us feel alright.
We’ll get bills passed by passing cash. It’ll make us feel alright.
We care a lot…a lot about money—‘cause money can buy us votes.
***
We’ll give lots of campaign contributions…the way we always do.
We’ll hand them out at the Capitol…to you and you and you.
We care a lot…a lot about money—‘cause money can buy your votes.
***
Can buy your votes, everybody knows it’s so.
Can buy your votes—all it takes is dough.
***
Say you’ll vote the way we want—that you are on our side.
Tell us that you’ll do our bidding and we’ll be satisfied.
We care a lot…a lot about money —‘cause money can buy us votes.
There have been only 3 times—twice during my LEO status and once since retirement—that I thought I was in potential danger from others with firearms.
I have known and worked with LEOs that are so corrupt that they should not be carrying firearms; however, as we often read herein—sometimes daily—it is almost impossible to prosecute unethical, corrupt LEOs and I have experienced those impossibilities first hand. I am a strong proponent of 2nd Amendment rights to bear firearms, while I am just as adamant for the death penalty for those who would Illegally use and abuse firearms to harm other humans.
I could add more to this topic, although I would simply remind rcambell and others to imagine what life would be like if only law-breaking thugs with LEO authority—like Sheriff Joe Arpaio—had firearms while the citizenry was disallowed any real means of protecting themselves in times of crisis.
During two of the above instances I referenced, I was unarmed and only through the grace of my LEO training and experience was I able to gain control of each situation.
TomD Arch:
I believe they were incendiary bombs not flares in those balloons. Also here is an interesting piece that probably is the real reason:
“In 1960, Robert Menard was a commander aboard the USS Constellation when he was part of a meeting between United States Navy personnel and their counterparts in the Japanese Defense Forces.
Fifteen years had passed since VJ Day, most of those at the meeting were WWII veterans, and men who had fought each other to the death at sea were now comrades in battle who could confide in each other.
Someone at the table asked a Japanese admiral why, with the Pacific Fleet devastated at Pearl Harbor and the mainland U.S. forces in what Japan had to know was a pathetic state of unreadiness, Japan had not simply invaded the West Coast.
Commander Menard would never forget the crafty look on the Japanese commander’s face as he frankly answered the question.
‘You are right,’ he told the Americans. ‘We did indeed know much about your preparedness. We knew that probably every second home in your country contained firearms. We knew that your country actually had state championships for private citizens shooting military rifles. We were not fools to set foot in such quicksand.’”
A supply chain would not have been hard to set up from Alaska with ships ferrying men and material to Seattle. Dutch Harbor to Tokyo is 3520 miles California to Hawaii is 2400 miles. Not much difference after the first 2000 miles. How do you think we got men and material to the various islands in our Pacific campaign? The Japanese were able to invade Alaska.
An armed citizenry is a deterrent to crime and external threats. History has proven that on numerous occasions.
Guns in bars. Makes a lot of sense. The first shooting in a bar will be a call from NRA for everyone in bars to be armed.
Gyges-
“the report about defensive gun use you’re getting your numbers from is seriously flawed,”
If I was relying on one report, you’d have a point. If I was only citing Lott’s work, you’d have a point. I’m not. I’m talking about the lowest figures cited.
TomD-Arch-
“To that, I say – imagine being a police officer responding to the situation: Somewhere in this big classroom building is one or more college aged male(s) who is/are trying to kill students and faculty. Also loose in the building are armed students and faculty, engaging in a gun battle with the shooter(s) – or possibly engaging in a gun battle with each other because they don’t know who’s a shooter, and who’s a vigilante. OK! Run into the building and have fun!”
And yet I can cite hundreds of cases where real people used guns defensively and the nightmare you describe didn’t happen. And are you honestly saying that the *possibility* of your scenario occurring is worse than what actually happened? Are you freaking kidding?
And someone shooting at someone else shooting at them is not a vigilante.
Rich-
“Guns in bars. Makes a lot of sense. The first shooting in a bar will be a call from NRA for everyone in bars to be armed.”
Again, this is nothing new. Again, it hasn’t been the ridiculous horror story that the panicky among us have proposed.
That is the usual disconnect between statements of the nazis and actions of the nazis.
The nazis did not change the weapons law form April 12, 1928 until April 12, 1938, when they enacted a new weapons law which promoted private gun ownership to “help German arms manufacturers to overcome the blow of the Versailles dictate” and to “strengthen the defense spirit of the German people” (quotes from the preamble).
That the “nazis disarmed Germans” is an American myth which is not supported by facts.
In fact the early nazis were big advocates of private gun ownership: it would have been impossible for the nazis to seize power without their well armed and organized private army — the SA.
And that is the real lesson with regards to “gun control and the nazis”: private gun ownership does not empower individual citizens, but movements which can afford to field para-military organizations.
A well regulated Population, being necessary to the security of a free State; the right of the Women to keep and bear children shall not be infringed.
