Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Why Register?
Signing up could earn you gear (click here to learn how)! It also keeps offensive content off our site.

Discussion Topic: Obama Administration Looks To Reinstate Assault-Weapons Ban

Recent Comments

Categories

Recent Posts

Archives

Syndicate

Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!
Add to My AOL

Field Notes
in your Inbox

Enter your email address to get our new post everyday.

February 27, 2009

Discussion Topic: Obama Administration Looks To Reinstate Assault-Weapons Ban

By Dave Hurteau

From ABC News:

The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.

“As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons,” Holder told reporters.

Check out the full story and tell us your reaction.

Comments (71)

Top Rated
All Comments
from ksquared wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

Wow, I didn't see that coming......
Messing with American Liberties to ensure the safety of Mexico? Huh?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

All you liberal pussies were duly warned that the Obama Administration would be coming after your 2nd Amendment rights. E. Holder is a Clintonista whose views and tactics have not changed. Hope you have enough spare change in the deepening depression to join the NRA fight against their socialist agenda.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from jcarlin wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

I'm not in law enforcement, but I never got the impression there was a dearth of guns in Central or South America that could head North. Regardless, it sounds like the answer is to better arm Texas.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from jcarlin wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

Also, please excuse my ignorance, but I've never seen a box of ammunition labeled "cop-killer". What family of bullet type is lumped into that?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from NNMountaineer wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

Not surprised at all that this administration would infringe upon 2nd amendment rights....

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from jjas wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

Is anyone here really suprised? We all knew this was coming and like Ronald Reagan used to say "Well, here
we go again".

Geez.......

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from MaxPower wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

Just shows how committed this clown is. In the midst of an all out recession, he is also after our rights.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from idahooutdoors wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

Now we will all be safe from those terrible black rifles. They are not as deadly with non-collapsible stocks, 10 round mags, no bayonets,and lacking those menacing muzzle breaks. Why are they wasting more time and money on Legislation that does nothing to make us safer or better our country? These guys are totally out of control, an the mindless minions who back them are no better. We are going down a slippery slope that will destroy and has destroyed the American way of life and the Constitution. Has there been an increase in shootings that can be linked to the sunset on the so called assault weapons ban?????

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from idahooutdoors wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

Sounds like Mexico is just trying to blame us and find excuses for their messes. Since when did we take away the rights of Americans for the sake of another country??? Do you think this will make one bit of difference in Mexico??? NUTS Maybe we could enforce our laws, protect our borders, and if Mexico is unable to stop these cartels send some of our Black ops guys down in the middle of the night to put some terror into the hearts of these criminals.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from JohnR wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

A cop killer bullet as defined by the President is any bullet that can defeat body armor as currently used by our law enforcement officers.
A cop killer bullet used tobe defined as any armor piercing bullet and especially any of the Nyclad (teflon coated hardened core) bullets available only to law enforcement. Back when the Nyclad bullets were an issue the public in general wasn't fully aware that we wore soft body armor. When the morons in the press brought out the news about the Nyclad bullets, they also informed the public that we wore soft armor vests. I remember the saying around the department was "Oh great, now they're going to shoot me in the head!"
I am hopeful that any assault weapon ban will have a long and drawn out fight. If the US can't win the war on drugs, what makes the politicians think they can win the war on illegal trafficking in guns?

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from s-kfry wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

This is obviously not unexpected. The concern I have is that this is their opportunity to re-write the Assault Weapons Ban and the details therein could be very concerning. One quote I saw somewhere was that they might outlaw all firearms that would be applicable to law enforcement (I can see that meaning just about anything that shoots a projectile over .16 caliber at more than 30 fps). Beyond that, would they not only outlaw the manufacture of new assault rifles but also outlaw existing one? And what kind of taxes are going to be buried in the bill for guns that don’t specifically get outlawed? This could be a whole lot worse than the original one with a Democratic House and Senate and a very liberal President. We may wish that Bill was back in office writing this thing.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from summit229 wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

BOHIC

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from jamesti wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

i thought at least obama would wait until he destroyed the economy once and for all before going after our guns. but now that he's doing this, he'll be able to put more people out of work. 2 birds with one liberal stone. i say we just invade mexico and send the cartels to cuba.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from doekiller wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

Now I am trying to understand this (sarcasm). Our beloved leader stated his first priority was fixing the economy. Now I don't know who watched the news this week but the only gains in the past quarter were with companies catering to gun enthusiets and hunters. Cabela's, Ruger, and Smith and Wesson all showed noticable profits when all other companies are bombing. Reports showed that their profits were up not on typical goods but on semi autos and tacticals. So folks we have one area of our battered economy showing signs of profits and jobs and our Savior elect wants to run a ban. God help us.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tim Platt wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

Obama has spent more in 30 days than W spent in 8 years... He is growing government every day and infringing upon every aspect of our lives. He will tax everyone with any money into oblivion and give it to minorities who have 14 children and provide health care for illegal immigrants until we are all broke. That's pretty much the way socialism works. You want change? That's what we get... the non working baby makers and immigrants have finally outnumbered us and are in charge of America. My advice is to quit your job, divorce your wife (you can still live with her) and get on the Government payroll. Either that or revolt...

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

I can't believe this was accepted as legitimate by a major news source like ABC.

Lets think about the absurdity; If I read it correctly the Mexican police are having problems with the cartels since they are armed with "automatic weapons and grenades"

First, lets be perfectly clear that automatic weapons and grenades are very illegal in the US right now. Without having to pass a single additional law.

Second, I really hope that this is a desperate attempt to win public support for anti-gun laws. (since the vast majority of media consumers simply take news snippets at face value instead of thinking about their validity)

Because, if it is not that means that our attorney general (the highest ranking law enforcement official in the country) actually believes that Mexican drug cartels acquire their weapons by:

1)crossing the heavily guarded US border
2)walking into a federally licensed gun dealer
3)submitting paperwork for a federal background check.
4)Pay full retail price
5)and finally, cross back over the aforementioned heavily guarded border.

The Cartels exist because they specialize in moving contraband across international borders despite law enforcement intervention.

Come on ABC, you don't have to be much of an expert on the subject to see through this one!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

I'd also like to say something about the 2nd amendment debate in general.

The 2nd amendment guarantees our right to bear arms. I think we can all agree (even the anti-gun nuts) that the government has no business taking away our butter knives on the grounds that they are too dangerous.

On the other hand, I think we can also agree (no matter how pro gun we are) that private citizens should not be allowed to own tactical nuclear warheads.

Once we have all agreed on these two points we have established some very important common ground:

-The government has the responsibility to restrict the types of weapons owned by private citizens.

-The execution of this responsibility needs to be limited (hence, the purpose of the second amendment)

We may not realize it but, have just agreed with the anti-gun nuts about something. There is a line somewhere, above that line lie military only weapons, below it lie weapons we all can own.

The location of this line was not handed down by the almighty, nor was it pre-ordained by the founding fathers. It is a pragmatic question that needs to be sorted out in an intelligent and level headed way.

I think one of the best ways to accomplish this is to stop using vague terms like "assault weapon" and "cop killer bullet". These terms are meant to conjure up images of bad buys in action movies. They are also intentionally vague so that they can be used as catch-all's.

Intelligent people on both sides of the debate would be better served by using technically accurate terms like "fully automatic", "Teflon coated bullet", etc... The trouble is of course these technical terms make far less sensational headlines. The headline "Republicans oppose ban on cop-killer bullets" sells a lot more newspapers than "congress debates legality of teflon-coated handgun rounds with hardened steel cores"

So come on!, lets start demanding that our press and our elected representatives address us and our nations problems in an intelligent manner.

This will get us much closer to solving our problems than yelling about "gun toting red-necks" and "Liberal pussies"

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from jamesti wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

i highly doubt the cartels are getting these weapons from us. either way the mexican government should do what everyone else does when they are outgunned; buy more and better guns.they can do it with all the tax dollars and illigitimate fines they get from our citizens right before they kidnap them.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from steve182 wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

"there are just a few gun related changes we'd like to make"...who is this guy kidding. If they could they'd outlaw them all. Let me guess, there will be some additions to the assault weapons ban.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from buckhunter wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

You need to read between the lines here. Mexico has disarmed their civilians by making assualt weapons illegal so they have no protection against the cartels whom effectively control the entire region below the U.S. border. So Obama thinks the smart thing to do is to disarm the American civilian so they to have no defense against the cartel extending the area of control North of the border? Nuts!

Mark my words. Obama is not the change this country needs. All the country did by electing Obama was put a feather in the cap of the corrupt Chicago political cartel. Obama will spend his first 4 years as president paying back the debt that fueled his fast rise to power. In other words, we are screwed and there is nothing we can do. The liberal media elected Obama and they will never admit they were wrong by writing negative comments about him.

In the end much more people with be dependent upon the government and we will have less freedoms.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Walt Smith wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

They will to outlaw broadheads here soon. I guarentee a 3 blade 100 grain Muzzy broadhead with 70lbs behind it will certainly defeat any soft body armor.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from MidnightBanjo wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

I got an e-mail recently that this makes me think of. This is how it went...
"A chemistry professor in a large college had some exchange students in the class. One day while the class was in the lab the Professor noticed one young man (exchange student) who kept rubbing his back, and stretching as if his back hurt.

The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country's government and install a new communist government.

In the midst of his story he looked at the professor and asked a strange question. He asked, 'Do you know how to catch wild pigs?'

The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line. The young man said this was no joke. 'You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in The last side. The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat, you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd.

Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.

The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening to America. The government keeps pushing us toward socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc.. While we continually lose our freedoms -- just a little at
a time.

One should always remember: There is no such thing as a free lunch! Also, a politician will never provide a service for you cheaper than you can do it yourself.

Also, if you see that all of this wonderful government 'help' is a problem confronting the future of democracy in America , you might want to send this on to your friends. If you think the free ride is essential to your way of life then you will probably delete this email, but God help you when the gate slams shut!

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have".
Thomas Jefferson"

+10 Good Comment? | | Report
from Derek St.Romain wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

My favorite saying lately is this-
" you stupid, stupid lazy Americans!" i went thru katrina, left the day before of course like anyone with any amount of brain would have, and then watched all these morons skatter to save the stupid, lazy Americans standing on-side the road. Now, we all have to dig in our pockets and save more stupid, lazy Americans, including this President.
We will make it thru these hard times, and fight our asses off to get back hold of our country, but only if we stand together and start a third party. Both sides of this battle are being faught together and against US! Anyone thatsays different has not been paying much attention. Just do what "some people I knoe" are doing, hide some of what you will not give up, and promise to fight till the death for what you believe in. THAT is what our country was founded on.
"the fastest and easiest way to enslave a nation is to disarm them!" George Mason

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Edward J. Palumbo wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

Since the President shows no familiarity with firearms and has no military experience, we must assume he will have to rely heavily on others for a definition of "assault weapons". We have faced these issues in the past and we will unquestionably deal with them repeatedly in the future. As the general public becomes more urbanized and distanced from shooting sports, we see that ignorance and lack of discernment will have to be met by public awareness, but we continue to deal with a shift that places us at a disadvantage. Negative press and biased media coverage have weighed heavily against the shooting sports. There are fewer public figures in politics, sports, or the film industry who can provide a high-profile advocacy of hunting and target shooting. As Boy Scout marksmanship programs disappear, and marksmanship training withers in our schools due to withering budgets and increasing pressure of potential liability, that spiral will continue among the young who would otherwise be exposed to proper training and familiarization with basic marksmanship. There are fewer .22 rimfire rifles under the Christmas tree, and fewer parents willing to invest the time to obtain or share their knowledge with their youngsters. Many who enjoy the challenge of accurate shooting have military experience; however, we've had an all-volunteer military for some time and that spectrum is narrowing.
We cannot be complacent about the potential threat of losing the right to keep and bear arms. On a forum like this, we're preaching to the choir, but we have to remain politically alert, proactive and responsible or the next generation will have little or no access to firearms at all.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from dusty bowers wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

who voted for this clown i hoped that McCain won the election

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from steve182 wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

unfortunately not all hunters are wise with their votes. smarten' up

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

Okay,the way I heard it, Mexico has laws banning assault rifles. Apparently, there are factories in Eastern Europe that cranked out AK 47's like gangbusters for the USSR. These factories ceased production after the USSR folded. After the world realigned, these factories started production again, to equip third world nations and whatever revolutionaries that could pay cash. The Mexican drug cartels are importing these AK 47's through South America. Apparently, for that type of use, its very well designed. Parts are available worldwide and its fully automatic. No law passed in our congress will have any effect on this trade. The only "benefit" will be, if this drug war spills over into our country, our citizens will be defenseless.
YooperJack

