Fuck Your Gun
Let’s limit gun ownership to what Heston is holding here.
Yesterday, in something of a whirlwind session of the oft-feckless New York State legislature, Senate Majority leader Dean Skelos, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, and Governor Andrew Cuomo agreed to the key provisions of what is called the “NY SAFE” act, or “Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement” Act. It passed the state senate late Monday, and will be taken up by the Assembly today.
The law will do the following:
– limit gun magazines to hold a maximum of 7 bullets;
– universal background checks for every single gun transfer, including private ones that are person-to-person; and
– a “Webster provision” mandating life without parole for anyone who murders a first responder.
Here’s what at least one 2nd Amendment purist had to say about it on Twitter:
Goodbye, Second Amendment.m.usatoday.com/article/news/1…
— Kathryn DeLong (@kathryndelong) January 14, 2013
The second amendment. The one that helps enshrine perpetual violence and revolution. Its purpose – clearly stated – was to make sure that our new country, which at the time had no standing army, could protect itself from attacks by Britons, Frenchmen, Spaniards, and whatever Indian tribe or nation from which we were trying wrest control of land.
You want a gun for hunting? Target practice? Skeet? To ward off robbers or burglars? That’s fine. You don’t, however, get to keep a military arsenal.
Those on the deepest fringes of the right wing – the people who think lunatic Alex Jones is an influential and sane voice about guns – love to bring up the notion that the 2nd Amendment exists to protect you from “tyranny”. No one gets too worked up trying to define what “tyranny” is, or who gets to decide when “tyranny” becomes a clear and present danger. This crowd loves to cite the Declaration of Independence – a document that was a declaration of war against a monarch who brutally exploited his American colonies. The Declaration, however, ceased to have any legal effect the moment that Britain lost the war and recognized American Independence.
So, no, proud patriot, you don’t have a right to take up arms against the government. Indeed, Article III, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution makes that sort of thing a very serious crime.
One more gun control effort, one more gun fetishist makes some broken, semi-informed analogy about how if the Jews were armed in the 30s, they could have somehow halted their own genocide in the face of a German war machine. One more gun debate, one more person suggesting that our representative democracy – flawed though it might be – is or could oh-so-easily-be the equivalent of Pol Pot’s Cambodia. One more effort to limit the firepower we so casually make available to lunatics, one more person expressing their idiot fever-dream of single-handedly taking on the FBI or One World Government or ZOG, notwithstanding the fact that the government could – if it wanted to – easily take out your entire neighborhood with an unmanned drone operated by a teenager nursing a Monster Energy Drink in a dank, smelly basement in Northern Virginia.
One more gun fetishist, one more clumsy analogy made to some other object with a large capacity or capability of doing harm that we are allowed to own, but the primary purpose for which is not “putting holes in things at breakneck speed”. Gas tanks, fast cars, pencils.
And what of tyranny? We’ve had plenty of tyranny in this country, but when the Black Panthers agitated for blacks to arm themselves during the civil rights struggles of the 60s, the NRA was happy to support the Mulford Act, which limited the Panthers’ ability to carry arms and inform black citizens of their Constitutional rights. The NRA supports your right to bear arms, so long as you’re of European descent and not too uppity.
Some have taken to social media to criticize the limit on magazines. I don’t understand why it’s ok for someone to have a semiautomatic pistol that can fire 7 bullets in 7 seconds and extinguish 7 lives in that period of time, but I suppose it’s exponentially better than the 33-round clip that Gabby Giffords’ would-be assassin had in his possession. He was subdued only as he tried to reload; by that time, six people had been killed.
I get that violence is an integral part of American society and history. But I also recognize that you don’t get to own an F-15 or a nuclear missile just because it makes you feel safe or helps you ward off “tyranny”.
I know that the rhetoric on this issue is going to get much worse before it gets any better. After all, we have a Kenyan communist President, against whom any facile lie is routinely thrown. I also think that insane lunatics shouldn’t have access to military weapons and equipment; shouldn’t be able to waltz around your town with enough firepower to put 11 holes in a first grader. Shouldn’t be able to get so many rounds off in so little time that the first grader’s jaw and hand are disappeared.