Jason,
In all honesty, I missed your first comment. It’s just the Lott study tends to show up in most on-line gun control discussions, I was attempting to demonstrate just how predictable and thoughtless the rhetoric tends to be in these discussions.
Your original point however is a little off. In order to compare lives saved and lives taken you’d need to figure out how many of those defensive uses would have resulted in death without the presence of the gun as opposed to just injury or property damage. Otherwise you’re comparing all crimes prevented to a subset of all misuses of guns, which is going to skew your numbers.
Alternately you could compare all crimes involving legally obtained guns (arguably you may need to include stolen guns which would not have been able to be stolen if the people they were stolen from couldn’t have obtained them legally, but you could also make the case that many of these guns would have found their way to the black market through other means, like smuggling) versus all crimes prevented by legally obtained guns.
The problem is getting a reliable set of data for those figures. Personally I’d think looking at the crime statistics in a several cities with differences in gun ownership but otherwise similar demographics would be the way to go.
Berliner,
It should be pointed out that the 1938 law made it illegal for Jews to own guns.
Headline:
Gun Restrictions Tightened: Women and Minorities Hardest Hit
“Organized armed resistance was the most forceful form of Jewish opposition to Nazi policies in German-occupied Europe. Jewish civilians offered armed resistance in over 100 ghettos in occupied Poland and the Soviet Union. In April-May 1943, Jews in the Warsaw ghetto rose in armed revolt after rumors that the Germans would deport the remaining ghetto inhabitants to the Treblinka killing center. As German SS and police units entered the ghetto, members of the Jewish Fighting Organization (Zydowska Organizacja Bojowa; ZOB) and other Jewish groups attacked German tanks with Molotov cocktails, hand grenades, and a handful of small arms. Although the Germans, shocked by the ferocity of resistance, were able to end the major fighting within a few days, it took the vastly superior German forces nearly a month before they were able to completely pacify the ghetto and deport virtually all of the remaining inhabitants. For months after the end of the Warsaw ghetto uprising, individual Jewish resisters continued to hide in the ruins of the ghetto, which SS and police units patrolled to prevent attacks on German personnel. ”
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005213
Mission Accomplished.
bERLINER:
“And that is the real lesson with regards to “gun control and the nazis”: private gun ownership does not empower individual citizens, but movements which can afford to field para-military organizations.”
Actually the real lesson is Hegelian and Marxist philosophies led to a totalitarian dictatorship which expected fealty to the state. Individuals were no longer free agents but subserviant to Hitler and the Fatherland. I think Nazi Germany is a pretty good example of what happens when individuals are in service to the state.
You dont even understand the lessons of your own history.
For any who are interested in a very good article on Nazi gun laws here it is. This is actually more in line with what I learned than what most here have speculated in regards to gun control by the Nazis.
http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/law_review_articles/nazism.nra.pdf
Gyges-
If I implied a one to one relationship between defensive uses and lives saved, it was not intentional. Obviously we can’t know how many lives were/are saved. But when even the most conservative estimates of defensive uses number are in six figures, even if the percentage of lives saved is low, we are still talking about potentially thousands. It wouldn’t take a very high rate to at least match the number of total deaths.
I agree with you, the studies are far from perfect, and I shy away from the more extreme claims of some researchers. And my response was also aimed at the common attitude that, “Your gun is worthless in a self defense situation, you’ll never get to it in time, normal people can’t shoot well, will crap their pants, faint, or die from fear,” etc. We have a poster in this very thread who seems to think that Virginia Tech would have been worse than it was if a student or two had had a gun. Yes, thank goodness that all of those students and teachers could only hide, run, or hope for bad aim.
MacK:
Since this topic is about U.S. gun laws, I was limiting my statement to the U.S. Sorry if that simple fact escaped you.
“Lastly when are you big brother loving people going to stop using this tired old argument.”
LOL – well, if you have nothing to hide, why is it so difficult to abide by common sense laws, and wait a day or two? Do you really need to have that gun RIGHT NOW, or is Bambi and Thumper that much of a threat to you? Seems to me that it’s the same people who think illegal wiretapping by big brother is okay if one has ‘nothing to hide’, but stamp their feet and hold their breath when it comes to their guns.
“As a responsible government why do you want to know my secrets, in violation of my god given, constitutionally guaranteed rights to privacy.”
First – god doesn’t give you your freedom, the Constitution does. Second – As a responsible citizen, allowing the government to take a little precaution in ensuring they’re not arming the local looney toon should really be a no-brainer.
I’m guessing you’d feel the same way if a potential employer performed background checks (which many do) prior to employment, right sport? You’d tell your potential boss where to stick it, right?
VLF2112:
“First – god doesn’t give you your freedom, the Constitution does.”
And you wonder why we conservatives worry about guns. that statement pretty much sums up our fears about government and people who believe in big government. Do you understand what you are saying? The Constitution codifies our laws it does not give us our freedom. It is a system to protect us from force by others.