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sportsman Matt wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

WOW, big surprise. Democratic President...Assault Weapon Ban. Republican President...Ban removed. Just think about this for a minute. Anytime the Democrats get in office, we the people get higher taxation and more laws to prohibit the law abiding from doing anything because as a few Democratic politicians have stated before "people need to be told what they can and can't do because they can't be allowed to decide.". And when the Republicans get in office, we see tax cuts, more spending, and a way of life not infringed by nonsense laws.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from JohnR wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

A little ray of hope! When researching this article I found some others where Mr. Holder was corrected by none other than Ms. Pelosi and reminded that the Ag doesn't make laws, Congress does. Additionaly a Democratic Senator (forgot his name) stated that as far as he was concerned he would not be voting in favor of a reinstatement of the Assault Weapon Ban anytime in the near future. The moral of the story: Maybe there are a few Dems who remember what happened after the last AWB was passed and the Republicans took Congress for the first time in 50 years. I admit it is only a ray of hope but if we can get ourelves and our gun clubs and etc. organized and write our senators and representatives some good, brief, and well thought letters (from their constituents), maybe we can convince them that an AWB would not be their smartest move.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from 007 wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

We were warned. To all those that chose to buy Obama's dog and pony show instead of thinking about his obvious stand on the 2nd amendment, we tried to tell ya! Some will say no big deal, I don't own a black rifle. Thou fool! Do you really think they will stop with those? Handguns, anything semi-auto, bolt action center fires (sniper rifles. It's been mentioned before), they will all be in play if this continues.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

All of you who voted for Obama (actually an acronymn for "One Big Ass Mistake America) should not be surprised. When could you ever believe a crooked, lying, corrupt Democrat from Chicago? Just go back to the Daly's if you please. Like someone saide earlier; 'Turds of a feather float together'.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bella wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

Ahh the human condition. Poor boundaries and unwillingness to compromise on all sides. First, what attitudes are held in common? Everyone agrees that some military grade weapons do not belong in civilian hands. Both sides make strident comments about what they think the other side wants, then escalates and globalizes that assumption. An assault weapons ban is assumed to be a stepstone to the abolishment of access to all arms, without a moments consideration if that is even possible to do so. Through conceptual inflation conservatives morph into fascists mirroring the liberals morphing into communists. Conservatism isn't fascism any more than liberalism is communism. People fling around yesterdays political slanders as if they still had meaning. The Nazis if not gone have been blasted into insignificance, likewise the communists have devolved into parody as new issues rise that cause the old conflicts (even unsettled ones) to fester on backburners while new horrors hatch out to give us all consternation. Why don't we agree on boundaries with regard to civilian weapons ownership? Because PC Metrosexuals who have gotten mugged too many times think they can legislate 9mms away from street thugs? Because Self Appointed Colonel Of His Own Damn Militia thinks he has to resist black helicopters? Why don't we encourage Mr Wimpy Metrosexual to take some Karate classes and buck his ass up a bit so he wouln't piss himself every time he encounters an aggressive panhandler. Personally I have stated my dislike for "black rifles" but is is solely an asthetic choice I admit. I have a friend who likes to shoot a Barret .50 and I would never want him to loose the priviledge of so doing. Of course this guy is a pillar of the town, Big guy in the Lions Club, repairs the police cruisers, He continues to earn the trust and respect of his peers. I might be tempted to allow this guy to own and fire an 88mm flak gun if he wanted but we gotta have some boundaries.
I suspect I have some problem with this "being prepared to resist the government thing". I am still kind stuck on the notion that the government is by, for and of the people. As I is a people, is I to somehow expect to resist myself somehow? I am a veteran, wore the uniform saluted the flag, and the concept that I might be somehow separated from that union to the point of requiring military grade weapons to resist it very unfortunate and disturbing. I know aspects of our system do need to change, and it never happens fast enough to satisfy anyone but things do change, if slowly. If it were to come that an oppressor need be resisted with violence, hasn't anybody been paying attention? Assault weapons are very limited in scope and they have charicteristic signatures. If I were resisting somebody I think I would plan to be more subtle and get higher body counts in other ways. Guns are almost a distraction to a saboteur.Technology is so delicate and we have become so dependant on it Hey as far as I am concerned we won a victory for democracy and American Ideals last fall! The system actually works! Yea! So please, work with it. Compromise, set boundaries, be nice. Something tells me this will all be rather irrelevant all too soon anyway, so put your energies into getting other aspects of your respective lives in order, I'm sure we have enough guns to tide us over whatever. Gotta go shovel out now, an assault weapon is no help at all when the sky is falling. Chicken Little was right you know...

-6 Good Comment? | | Report
from doekiller wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

Here's an idea for a discussion: Who's called his or her Congressman and reminded them of the house cleaning America did after they pushed through the last ban? They need multiple reminders in nonelection years, and some of these poor fools really think they can't lose (Jack Murtha excluded, apparently that guy can do anything without losing his seat).

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

We have little choice but to work within the system. But I don't hold to the "compromise" notion when it comes to the Bill of Rights. Partly it's because I have no confidence in anti-rights people to stick to an agreement; usually the strategy is to negotiate a compromise then move the line and start negotiating again. It's also because I think the whole "solution" here in re the 2nd Amendment completely ignores the problem. It's not about guns. It's about dealing properly with criminals.

Imagine telling someone that they had to register their mouth in order to speak in public? Or that they had to get a permit? Or pass a knowledge test in order to offer a political opinion? A mouth could be a dangerous weapon because in the hands of an ideologue it could be used to incite violence. Most would (I hope) abhore such an idea, and yet there is no reason to imagine that the First Amendment is particularly more sacred than the Second. (I hesitate to bring up the idea because based on leftist trends restricting speech in Europe, the idea of requiring a license to talk may catch on somewhere, and I'd dislike being framed as the originator of the idea.)

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

Mr Diehl,

I'm sorry to inform you of this but you are wrong on almost all counts.

firstly, it sounds as though you oppose any compromise at all on the second amendment. I hope you realize that the second amendment protects the right to bear "arms" meaning weapons. Notice how it doesn't say "right to bear firearms"

So, a position of zero-compromise on the second amendment means that all arms should be available to all citizens? Howitzers? Abrams tanks? Chemical Weapons? Nuclear bombs? While this may satisfy our ideological need for pure liberty; how does this make our nation stronger? How does this make the US a better place to live?

Of course, everyone thinks those are ridiculous ideas, but that's what a zero-compromise view of the 2nd amendment dictates. So, by agreeing with me on this point you are saying that there is room for compromise within the 2nd amendment.

The truth is that if you study U.S. history you will see that nearly all the rights in the constitution are subject to certain conditions.

- We are constantly restricting "freedom of press" in order to protect national security secrets.

- Police may violate the 4th amendment and enter your home without a warrant if they feel someone's life is in immediate danger.

- Your right to assembly can be violated if the police believe a "riot" is underway.

- If you are a doctor or lawyer you are not allowed to exercise your right to free speech with regards to your client's legal or medical information.

The truth is that all rights are subject to negotiation. Which at first sound like a rather weak and cowardly argument. However, it is how things happen in the real world.

If you unwaveringly stick to a zero-compromise ideology you will be marginalized and your opposition will steam-roll legislation right over you that is completely opposed to your view point.
(this is the easy path)

If you are willing to make some wise compromises you can achieve an outcome that respects your core principles while only giving ground on minor points.

This is indeed a difficult path to follow.(both emotionally and in terms of effort) However, it is the ONLY way for us and our country to succeed long term.

-3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

"I'm sorry to inform you of this but you are wrong on almost all counts."

You are incorrect.

"I hope you realize that the second amendment protects the right to bear "arms" meaning weapons. Notice how it doesn't say right to bear firearms."

There is plenty of contemporary (to the writing of the 2nd Amendment) writing that demonstrates that the amendment refers to firearms rather than, for example, longbows, gladii, trebuchets and the like. So your claim seems refuted with trivial effort.

"So, a position of zero-compromise on the second amendment means that all arms should be available to all citizens? Howitzers? Abrams tanks? Chemical Weapons? Nuclear bombs? While this may satisfy our ideological need for pure liberty; how does this make our nation stronger? How does this make the US a better place to live?"

How many citizens do you imagine to have the means to possess a nuke? Or an Abrams. Or a howitzer. Many of the rest on your list are easily obtained by any erudite, learned person. It is merely mutual respect and the certainty that running amok with your home made kaboodle (or tank, or machine gun, both of which can be owned by citizens by the way) will result in prosecution that inhibits the criminally minded from the excesses that such systems might allow.

Frankly I wouldn't mind if my neighbor wanted to own an Abrams. It'd be pretty obvious who did a bad deed if the thing rolled down Main Street one day sticking up all the convenience stores. And it'd be quieter than most low riders.

"Of course, everyone thinks those are ridiculous ideas, but that's what a zero-compromise view of the 2nd amendment dictates. So, by agreeing with me on this point you are saying that there is room for compromise within the 2nd amendment."

My lack of agreement with your position seems to undermine the purported universality of the opinion you've rendered, yer honor.

"The truth is that if you study U.S. history you will see that nearly all the rights in the constitution are subject to certain conditions."

No, not really. The rights seem rather unconditional. There are of course criminal laws that are violated when one uses poor judgement in exercising their rights.

"- We are constantly restricting "freedom of press" in order to protect national security secrets."

Actually, we don't. What we restrict is the press access to secrets. When was the last time we prosecuted the press for reporting information that someone thought was classified? I can't think of a single instance.

"Police may violate the 4th amendment and enter your home without a warrant if they feel someone's life is in immediate danger."

But they need to show probable cause after the fact. That prohibits arbitrary or unwarranted entrance. That is why the word "unreasonable" exists in the phrase "unreasonable search." A policeman who enters lots of houses on sham pretense would quickly be dismissed.

"Your right to assembly can be violated if the police believe a "riot" is underway."

No, actually, the police can't make that decision (where I live anyhow). The governor or city council might declare martial law after declaring a state of emergency, but the police can only detain or arrest people for actually committing a crime. They can't tell you to get off the street or remain inside your house rather than on your lawn. You'd do well to consider how many "curfews" have been successfully challenged on the grounds of constitutionality. Moreover, again, if a governor or city council were to declare martial law for arbitrary reasons, they'd find themselves in the unemployment line right quickly.

"If you are a doctor or lawyer you are not allowed to exercise your right to free speech with regards to your client's legal or medical information."

Actually, you probably are. To my knowledge there is no right to privacy as yet, although by common agreement there are many laws in many municipalities that prohibit professionals from revealing information about their clients without the consent of their clients.

"The truth is that all rights are subject to negotiation."

Only with people who are willing to negotiate away their rights.

"If you unwaveringly stick to a zero-compromise ideology you will be marginalized and your opposition will steam-roll legislation right over you that is completely opposed to your view point."

Your claim is based on the supposition that the opposition intends to be reasonable. If the opposition intends to use compromise, or more accurately, a series of compromises, to keep negotiating you to a more restrictive "fallback position" then ultimately you get steamrollered anyhow. That is how North Korean "negotiates" and it is how people who discourse on the reasonableness of certain "restrictions" on the 2nd Amendment negotiate.

