Posted by (+20) 9 years ago
Knowing that most of you are leftists, I'm curious to see where you people stand on gun control and that topic in general. Especially after the shootings.
The Right To Bear Arms
A distinguished citizen takes a stand on one of the most controversial issues in the nation
By Warren E. Burger, Chief Justice of the United States (1969-86)
Parade Magazine, January 14, 1990, page 4
Our metropolitan centers, and some suburban communities of America, are setting new records for homicides by handguns. Many of our large centers have up to 10 times the murder rate of all of Western Europe. In 1988, there were 9000 handgun murders in America. Last year, Washington, D.C., alone had more than 400 homicides -- setting a new record for our capital.
The Constitution of the United States, in its Second Amendment, guarantees a "right of the people to keep and bear arms." However, the meaning of this clause cannot be understood except by looking to the purpose, the setting and the objectives of the draftsmen. The first 10 amendments -- the Bill of Rights -- were not drafted at Philadelphia in 1787; that document came two years later than the Constitution. Most of the states already had bills of rights, but the Constitution might not have been ratified in 1788 if the states had not had assurances that a national Bill of Rights would soon be added.
People of that day were apprehensive about the new "monster" national government presented to them, and this helps explain the language and purpose of the Second Amendment. A few lines after the First Amendment's guarantees -- against "establishment of religion," "free exercise" of religion, free speech and free press -- came a guarantee that grew out of the deep-seated fear of a "national" or "standing" army. The same First Congress that approved the right to keep and bear arms also limited the national army to 840 men; Congress in the Second Amendment then provided:
"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."
In the 1789 debate in Congress on James Madison's proposed Bill of Rights, Elbridge Gerry argued that a state militia was necessary:
"to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty ... Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia in order to raise and army upon their ruins."
We see that the need for a state militia was the predicate of the "right" guaranteed; in short, it was declared "necessary" in order to have a state military force to protect the security of the state. That Second Amendment clause must be read as though the word "because" was the opening word of the guarantee. Today, of course, the "state militia" serves a very different purpose. A huge national defense establishment has taken over the role of the militia of 200 years ago.
Some have exploited these ancient concerns, blurring sporting guns -- rifles, shotguns and even machine pistols -- with all firearms, including what are now called "Saturday night specials." There is, of course, a great difference between sporting guns and handguns. Some regulation of handguns has long been accepted as imperative; laws relating to "concealed weapons" are common. That we may be "over-regulated" in some areas of life has never held us back from more regulation of automobiles, airplanes, motorboats and "concealed weapons."
Let's look at the history.
First, many of the 3.5 million people living in the 13 original Colonies depended on wild game for food, and a good many of them required firearms for their defense from marauding Indians -- and later from the French and English. Underlying all these needs was an important concept that each able-bodied man in each of the 133 independent states had to help or defend his state.
The early opposition to the idea of national or standing armies was maintained under the Articles of Confederation; that confederation had no standing army and wanted none. The state militia -- essentially a part-time citizen army, as in Switzerland today -- was the only kind of "army" they wanted. From the time of the Declaration of Independence through the victory at Yorktown in 1781, George Washington, as the commander-in-chief of these volunteer-militia armies, had to depend upon the states to send those volunteers.
When a company of New Jersey militia volunteers reported for duty to Washington at Valley Forge, the men initially declined to take an oath to "the United States," maintaining, "Our country is New Jersey." Massachusetts Bay men, Virginians and others felt the same way. To the American of the 18th century, his state was his country, and his freedom was defended by his militia.
The victory at Yorktown -- and the ratification of the Bill of Rights a decade later -- did not change people's attitudes about a national army. They had lived for years under the notion that each state would maintain its own military establishment, and the seaboard states had their own navies as well. These people, and their fathers and grandfathers before them, remembered how monarchs had used standing armies to oppress their ancestors in Europe. Americans wanted no part of this. A state militia, like a rifle and powder horn, was as much a part of life as the automobile is today; pistols were largely for officers, aristocrats -- and dueling.
Against this background, it was not surprising that the provision concerning firearms emerged in very simple terms with the significant predicate -- basing the right on the necessity for a "well regulated militia," a state army.