It is too bad that Jefferson did not say that our rights stem from our nature as rational beings. There would be no discussion as to where our liberty was vested. To assume our freedom comes from the constitution is to have no freedom at all. Any tinpot tyrant with a pen and a penchant for writing could make us slaves with the stroke of a pen.
Thank “God” that we have a Declaration of Independence to fall back on when people start asserting our freedom lies in our constitution. If we did not have the DOI we would long ago have lost our liberty.
Byron: “Thank “God” that we have a Declaration of Independence to fall back on when people start asserting our freedom lies in our constitution.”
Don’t forget Hamilton’s Federalist 84 and Madison’s response; i.e. the Ninth Amendment.
Aside from that, nice ninth amendment smack-down!
Treat yourself to a cookie; you’ve earned it.
lol
Did Virginia just step back in time to the middle ages? I thought only Texas or Florida would pull this kind of crap. A sad day in Virginia when the NRA has obviously purchased the entire legislature.
Speaking of background checks:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/crime/Ex-chief-pleads-guilty-to-illegally-selling-police-handgun-84596212.html
In what reality is it EVER a good idea to allow guns in a bar?
God the VA senate must be full of the most limp-dicked, cowardly men on the planet. Don’t let scary people take our penis substitutes…if they do we might turn gay…ick!
Hopefully some drunk in a bar will take out several cops and politicians in the near future and we will be able to revisit this decision!
CAUTION: This video contains some foul language. If you don’t want to hear it, don’t play the video. The rest of you; ENJOY!
This may come as a surprise to some gun lovers out there: I do not, repeat, do not want to own or carry a gun. But the NRA and the legislators they own seem to think that I should carry a gun, at least, that is their answer to every mass shooting: e.g., VTech — hey if the professors and students had all been carrying guns they’d a taken that guy out before he had a chance to kill so many. These “morans” have been watching too many Rambo/Charles Bronson type movies. But I suppose if I am ever the victim of a crazed gun man in Virginia they will shed no tears for me because, after all, this is Virginia she could’a been carryin’ and if she’d a been carryin’ she’d a shot that bad guy and save everone….
So, great, because these gun lovers are stuck in some kooky adolescent male revenge/power fantasy I have to worry every time I go into a bar that some guy with an anger management issue is going to get drunk and shoot the place up. Guns and drunks — good times. Ah, but never fear there will be some “hero” who pulls out his trusty six inches of hard metal and saves the day…too bad some people died before “hero” pulled his gun, hey, way more would a died…. Yeah, idiots, and maybe no one (that means zero, that means no widows no orphans, no one) would have died if guns weren’t allowed in bars in the first place.
These people who think that everyone should be armed are barbarians…why do we let them get away with it? The hardcore gun people are a political minority but they have clout far, far beyond their actual numbers. I’d like to amend the Constitution to make sure that I will never be forced to carry a gun!
I love this argument: “When a central government (ours) becomes totalitarian (absolute power over every aspect of our lives), gun ownership is essential to avoid large scale slaughter by ones own government.” A typical response from a gun loving nutjob who hasn’t a clue.
The Minute Men days are long over and the ability of citizenry to overcome the government based on equality of weaponry has long gone. If in fact the central government wanted to slaughter citizens, your little handgun or store bought hunting rifle stands no chance against a M1-A3 MBT or Apache attack helicopter or anything else in the US military inventory. So either come up with a better excuse or shut the hell up.
wILSON:
how about it is in the 2nd amendment for starters.
Secondarily if what you say is true the Russians should have pacified Afghanistan in a couple of weeks and we as well. The Russians were there for about 10 years and we have been there for almost 9.
Byron–
I think in Afghanistan it’s not just about people there having guns and weapons–it’s about the terrain of the country. Put a bunch of warrior folks with guns on the Great Plains and they’d probably be much easier to conquer than the Afghans.
Elaine:
that assumes they would be willing to fight on that portion of land. We gun lovers have read much more than Daffy Duck comic books and tend to like history, some of us even play war games (board games of course although I don’t) based on historical battles. And a good many of us have read Clausewitz, Sun Tzu and Thucydides.
A weapon is nothing without human volition.
Byron–
“The Russians were there for about 10 years and we have been there for almost 9.”
And think how long we were in Vietnam. It seems we haven’t learned from experience…or from reading history.
**********
“that assumes they would be willing to fight on that portion of land.”
Poland was an easy country to invade because of its topography. That was the point I was trying to make when I talked about the terrain in Afghanistan making military operations more difficult.
**********
BTW, I never suggested that gun lovers read no more than Daffy Duck comic books.
Speaking for myself–a non gun lover–my reading about war tends more to books like Slaughterhouse Five, Hiroshima, The Rape of Nanking, A Bridge Too Far–and The Guns of August. I’ll always remember those red pantaloons!