You'd be well advised to actually READ what it is that the Brady Campaign, the UN, proponentes of HR 45, PETA, the Urban League and the like say they want to do. All one need do is assume that those groups mean what they say and one might reasonably conclude that they deserve no place at any legislative table.

"If you are willing to make some wise compromises you can achieve an outcome that respects your core principles while only giving ground on minor points."

A person can start a riot by incitement. A person can motivate another to kill on the basis of race, religion, or even the sexual identity of a potential victim. In many ways, the human mouth is a far more dangerous instrument than an Abrams tank. That is why so many draconian governments limit speech in addition to personal firearms ownership. And yet, here in the US, at least for now, no reasonable person advocates forcing citizens to get a permit to write a letter to the editor, or to offer an opinion on this blog.

Will you be the first to agree that people should be forced to obtain a license to speak? Or to register their mouths?

"However, it is the ONLY way for us and our country to succeed long term."

I disagree. Another way to succeed is to educate people about what the Bill of Rights said and to instill values that lead most to the most libertarian readings of those rights, and do one's very best to marginalize those voices that look to erode civil liberties accretionally.

+7 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob81 wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

There is plenty of contemporary (to the writing of the 2nd Amendment) writing that demonstrates that the amendment refers to firearms rather than, for example, longbows, gladii, trebuchets and the like. So your claim seems refuted with trivial effort.

Mike, can you provide some citation here? If we are getting into those types of specifics (without applying reasonable judgement in a modern context), couldn't it be argued that the founding fathers were referring to the right to bear single-shot, muzzle-loading long rifles? I don't think this was the case...

How many citizens do you imagine to have the means to possess a nuke? Or an Abrams. Or a howitzer. Many of the rest on your list are easily obtained by any erudite, learned person. It is merely mutual respect and the certainty that running amok with your home made kaboodle (or tank, or machine gun, both of which can be owned by citizens by the way) will result in prosecution that inhibits the criminally minded from the excesses that such systems might allow.

Not a nuke maybe, but how about Stinger missles, grenades, etc. Mutual respect and fear of god and/or of legal consequences keeps 99.9% of the population from blowing up the rest, but I can give you a dozen examples of people run amok in the last few years that I wouldn't want anywhere near military-grade weaponry/explosives.

No, actually, the police can't make that decision (where I live anyhow). The governor or city council might declare martial law after declaring a state of emergency, but the police can only detain or arrest people for actually committing a crime. They can't tell you to get off the street or remain inside your house rather than on your lawn. You'd do well to consider how many "curfews" have been successfully challenged on the grounds of constitutionality. Moreover, again, if a governor or city council were to declare martial law for arbitrary reasons, they'd find themselves in the unemployment line right quickly.

There have been a number of high-profile instances during the last eight years of protests against the Bush administration being limited in size and location. I dont believe the administration was ever rebuked by the courts for these impositions.

"If you are a doctor or lawyer you are not allowed to exercise your right to free speech with regards to your client's legal or medical information."

Actually, you probably are. To my knowledge there is no right to privacy as yet, although by common agreement there are many laws in many municipalities that prohibit professionals from revealing information about their clients without the consent of their clients.

And federal restrictions., This is what HIPAA addresses.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

Mr Diehl,

I think you misunderstand my position. I strongly oppose HR45. The point I am trying to make is that a stance "absolutely no compromise" will only result in us being completely marginalized.

and by the way, I don't see rebutting my description of how our rights are restricted with a more specific description of how our rights are restricted proves that our rights unrestricted

-Thanks for the back-up bob

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

I'm seeing something here. Janet Napolitano has repeatedly played down the situation with illegal immigration, and criminal acts committed by those illegals. Rhaum Emmannuel has said that "A crisis is a terrible thing to waste." Are they so bold as to be trying to develop a crisis so that the end result is the gun control that Obama promised, early in his campaign?
YooperJack

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

@Yooper -

Janet Napolitano was on the forefront of trying to get the last admin to do something about illegal immigration. She was the one who asked to have the NG at the border backing up ICE, and she's been the one demanding that the gov't take action to address illegal immigration to reduce the costs of illegals health care in ERs, and the costs of jailing the ones who commit crime. Napolitano signed the bill that makes AZ employers criminally culpable for hiring illegals.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

@Bob

"I think you misunderstand my position. I strongly oppose HR45. The point I am trying to make is that a stance "absolutely no compromise" will only result in us being completely marginalized."

Your point seems incorrect to me. Your position seems self defeating too. If you are always willing to compromise, you will always have someone forcing you to retreat and redraw a new compromise line in some position less acceptable to the one than the last compromise line. At some point you have to say "You will go no further." Indeed, at times, you must say "We will now take back that which is rightfully ours."

"and by the way, I don't see rebutting my description of how our rights are restricted with a more specific description of how our rights are restricted proves that our rights unrestricted"

Not following you. If one commits a criminal act, which tends to violate someone else's rights, then one loses ones own rights. That is why or laws are REACTIVE in general. You have the right to free speech. You retain that right, unfettered, with no requirements, provisos or strings attached. If as a result of exercising that right you cause mayhem, then you can be punished.

We already HAVE laws for prosecuting people who commit crimes and use firearms to do it. THAT is the analog to the "yell 'fire' in a crowded theater" example. Restricting firearms ownership A PRIORI has no analog in the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights.

Getting down to specifics, on what, exactly, would you compromise? Would you sell out the interests of people who own ARs because you have no desire to own one, and therefore the others' interests are something you will negotiate away?

Here's my position. I don't own an "assault rifle." I don't even own an "evil black rifle" of the garden variety civilian AR type (but these aren't assault rifles, they just look like assault rifles). I don't own em because IMO the rounds they fire are of limited sporting application (I have no use for the .223 or the 7.6x39R), the firearms are ugly, overpriced, not particularly well made, and gadgety. All of that is an opinion of course. I extend a hand of "peace" to the AR owners on this blog, because in THEIR opinions, I am wrong. It's not my business to tell them they can't own an AR.

Why does the Brady Campaign, or the firearms control movement, target "assault rifles" in the proposed ban? These "assault rifles" are almost never used to commit crimes, and the people who commit crimes don't give a damn what the law says they can own. These "assault rifles" aren't capable of burst fire or full auto, so they're not even "assault rifles" in the modern sense. They are, functionally, almost identical to the WW2-Korean War era M1 Garand, or to, for example, a garden variety modern Browning semiauto hunting rifle. The principle difference is that they shoot cartridges much less powerful than the typical hunting rifle, or the M1 Garand.

An AR clone firing .223 capable only of semi-auto fire is a weak sister to a modern semi-auto hunting rifle firing a .308 or .30-06.

Why then the proposed ban, if it outlaws a firearm that's almost never used in crime, and that is less powerful than ordinary hunting rifles? To answer, they want to outlaw them because, through a disinformation campaign that combines fear with ignorance they want people to believe that an AR clone is somehow particularly MORE dangerous or lethal than a hunting rifle. It's an easier sell too because AR clones LOOK LIKE military firearms, even though they aren't.

The "assault weapons ban" targets the low hanging fruit. The goal is to GET YOU TO COMPROMISE on this particular ban, and get you used to selling other firearms owners rights away, hoping that Brady or Urban League or whomever will stop there. But I don't think they will. Once you've banned a semi-auto that uses a wussy cartridge like the .223, surely, the antis will argue that one must ban other semi-autos that use more powerful cartridges, even when those other semi-autos only "look like" hunting weapons.

THAT is my point. You can't compromise with people whose ultimate goal is to completely deprive you of your rights.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

Mike:
That was the "old" Janet Reno, Governor. The "new" Janet Reno is against the wall, against notification of INS when illegals are picked up, and deaf to the current situation with the Mexican drug cartels. She also will not use the word Terror, or any derivative of that word. As such, for the first time in my life, I see a need for you and I to own assault rifles. Its not just her, I feel that a common theme from the new administration, that the war on terror, is now over. I must have slept through the part when Osama surrendered.
YooperJack

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob81 wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

Mike,
I agree about your point of "black rifles". I don't own one, and I don't plan on ever owning one (I prefer my firearms to be of the over/under variety with pretty engraving and shiny wood). However, I also recognize that "black rifles" for the most part aren't really any more lethal than your average semi-auto hunting rifle. They look scary and that's why they make an easy target.

With that said, do you believe that unrestricted ownership of fully-automatic weapons should be allowed?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

@Bob -

BTW. The definition of "arms" in the 2nd Amendment was at the time widely construed to mean "any man portable weapon." That would obviously include firearms. Since the Constitutional Congress was full of Enlightenment Progressives, we may assume that they were aware of the existence of a variety of options, including matchlocks, air-rifles (yes they existed at the time), flintlocks, rifles, smoothbores, shotguns, handguns, crossbows, swords, cutlasses, knives, and the like. Moreover, we can I think safely assume that they probably understood that technological changes would occur that would put new options on the table in the arena of man-portable firearms.

Here is a reasonable discussion of the subject that provides citations along the way:

http://brainshavings.com/supplements/arms/iii.htm

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

"With that said, do you believe that unrestricted ownership of fully-automatic weapons should be allowed?"

In a word, "yes." But if a person has a criminal record, then "no."

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob81 wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

Mike,
Thank you, that was an interesting link. What I got out of it mostly though, was that the founding fathers were rather inconsistent when applying the use of the word "arms". In some cases, they may have been referring to muskets, in others they may have been referring to cavalry and artillery. Later court cases cited did see prudent to place restrictions on the type allowed:

State v. Buzzard,66 an 1842 Arkansas case, includes a straightforward claim that

. . . the term "arms," in its most comprehensive signification, probably includes every description of weapon or thing which may be used offensively or defensively, and in the most restricted sense, includes guns or firearms of every description, as well as powder, lead and flints, and such other things as are necessarily used in loading and discharging them, so as to render them effective as instruments of offense or defense, and without which their efficiency for these purposes would be greatly diminished, if not destroyed.67 [emphasis added]

Reining in this expansive definition, though, Chief Justice Ringo thought it possible to legitimately restrict the right to keep and bear arms. He pointed out that the individual rights protected by the first ten Amendments could not possibly be absolute (and therefore free from all regulation) because otherwise great disorder and conflict would tear society apart.68 He illustrated his point when he mentioned certain justified limits on freedom of speech and of the press that were "necessary to protect the character and secure the rights of others, as well as to preserve good order and the public peace."69 Justice Dickinson agreed when he wrote, "[t]he motive, then, for granting this power to keep and bear arms could not be extended to an unlimited, uncontrolled right to bear any kind of arms or weapons, upon any and every occasion; still less the terms, for they are restrictive in their language."70 Here we see an early example of a court applying reasonable and constitutionally sound upper limits on weapon ownership, while still preserving the plain meaning of the Second Amendment's protected individual right.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

Sure. Meaning that yes of course from the outset there were people trying to redefine arms and trying to limit the right. Nonetheless the general perception was a man-portable weapon. It'd have been convenient if the founders had imagined that people would so quickly have engaged in a process of semantic gamesmanship with the purpose of restricting our freedoms. You can judge the writings by the general social practice at the time. When the Constitutional Convention occurred, many households owned firearms for hunting, defense, and to contribute to militias. By that standard, the pragmatist in me wants to define an "arm" as "anything one might conceivably use for hunting, self defense, or to participate in a militia." If one wanted to constrain it to "any man portable device that one could use for ~" then I suppose that is acceptable. But we shouldn't HAVE to have this discussion. The only reason why we're having it is because UNreasonable people are trying to argue that the obvious is inobvious. Somehow, if we are ot believe UNreasonable people, we must accept that the "right to keep and bear arms" conveys the "right to keep and bear nothing in particular" because, in the rhetoric of UNreasonable people, anyone can play with the definition of "arms" to mean anything they want it to mean or to mean nothing at all.