In the two centuries since then -- with two world wars and some lesser ones -- it has become clear, sadly, that we have no choice but to maintain a standing national army while still maintaining a "militia" by way of the National Guard, which can be swiftly integrated into the national defense forces.
Americans also have a right to defend their homes, and we need not challenge that. Nor does anyone seriously question that the Constitution protects the right of hunters to own and keep sporting guns for hunting game any more than anyone would challenge the right to own and keep fishing rods and other equipment for fishing -- or to own automobiles. To "keep and bear arms" for hunting today is essentially a recreational activity and not an imperative of survival, as it was 200 years ago; "Saturday night specials" and machine guns are not recreational weapons and surely are as much in need of regulation as motor vehicles.
Americans should ask themselves a few questions. The Constitution does not mention automobiles or motorboats, but the right to keep and own an automobile is beyond question; equally beyond question is the power of the state to regulate the purchase or the transfer of such a vehicle and the right to license the vehicle and the driver with reasonable standards. In some places, even a bicycle must be registered, as must some household dogs.
If we are to stop this mindless homicidal carnage, is it unreasonable:
-to provide that, to acquire a firearm, an application be made reciting age, residence, employment and any prior criminal convictions?
-to required that this application lie on the table for 10 days (absent a showing for urgent need) before the license would be issued?
-that the transfer of a firearm be made essentially as with that of a motor vehicle?
to have a "ballistic fingerprint" of the firearm made by the manufacturer and filed with the license record so that, if a bullet is found in a victim's body, law enforcement might be helped in finding the culprit?
These are the kind of questions the American people must answer if we are to preserve the "domestic tranquillity" promised in the Constitution.
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
Zip guns are "arms" and assault rifles are "arms".
protect me from the tyranny of the government.
"In all the colonies, as in England, the militia system was based on the principle of the assize of arms. This implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to cooperate in the work of defence."
"The possession of arms also implied the possession of ammunition, and the authorities paid quite as much attention to the latter as to the former."
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
By Kelly I'm just wondering why you can't carry a gun into a gun show as an attendee?
Simplest answer is Safety!
Not all guns have safeties that will disable the firearm from shooting it, if you inadvertently put a bogger-hook on the bang switch, and it is loaded, it will fire. Glocks, Taurus 738 TCP's and others like them, have the safety incorporated on the trigger and what is worse, do not have a visible hammer to see if the firearm is cocked. This is a bad combination for those who carry fully loaded (with a round in the chamber) and ready to fire. The safeties on these are designed to prevent an accidental discharge (AD) if dropped, but will permit a negligent discharge (ND) if the person forgets to "index" (put trigger finger along the side of the firearm) and touches the bang switch with their booger-hook.
And not every gun show restricts carry of firearms into the show. What they do not want is loaded firearms or firearms that can be quickly loaded going in the door. That is why at some gun-shows, you will be permitted to carry one in, AFTER you prove it is unloaded and they zip-tie it, so that it cannot be loaded or fired.
Not all guns have safeties that will disable the firearm from shooting it, if you inadvertently put a bogger-hook on the bang switch, and it is loaded, it will fire. Glocks, Taurus 738 TCP's and others like them, have the safety incorporated on the trigger and what is worse, do not have a visible hammer to see if the firearm is cocked. This is a bad combination for those who carry fully loaded (with a round in the chamber) and ready to fire.
In reality, Miller did not make possession of machine guns and sawed-off shotguns illegal but imposes a requirement to pay a tax and acquire a permit. It's a de facto prohibition to those without a certain class of FFL.
Glocks, Taurus 738 TCP's and others like them, have the safety incorporated on the trigger and what is worse, do not have a visible hammer to see if the firearm is cocked. This is a bad combination for those who carry fully loaded (with a round in the chamber) and ready to fire.
Again... let us ponder this statement for a moment.
I'm DEFINITELY saying "More people carrying guns == more shootings, accidental or otherwise", because that's simple statistics, and therefore I question the need that some people have to carry a firearm everywhere they go.
that all of the innocent bystanders were shot by TRAINED POLICE OFFICERS!