The issue isn’t whether to ban gun ownership outright versus mandating that everyone be allowed to own 155mm self-propelled artillery. The issue is what constitutes reasonable limits on gun ownership. Which of the following groups of people should have the right to bear arms:
1) persons currently in prison?
2) persons out on parole?
3) felons that have served their time?
4) street gang members?
5) former street gang members?
6) suspected terrorists?
7) average citizens without registration?
8) average citizens that have registered with the government?
9) citizens whose politics you agree with?
10) Government officials only?
Also bear in mind – the government can require the credit card companies to turn over their business records for review under the Patriot Act. Wouldn’t a simple review of credit card purchases (and hunting permit applications) wouldn’t ID most of the gun owners in this country?
NRA membership is about one tenth of one percent of the U.S. population, yet they (NRA) supposedly represent the other 99.99% of the U.S. population.
Every time the NRA shows up in Washington, or State Capitols, the politicians bend over and spread them.
KruglerHerrig-
“In what reality is it EVER a good idea to allow guns in a bar?”
It’s already real. For the third time, this law is not groundbreaking. People with concealed carry permits have been allowed in bars in many states for a long time, and disaster has not ensued. And I’d also add a reality where law abiding and sober people want to be able to defend themselves, both inside and outside of a bar.
MadMatt-
“Don’t let scary people take our penis substitutes…if they do we might turn gay…ick!”
This is pathetic and so cliche. Come on antis, come up with some better insults.
cecilia-
“This may come as a surprise to some gun lovers out there: I do not, repeat, do not want to own or carry a gun.”
And I know of no one who would force you to. Not even the NRA.
“But the NRA and the legislators they own seem to think that I should carry a gun”
No they don’t. They think that people who want to carry guns should be able to (assuming they meet typical qualifications).
“at least, that is their answer to every mass shooting: e.g., VTech — hey if the professors and students had all been carrying guns they’d a taken that guy out before he had a chance to kill so many. These “morans” have been watching too many Rambo/Charles Bronson type movies.”
There is nothing Rambo about that scenario. I can point you to a website that documents civilians defending themselves with guns, and it happens every day. Similar mass shootings have already been averted by armed intervention from a civilian. This isn’t theory, it’s real world stuff.
“So, great, because these gun lovers are stuck in some kooky adolescent male revenge/power fantasy”
So, great, because these gun haters are stuck in some irrational state of fear over inanimate objects…” Come on, let’s raise the discourse above this garbage. It’s lame, not funny, and most importantly, not true.
“I have to worry every time I go into a bar that some guy with an anger management issue is going to get drunk and shoot the place up.”
If you are worried about that, your fear is completely irrational.
“Guns and drunks — good times.”
Almost every state that allows carry in bars forbids the carrier from drinking.
“Ah, but never fear there will be some “hero” who pulls out his trusty six inches of hard metal and saves the day…too bad some people died before “hero” pulled his gun, hey, way more would a died…. Yeah, idiots, and maybe no one (that means zero, that means no widows no orphans, no one) would have died if guns weren’t allowed in bars in the first place.”
And you accuse us of coming up with fantasies. Again, reality has proven you wrong. This kind of nonsense has been brought up every time concealed carry comes up, any time loosening of restrictions come up, and every time, it fails to materialize.
“These people who think that everyone should be armed are barbarians”
They are also nonexistent.
“…why do we let them get away with it? The hardcore gun people are a political minority but they have clout far, far beyond their actual numbers. I’d like to amend the Constitution to make sure that I will never be forced to carry a gun!”
So I guess this was a troll and I fell for it. Otherwise, I’m forced to believe that you actually think that we think you should be forced to carry a gun.
wilson-
“I love this argument: “When a central government (ours) becomes totalitarian (absolute power over every aspect of our lives), gun ownership is essential to avoid large scale slaughter by ones own government.” A typical response from a gun loving nutjob who hasn’t a clue.
The Minute Men days are long over and the ability of citizenry to overcome the government based on equality of weaponry has long gone. If in fact the central government wanted to slaughter citizens, your little handgun or store bought hunting rifle stands no chance against a M1-A3 MBT or Apache attack helicopter or anything else in the US military inventory. So either come up with a better excuse or shut the hell up.”
You know what I love? Forum posters who, in their zeal to mash the “Enter” button, don’t bother to read the thread first. That way they don’t notice that their point has already been both made and refuted.
“The Minute Men days are long over and the ability of citizenry to overcome the government based on equality of weaponry has long gone. If in fact the central government wanted to slaughter citizens, your little handgun or store bought hunting rifle stands no chance against a M1-A3 MBT or Apache attack helicopter or anything else in the US military inventory. So either come up with a better excuse or shut the hell up.”
One shot. This is this.
Byron: “how about it is in the 2nd amendment for starters.”
How about it’s not been ‘incorporated’ as good against the states?