If one can play that sort of game with the Bill of Rights then one can pretty much argue away almost any civil liberty on any pretext. When you see what Brady Campaign members and other antis openly state for their objective, you can see that they want to utterly disarm Americans as though the 2nd Amendment has no importance at all.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob81 wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

Oh, believe me, I have no illusions about what the Brady Campaign would like to accomplish if given their druthers. I have no doubt that if it were up to them, we would be hunting waterfowl with sling-shots and spears.

I guess the bottom line for me is that "arms" seems rather ambiguous, and I'm rather unsettled by the idea that anyone (since the constitution doesn't specify the 2nd amendment only applies to citizens without a criminal record)can possess any and all weaponry they can afford.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

Mike,

You misunderstand my argument again, but I'm glad you bring it up because its something I see commonly in political discussions.

Your stance is an absolute, no room for negotiation, ever, period. You therefore assume that my position is also an absolute, always negotiate, always, no matter how ridiculous the claim.

This is not true, to negotiate HR45 into being acceptable would entail completely re-writing the bill. Bills like this should simply be defeated on the house and senate floors (which in this case I think is very likely)

My point is that your stance of "any man-portable weapon can be owned by anyone without a criminal record" is politically unviable. The stance is immediately labeled "extremest" (regardless of plentiful evidence to the contrary) and the overall pro-gun movement is weakened.

Instead we should assert that weapons bans based on looks like bayonet lugs and flash suppressors are frivolous and should not passed. Also, we should assert that the use intentionally vague, incendiary terms like "assault rifle" and "cop killer bullet" have no place in public policy.

What are we willing to concede to accept to achieve our goals? Regulations based on how dangerous a weapon actually is to law enforcement and the general public. Things like full auto bans, minimum length requirements, background checks at gun shows, and magazine capacities (though I'm willing to be swayed on that last one)

I think that making a logical, almost scientific argument like this will go much further towards winning public and political support.

Perhaps we can present ourselves as logical intellectuals instead of the raving hill billies the press tries to portray us as.

We can use negotiation to start pushing the line to the right instead of withdrawing from the discourse and allowing it to slide to the left.

I guess I am proposing that we beat them at their own game!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

with regards to our discussion on restriction of rights:

for example take the "riot" scenario:

-I claim that police can order a crowd to disband if they deem it to be a riot, thereby restricting your right to assemble.

-you claim that a mayor can order a crowd to disband if they deem it to be a riot, thereby restricting your right to assemble.

Granted your scenario presents more checks and balances of power and is therefore preferable. However, in either case the right to assemble is being restricted.

That being said, I don't think either one of us is going to convince the other on this topic, so perhaps we should leave it to another day.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from tcrumplerr wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

its our right to bare arms and if we want to have assault weapons for recreation or for protection then we should be able too. and i really doubt America banning assault weapons is going to do anything to stop Mexican outlaws from using assault weapons they will just get them from somewhere else. and we should allow another countries government to tamper with our rights as Americans.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

"My point is that your stance of "any man-portable weapon can be owned by anyone without a criminal record" is politically unviable. The stance is immediately labeled "extremest" (regardless of plentiful evidence to the contrary) and the overall pro-gun movement is weakened."

So far who's labeled it "extremist" other than yourself? Why do you assume that if an extremist anti-firearms person is pursuing a restrictive law that the 2nd Amendment defender will automatically lose? The point is that a hard and fast defense of the 2nd Amendment is not extremist. It's normal. It's Where We SHOULD Be. The abnormal extremist types are the ones who want to restrict your rights.

"Instead we should assert that weapons bans based on looks like bayonet lugs and flash suppressors are frivolous and should not passed."

You presume, incorrectly I think, that rational judgement has anything at all to do with the antis' efforts. My assumption, based on the things that the antis write on their own websites, and say in their own letters to the editor, etc, is that they are not legislating from a rational agenda, and they're not the least bit interested in having you or me explain to them why it is that their concerns are misplaced. You can't reason a person out of a position when they never used reason in the first place.

"Also, we should assert that the use intentionally vague, incendiary terms like "assault rifle" and "cop killer bullet" have no place in public policy."

What are you gonna do? Tell them they can't use those phrases? The will. That's what they do. They choose incendiary words because those words have propaganda value. They're not going to give 'em up just because in our dissent we start using accurate adjectives to describe how our firearms work.

"What are we willing to concede to accept to achieve our goals?"

Me? I will concede nothing. They can stfu, IMO.

"Regulations based on how dangerous a weapon actually is to law enforcement and the general public. Things like full auto bans, minimum length requirements, background checks at gun shows, and magazine capacities (though I'm willing to be swayed on that last one)"

None of which has any rational basis in the first place. Since these limitations are irrational (they solve no problems and they do not make the public one iota safer), if you concede those points, you will have conceded that irrational fears are sufficient grounds for legislation.

"I think that making a logical, almost scientific argument like this will go much further towards winning public and political support."

The public is mostly on our side alreay. The antis are a minority in the general public. They're only a majority among Democratic representatives from urban areas.

"Perhaps we can present ourselves as logical intellectuals instead of the raving hill billies the press tries to portray us as."

You talk to 'em how you want and I'll talk to 'em how I want. I know I can sway anyone on this subject who is willing to listen to reason. The "assault weapons" ban is not a reasonable idea and the people offering it aren't the sort of people for whom reason matters.

"We can use negotiation to start pushing the line to the right instead of withdrawing from the discourse and allowing it to slide to the left."

I never suggested withdrawing from the discourse. What I suggest is that we rededicate people to their commitment to the Bill of Rights. And not just the 2nd, but also the others that were recently trammeled upon by the Bush admin. The one thing that you DON'T want to convey is that rights can be negotiated away.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

"you claim that a mayor can order a crowd to disband if they deem it to be a riot, thereby restricting your right to assemble."

No, I claim that the mayor can get the police to force a crowd to disband if the crowd is engaged in criminal conduct. If they try disbanding crowds on an arbitrary basis, the mayor (or any police who act on an arbitrary basis without cause) can be removed or dismissed. THAT is the difference between proactive executive power (that asserts the authority to step on your rights as it desires) versus reactive executive power (that can only step on your rights if you are violating the law).

"However, in either case the right to assemble is being restricted."

No, it's not. It's not the right that is being restricted. It's the conduct that can be restricted, and then generally only if crimes are in commission. It's true that some execs may abuse their power, but it's recognized as an illegal use of power.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Timberline wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

Mike Diehl- If we ever meet the beer is on me. I don't think i can express it any simpler than that! We would have far fewer problems if more people were willing to stand up for thier constitutional rights like you.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from hjohn429 wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

The author is obviously misled to begin with because he said that Wayne LaPierre is the President of the NRA. He is infact the Executive Vice President. John C. Sigler is the current President of the NRA. The Second Amendment does not give people the right to own firearms it just recognizes it. In other words we would still have the right to own firearms if there was no Second Amendment. This makes me very angry at other gun owners because they are foolish enough to compromise. What Obama will do is he will say he is going to ban lots of guns and put them on a list. When a bunch of hunters realize that their hunting rifles are on the list they will complain. Obama will then take those firearms of the list and the hunters will be OK with that. In the meanwhile Obama will be banning every other kind of firearm that he, Biden, Holder, and anyone else in his little gun-banning group can think of.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from JohnR wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

This has at the very least been a very lively debate. I think most of us posting here are generally on the same page. I have to say I side with Mike's no compromise position while understanding Ken and Bob81's arguments.
It is my personal opinion however that it is an innate right as a person (aka human being) to own a weapon. I opine that it is a right that precedes common law and organized society. While some claim to have "evolved" and become "enlightened", I find that we all as basic human beings are still subject to the same emotions and weaknesses that our neo-lithic ancesters were subject to. Early on in our history we discovered that two bullies (or criminals) with clubs were no match for a man with a bow and arrows. Therefore the bow and arrow man experienced some security from the bullies for a season until the bullies themselves obtained bows and arrows.
I am not going to go into a lengthy dissertation regarding the small arms race, but I am going to jump to the present and state that I would prefer to face any Mexican cartel flunkies breaking into my home with my M-14 or AR-15 than with a matchlock rifle or a bow and arrows.
I prefer black (or military type) rifles over other types and I do own some "respectable" bolt action rifles. My military styled rifles are accurate, functional, completely reliable, (I use mine during hunting season with 5 round mags), and possess sufficient power for quick humane kills on game. Additionally, contrary to popular belief, in many states one may possess a machine gun provided the individual has completed the prerequisite paperwork required by the BATFE and paid the $200 transfer tax. One may also possess silencers in many states provided the person has completed the proper steps as outlined above.
There are more class III weapons legally possessed than one would imagine and these people are not the ones robbing banks, dealing drugs, and going armed to the terror of the people.
It still amazes me that whenever an individual who commits a crime with a weapon the individual possessed illegally anyway, we pass ridiculous laws restricting the weapons rather than punishing the individual for his illegal use of same. It is this punish the weapon trend that has caused most of us to adopt a no compromise attitude. I therefore conclude that there should not be any debate among gun owners as to what constitutes an acceptable firearm.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

Try to get past the call screener with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity show with this question. True story to both stations. Clay… What Government entity is responsible for your personnel protection for the private citizen? Call screener… and the answer is? Clay … there is no Government entity responsible period! Law Enforcement is just what it is, Law Enforcement. When dialing 911 your call is accessed by priority of urgency and merit of responding to, the availability, distance and time for a unit to be dispatched to your location. Call screener… We cannot say that over the radio… CLICK! Just after the Rodney King riot back in 86ish, a California State Official stated, there is no Government entity responsible for the private citizen and they are responsible for their own safety! Bottom line, I cannot believe how ignorant, stupid and naïve from even the NRA not to pick up on this fact!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
-H.L. Mencken

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

“Facts must be distorted, relevant circumstances concealed, and a picture presented which by its crude coloring will persuade the ignorant people that their Government is blameless, their cause is righteous, and that the indisputable wickedness of the enemy is beyond question.
A moment's reflection would tell any reasonable person that such obvious bias cannot possibly represent the truth. But the moment's reflection is not allowed; lies are circulated with great rapidity. The unthinking mass accept them and by their excitement sway the rest.
The amount of rubbish and humbug that pass under the name of patriotism in wartime in all countries is sufficient to make decent people blush when they are subsequently disillusioned.”
-Arthur Ponsonby, Falsehood in Wartime, 1928

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

“If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees.”
-President Bill Clinton, August 12, 1993

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

“The presidency - by which I mean the executive state - is the sum total of American tyranny. The other branches of government, including the presidentially appointed Supreme Court, are mere adjuncts. The presidency insists on complete devotion and humble submission to its dictates, even while its steals the products of our labor and drives us into economic ruin. It centralizes all power unto itself, and crowds out all competing centers of power in society, including the church, the family, the business, the charity, and the community.”
-Lew Rockwell, president of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from howardcj wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

I must have missed something. Is Obama the president of the US or Mexico?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

howardcj

He believes he is the messiah, the savior for all!!!

“Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”
-Daniel Webster

“The broad principle that there is an individual right to bear arms is shared by many Americans, including myself. I'm of the view that you can't take a broad approach to other rights, such as First Amendment rights, and then interpret the Second Amendment so narrowly that it could fit in a thimble.”
-Senator Charles Schumer, D-NY, 2002-May-8 (http://www.senate.gov/~schumer/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/press_releases/P...)

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from TmH wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

Everyone should read the new proposal on what weapons would be included on the new Assault Weapons Ban (AWB). Remington 1100, Benelli semi autos, allegedly they're even trying to add pump shotguns (your faithful Rem 870) could be included in the final version. Check the NRA's website to view details of the firearms that would be illegal for sportsmen and women to own. They may not do it this year but it is coming. 2nd Amendment advocates, hunters, and outdoor sportsmen and women should join the NRA and other groups supporting gun ownership and outdoor sports. Additionally, everyone should boycott and yell out against faux sportmen groups that endorse Obama and the anti gun agenda!