If you like guns, good for you. If you’re a Glenn Beck / Alex Jones type, I sincerely hope that you get Galt’s Gulch going – that you divest yourself completely from American society and go off and start your post-hippie, penis envy-laden republic of gunnutistan – a place that is not on American soil and is free from American law and jurisdiction, so you can carry out your secessionist fever dreams away from us normal people.
Because our easy access to guns and our gun culture make our society a particularly violent one; not video games or TV shows – those are safe avenues of expressing the reality of warfare. We love war and conflict. We can’t get enough of it. Somehow, other societies are able to function without it.
New York is going to limit your ability to transfer your guns to the angry and insane, and it’s going to make you have to reload more frequently while you’re shooting up your neighborhood or a schoolroom. This isn’t the end of the 2nd Amendment – it’s a first step to protecting those of us who don’t run around living in perpetual fear, armed to the teeth.
People took to Twitter to complain because there were no hearing or public debate on the bill. The first anyone heard of it is when it went up for a vote. Can you defend what passes for the process (putting aside the merits, which are more dubious than your F-15 comparisons suggest)?
Albany process is always broken. I could launch into a dissertation on the pointlessness of having two deliberative bodies, especially where neither of them is particularly deliberative.
Ultimately, I find disingenuous the notion that Albany is a place for thoughtful people to debate and discuss legislation and the issues of the day. It’s never been that, and although I hope for it someday to be, pretending it is doesn’t make it so.
Then announce the broad framework of the bill and let other thoughtful people discuss it for a while, as is (kinda) happening with hydro-fracking. Because an 11th hour fast tracked bill and articles like yours (this bill is good because guns are bad and scary and who gets to decide when you need F-15’s to destroy tyranny) aren’t helpful for crafting good legislation. Do we want good legislation? Or any legislation?
For example, some merits adults might discuss if this had seen the light of day:
1) Why 7 rounds? Because it’s less than 30 or 15? Why not 8? Or 10? Or 5? The average gun fight is 7 meters, low light, and even a cop misses on 4 of his first 5 shots, statistically. There is data on this stuff. Let’s take data from what we know about successful defeats of home invasions and public massacres and figure out how many rounds we need to allow for that. The only reason handguns have 15 round mags is because that’s how many can fit in a grip. And 30 rounds on a rifle mag because the springs are out of balance for more. This stuff isn’t magic or sacrosanct.
2) Universal background checks are great – let’s figure out the pragmatic logisitics of how I would do a background check on you (and who pays for it, the purchaser does now) before selling you a gun before mandating something.
3) Minimum sentences have proven extremely ineffective in detering crime (everything from murders to drug offenses), so why would the “Webster provision” be more successful?
I don’t know why 7 rounds. But I do know that the argument being made – that limiting the number of rounds in a clip is inconsequential – can be flipped; if 7 won’t change anything, let’s make it 6 or 1. None of it will matter until we have federal uniformity, because anyone can waltz into Pennsylvania or Ohio and likely buy whatever they want. Firework prohibitions don’t prevent private firework displays.
What I do know is that Loughner got off about 20 – 30 rounds and killed 6 people and wounded more before he was subdued as he was caught reloading.
Unless you’re a security guard or someone who handles large amounts of cash on a daily basis, the possibility of being robbed by someone wielding a weapon is a remote one. I’d like to see the statistics on how many idiotic gunfights are prompted by a victim flashing a firearm. Or consider George Zimmerman, who shot a kid in the chest while “standing his ground” because the kid looked suspicious, ran away from him, and defended himself when tackled by the neighborhood watch goon.
In other words, more guns mean more gun violence – not less. If someone is dead-set on robbing you, they’re unlikely to be thought-out and logical enough to engage in a risk/benefit analysis regarding the likelihood that you’re armed.
2. Not only should we have comprehensive background checks, but also a waiting period. I’m always reminded of Homer Simpson’s response to being told he had to wait to obtain his gun, “but I’m angry NOW.”