Byron: “Secondarily if what you say is true the Russians should have pacified Afghanistan in a couple of weeks and we as well. The Russians were there for about 10 years and we have been there for almost 9.”
Sad; isn’t it?
Elaine M.: “I think in Afghanistan it’s not just about people there having guns and weapons–it’s about the terrain of the country. Put a bunch of warrior folks with guns on the Great Plains and they’d probably be much easier to conquer than the Afghans.”
That’s pretty much it in a nutshell.
Byron: “that assumes they would be willing to fight on that portion of land.”
I thought the hunter chooses the hunting ground.
Byron: “We gun lovers have read much more than Daffy Duck comic books and tend to like history, some of us even play war games (board games of course although I don’t) based on historical battles. And a good many of us have read Clausewitz, Sun Tzu and Thucydides.”
Simply because I appreciate guns it does not follow that I love them. Further, I’m more of a Bugs Bunny man myself.
Bob Esq:
I don’t love guns, I like to shoot and appreciate the workmanship in some of the nicer ones and think it fun to hit a small target at a couple of hundred yards.
Would you fight on the great plains with small arms? It would make for a good tank battle.
Isn’t a hunter hunting animals? Men have a choice where they fight. Everyone seems to neglect human volition when it comes to guns. As soon as one is in your hand you become a mind numbed robot under the control of that piece of steel in your hand. I don’t get it, how does a gun take control of your mind and cause you to become purely instinctual?
Actually I do like Bugs Bunny better than Daffy Duck. Daffy was used for effect I would not have wanted to insult Bugs as being lite reading. Bugs is an all time favorite.
I’m just waiting for the call to ban airplanes.
They have proven to be a very dangerous weapon when placed in the wrong hands. Shouldn’t we just assume that? Isn’t it a lot like assuming that the potential for deadly use isn’t worth the risk?
Can anyone justify the deaths caused by airplanes?
Duh:
in lite of the Austin tragedy I agree with you, we need to ban small airplanes so this cant happen again. If we dont more people will die tragically. Oh the humanity. They need to have strict limitations on Cessnas, you have to have a license and a registration and a special lock so kids cant start them up. They also need a 5 day waiting period to fly one, if they had had that rule this would not have happened.
Small planes need to be outlawed. Never Again.
Byron,
I’m pretty sure it was a Piper Cherokee that crashed in Texas.
I read a story about a lady running over her husband with her car. Maybe we should ban cars too.
Isn’t that the proper reaction when an object can be misused?
I wonder how “rcampbell” will “justify” those deaths? What about the accidental deaths caused by careless drivers? Can “rcampbell” justify those deaths too?
Byron,
I too enjoy long range target shooting and I too would probably pay a pretty penny for something like an A3 O3 in its original cosmoline.
I think I offended someone recently when he sent me a picture of him behind his .50 cal stainless custom and I said ‘it’s not the most practical gun in the world.’ Apparently he’s a bit of a 2nd Amendment freak that’s very attached to his toys.
Also regarding the 2nd Amendment, you need to stop looking to that portion of the Bill of Rights to make your claim that it protects your right of gun ownership. It doesn’t. The 2nd Amendment applies only to the Federal government (I believe that’s what the 1800′s Miller case was about). It has not been incorporated as good against the states yet via the 14th amendment.
BUT…
Remember our discussion about D.C. being a Federal District? Remember the holding from District of Columbia v. Heller? Well, it turns out that the federal district known as D.C. is populated with American Citizens. And if SCOTUS has deemed that American Citizens in D.C. have a 2nd Amendment right to KBA, then guess what the 14th Amendment says about the rest of us American citizens?
Get the picture?
I
Here’s a good article to read.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/local-opinions/2009/09/gun_owners_next_victory_in_dc.html
Bob Esq:
How do you come to the conclusion that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the federal government? Isn’t the Bill of Rights dedicated to individual citizens for additional protection?
Back then the militia would have been local level individuals who would come out to protect the town from Indian attack or the British at Concord. So wouldn’t the 2nd Amendment support the right of individuals? It may have been written at the Federal level but it applied to the state/local level. Guns were part of our country’s early history. To me it is inconceivable that our founders would have meant that guns should only be in the hands of an armorer to hand out during times of trouble to people who had been trained on the weekends.
Miller seems to say that if the weapon has a military purpose then you can own one. From what I am reading it appears that tax law is what is controlling firearms and not actual 2nd amendment considerations.
Byron: “How do you come to the conclusion that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the federal government? Isn’t the Bill of Rights dedicated to individual citizens for additional protection?”
No. For nearly a century, i.e. before ‘the incorporation doctrine,’ the Bill of rights applied only to the federal government — AS ORIGINALLY INTENDED.
Byron: “Back then the militia would have been local level individuals who would come out to protect the town from Indian attack or the British at Concord. So wouldn’t the 2nd Amendment support the right of individuals?”