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Love2Hunt wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

Here we go Obama. Thank you so much for infringing on the second amendment. Apparently this is the change that everyone wanted. Change: A worsening economy (socialism), global health care (going to help the economy), taking away guns (and high capacity magazines), closing Guantanamo (releasing numerous terrorists), and a strong bi-partisan effort in making America great. Sounds like this is some CHANGE we can do whithout. I voted for the right guy. Unfortunately he lost. Hopefully we can make it through these next painful 4 years and get a real leader in there.

Ya I know all you liberals that read this website will probably knock this comment, but the truth is not good is it?

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ye ole Coaste wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

Think Uall got lotsa good and progressive thoughts on this matter. The one thing Me and my son's do NOW!! is carry NRA app's around w/Us?? give NRA subscriptuions as gifts or the people neighbors and such_co-workers etc that can't afford membership We pay for thier 1st yr between Us. I think the answer and solution is 2stand united thru organizations such as the NRA otherwise will be one voice drowned out in the static of the new socialist-liberal agenda. Join the NRA NOW!!! YOC

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from abmcp13 wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

Banning Assault rifles won't stop the trade of arms to Mexico. These people are DRUG TRAFFICKERS!!!! They doing things illegaly for a living!! Making Guns illegal wont stop them!! They don't give two cents about our government banning these guns, they'll still get them. It's just like drugs, they're illegal, but people still use them!!! You don't hear stories about coke addicts saying "Darn cocain is illegal, i guess we'd better stop using it." And if the government starts banning AR's that's just going to open the flood gates to other guns, such as the one's we use for providing food to our families. This is a JOKE!!! I wish our Congressmen and women would get a clue about the real world and what will actually happen if some of their bills pass.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from abmcp13 wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

I totally agree with you, Love2hunt. All of the conservatives and even moderates saw this coming from a mile away! Globalized health care will be horribly disfunctunal, just like everything else that the government touches. And we might as well kiss the second amendmant good bye! If this bill passes it will be just the begining! I dont mind the fact that the Democrats are for the environment, but it would really help if I had guns to use in it!!!! This CHANGE is a total JOKE!!!! Biggest mistake voters could have made!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from kcozad wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

You guys do realize the 2nd amendment wasnt created for hunters? im a strong proponent, although, that outlawing certain guns doesn't stop criminals from getting them illegaly.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Oldhunter wrote 5 years 5 weeks ago

I have many firearms, but have never owned an assault rifle and never will. I have hunted for years and love to reload and target shoot.I don't own a semiautomatic or 20 round clip and don't want any.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ChuckyDeeInNC wrote 5 years 5 weeks ago

Disappointing, but hardly a great surprise as Obama came from a state noted for trampling the rights of LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS to defend themselves underfoot, while failing to address the REAL problem: Violent Criminals ant their use of firearms in the commission of felonies. What ever happened to "Three Strikes?" In my opinion, "TWO STRIKES" is more than enought to determine a pattern of criminal behavior highly unlikely to be changed that should result in a lifetime of HARD LABOR behind bars. Yet the Liberal Obama-ites want only to blame this behavior on the "Evil Black Gun." If we used the same reasoning, we should OUTLAW CARS, since the "EVIL CAR" is used in almost every violent crime committed. Just where does this blame-placing end???

Let's get back to a too-oft-undiscussed principle called Personal Accountability for one's own actions. We have to abandon this utterly useless notion left over from the Age of Dr Spock that everyone is a "victim" of some unseen force that propels them to pick up an "evil" handgun or "black rifle" and committ horrible crimes. It's not the gun that pulls it's own trigger, stupid----it's the idiot behind the trigger that commits the crime. And they don't have to use a gun---a kitchen knife, baseball bat, or bare hands will do in a pinch. Are we going to ban all these, too?

When we stopped PUNISHING people for their criminal acts and made them "victims", that's when our crime problem got out of hand. Get back to the basics. Besides, check what Canada's experience has been with their Long Gun Registry: found to be of little use in preventing crime and costing BILLIONS (*Not the budgetted Millions)---Canada is ready to scrap this pile of legislative dung! We should take note and save the money to revive our ecomony instead!!!!!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

from MidnightBanjo wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

I got an e-mail recently that this makes me think of. This is how it went...
"A chemistry professor in a large college had some exchange students in the class. One day while the class was in the lab the Professor noticed one young man (exchange student) who kept rubbing his back, and stretching as if his back hurt.

The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country's government and install a new communist government.

In the midst of his story he looked at the professor and asked a strange question. He asked, 'Do you know how to catch wild pigs?'

The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line. The young man said this was no joke. 'You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in The last side. The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat, you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd.

Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.

The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening to America. The government keeps pushing us toward socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc.. While we continually lose our freedoms -- just a little at
a time.

One should always remember: There is no such thing as a free lunch! Also, a politician will never provide a service for you cheaper than you can do it yourself.

Also, if you see that all of this wonderful government 'help' is a problem confronting the future of democracy in America , you might want to send this on to your friends. If you think the free ride is essential to your way of life then you will probably delete this email, but God help you when the gate slams shut!

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have".
Thomas Jefferson"

+10 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

"I'm sorry to inform you of this but you are wrong on almost all counts."

You are incorrect.

"I hope you realize that the second amendment protects the right to bear "arms" meaning weapons. Notice how it doesn't say right to bear firearms."

There is plenty of contemporary (to the writing of the 2nd Amendment) writing that demonstrates that the amendment refers to firearms rather than, for example, longbows, gladii, trebuchets and the like. So your claim seems refuted with trivial effort.

"So, a position of zero-compromise on the second amendment means that all arms should be available to all citizens? Howitzers? Abrams tanks? Chemical Weapons? Nuclear bombs? While this may satisfy our ideological need for pure liberty; how does this make our nation stronger? How does this make the US a better place to live?"

How many citizens do you imagine to have the means to possess a nuke? Or an Abrams. Or a howitzer. Many of the rest on your list are easily obtained by any erudite, learned person. It is merely mutual respect and the certainty that running amok with your home made kaboodle (or tank, or machine gun, both of which can be owned by citizens by the way) will result in prosecution that inhibits the criminally minded from the excesses that such systems might allow.

Frankly I wouldn't mind if my neighbor wanted to own an Abrams. It'd be pretty obvious who did a bad deed if the thing rolled down Main Street one day sticking up all the convenience stores. And it'd be quieter than most low riders.

"Of course, everyone thinks those are ridiculous ideas, but that's what a zero-compromise view of the 2nd amendment dictates. So, by agreeing with me on this point you are saying that there is room for compromise within the 2nd amendment."

My lack of agreement with your position seems to undermine the purported universality of the opinion you've rendered, yer honor.

"The truth is that if you study U.S. history you will see that nearly all the rights in the constitution are subject to certain conditions."

No, not really. The rights seem rather unconditional. There are of course criminal laws that are violated when one uses poor judgement in exercising their rights.

"- We are constantly restricting "freedom of press" in order to protect national security secrets."

Actually, we don't. What we restrict is the press access to secrets. When was the last time we prosecuted the press for reporting information that someone thought was classified? I can't think of a single instance.

"Police may violate the 4th amendment and enter your home without a warrant if they feel someone's life is in immediate danger."

But they need to show probable cause after the fact. That prohibits arbitrary or unwarranted entrance. That is why the word "unreasonable" exists in the phrase "unreasonable search." A policeman who enters lots of houses on sham pretense would quickly be dismissed.

"Your right to assembly can be violated if the police believe a "riot" is underway."

No, actually, the police can't make that decision (where I live anyhow). The governor or city council might declare martial law after declaring a state of emergency, but the police can only detain or arrest people for actually committing a crime. They can't tell you to get off the street or remain inside your house rather than on your lawn. You'd do well to consider how many "curfews" have been successfully challenged on the grounds of constitutionality. Moreover, again, if a governor or city council were to declare martial law for arbitrary reasons, they'd find themselves in the unemployment line right quickly.

"If you are a doctor or lawyer you are not allowed to exercise your right to free speech with regards to your client's legal or medical information."

Actually, you probably are. To my knowledge there is no right to privacy as yet, although by common agreement there are many laws in many municipalities that prohibit professionals from revealing information about their clients without the consent of their clients.

"The truth is that all rights are subject to negotiation."

Only with people who are willing to negotiate away their rights.

"If you unwaveringly stick to a zero-compromise ideology you will be marginalized and your opposition will steam-roll legislation right over you that is completely opposed to your view point."

Your claim is based on the supposition that the opposition intends to be reasonable. If the opposition intends to use compromise, or more accurately, a series of compromises, to keep negotiating you to a more restrictive "fallback position" then ultimately you get steamrollered anyhow. That is how North Korean "negotiates" and it is how people who discourse on the reasonableness of certain "restrictions" on the 2nd Amendment negotiate.

You'd be well advised to actually READ what it is that the Brady Campaign, the UN, proponentes of HR 45, PETA, the Urban League and the like say they want to do. All one need do is assume that those groups mean what they say and one might reasonably conclude that they deserve no place at any legislative table.

"If you are willing to make some wise compromises you can achieve an outcome that respects your core principles while only giving ground on minor points."

A person can start a riot by incitement. A person can motivate another to kill on the basis of race, religion, or even the sexual identity of a potential victim. In many ways, the human mouth is a far more dangerous instrument than an Abrams tank. That is why so many draconian governments limit speech in addition to personal firearms ownership. And yet, here in the US, at least for now, no reasonable person advocates forcing citizens to get a permit to write a letter to the editor, or to offer an opinion on this blog.

Will you be the first to agree that people should be forced to obtain a license to speak? Or to register their mouths?

"However, it is the ONLY way for us and our country to succeed long term."

I disagree. Another way to succeed is to educate people about what the Bill of Rights said and to instill values that lead most to the most libertarian readings of those rights, and do one's very best to marginalize those voices that look to erode civil liberties accretionally.

+7 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

I'd also like to say something about the 2nd amendment debate in general.

The 2nd amendment guarantees our right to bear arms. I think we can all agree (even the anti-gun nuts) that the government has no business taking away our butter knives on the grounds that they are too dangerous.

On the other hand, I think we can also agree (no matter how pro gun we are) that private citizens should not be allowed to own tactical nuclear warheads.

Once we have all agreed on these two points we have established some very important common ground:

-The government has the responsibility to restrict the types of weapons owned by private citizens.

-The execution of this responsibility needs to be limited (hence, the purpose of the second amendment)

We may not realize it but, have just agreed with the anti-gun nuts about something. There is a line somewhere, above that line lie military only weapons, below it lie weapons we all can own.

The location of this line was not handed down by the almighty, nor was it pre-ordained by the founding fathers. It is a pragmatic question that needs to be sorted out in an intelligent and level headed way.

I think one of the best ways to accomplish this is to stop using vague terms like "assault weapon" and "cop killer bullet". These terms are meant to conjure up images of bad buys in action movies. They are also intentionally vague so that they can be used as catch-all's.

Intelligent people on both sides of the debate would be better served by using technically accurate terms like "fully automatic", "Teflon coated bullet", etc... The trouble is of course these technical terms make far less sensational headlines. The headline "Republicans oppose ban on cop-killer bullets" sells a lot more newspapers than "congress debates legality of teflon-coated handgun rounds with hardened steel cores"

So come on!, lets start demanding that our press and our elected representatives address us and our nations problems in an intelligent manner.

This will get us much closer to solving our problems than yelling about "gun toting red-necks" and "Liberal pussies"

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from Love2Hunt wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

Here we go Obama. Thank you so much for infringing on the second amendment. Apparently this is the change that everyone wanted. Change: A worsening economy (socialism), global health care (going to help the economy), taking away guns (and high capacity magazines), closing Guantanamo (releasing numerous terrorists), and a strong bi-partisan effort in making America great. Sounds like this is some CHANGE we can do whithout. I voted for the right guy. Unfortunately he lost. Hopefully we can make it through these next painful 4 years and get a real leader in there.