3. The point of minimum sentences isn’t necessarily to deter crime, but to punish offenders and also to add something to New York’s very restrictive 1st degree murder count, which only applies to the slaying of law enforcement while doing their duty. Like I said above, seldom do criminals engage in complicated existential, logical cost/benefit analyses prior to committing their crimes.
“seldom do criminals engage in complicated existential, logical cost/benefit analyses prior to committing their crimes.”
I think this is exactly wrong. The crime we are seeking to specifically deter is the shooting in Aurora, where the criminal did conduct extremely complicated planning – body armor, multiple weapons, gas and gas mask, blocking entrances. I think you are using a false explanation (there’s no planning anyway) to justify a bad (or at least ineffective) potential law. If these three points don’t make it harder to conduct a successful killing spree, then we need a bill with better points.
I think events like Aurora and Columbine and Sandy Hook are unique in that they are exceedingly rare. Over 800 gun deaths have occurred throughout the United States in the month since the Sandy Hook shootings. Those, too, are important to consider and I don’t think your average criminal is busy worrying about consequences or constitutional issues.
And of those 800+ gun deaths, the vast majority were committed with hand guns and so very few with the so-called “assault rifle.” And, of course, most of those hand guns were illegal. Virtually none of the political points Cuomo scored yesterday for his presidential campaign had anything to do with hand guns or illegal weapons. Congratulations on accomplishing nothing to make Sandy Hook difficult to repeat.
“I don’t know why 7 rounds.”
The answer to this I believe is simple. It restricts as many as is practical currently-produced semi-automatic firearms. The most popular semi-automatic .22 rifle in the country – the Ruger 10/22 – has a standard 10-round rotary magazine. Virtually all semi-auto pistols have a capacity of 8 rounds or more. If the number were eight, these would remain legal. By making it seven it basically restricts ownership to revolvers, bolt-action hunting rifles, and factory-standard capacity shotguns.
The number and language also effects many conventional collectible and hunting arms, include the Springfield M1 (WWII US service rifle, calibre .30 semi-auto, 8 round internal magazine, bayonet lug) and SKS (Soviet-bloc 7.62×39 semi-auto, 10 internal magazine).
Also, your vulgar sensationalist voice does little to compare yourself favourably against the likes of those for whom you have contempt.
It always strikes me how gun people get nerdier than the nerdiest Trekkie when they get an opportunity to describe guns and ammunition in intricate detail.
Anywhoo, the only contempt I have is for murderers and people who think the constitution is a good way to make it easier for murderers to murder.
And it strikes me how knowledge on a topic should automatically qualify a person as “nerdy,” and knowledge specific to firearms as a “gun person.” Not presumptive of you at all.
Clearly the drafters of this piece of legislation have a firmer understanding of the current market of arms and ammunition than yourself, which – depending on one’s view – is either good, bad, or sad.
Um, it’s not presumptive when palpably true.
Truth is a personal sort of thing, but I’d still rather you didn’t touch me, thanks.
Basic knowledge on a prime political agenda and the things it concerns should not seem strange to you. That it does makes one think poorly of our base level of education as a nation, which is coincident with the actual statistical increase in gun violence. Areas of lesser education and higher population density(usually areas of tighter gun laws), still have higher rates of gun related crime. The random mass shooting does little to increase our national rate.
I believe that criminalizing guns won’t help our crime rate at all, and will remove the option for defensive use, increasing the overall detriment to the innocent. I believe that giving up freedom for safety eventually leads to having neither. I also own absolutely no firearms or other advanced weaponry, beyond cutlery.
“I don’t know why 7 rounds.”
The answer to this I believe is
simple. It restricts as many as is practical currently-produced
semi-automatic firearms. The most popular semi-automatic .22 rifle in
the country – the Ruger 10/22 – has a standard 10-round rotary magazine.
Virtually all semi-auto pistols have a capacity of 8 rounds or more. If
the number were eight, these would remain legal. By making it seven it
basically restricts ownership to revolvers, bolt-action hunting rifles,
and factory-standard capacity shotguns.
The number and language
also effects many conventional collectible and hunting arms, include the
Springfield M1 (WWII US service rifle, calibre .30 semi-auto, 8 round
internal magazine, bayonet lug) and SKS (Soviet-bloc 7.62×39 semi-auto,
10 internal magazine).