Only against the federal government. You’re thinking a bit like a liberal right now; looking for that all powerful father figure federal government to solve all your problems. REALITY CHECK: The federal government exists as a constitution of SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED POWERS; all the remaining powers, i.e. THE LARGER SHARE OF SAID POWERS, were retained by the states under the concept known as dual federalism.
Byron: “It may have been written at the Federal level but it applied to the state/local level. Guns were part of our country’s early history.”
Please spare me the appeals to emotion.
Byron: “To me it is inconceivable that our founders would have meant that guns should only be in the hands of an armorer to hand out during times of trouble to people who had been trained on the weekends.”
They left that up to the state governments to decide for themselves; which, after just winning the revolutionary war, meant that the right to gun ownership was a foregone conclusion — else we’d have no republic to speak of.
Byron: “Miller seems to say that if the weapon has a military purpose then you can own one. From what I am reading it appears that tax law is what is controlling firearms and not actual 2nd amendment considerations.”
Tax laws were the foot in the door for the Fed to start promulgating penal laws — in the COMPLETE ABSENCE OF THE SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED POWER TO PROMULGATE SAID PENAL LAWS. That power was left to the states.
Byron,
Here’s the summary I always go back to when thinking of tax acts merging with an imaginary power to promulgate criminal laws:
Prof. Charles Whitebread
“The very first criminal law at the Federal level in this country to criminalize the non-medical use of drugs came in 1914. It was called the Harrison Act and there are only three things about the Harrison Act that we need to focus on today.
Number one is the date. Did you hear the date, 1914? Some of you may have come this morning thinking that we have used the criminal law to deal with the non-medical use of drugs since the beginning of the Republic or something. That is not true. The entire experiment of using the criminal sanction to deal with the non-medical use of drugs really began in this country in 1914 with the Harrison Act.
The second interesting thing about the Harrison Act was the drugs to which it applied, because it applied to almost none of the drugs we would be concerned about today. The Harrison Act applied to opium, morphine and its various derivatives, and the derivatives of the coca leaf like cocaine. No mention anywhere there of amphetamines, barbiturates, marijuana, hashish, hallucinogenic drugs of any kind. The Harrison Act applied only to opium, morphine and its various derivatives and derivatives of the coca leaf like cocaine.
The third and most interesting thing for you all as judges about the Harrison Act was its structure, because the structure of this law was very peculiar and became the model for every single piece of Federal legislation from 1914 right straight through 1969. And what was that model?
It was called the Harrison Tax Act. You know, the drafters of the Harrison Act said very clearly on the floor of Congress what it was they wanted to achieve. They had two goals. They wanted to regulate the medical use of these drugs and they wanted to criminalize the non-medical use of these drugs. They had one problem. Look at the date — 1914. 1914 was probably the high water mark of the constitutional doctrine we today call “states’ rights” and, therefore, it was widely thought Congress did not have the power, number one, to regulate a particular profession, and number two, that Congress did not have the power to pass what was, and is still known, as a general criminal law. That’s why there were so few Federal Crimes until very recently.”
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm
Bob Esq:
If I understand what you are saying a particular state could abolish gun ownership? How so since the 2nd amendment guarantees individual ownership?
A state cant unilaterally declare an end to free speech or start searching people in the middle of the night.
I hope I am thinking like a “liberal”, a true liberal. One who believes in individual rights. Not the faux liberality of today’s collectivists.
Byron: “If I understand what you are saying a particular state could abolish gun ownership? How so since the 2nd amendment guarantees individual ownership?”
Because the 2nd Amendment has not yet been ‘incorporated’ as good against the states. The BOR are nothing more than particular restrictions on the Fed’s power; not the states.
Byron: “A state cant unilaterally declare an end to free speech or start searching people in the middle of the night.”
Of course not; but it could have tried. Read Federalist 84 for Hamilton’s description of where rights come from.
Byron: “I hope I am thinking like a “liberal”, a true liberal. One who believes in individual rights. Not the faux liberality of today’s collectivists.”
Like I’ve said before, the labels of today don’t match the classical descriptions that have been in place for centuries. When I said ‘liberal’, in this sense, I was talking about the modern knee jerk reactionaries who constantly look for that father figure federal government to ‘make everything all right in the world’ via increasing the power of the Fed.
Liberals are far too trusting; witness their slack-jaws at the news that the Justice Department won’t be prosecuting any war crimes.
Would a liberal look into a state’s power to remedy the problem? Hell no; not when they can convince themselves there’s some sort of virtue in ‘moving on.’
Bob Esq:
I dont want to run to the federal government, that is generally a rights inhibitor.
Thanks for the lessons. I read Fed 84 the other day on your recommendation about 9th amendment considerations above.
What Hamilton was saying wouldn’t happen has pretty much happened. We have a rights stomping federal government
So do you believe in a strong central government or weak central government Bryon?