Again... let us think about the implications of this statement.
This is a link to some really dumba$$ gun videos. Enjoy
The Constitution says the people can keep and bear arms. It does NOT say we can fire those arms. It also doesn't say anything about ammunition.
It also doesn't say what kind of arms we can keep and bear.
Of course if they are all actually staged -faked or set-up- stupid events, what should we call those who believe them to be real?
State-by-state incident reports compiled by the Violence Policy Center of innocent citizens and law enforcement officers killed by persons issued CCW permits.
Maybe we can say that they haven't been around guns during their life so they aren't as astute at picking out the items you described?
Res ipsa loquitor.
Why the contortions, Donald?
The Concealed Carry Killer reports referenced in the VPC link cover the years leading from 2007-present. Each one of those deaths were caused by the actions of a concealed weapons permit holder. Note how incident dates range from 2007 to 2012 and how the heading above each incident report reads "Concealed Weapon Permit Holder" followed by the shooter's name.
Gun Appreciation Day Special: 3 accidental shootings, 5 wounded at gun shows.
"Total People Killed by Concealed Carry Killers."
The Violence Policy Center's Concealed Carry Killers database documents 370 incidents in 32 states. In more than three quarters of the incidents (295) the concealed carry killer has already been convicted
Now we have something that discusses the shooters actually being Concealed Carry Permit holders. The way it is worded implies that all of the prior lists were not actually Permit Holders, but were simply people who were carrying concealed.An additional 10 incidents were fatal unintentional shootings involving the gun of the concealed handgun permit holder.
Because detailed information on such killings is not readily available, the VPC is forced to rely primarily on news accounts for reports of such killings and subsequent legal proceedings.
Res ipsa loquitor
Meanwhile, in Chicago, where gun laws are among the very strictest in the nation, 17 people were shot over the weekend, 2 fatally.
Logical fallaciesstatistics, how do they work?
who now have cheap flying death robots, which doesn't seem to upset the 2nd amendment absolutists nearly as much as you think it would.
Is the Government operating death drones here in the US? If so, then there may be a Second Amendment issue.
I remember being offered hunters/gun safety courses as a young child (around 10). They do not offer these in my area anymore because parents were outraged that there would be a "gun class."
No hunter's safety courses in Wyoming? I call bullpoop.
This has happened because of parent outcries about "guns in school".
emphasis added for clarityI remember being offered hunters/gun safety courses as a young child (around 10). They do not offer these in my area anymore because parents were outraged that there would be a "gun class."
Now, Donald, for your sake: I am COMPLETELY aware that MI has hunters' education courses; I have been involved with MI DNR education outreach programs. As I stated in my post there ARE hunters' safety courses in MI through the DNR, but they have to be sought out now.
"They do not offer these in my area anymore..."
Donald, I found your picture on the web:
they have to be sought out by the persons who want to take them.
I... I... I don't know what to say. I'm starting to think that "Donald Mullikin" is some sort of elaborate performance art project.
So where do they require to be sought out?
From what I am seeing they are advertised and the links are open for public viewing.
Or are you trying to make it sound harder than what it really is?
If so, what is your objective in that deception?
Donald there is no deception there if you know what the word SOUGHT means. Let me help you out a little bit.
simple past tense and past participle of seek.
seek: verb (used with object)
1.to go in search or quest of: to seek the truth.
2.to try to find or discover by searching or questioning: to seek the solution to a problem.
3.to try to obtain: to seek fame.
4.to try or attempt (usually followed by an infinitive): to seek to convince a person.
5.to go to: to seek a place to rest.
Did you have to do an internet "search" for that information? Ummmm, yup! Therefore, you SOUGHT that information out.
Once again, such courses need to be SOUGHT out by persons wanting to participate (i.e if one wants to participate, one must SEEK out information on when and where courses are taking place). I never said they were DIFFICULT to find, nor did I say they were not available. I simply said they were not offered through the schools anymore.
Donald, stop taking my, and others', words and "fitting" them into your argument, just for the sake of arguing. I know what I said, and I meant what I said.