Also, your vulgar sensationalist voice
does little to compare yourself favourably against the likes of those
for whom you have contempt.
The prosecution in the George Zimmerman case needs you since you obviously know so much or are you just stating your opinions as facts? Just like you did when you wrote ” He was a predator hunting what he called “f*cking coons” on his 911 call to Sanford Police – the same police department that instructed Zimmerman to not pursue Martin.”on March 22, 2012 in Artvoice. Both accusations in your quote false and no retraction from yourself that I could find. How come you don’t rant about the Daniel Adkins killing in Phoenix? Perhaps because the shooter looked like he could be someone’s son instead of the victim looking that way in the Sanford Fla. case. Ever hear of innocent until proven guilty? Or isn’t that covered in law school?
I’ll let you know when I get picked for the jury, or become the judge, which are the only two entities expected to be impartial during a trial. Imagine if the lawyers were impartial! Also, no retraction because there hasn’t been a trial, so we don’t know whether it’s false or not, right? Or have you not heard of juries being the triers of fact?
Are you saying you don’t believe NBC altered the recordings?! Interesting. What about the Daniel Adkins case?
The point of Alan’s F-15 analogy, as I take it, is not to say that that the Glock 19 is the same thing as an F-15, but to highlight the principle that most sane people already are willing to admit that some sorts of arms should be banned, absolutely. Therefore, it’s illogical to argue that any new ban is automatically illegal under the second amendment.
I’m eager to see a principled argument for why the American hunter and home protector needs to have access to the Barrett M82 .50BMG ten-round semi-automatic sniper rifle, which is dandy for taking out vehicles and low-flying aircraft.
I find the F-15/Abrams tank/RPG/landmine argument less than useful because the absurdity is inflammatory, not revealing. Your question is the right one – should the average citizen be able to buy a Barrett .50 cal sniper rifle. Its legal because it’s semi-automatic (an arbitrary and useless distinction to base a gun control law on, as this example rightly shows).
I’m guessing I’m the only one of the two of us that has shot one (when I was in the military). It is useless for anything other than killing people and large things. It is can not be used for hunting (unless you want little evidence of what you shot) or home invasion (unless you live in a protected bunker in your backyard). It’s only use is ensuring that the public retains the ability to overthrow the government. If you think this last thing is important, then there is your principled argument.
Your guess is right!
I don’t think that most of the weapons we’re talking about here can contribute anything to the public’s retaining the ability to overthrow the government. If Randy Weaver’s arsenal had been bigger at Ruby Ridge, or David Koresh’s at Waco, the Feds would still have won–I think Janet Reno was actually using tanks at the time she saved those poor abused children by burning them alive.
One of the main problems with the focus on guns as a way of resisting government tyranny is that it distracts people from the actual instruments of tyranny today: with visions of George III’s Redcoats in our heads, we forget about warrantless wiretaps, corporate media self-censorship, and good liberal American presidents claiming and practicing the right to assassinate foreigners AND Americans, adults AND children, without benefit of trials or charges, much less convictions.
I agree with you about the unseemly haste in Albany-too reminiscent of the way the USA-PATRIOT Act was rammed through.
Way to grab readers with a “captivating” title. Couldn’t come up with anything more professional? Oh but it’s your “right”, under the 1st Amendment, of course. Not surprising you are writing for a garbage blog, and incapable of writing an informed article.
-“33 round ‘clip?'” Doesn’t exist.
-Firth gwaders “jaw and hand are disappeared.” Ermagerd, bubbers!!!
Was the wifi at the starbucks acting up and you couldn’t access your factcheck site?
If guns kill people, your keyboard proves the subjective tolerance expressed by yourself and this blog, where you have the right to your opinion, lack of creativity, and naivety of whats really going on in the world.
I wish you well. I feel really sorry for you.
I wish I could tell you that I’m devastated that “TurboJoey” doesn’t like what I wrote.
But here’s a news article detailing how heroic patriot Jared Loughner, who failed valiantly to defend himself from the tyranny of Gabby Giffords’ head and a 9 year-old girl, had an extended 33-round clip.