Bob, Esq–
“Liberals are far too trusting; witness their slack-jaws at the news that the Justice Department won’t be prosecuting any war crimes.”
That’s certainly not true of many of us liberals. Conservatives and right wingers like to impose their definition of liberal on us and are trying to turn the word liberal into a pejorative.
Definitions of liberal (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language)
liberal–adj.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behaviors of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
d. Liberal. Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
liberal—noun
A person with liberal ideas or opinions
As for me, I’m not ashamed to say that I have a liberal outlook on most things. I believe it’s good to be open to new ideas and to be free of bigotry. I also believe in progress–and in working for reform where it is needed.
Elaine M.,
Don’t get me wrong, I used to think I was a liberal for most of my life; until I watched a group of spineless marvels allow the Supreme Court appoint a president and then excuse the same president as he defrauded the country into war.
I join in every objection Rachel Maddow has made against the left for not fighting back or holding anyone on the right accountable for anything.
Are you implying that all conservatives are close minded bigots? I’m familiar with the lot you’re referring to and I despise them equally; but none more than the rabid right wing.
I also agree with John Dean, in so much as his observation that attempting to organize liberals to do anything is tantamount to herding [indecisive] cats.
What liberals don’t seem to understand is that there’s a difference between being open minded and paralyzing themselves with indecisiveness and being bereft of spine.
Bob, Esq.–
The conservatives also allowed that president who “defrauded the country into war” into leaving us with a huge deficit. I thought Republicans were supposed to be the party of fiscal responsibility. As for being spineless marvels–that’s true of liberals and conservatives in both parties. It’s also true of many members of the MSM who never held Bush’s feet to the fire when he talked about launching a preemptive war against Iraq.
Unfortunately, we probably have few TRUE liberals and conservatives in our two major political parties. Too many politicians are bought and paid for by corporations and their lobbyists. We have few people of courage representing us in Washington today.
Elaine/Bob Esq:
I actually think the right designations now are people who believe in limited government and those who don’t. Liberal and conservative don’t mean anything anymore.
There are many “conservatives” who believe in big government, Bush being one of them and there are many liberals who believe in limited government and individual rights.
I think you will find many democrats and republicans who side with George Bush’s idea of “compassionate conservatism” which is nothing more than “I love big government and it has all the answers”.
The problem so many have, both dems and repubs, is fear of the masses. They don’t believe in freedom for the masses, they don’t think the average person can take care of himself. We are too stupid for self government and our elite elected representatives know far more than us simple minded rubes.
But are you both for Laissez Faire? Economic and political freedom are liberal attitudes, one without the other is nothing more than believing in control of peoples lives. Which is nothing more than big government good, individual bad.
To continue the discussion.
Analysis: Untruths have consequences in politics
WASHINGTON – Conservatives leapt to their feet when Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney declared Democrats the party of “No!” — no to balanced budgets, limits on lawsuits, tax cuts and tough interrogations of terror suspects.
Link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100221/ap_on_an/us_consequences_of_untruths_analysis
So where does the top quit spinning?
AY:
most of the republicans like Romney are just big government wannabes. they want what democrats want just less of it. Less being a very small difference.
Most republicans are to the left of Sam Nunn and Scope Jackson today.
Elaine M.,
That all may be true, but how do you explain the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Obama; Pelosi absolutely precluding the possibility of impeaching Bush during his administration and Obama’s tripe about “looking forward instead of back?”
Bob,Esq.–
“That all may be true…” I’m not sure exactly what you’re referring to.
Bob Esq:
how would you have impeached Bush? It was tried with Clinton and it failed. It was a political decision to not impeach Bush and frankly, even though I don’t care for Pelosi, she made the right decision from a purely political perspective. If she had done that McCain would be president and I doubt you would have had a democrat house or senate. So you could say she did it for her own self preservation as speaker without any concern for the country.
It may have shown she had balls but brains not so much. After all it is called politics for a reason. They dont call it “integritics”.
Elaine M.: “That all may be true…” I’m not sure exactly what you’re referring to.
Everything you said leading up to: “Unfortunately, we probably have few TRUE liberals and conservatives in our two major political parties.”
Byron: “how would you have impeached Bush? It was tried with Clinton and it failed. It was a political decision to not impeach Bush and frankly, even though I don’t care for Pelosi, she made the right decision from a purely political perspective. If she had done that McCain would be president and I doubt you would have had a democrat house or senate. So you could say she did it for her own self preservation as speaker without any concern for the country.
It may have shown she had balls but brains not so much. After all it is called politics for a reason. They dont call it “integritics”.”
Byron,
Bush confessed to defrauding the country into war. Bugliosi wrote a book about it.
Holding public office is not license to politicize crime.
Bob,Esq.–
You asked me to explain Pelosi’s precluding the possibility of impeaching Bush and Obama’s “looking forward instead of back.”
One explanation: political expediency.
“One explanation: political expediency.”
