I wonder where the NRA has been in all this? They certainly have been strangely quiet. And I'd bet my last dollar that had it been Al Gore accidentally "shooting a 78 year old in the face", they'd be screaming to high heaven. I can hear it all now:
"What kind of incompetent boob is he? You never, ever shoot level, and you damned sure never fire until you're 100% sure that there's no one in your sight. And why was he allowed to avoid being interviewed by law enforcement officials until the morning after the shooting? Was alcohol involved? He claimed to have had "one beer". The NRA believes in gun safety and he broke every gun rule in the book."
But with their boy, Darth Cheney...nothing. Why am I not surprised?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
31 comments:
ZuZu,
This is the same organization that just masterminded lowering the legal hunting age in Wis (where I live) to eight years old. We're not talking about a real brilliant bunch of guys here.
If you trust the police to protect you then I feel extremely sorry for you and your family. Break into my house and you're dead so fast you don't have to time to beg.
Damn, there goes my weekend plans.
Anonymous--
Just be prepared to deal with criminal liability for that trigger finger and of course, I hope you recognize that the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee private gun ownership.
Pete, there you go, trying to use logic on a gun nut.
Logic, and you know...the law.
I could go into the circuit cout opinions, but people hate lawyers enough as it is....
That would be circuit couRt...
What, you mean those words "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment have something to do with, and I'm stretching here, a regulating body of some sort, which, could, perhaps, if you want to be weird and all, be, I dunno, the government?
Well, in terms of state regulation, the feds have not found a "fundamental right" to apply the 2nd under the 14th (I can explain that, but I would need charts) and never has a federal statute been invalidated under the 2nd.
So, you trust the police and the government to protect you. You are a partisan fool blinded by ideology who likes to point his finger at others who you accuse of being the same thing.
I will continue to enjoy my freedom to openly carry my weapon here in the beautiful state of New Hampshire. Home of one of the lowest crime rates in the US. The days of the statists here are numbered.
So, NH has a low crime rate because of guns, not because of a largely homogonized populace spread out in a generally rather sparse area, with few if any dense areas of poverty stricken folks. Sure. Have fun with your delusions.
You are a partisan fool blinded by ideology
And that would be whom?
I will continue to enjoy my freedom to openly carry my weapon here in the beautiful state of New Hampshire.
Well, your state is basically free to do as it sees fit--just understand that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply.
Two can play that game. Where are guns banned? Where is the highest crime in the nation? Have fun with your warm and fuzzy feel good delusions.
Why did Hitler call Switzerland the "small porcupine"? Why did he not attack them? The populace is armed.
Peter = partisan fool
If you weren't you would know from reading many of the statements that the founders made that the 2nd amendment was most definitely put in place for the sole purpose of the people keeping a tyrannical and out of control government in check (ie. the Bush admin). The fact that you stick to your ideology in light of this paints you as a hopeless partisan buffoon.
It's pretty obvious to any semi-objective individual once they even glance at this site.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms in his own lands." -- Thomas Jefferson
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun." -- Patrick Henry
"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." -- John Adams
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -- Alexander Hamilton
Any supreme court decision usurping this right is an obvious misconstruction.
Bang.
...you're dead. And owned.
"So, NH has a low crime rate because of guns, not because of a largely homogonized populace spread out in a generally rather sparse area, with few if any dense areas of poverty stricken folks."
So, by your logic one can easily draw the conclusion that you think poverty causes violence (eschewing any individual responsibility) and poor folks shouldn't be armed because they just might kill each other. Do you realize just how condescending that is? Quite materialistic I would venture to say.
Um, no. I was saying that the sociological conditions that surround poverty tend to be ones that increase violence (depression, anger, need, poor education). Given that if there's enough people in that situation, some percentage will turn to violence, and that violence will be worse with guns, I think it increases the danger to all of us if guns are prevalent. And take that lack of personal responsibility crap and get out of here with it - if a person shoots another with a gun, they are responsible, regardless of the conditions surrounding their lives. But if we ignore the complexities of different situations when considering behavior and the likelihood that certain things will happen, well, that's just plain ignorant.
A final word to brilliant constitutional scholar "anonymous."
I couldn't help but chuckle at his "partisan fool" comment because I took no partisan position. I merely stated a FACT. In virtually every federal circuit, the LAW is clear--the 2nd Amendment conveys no individual right. In a tortured recent decision, the 5th Circuit in U.S. v. Emerson stated to the contrary, but yet did not invalidate the restriction. The holding reduced the commentary to dicta.
One of the landmark cases happened not too far from where I'm sitting, when the village of Morton Grove adopted an outright ban on handguns. The 7th Circuit comcluded that "we hold that the second amendment does not apply to the states,." Probably dicta, but the court added "Construing this language according to its plain meaning, it seems clear that the right to bear arms is inextricably connected to the preservation of a militia. This is precisely the manner in which the Supreme Court interpreted the second amendment in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the only Supreme Court case specifically addressing that amendment's scope. There the Court held that the right to keep and bear arms extends only to those arms which are necessary to maintain a well regulated militia." The Supreme Court denied cert (Anonymous, I can explain that in small words for you)
So cut and paste all the quotes you want--unfortunately, you are dealing with the FACT of the law as it stands.
Thank you for the affirmation, peter. You made my day and will continue to do so for a very long time. I am truly grateful.
Feel free to disprove my assertion.
There is sound scholarship on both sides of the individual right debate, and reasonable people can differ on what it SHOULD mean. However, until the Supreme Cpurt steps in (and they have shown a tremendous disinclination to do so, regardless of the court's ideological makeup) the circuit courts of appeal are the law, and except for U.S. v. Emerson, they all reach the same result.
Bogus Supreme and circuit court decisions aside, you need to admit that the founding fathers did indeed intend for private citizens to be armed.
I cannot see how you could possibly deny this fact.
Man simply has the individual right, given by his creator, to protect himself. To say otherwise is not in any way compatible with a free society. When you depend on someone else, primarily the government, to protect you then you are no longer a free man. What the government says is of no relevance to rational people.
I prefer to live in the real world. You can rail all you want about "bogus" decisions, but those decisions are the law.
Again. The denial.
Answer the question: do you believe that the founding fathers of this country intended for private individuals to be armed?
This question is a no win for you. If you say yes you are a hopeless partisan hypocrite. If you say no you are denying the considerable body of evidence to the contrary. Therein lies the dilemma. What to do? What to do?
Thank you again for the affirmation, peter. You made my day and will continue to do so for a very long time. I am truly grateful.
What did Laurence Tribe say, peter?
What did the District Court for the Northern District of Texas and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals say in the Emerson case, peter?
That's right. Individual, law-abiding Americans are guaranteed the right to own a gun.
"Just be prepared to deal with criminal liability for that trigger finger and of course, I hope you recognize that the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee private gun ownership."
Bzzzz. Wrong answer. In Texas it most certainly does.
*cue liberal Texas jibes*
"What, you mean those words "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment have something to do with, and I'm stretching here, a regulating body of some sort, which, could, perhaps, if you want to be weird and all, be, I dunno, the government?"
drmagoo, What, you mean those words "the people" in the 2nd amendment have something to do with, and I'm stretching here, individuals?
Oh, but, haha, that's right, you're a collectivist and one weak-ass excuse for an educator.
What did Thomas Paine, the father you love best, say? What did Alan Dershowitz say?
Go ahead. I dare you.
Post a Comment