Also, I am touched by your sensitivity towards the family of Sandy Hook victim Noah Pozner, whose mother describes,
Ermagerd. Ermagerd, indeed. You mock this, and I’m supposed to care about whether you feel sorry for me.
Fuck. Your. Gun.
Alan: Even more to the point, Joey…
F YOU.
Typical response from the ignorant.
Ahh the F word. Ending conversations when liberal, panty-waste, douche nozzle pukes can’t consult their progressive forum stickies for “how to” say something intelligible.
The above speaks for itself.
If you want to be treated like an adult, act like one.
If you want to be treated like a child, just keep doing what you’re doing.
If you don’t want to die, you better hope that gun control doesn’t pass Carl.
I’ll fuck your asshole with my knife Carl.
You’re touched by my sensitivity? I think you were touched by your mother. In fact, I can hear her calling…
Maybe she can explain to you that your grammar check “are dissapeared.”
If you try to infringe on our 2nd Amendment rights we’ll infringe on your first.
Here is a link to an article discussing the gun:
“The semiautomatic handgun Jared Lee Loughner allegedly used in Tucson, Ariz., on Saturday to shoot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 19 others can fire 33 bullets without being reloaded.”
You lost credibility. Maybe you need to fact check
http://www.tampabay.com/news/little-surprise-that-popular-glock-19-was-used-in-arizona-shooting/1145393
I had credibility in the first place? Thanks.
Whats a “clip?” A tie clip? A hair Clip?
You’re disgusting.
Let me add this: There is no law, no statute, no case law, no Constitutional provision that gives anyone the right to overthrow domestic “tyranny”. Nothing in the second amendment prohibits the government from limiting the types of firearms you are allowed to possess. If it did, then you’d be able to waltz into your local Wal*Mart and pick up a fully automatic AK-47. But you’re not. They’re banned.
Well, we really don’t need any law to do that.
I own a gun, a S&W .500, I live in the great State of Texas, what scares the hell out of me is folks can buy a fucking M60, I think everyone should own a firearm or at least experience the use of it, but do people REALLY need an M60, AR 15 or any hi-cap firearm?
Alan,
An interesting take except that all folks that like the Second Amendment are not necessarily right wingnuts. I happen to be pretty left of center on most issues. I believe that the Supreme Court has been far too slow (including the Warren Court) to act regarding ensuring all of the protections of the Bill of Rights to all of our citizens. I often point out that one of the most restrictive state gun control laws was championed by Ronald Reagan (and written by Ed Meese) as a racist attempt to keep guns out of the hands of the Black Panthers (and which resulted in an explosion of illegal gun acquisitions in the inner-cities of California that continue to this day). I believe that the first and best book of American history is Howard Zinn’s, “A People’s History of the United States.” I also believe that those in power like to make sure that those that are not in power have the least amount of means to protect themselves against or take umbrage with policies or laws or encroachments upon their (the power-challenged masses) rights. All of the first 10 Amendments to the US Constitution were designed to protect us from ourselves by enumerating some important things as “rights” that cannot be abridged. In this sense, the Second Amendment is just as important as any other in the Bill of Rights.
I think that where the left and the right (or the parts of each camp that wish to) can come together is on the Constitution and the Amendments to it that have increased the amount of people that are entitled to liberty over the years (with the exception of the 18th Amendment…the only one that ever curtailed individual liberty). The Bill of Rights has continually been under attack, by both Republican and Democratic Administrations and Congresses, and these attacks are based on irrational fears masked as patriotism (the Patriot Act, the NDAA and Military Commissions Act provisions that enable habeas corpus to be suspended, etc.). The fact that, ” notwithstanding… the government could – if it wanted to –
easily take out your entire neighborhood with an unmanned drone operated
by a teenager nursing a Monster Energy Drink in a dank, smelly basement
in Northern Virginia[,]” should be a rallying cry across the political spectrum for all Americans to pay attention and act more vigilantly when our government acts outside of our interests. Like it or not, the Second Amendment was put into the Constitution by the framers and the SCOTUS has interpreted it to mean that individuals have the right to arm themselves. This right, along with all of the others listed in the first 10 Amendments and filtered down to all US citizens through the 14th Amendment, can only be completely abridged by a change to the Constitution.