Not a good grounding for a metaphysics of morals; is it?
Bob, Esq.–
Looking for morality in politics is akin to searching for a needle in a haystack–a really BIG haystack.
Elaine M.: “Looking for morality in politics is akin to searching for a needle in a haystack–a really BIG haystack.”
Then I guess I’m a hopeless romantic.
Bob,
You will get no Hooch from me.
I commend the elected officials who voted for the rights of a “concealed” weapons permit holder. What people in this day and time fail to forget is WE are at war. It may not seem to be here on our homeland but take a closer look at the news media and realize this not your conventional war but a sneak attack is possible around any and every corner. Concealed weapons permit holder are nothing other than a citizen armed assistant to law enforcement and should be treated as such. We have gone through the proper channels to be registered and permitted. Do you think any criminal or madman has ? I say “Thank You” to our elected officials who have recognized our effort to be prepared for the worst.
Do your research. Know the laws. Be responsible.
The “guns in bars” bill now means that responsible people can now carry concealed in a Restaurant that serves alcohol or a bar. I say responsible because if you have a conceal carry permit in Va you have had firearms safety training and have passed a background check above and beyond the one to buy a new firearm from a gun shop. It has been legal, where acceptable for people to OPEN carry in the same restaurants or bars they can now conceal so not to scare the people who choose not to carry and I don’t want everyone to know I have a firearm especially in a bar. The criminals have been carrying concealed in rest./bars all along and nobody cared about that. You are NOT allowed to drink if you ARE conceal carrying and I agree completely with that as I can’t imagine giving a drunk person a gun just like I wouldn’t let them drive a car that way. Also, I would rather my carry gun be on me than in my car where someone could break in and steal it. I have it for protection as I HAVE been shot at in the past, if you haven’t you wouldn’t understand. I will protect the people that voted against this bill if anything happens, which I don’t expect will, but I am prepared even if you are not. I think it evens the playing field between the criminals and us law abiding citizens. Why do I carry, because I am allowed to by law and I refuse to be a victim again. WHY DON’T YOU? This all being said, I have never open carried though I could have for many years, I don’t like the negative attention it brings-which it shouldn’t but I don’t wear a shirt that says I have never commited a crime, done drugs or plan to but people assume a lot.
I just read some more posts on here and saw where a person was complaining about people having guns which is legal by the 2nd amendment and then they go on to say we should be required to smoke POT.
REALLY? So who’s the “bad” person? Me, who legally and responsibly owns a firearm or you who does illegal drugs and thinks everyone should. Hey, I got friends who have smoked their share and I don’t think any less of them as they are good people just as there are bad people that own guns. I think one of the important issues here is that because there are bad and good people in the world shouldn’t more good honest people have protection from the bad people?
If you think you can ‘resist’ the government with you ‘firearm’ you are insane, crazy, have never stood next to an M1 tank or felt a 500lb bomb explode, probably all of the above.
You want your gun, so you think that you can fight of the darkies downtown, like john wayne would a ragtag bunch of hollering injuns. Be honest.
Our government is not totalitarian, except among fringe gun nuts who think ‘tyranny’ is letting anyone be president who isn’t a right wint republican or doing anything that isn’t endorsed by gun nuts and right wing nuts.
If our government resorts to ‘totalitarianism’ your 9mm isn’t going do jack, to a guided missled launched from a predator drone 20 thousand feet above. You would die in a cloud of dust and organic matter before you even knew you were being ‘oppressed.’
The founding fathers put the second amendment in so they could field an army by means of draft on the cheap and to address to concerns of the frontier. Not so in some mythical world you could lead a Star Wars rebel alliance freedom fight against the government with your handgun.
“REALLY? So who’s the “bad” person? Me, who legally and responsibly owns a firearm or you who does illegal drugs and thinks everyone should. Hey, I got friends who have smoked their share and I don’t think any less of them as they are good people just as there are bad people that own guns. I think one of the important issues here is that because there are bad and good people in the world shouldn’t more good honest people have protection from the bad people?”
Yes, really, you mental midget. Drugs are only illegal because the government has made them so. Guns could easily be illegal. And then your pseduo moral argument would have no merit. The government arbitrarily decides what is legal and illegal based on nothing more than lobby pressure. Drug prohibition has nothing to do with public safety or morality, it’s about enforcing a monopoly on intoxicants with state power.
“Concealed weapons permit holder are nothing other than a citizen armed assistant to law enforcement and should be treated as such.”
The police don’t need concealed weapons, the army doesn’t need concealed weapons. Why do you?
“Why do I carry, because I am allowed to by law and I refuse to be a victim again. WHY DON’T YOU? This all being said, I have never open carried though I could have for many years, I don’t like the negative attention it brings-which it shouldn’t but I don’t wear a shirt that says I have never commited a crime, done drugs or plan to but people assume a lot.”
Because I’m confident in my penis size.