Ya I know all you liberals that read this website will probably knock this comment, but the truth is not good is it?

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from JohnR wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

A cop killer bullet as defined by the President is any bullet that can defeat body armor as currently used by our law enforcement officers.
A cop killer bullet used tobe defined as any armor piercing bullet and especially any of the Nyclad (teflon coated hardened core) bullets available only to law enforcement. Back when the Nyclad bullets were an issue the public in general wasn't fully aware that we wore soft body armor. When the morons in the press brought out the news about the Nyclad bullets, they also informed the public that we wore soft armor vests. I remember the saying around the department was "Oh great, now they're going to shoot me in the head!"
I am hopeful that any assault weapon ban will have a long and drawn out fight. If the US can't win the war on drugs, what makes the politicians think they can win the war on illegal trafficking in guns?

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from TmH wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

Everyone should read the new proposal on what weapons would be included on the new Assault Weapons Ban (AWB). Remington 1100, Benelli semi autos, allegedly they're even trying to add pump shotguns (your faithful Rem 870) could be included in the final version. Check the NRA's website to view details of the firearms that would be illegal for sportsmen and women to own. They may not do it this year but it is coming. 2nd Amendment advocates, hunters, and outdoor sportsmen and women should join the NRA and other groups supporting gun ownership and outdoor sports. Additionally, everyone should boycott and yell out against faux sportmen groups that endorse Obama and the anti gun agenda!

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from idahooutdoors wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

Sounds like Mexico is just trying to blame us and find excuses for their messes. Since when did we take away the rights of Americans for the sake of another country??? Do you think this will make one bit of difference in Mexico??? NUTS Maybe we could enforce our laws, protect our borders, and if Mexico is unable to stop these cartels send some of our Black ops guys down in the middle of the night to put some terror into the hearts of these criminals.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Edward J. Palumbo wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

Since the President shows no familiarity with firearms and has no military experience, we must assume he will have to rely heavily on others for a definition of "assault weapons". We have faced these issues in the past and we will unquestionably deal with them repeatedly in the future. As the general public becomes more urbanized and distanced from shooting sports, we see that ignorance and lack of discernment will have to be met by public awareness, but we continue to deal with a shift that places us at a disadvantage. Negative press and biased media coverage have weighed heavily against the shooting sports. There are fewer public figures in politics, sports, or the film industry who can provide a high-profile advocacy of hunting and target shooting. As Boy Scout marksmanship programs disappear, and marksmanship training withers in our schools due to withering budgets and increasing pressure of potential liability, that spiral will continue among the young who would otherwise be exposed to proper training and familiarization with basic marksmanship. There are fewer .22 rimfire rifles under the Christmas tree, and fewer parents willing to invest the time to obtain or share their knowledge with their youngsters. Many who enjoy the challenge of accurate shooting have military experience; however, we've had an all-volunteer military for some time and that spectrum is narrowing.
We cannot be complacent about the potential threat of losing the right to keep and bear arms. On a forum like this, we're preaching to the choir, but we have to remain politically alert, proactive and responsible or the next generation will have little or no access to firearms at all.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from steve182 wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

unfortunately not all hunters are wise with their votes. smarten' up

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

Okay,the way I heard it, Mexico has laws banning assault rifles. Apparently, there are factories in Eastern Europe that cranked out AK 47's like gangbusters for the USSR. These factories ceased production after the USSR folded. After the world realigned, these factories started production again, to equip third world nations and whatever revolutionaries that could pay cash. The Mexican drug cartels are importing these AK 47's through South America. Apparently, for that type of use, its very well designed. Parts are available worldwide and its fully automatic. No law passed in our congress will have any effect on this trade. The only "benefit" will be, if this drug war spills over into our country, our citizens will be defenseless.
YooperJack

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sportsman Matt wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

WOW, big surprise. Democratic President...Assault Weapon Ban. Republican President...Ban removed. Just think about this for a minute. Anytime the Democrats get in office, we the people get higher taxation and more laws to prohibit the law abiding from doing anything because as a few Democratic politicians have stated before "people need to be told what they can and can't do because they can't be allowed to decide.". And when the Republicans get in office, we see tax cuts, more spending, and a way of life not infringed by nonsense laws.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from JohnR wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

A little ray of hope! When researching this article I found some others where Mr. Holder was corrected by none other than Ms. Pelosi and reminded that the Ag doesn't make laws, Congress does. Additionaly a Democratic Senator (forgot his name) stated that as far as he was concerned he would not be voting in favor of a reinstatement of the Assault Weapon Ban anytime in the near future. The moral of the story: Maybe there are a few Dems who remember what happened after the last AWB was passed and the Republicans took Congress for the first time in 50 years. I admit it is only a ray of hope but if we can get ourelves and our gun clubs and etc. organized and write our senators and representatives some good, brief, and well thought letters (from their constituents), maybe we can convince them that an AWB would not be their smartest move.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

We have little choice but to work within the system. But I don't hold to the "compromise" notion when it comes to the Bill of Rights. Partly it's because I have no confidence in anti-rights people to stick to an agreement; usually the strategy is to negotiate a compromise then move the line and start negotiating again. It's also because I think the whole "solution" here in re the 2nd Amendment completely ignores the problem. It's not about guns. It's about dealing properly with criminals.

Imagine telling someone that they had to register their mouth in order to speak in public? Or that they had to get a permit? Or pass a knowledge test in order to offer a political opinion? A mouth could be a dangerous weapon because in the hands of an ideologue it could be used to incite violence. Most would (I hope) abhore such an idea, and yet there is no reason to imagine that the First Amendment is particularly more sacred than the Second. (I hesitate to bring up the idea because based on leftist trends restricting speech in Europe, the idea of requiring a license to talk may catch on somewhere, and I'd dislike being framed as the originator of the idea.)

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

@Yooper -

Janet Napolitano was on the forefront of trying to get the last admin to do something about illegal immigration. She was the one who asked to have the NG at the border backing up ICE, and she's been the one demanding that the gov't take action to address illegal immigration to reduce the costs of illegals health care in ERs, and the costs of jailing the ones who commit crime. Napolitano signed the bill that makes AZ employers criminally culpable for hiring illegals.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

@Bob

"I think you misunderstand my position. I strongly oppose HR45. The point I am trying to make is that a stance "absolutely no compromise" will only result in us being completely marginalized."

Your point seems incorrect to me. Your position seems self defeating too. If you are always willing to compromise, you will always have someone forcing you to retreat and redraw a new compromise line in some position less acceptable to the one than the last compromise line. At some point you have to say "You will go no further." Indeed, at times, you must say "We will now take back that which is rightfully ours."

"and by the way, I don't see rebutting my description of how our rights are restricted with a more specific description of how our rights are restricted proves that our rights unrestricted"

Not following you. If one commits a criminal act, which tends to violate someone else's rights, then one loses ones own rights. That is why or laws are REACTIVE in general. You have the right to free speech. You retain that right, unfettered, with no requirements, provisos or strings attached. If as a result of exercising that right you cause mayhem, then you can be punished.

We already HAVE laws for prosecuting people who commit crimes and use firearms to do it. THAT is the analog to the "yell 'fire' in a crowded theater" example. Restricting firearms ownership A PRIORI has no analog in the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights.

Getting down to specifics, on what, exactly, would you compromise? Would you sell out the interests of people who own ARs because you have no desire to own one, and therefore the others' interests are something you will negotiate away?

Here's my position. I don't own an "assault rifle." I don't even own an "evil black rifle" of the garden variety civilian AR type (but these aren't assault rifles, they just look like assault rifles). I don't own em because IMO the rounds they fire are of limited sporting application (I have no use for the .223 or the 7.6x39R), the firearms are ugly, overpriced, not particularly well made, and gadgety. All of that is an opinion of course. I extend a hand of "peace" to the AR owners on this blog, because in THEIR opinions, I am wrong. It's not my business to tell them they can't own an AR.

Why does the Brady Campaign, or the firearms control movement, target "assault rifles" in the proposed ban? These "assault rifles" are almost never used to commit crimes, and the people who commit crimes don't give a damn what the law says they can own. These "assault rifles" aren't capable of burst fire or full auto, so they're not even "assault rifles" in the modern sense. They are, functionally, almost identical to the WW2-Korean War era M1 Garand, or to, for example, a garden variety modern Browning semiauto hunting rifle. The principle difference is that they shoot cartridges much less powerful than the typical hunting rifle, or the M1 Garand.

An AR clone firing .223 capable only of semi-auto fire is a weak sister to a modern semi-auto hunting rifle firing a .308 or .30-06.

Why then the proposed ban, if it outlaws a firearm that's almost never used in crime, and that is less powerful than ordinary hunting rifles? To answer, they want to outlaw them because, through a disinformation campaign that combines fear with ignorance they want people to believe that an AR clone is somehow particularly MORE dangerous or lethal than a hunting rifle. It's an easier sell too because AR clones LOOK LIKE military firearms, even though they aren't.

The "assault weapons ban" targets the low hanging fruit. The goal is to GET YOU TO COMPROMISE on this particular ban, and get you used to selling other firearms owners rights away, hoping that Brady or Urban League or whomever will stop there. But I don't think they will. Once you've banned a semi-auto that uses a wussy cartridge like the .223, surely, the antis will argue that one must ban other semi-autos that use more powerful cartridges, even when those other semi-autos only "look like" hunting weapons.

THAT is my point. You can't compromise with people whose ultimate goal is to completely deprive you of your rights.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

@Bob -

BTW. The definition of "arms" in the 2nd Amendment was at the time widely construed to mean "any man portable weapon." That would obviously include firearms. Since the Constitutional Congress was full of Enlightenment Progressives, we may assume that they were aware of the existence of a variety of options, including matchlocks, air-rifles (yes they existed at the time), flintlocks, rifles, smoothbores, shotguns, handguns, crossbows, swords, cutlasses, knives, and the like. Moreover, we can I think safely assume that they probably understood that technological changes would occur that would put new options on the table in the arena of man-portable firearms.

Here is a reasonable discussion of the subject that provides citations along the way:

http://brainshavings.com/supplements/arms/iii.htm

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

"With that said, do you believe that unrestricted ownership of fully-automatic weapons should be allowed?"

In a word, "yes." But if a person has a criminal record, then "no."

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from ksquared wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

Wow, I didn't see that coming......
Messing with American Liberties to ensure the safety of Mexico? Huh?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

All you liberal pussies were duly warned that the Obama Administration would be coming after your 2nd Amendment rights. E. Holder is a Clintonista whose views and tactics have not changed. Hope you have enough spare change in the deepening depression to join the NRA fight against their socialist agenda.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from jcarlin wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

I'm not in law enforcement, but I never got the impression there was a dearth of guns in Central or South America that could head North. Regardless, it sounds like the answer is to better arm Texas.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from NNMountaineer wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

Not surprised at all that this administration would infringe upon 2nd amendment rights....

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from jjas wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

Is anyone here really suprised? We all knew this was coming and like Ronald Reagan used to say "Well, here
we go again".

Geez.......

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from MaxPower wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

Just shows how committed this clown is. In the midst of an all out recession, he is also after our rights.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from idahooutdoors wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

Now we will all be safe from those terrible black rifles. They are not as deadly with non-collapsible stocks, 10 round mags, no bayonets,and lacking those menacing muzzle breaks. Why are they wasting more time and money on Legislation that does nothing to make us safer or better our country? These guys are totally out of control, an the mindless minions who back them are no better. We are going down a slippery slope that will destroy and has destroyed the American way of life and the Constitution. Has there been an increase in shootings that can be linked to the sunset on the so called assault weapons ban?????