Reasonably regulate guns and gun ownership? Yes. Close the “gun-show” loophole? Absolutely. Require that private sales must go through a licensed broker so that background checks and the like can be accurately performed? Yes on that too. Better enforcement of laws that are already on the books which limit the 2nd Amendment? Yes. A complete ban on a type of weapon (outside of machine guns or missiles or things like that which are already banned)? No. We must be careful in how far the restrictions on our rights go to, especially in times when the mass of the the public is demanding action (see Iraq War, Patriot Act, and the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII for examples of overreach here). Lets have a common sense discussion on both sides of the issue which results in an expansion of liberty rather than a contraction of it.
The problem with the Second Amendment is that it, unlike most (all?) of the other 10 included in the Bill of Rights, contains a clause that explicitly contemplates a limitation on gun ownership rights, as well as a contemplated context for gun ownership. Well-regulated. Militia.
If gun ownership is advocated for under a theory of “defense against tyranny,” then seemingly everyone should be permitted to carry what our military carries. Yet it’s clear we’re beyond that. Let’s see how SCOTUS treats this one, but frankly I see a lot of merit in challenging their broad interpretation of the Second Amendment on an originalist theory which recognizes that the original purpose of the Second Amendment is basically moot.
i would love to see that. I still say I’m entitled to an RPG or SAM. Or for that matter, an Abrahms tank.
“Yet it’s clear we’re beyond that.”
If the thing we’re beyond is “a defense against tyranny,” then a large portion of the country disagrees with that, which (beyond hunting, self-defense, sporting, etc) is what this discussion really is about. Should the people retain the practical ability to overthrow the government? And is Newtown an acceptable price to pay every so often to ensure that right?
No (impossible), and no (unconscionable). All done, analysis.
My second question is the one I ask to the gun fetishists in my Facebook feed. There is no positive answer to that question that contains a shred of empathy.
But I think the first one is harder and less obvious. And please don’t think our country is un-overthrowable – if tens of thousands of militia can occupy our army in Afghanistan for a decade, then millions of American gun owners can do the same here (especially if they are fighting an Army of their sympathetic neighbors – most soldiers come from red states currently fighting the President on this in Congress)
The tyranny thing is nonsense. I don’t even think the framers would have supported the notion that our representative democracy could be tyrannical, by definition.
Your claim that the US government could never be tyrannical by definition leads me to believe it would be better to just kill you.
Do you REALLY want to press your luck, Anony?
If you try to take our guns we’re going to kill you. All done.
Congratulations.
You have just made a threat to kill people.
Hopefully, law enforcement etc. has seen your message and will take the necessary actions to make sure you don’t threaten people again.
Do you, motherfucker?
And you’ll have to end up in witness protection for a long time if anything came of that Carl, who lives in Buffalo NY.
Why are you hiding your identity while you threaten to kill someone?
The citizens aren’t permitted to carry what the military carries. We have the inherent right to carry everything. Our military is “permitted” to carry, by our leave.
The take from someone who knows we need to do something but has no fucking clue what that is:
1) Cuomo gets to check another box on his way to the presidency but that bill will do little to change anything and everyone knows that. It has ignited a bigger picture ideological dialogue but in the most practical sense, little changes.
2) Limiting to 7 bullets is really good if you’re 8th in line or beyond. I don’t know the right number, but does NY going from 10 to 7 really matter much?
3) If you don’t address the culture aspects of what are making us a violent culture then you aren’t going to make any headway. You can’t say that cigarette ads are bad because they encourage smoking and then claim that violence in video games and television has no impact on young minds. You can’t have it both ways.
4) Maybe there was a legitimate reason to lock people away in institutions rather than throw them on the street and hope they take their meds.
5) If I have to pick between being worried about this tyranny that is on the horizon or making sure my two kids are safe in school each day……I’m willing to roll the dice on that tyranny thing.
6) I was really, really a huge Second Amendment supporter (even though I don’t own guns) until before Christmas. Now, I just don’t know.
Your kids are no safer. They are fish in a barrel, period.
The 2nd Amendment, Batman Shooting & High Fructose Corn Syrup
youtube.com/watch?v=hvIK4cmzeRY
Just as insane as those who say Newtown NEVER happened.
Sorry, I have better things to do with my time than waste it watching a video made by people who should never have gone off their meds in the first place.
The irony of the gun issue is that if our government system ever becomes tyrannical it will most likely be at the hand of the gun toting second ammendmentists and their fear baiting neocon teabag friends
Wow…… I love the one side argument. About how terrible people like me are and how your limited understand is resolved in this article. I could sit here, quote you lines from our founding fathers about firearms and how it’s more then just to keep the french you said…. our allies after the revolutionary war.
Yes article III was added way after the founding along with the 1890-1910 act of Corporate person hood allowing business such as ENRON to rob people and walk free from criminal charges. The worst part is the people like you wanting to BAN firearms or restrict them. Have almost no experience handling them and no knowledge using them.
Also have the mentality to EXPECT others to sacrifice themselves to save you in time from harm. With these firearms you want to limit, restrict, or ban. Hiding behind victims and horrific tragedy. Look at all the people and news stations that have ABUSED the rights of the victims to be left alone. They can’t watch tv without being reminded of their lose.
Then there are the FEAR mongers and the deluded righteous. The lazy logic is to make more laws. Isn’t murder a crime and pretty bad one? Depending on the state carrying a firearm in public is a crime. Discharging a firearm in public, public endangerment, assault, and so on. These people stole these guns or bought them illegally! Your not stopping that! There is nothing you can do to stop it! The criminal element is always there and the more you clutch your hands the more slips through your fingers.
You might as well tell me how fighting an unending war like the war on terror or drugs is a benefit. All the lives lost! You know over 243+ children have been murdered in the war on terror with Predator drones alone? I don’t hear you wanting to restrict our government use of them in and over our soil which was allowed by congress last year I believe.
Are you soooo misguided to believe another country ( Since so many love us right now ) won’t ever invade? There is no threat of invasion from another country? Look at Vietnam, Korea, Revolutionary war, etc where the militia forces stopped a huge invasion force when ha ha our own army couldn’t. Or how the Vietnamese and Koreans held us off with militia alone. Militia is more of a defense then you even comprehend. It takes time to gather our soldiers or aid to help the people.
NY right now still is lacking in aid and effort relief programs. Katrina as well where looting and mob mentality were high. The local police couldn’t help everyone! You would call 911 and there would be no answer. There are reasons why firearms should be limited EVEN more so. I love how people keep talking about 30rnd mag’s are high cap. You do realize when Eugene Stoner created the rifle it was designed with a 20 round mag and the AK was designed with a30 round. These handguns are made with 13 to 15 round mag’s and limited by the state and people who have no knowledge about firearms calls them high cap.
Live in an area with a high crime rate. I remember my part of Sacramento was a getto. The police wouldn’t go to my neighbor hood without SWAT. YOu never had a police car driving down the block. I was one of two caucasian on the block. The gangs ran the whole area we lived in. Now when you don’t have the police to help you then what do you do? Or you live in a big town and the response time is about 20 minutes?
You know I will even get a bit more personal my Grandmother was murdered in cold blood. It was late one night and she heard the sound of glass breaking. She graved her .22 cal revolver that I currently own as a reminder. She saw the silhouette of a man in the living room. She fired a shot in his leg. Little did she know that he just stole a police car and killed the officer and took his handgun and shotgun with him. He spun around and shot her infront of my aunt and father in the face. Killing her. My father 18 at the time got my aunt out of the house and informed the police.
The police ended up in a shoot out with the man tell he was killed hours later. Even all these years later it has effected our family. A family told and raised being told it’s our jobs as citizens of this country to defend it from all enemies foreign and domestic. I don’t see the country defended by your misguided notion of morality, but by citizens armed with those RIFLES you want to ban. Even the militia that trains every month to protect you and the police and soldiers that have that rifle defending your right to be here complaining. We had violence THOUSANDS of years before firearms and we have had mass murders all the same done with swords, knives, and yes EVEN rocks!