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from s-kfry wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

This is obviously not unexpected. The concern I have is that this is their opportunity to re-write the Assault Weapons Ban and the details therein could be very concerning. One quote I saw somewhere was that they might outlaw all firearms that would be applicable to law enforcement (I can see that meaning just about anything that shoots a projectile over .16 caliber at more than 30 fps). Beyond that, would they not only outlaw the manufacture of new assault rifles but also outlaw existing one? And what kind of taxes are going to be buried in the bill for guns that don’t specifically get outlawed? This could be a whole lot worse than the original one with a Democratic House and Senate and a very liberal President. We may wish that Bill was back in office writing this thing.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from summit229 wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

BOHIC

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from jamesti wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

i thought at least obama would wait until he destroyed the economy once and for all before going after our guns. but now that he's doing this, he'll be able to put more people out of work. 2 birds with one liberal stone. i say we just invade mexico and send the cartels to cuba.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from doekiller wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

Now I am trying to understand this (sarcasm). Our beloved leader stated his first priority was fixing the economy. Now I don't know who watched the news this week but the only gains in the past quarter were with companies catering to gun enthusiets and hunters. Cabela's, Ruger, and Smith and Wesson all showed noticable profits when all other companies are bombing. Reports showed that their profits were up not on typical goods but on semi autos and tacticals. So folks we have one area of our battered economy showing signs of profits and jobs and our Savior elect wants to run a ban. God help us.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

I can't believe this was accepted as legitimate by a major news source like ABC.

Lets think about the absurdity; If I read it correctly the Mexican police are having problems with the cartels since they are armed with "automatic weapons and grenades"

First, lets be perfectly clear that automatic weapons and grenades are very illegal in the US right now. Without having to pass a single additional law.

Second, I really hope that this is a desperate attempt to win public support for anti-gun laws. (since the vast majority of media consumers simply take news snippets at face value instead of thinking about their validity)

Because, if it is not that means that our attorney general (the highest ranking law enforcement official in the country) actually believes that Mexican drug cartels acquire their weapons by:

1)crossing the heavily guarded US border
2)walking into a federally licensed gun dealer
3)submitting paperwork for a federal background check.
4)Pay full retail price
5)and finally, cross back over the aforementioned heavily guarded border.

The Cartels exist because they specialize in moving contraband across international borders despite law enforcement intervention.

Come on ABC, you don't have to be much of an expert on the subject to see through this one!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from jamesti wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

i highly doubt the cartels are getting these weapons from us. either way the mexican government should do what everyone else does when they are outgunned; buy more and better guns.they can do it with all the tax dollars and illigitimate fines they get from our citizens right before they kidnap them.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from steve182 wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

"there are just a few gun related changes we'd like to make"...who is this guy kidding. If they could they'd outlaw them all. Let me guess, there will be some additions to the assault weapons ban.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from buckhunter wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

You need to read between the lines here. Mexico has disarmed their civilians by making assualt weapons illegal so they have no protection against the cartels whom effectively control the entire region below the U.S. border. So Obama thinks the smart thing to do is to disarm the American civilian so they to have no defense against the cartel extending the area of control North of the border? Nuts!

Mark my words. Obama is not the change this country needs. All the country did by electing Obama was put a feather in the cap of the corrupt Chicago political cartel. Obama will spend his first 4 years as president paying back the debt that fueled his fast rise to power. In other words, we are screwed and there is nothing we can do. The liberal media elected Obama and they will never admit they were wrong by writing negative comments about him.

In the end much more people with be dependent upon the government and we will have less freedoms.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Walt Smith wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

They will to outlaw broadheads here soon. I guarentee a 3 blade 100 grain Muzzy broadhead with 70lbs behind it will certainly defeat any soft body armor.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Derek St.Romain wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

My favorite saying lately is this-
" you stupid, stupid lazy Americans!" i went thru katrina, left the day before of course like anyone with any amount of brain would have, and then watched all these morons skatter to save the stupid, lazy Americans standing on-side the road. Now, we all have to dig in our pockets and save more stupid, lazy Americans, including this President.
We will make it thru these hard times, and fight our asses off to get back hold of our country, but only if we stand together and start a third party. Both sides of this battle are being faught together and against US! Anyone thatsays different has not been paying much attention. Just do what "some people I knoe" are doing, hide some of what you will not give up, and promise to fight till the death for what you believe in. THAT is what our country was founded on.
"the fastest and easiest way to enslave a nation is to disarm them!" George Mason

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from dusty bowers wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

who voted for this clown i hoped that McCain won the election

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from 007 wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

We were warned. To all those that chose to buy Obama's dog and pony show instead of thinking about his obvious stand on the 2nd amendment, we tried to tell ya! Some will say no big deal, I don't own a black rifle. Thou fool! Do you really think they will stop with those? Handguns, anything semi-auto, bolt action center fires (sniper rifles. It's been mentioned before), they will all be in play if this continues.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

All of you who voted for Obama (actually an acronymn for "One Big Ass Mistake America) should not be surprised. When could you ever believe a crooked, lying, corrupt Democrat from Chicago? Just go back to the Daly's if you please. Like someone saide earlier; 'Turds of a feather float together'.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from doekiller wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

Here's an idea for a discussion: Who's called his or her Congressman and reminded them of the house cleaning America did after they pushed through the last ban? They need multiple reminders in nonelection years, and some of these poor fools really think they can't lose (Jack Murtha excluded, apparently that guy can do anything without losing his seat).

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob81 wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

There is plenty of contemporary (to the writing of the 2nd Amendment) writing that demonstrates that the amendment refers to firearms rather than, for example, longbows, gladii, trebuchets and the like. So your claim seems refuted with trivial effort.

Mike, can you provide some citation here? If we are getting into those types of specifics (without applying reasonable judgement in a modern context), couldn't it be argued that the founding fathers were referring to the right to bear single-shot, muzzle-loading long rifles? I don't think this was the case...

How many citizens do you imagine to have the means to possess a nuke? Or an Abrams. Or a howitzer. Many of the rest on your list are easily obtained by any erudite, learned person. It is merely mutual respect and the certainty that running amok with your home made kaboodle (or tank, or machine gun, both of which can be owned by citizens by the way) will result in prosecution that inhibits the criminally minded from the excesses that such systems might allow.

Not a nuke maybe, but how about Stinger missles, grenades, etc. Mutual respect and fear of god and/or of legal consequences keeps 99.9% of the population from blowing up the rest, but I can give you a dozen examples of people run amok in the last few years that I wouldn't want anywhere near military-grade weaponry/explosives.

No, actually, the police can't make that decision (where I live anyhow). The governor or city council might declare martial law after declaring a state of emergency, but the police can only detain or arrest people for actually committing a crime. They can't tell you to get off the street or remain inside your house rather than on your lawn. You'd do well to consider how many "curfews" have been successfully challenged on the grounds of constitutionality. Moreover, again, if a governor or city council were to declare martial law for arbitrary reasons, they'd find themselves in the unemployment line right quickly.

There have been a number of high-profile instances during the last eight years of protests against the Bush administration being limited in size and location. I dont believe the administration was ever rebuked by the courts for these impositions.

"If you are a doctor or lawyer you are not allowed to exercise your right to free speech with regards to your client's legal or medical information."

Actually, you probably are. To my knowledge there is no right to privacy as yet, although by common agreement there are many laws in many municipalities that prohibit professionals from revealing information about their clients without the consent of their clients.

And federal restrictions., This is what HIPAA addresses.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

Mr Diehl,

I think you misunderstand my position. I strongly oppose HR45. The point I am trying to make is that a stance "absolutely no compromise" will only result in us being completely marginalized.

and by the way, I don't see rebutting my description of how our rights are restricted with a more specific description of how our rights are restricted proves that our rights unrestricted

-Thanks for the back-up bob

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

I'm seeing something here. Janet Napolitano has repeatedly played down the situation with illegal immigration, and criminal acts committed by those illegals. Rhaum Emmannuel has said that "A crisis is a terrible thing to waste." Are they so bold as to be trying to develop a crisis so that the end result is the gun control that Obama promised, early in his campaign?
YooperJack

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

Mike:
That was the "old" Janet Reno, Governor. The "new" Janet Reno is against the wall, against notification of INS when illegals are picked up, and deaf to the current situation with the Mexican drug cartels. She also will not use the word Terror, or any derivative of that word. As such, for the first time in my life, I see a need for you and I to own assault rifles. Its not just her, I feel that a common theme from the new administration, that the war on terror, is now over. I must have slept through the part when Osama surrendered.
YooperJack

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob81 wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

Mike,
I agree about your point of "black rifles". I don't own one, and I don't plan on ever owning one (I prefer my firearms to be of the over/under variety with pretty engraving and shiny wood). However, I also recognize that "black rifles" for the most part aren't really any more lethal than your average semi-auto hunting rifle. They look scary and that's why they make an easy target.

With that said, do you believe that unrestricted ownership of fully-automatic weapons should be allowed?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob81 wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

Mike,
Thank you, that was an interesting link. What I got out of it mostly though, was that the founding fathers were rather inconsistent when applying the use of the word "arms". In some cases, they may have been referring to muskets, in others they may have been referring to cavalry and artillery. Later court cases cited did see prudent to place restrictions on the type allowed:

State v. Buzzard,66 an 1842 Arkansas case, includes a straightforward claim that

. . . the term "arms," in its most comprehensive signification, probably includes every description of weapon or thing which may be used offensively or defensively, and in the most restricted sense, includes guns or firearms of every description, as well as powder, lead and flints, and such other things as are necessarily used in loading and discharging them, so as to render them effective as instruments of offense or defense, and without which their efficiency for these purposes would be greatly diminished, if not destroyed.67 [emphasis added]

Reining in this expansive definition, though, Chief Justice Ringo thought it possible to legitimately restrict the right to keep and bear arms. He pointed out that the individual rights protected by the first ten Amendments could not possibly be absolute (and therefore free from all regulation) because otherwise great disorder and conflict would tear society apart.68 He illustrated his point when he mentioned certain justified limits on freedom of speech and of the press that were "necessary to protect the character and secure the rights of others, as well as to preserve good order and the public peace."69 Justice Dickinson agreed when he wrote, "[t]he motive, then, for granting this power to keep and bear arms could not be extended to an unlimited, uncontrolled right to bear any kind of arms or weapons, upon any and every occasion; still less the terms, for they are restrictive in their language."70 Here we see an early example of a court applying reasonable and constitutionally sound upper limits on weapon ownership, while still preserving the plain meaning of the Second Amendment's protected individual right.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

Sure. Meaning that yes of course from the outset there were people trying to redefine arms and trying to limit the right. Nonetheless the general perception was a man-portable weapon. It'd have been convenient if the founders had imagined that people would so quickly have engaged in a process of semantic gamesmanship with the purpose of restricting our freedoms. You can judge the writings by the general social practice at the time. When the Constitutional Convention occurred, many households owned firearms for hunting, defense, and to contribute to militias. By that standard, the pragmatist in me wants to define an "arm" as "anything one might conceivably use for hunting, self defense, or to participate in a militia." If one wanted to constrain it to "any man portable device that one could use for ~" then I suppose that is acceptable. But we shouldn't HAVE to have this discussion. The only reason why we're having it is because UNreasonable people are trying to argue that the obvious is inobvious. Somehow, if we are ot believe UNreasonable people, we must accept that the "right to keep and bear arms" conveys the "right to keep and bear nothing in particular" because, in the rhetoric of UNreasonable people, anyone can play with the definition of "arms" to mean anything they want it to mean or to mean nothing at all.

If one can play that sort of game with the Bill of Rights then one can pretty much argue away almost any civil liberty on any pretext. When you see what Brady Campaign members and other antis openly state for their objective, you can see that they want to utterly disarm Americans as though the 2nd Amendment has no importance at all.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob81 wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

Oh, believe me, I have no illusions about what the Brady Campaign would like to accomplish if given their druthers. I have no doubt that if it were up to them, we would be hunting waterfowl with sling-shots and spears.