The problem isn’t the tools used to kill, but the people that feel they have to!
I stopped reading when you suggested that Article III of the Constitution was added “much later”. It is in the original text of the document you find under several inches’ worth of glass in the National Archives.
fuck your freedom of free speech
Then please move to another country.
Say, Saudi Arabia.
I’ll gladly pull out my credit card to pay for your one-way ticket if, in return, you give up your American citizenship forever.
Are you in?
Can this proposition go the other way? You say F our guns, then you get the hell out. But don’t expect to be exercising your freedom of speech either.
Uh, Joey, I didn’t say word one about wanting to yank YOUR guns away.
But please feel free to continue polluting this thread.
No, we’re going to stay here, and we’re going to kill people like you carl. We’re going to come to your house in the middle of the night and douse you in gasoline. You will experience the worst pain imaginable as your skin is seared off your flesh.
Statements like this should be reported to Homeland Security by the owner of this site. You are the reason we need ownership of firearms.
In a country of no free speech you would not be able to post your answer.
Sanctimonious drivel with a profane headline so proudly displayed. What goal do you seek?
Where’s all of this violence? I don’t live in a violent place. I do live in a place where gun ownership is extremely high, though.
And yes, we are constitutionally allowed to own f-15’s and nuclear bombs, Alex. The 2nd amendment guarantees the right of the citizenry to possess any weapons the military possesses.
Of course, that could become quite expensive…
Absolutely false. Please see US v. Miller aff’d by DC v. Heller, in which the SCOTUS indicates that citizens may bear arms “in common use at the time”.
Whoever came up with the idea there was no standing army when the second amendment was passed(1791) is so wrong. There was a standing army and navy. Did you ever hear of George Washington?
Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: “Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” (spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789.)Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: “What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.” Rep. of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress at 750 (August 17, 1789).
President James Madison: “…to support the Constitution, which is the cement of the Union, as well in its limitations as in its authorities; to respect the rights and authorities reserved to the States and to the people as equally incorporated with and essential to the success of the general system;… to keep within the requisite limits a standing military force, always remembering that an armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics – that without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe;…” – President James Madison, First Inaugural address, Saturday, March 4, 1809.James Madison: “As the greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies, it is best to prevent them by an effectual provision for a good militia.” (notes of debates in the 1787 Federal Convention)
Thomas Jefferson: “I do not like [in the new Federal Constitution] the omission of a Bill of Rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for… protection against standing armies.” –Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:387Thomas Jefferson: “Nor is it conceived needful or safe that a standing army should be kept up in time of peace for [defense against invasion].” –Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:334Thomas Jefferson: “The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force.” –Thomas Jefferson to Chandler Price, 1807. ME 11:160Thomas Jefferson: “The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.” –Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1814. ME 14:184Thomas Jefferson: “Bonaparte… transferred the destinies of the republic from the civil to the military arm. Some will use this as a lesson against the practicability of republican government. I read it as a lesson against the danger of standing armies.” –Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Adams, 1800. ME 10:154
so are some of the people posting here thinking, and worse than that saying (hey I respect your right to speak, but you know, thinking is always a challenge that you also have a right to pursue) that the 2nd Amendment allows individuals to obtain and bear arms against the United States government under ANY circumstances? You folks support, i assume the Black Panthers and the Weather Underground in the 60’s?
I understand what you are trying to say but the way you said it could have been handled better. To all of you who act as though our 2nd amendment is being taken away I say get educated. Up until 2004 we had a ban on semi-automatics but when that act expired, nobody thought that it was that important to renew. Now, years after, we see that this may have been a mistake. Have guns if you want guns. Have lots of guns. If a need arises in which you need to use them to protect your family then you can say I told you so but the fact remains that a normal person does not need semi-automatics for any reason whatsoever. The comment about having the right to have any weapon the military does is not even worth saying anything more about it. If you think about how pathetic that comment is when you realize the consequences of Hiroshima alone. I repeat, the author could have used a bit more tact and thought in this case but the bottom line is our second amendment is safe I assure you.