I guess the bottom line for me is that "arms" seems rather ambiguous, and I'm rather unsettled by the idea that anyone (since the constitution doesn't specify the 2nd amendment only applies to citizens without a criminal record)can possess any and all weaponry they can afford.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

Mike,

You misunderstand my argument again, but I'm glad you bring it up because its something I see commonly in political discussions.

Your stance is an absolute, no room for negotiation, ever, period. You therefore assume that my position is also an absolute, always negotiate, always, no matter how ridiculous the claim.

This is not true, to negotiate HR45 into being acceptable would entail completely re-writing the bill. Bills like this should simply be defeated on the house and senate floors (which in this case I think is very likely)

My point is that your stance of "any man-portable weapon can be owned by anyone without a criminal record" is politically unviable. The stance is immediately labeled "extremest" (regardless of plentiful evidence to the contrary) and the overall pro-gun movement is weakened.

Instead we should assert that weapons bans based on looks like bayonet lugs and flash suppressors are frivolous and should not passed. Also, we should assert that the use intentionally vague, incendiary terms like "assault rifle" and "cop killer bullet" have no place in public policy.

What are we willing to concede to accept to achieve our goals? Regulations based on how dangerous a weapon actually is to law enforcement and the general public. Things like full auto bans, minimum length requirements, background checks at gun shows, and magazine capacities (though I'm willing to be swayed on that last one)

I think that making a logical, almost scientific argument like this will go much further towards winning public and political support.

Perhaps we can present ourselves as logical intellectuals instead of the raving hill billies the press tries to portray us as.

We can use negotiation to start pushing the line to the right instead of withdrawing from the discourse and allowing it to slide to the left.

I guess I am proposing that we beat them at their own game!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

with regards to our discussion on restriction of rights:

for example take the "riot" scenario:

-I claim that police can order a crowd to disband if they deem it to be a riot, thereby restricting your right to assemble.

-you claim that a mayor can order a crowd to disband if they deem it to be a riot, thereby restricting your right to assemble.

Granted your scenario presents more checks and balances of power and is therefore preferable. However, in either case the right to assemble is being restricted.

That being said, I don't think either one of us is going to convince the other on this topic, so perhaps we should leave it to another day.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from tcrumplerr wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

its our right to bare arms and if we want to have assault weapons for recreation or for protection then we should be able too. and i really doubt America banning assault weapons is going to do anything to stop Mexican outlaws from using assault weapons they will just get them from somewhere else. and we should allow another countries government to tamper with our rights as Americans.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

"My point is that your stance of "any man-portable weapon can be owned by anyone without a criminal record" is politically unviable. The stance is immediately labeled "extremest" (regardless of plentiful evidence to the contrary) and the overall pro-gun movement is weakened."

So far who's labeled it "extremist" other than yourself? Why do you assume that if an extremist anti-firearms person is pursuing a restrictive law that the 2nd Amendment defender will automatically lose? The point is that a hard and fast defense of the 2nd Amendment is not extremist. It's normal. It's Where We SHOULD Be. The abnormal extremist types are the ones who want to restrict your rights.

"Instead we should assert that weapons bans based on looks like bayonet lugs and flash suppressors are frivolous and should not passed."

You presume, incorrectly I think, that rational judgement has anything at all to do with the antis' efforts. My assumption, based on the things that the antis write on their own websites, and say in their own letters to the editor, etc, is that they are not legislating from a rational agenda, and they're not the least bit interested in having you or me explain to them why it is that their concerns are misplaced. You can't reason a person out of a position when they never used reason in the first place.

"Also, we should assert that the use intentionally vague, incendiary terms like "assault rifle" and "cop killer bullet" have no place in public policy."

What are you gonna do? Tell them they can't use those phrases? The will. That's what they do. They choose incendiary words because those words have propaganda value. They're not going to give 'em up just because in our dissent we start using accurate adjectives to describe how our firearms work.

"What are we willing to concede to accept to achieve our goals?"

Me? I will concede nothing. They can stfu, IMO.

"Regulations based on how dangerous a weapon actually is to law enforcement and the general public. Things like full auto bans, minimum length requirements, background checks at gun shows, and magazine capacities (though I'm willing to be swayed on that last one)"

None of which has any rational basis in the first place. Since these limitations are irrational (they solve no problems and they do not make the public one iota safer), if you concede those points, you will have conceded that irrational fears are sufficient grounds for legislation.

"I think that making a logical, almost scientific argument like this will go much further towards winning public and political support."

The public is mostly on our side alreay. The antis are a minority in the general public. They're only a majority among Democratic representatives from urban areas.

"Perhaps we can present ourselves as logical intellectuals instead of the raving hill billies the press tries to portray us as."

You talk to 'em how you want and I'll talk to 'em how I want. I know I can sway anyone on this subject who is willing to listen to reason. The "assault weapons" ban is not a reasonable idea and the people offering it aren't the sort of people for whom reason matters.

"We can use negotiation to start pushing the line to the right instead of withdrawing from the discourse and allowing it to slide to the left."

I never suggested withdrawing from the discourse. What I suggest is that we rededicate people to their commitment to the Bill of Rights. And not just the 2nd, but also the others that were recently trammeled upon by the Bush admin. The one thing that you DON'T want to convey is that rights can be negotiated away.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

"you claim that a mayor can order a crowd to disband if they deem it to be a riot, thereby restricting your right to assemble."

No, I claim that the mayor can get the police to force a crowd to disband if the crowd is engaged in criminal conduct. If they try disbanding crowds on an arbitrary basis, the mayor (or any police who act on an arbitrary basis without cause) can be removed or dismissed. THAT is the difference between proactive executive power (that asserts the authority to step on your rights as it desires) versus reactive executive power (that can only step on your rights if you are violating the law).

"However, in either case the right to assemble is being restricted."

No, it's not. It's not the right that is being restricted. It's the conduct that can be restricted, and then generally only if crimes are in commission. It's true that some execs may abuse their power, but it's recognized as an illegal use of power.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Timberline wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

Mike Diehl- If we ever meet the beer is on me. I don't think i can express it any simpler than that! We would have far fewer problems if more people were willing to stand up for thier constitutional rights like you.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from hjohn429 wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

The author is obviously misled to begin with because he said that Wayne LaPierre is the President of the NRA. He is infact the Executive Vice President. John C. Sigler is the current President of the NRA. The Second Amendment does not give people the right to own firearms it just recognizes it. In other words we would still have the right to own firearms if there was no Second Amendment. This makes me very angry at other gun owners because they are foolish enough to compromise. What Obama will do is he will say he is going to ban lots of guns and put them on a list. When a bunch of hunters realize that their hunting rifles are on the list they will complain. Obama will then take those firearms of the list and the hunters will be OK with that. In the meanwhile Obama will be banning every other kind of firearm that he, Biden, Holder, and anyone else in his little gun-banning group can think of.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from JohnR wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

This has at the very least been a very lively debate. I think most of us posting here are generally on the same page. I have to say I side with Mike's no compromise position while understanding Ken and Bob81's arguments.
It is my personal opinion however that it is an innate right as a person (aka human being) to own a weapon. I opine that it is a right that precedes common law and organized society. While some claim to have "evolved" and become "enlightened", I find that we all as basic human beings are still subject to the same emotions and weaknesses that our neo-lithic ancesters were subject to. Early on in our history we discovered that two bullies (or criminals) with clubs were no match for a man with a bow and arrows. Therefore the bow and arrow man experienced some security from the bullies for a season until the bullies themselves obtained bows and arrows.
I am not going to go into a lengthy dissertation regarding the small arms race, but I am going to jump to the present and state that I would prefer to face any Mexican cartel flunkies breaking into my home with my M-14 or AR-15 than with a matchlock rifle or a bow and arrows.
I prefer black (or military type) rifles over other types and I do own some "respectable" bolt action rifles. My military styled rifles are accurate, functional, completely reliable, (I use mine during hunting season with 5 round mags), and possess sufficient power for quick humane kills on game. Additionally, contrary to popular belief, in many states one may possess a machine gun provided the individual has completed the prerequisite paperwork required by the BATFE and paid the $200 transfer tax. One may also possess silencers in many states provided the person has completed the proper steps as outlined above.
There are more class III weapons legally possessed than one would imagine and these people are not the ones robbing banks, dealing drugs, and going armed to the terror of the people.
It still amazes me that whenever an individual who commits a crime with a weapon the individual possessed illegally anyway, we pass ridiculous laws restricting the weapons rather than punishing the individual for his illegal use of same. It is this punish the weapon trend that has caused most of us to adopt a no compromise attitude. I therefore conclude that there should not be any debate among gun owners as to what constitutes an acceptable firearm.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

Try to get past the call screener with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity show with this question. True story to both stations. Clay… What Government entity is responsible for your personnel protection for the private citizen? Call screener… and the answer is? Clay … there is no Government entity responsible period! Law Enforcement is just what it is, Law Enforcement. When dialing 911 your call is accessed by priority of urgency and merit of responding to, the availability, distance and time for a unit to be dispatched to your location. Call screener… We cannot say that over the radio… CLICK! Just after the Rodney King riot back in 86ish, a California State Official stated, there is no Government entity responsible for the private citizen and they are responsible for their own safety! Bottom line, I cannot believe how ignorant, stupid and naïve from even the NRA not to pick up on this fact!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
-H.L. Mencken

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

“Facts must be distorted, relevant circumstances concealed, and a picture presented which by its crude coloring will persuade the ignorant people that their Government is blameless, their cause is righteous, and that the indisputable wickedness of the enemy is beyond question.
A moment's reflection would tell any reasonable person that such obvious bias cannot possibly represent the truth. But the moment's reflection is not allowed; lies are circulated with great rapidity. The unthinking mass accept them and by their excitement sway the rest.
The amount of rubbish and humbug that pass under the name of patriotism in wartime in all countries is sufficient to make decent people blush when they are subsequently disillusioned.”
-Arthur Ponsonby, Falsehood in Wartime, 1928

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

“If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees.”
-President Bill Clinton, August 12, 1993

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

“The presidency - by which I mean the executive state - is the sum total of American tyranny. The other branches of government, including the presidentially appointed Supreme Court, are mere adjuncts. The presidency insists on complete devotion and humble submission to its dictates, even while its steals the products of our labor and drives us into economic ruin. It centralizes all power unto itself, and crowds out all competing centers of power in society, including the church, the family, the business, the charity, and the community.”
-Lew Rockwell, president of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from howardcj wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

I must have missed something. Is Obama the president of the US or Mexico?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

howardcj

He believes he is the messiah, the savior for all!!!

“Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”
-Daniel Webster

“The broad principle that there is an individual right to bear arms is shared by many Americans, including myself. I'm of the view that you can't take a broad approach to other rights, such as First Amendment rights, and then interpret the Second Amendment so narrowly that it could fit in a thimble.”
-Senator Charles Schumer, D-NY, 2002-May-8 (http://www.senate.gov/~schumer/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/press_releases/P...)

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ye ole Coaste wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

Think Uall got lotsa good and progressive thoughts on this matter. The one thing Me and my son's do NOW!! is carry NRA app's around w/Us?? give NRA subscriptuions as gifts or the people neighbors and such_co-workers etc that can't afford membership We pay for thier 1st yr between Us. I think the answer and solution is 2stand united thru organizations such as the NRA otherwise will be one voice drowned out in the static of the new socialist-liberal agenda. Join the NRA NOW!!! YOC

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from abmcp13 wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

Banning Assault rifles won't stop the trade of arms to Mexico. These people are DRUG TRAFFICKERS!!!! They doing things illegaly for a living!! Making Guns illegal wont stop them!! They don't give two cents about our government banning these guns, they'll still get them. It's just like drugs, they're illegal, but people still use them!!! You don't hear stories about coke addicts saying "Darn cocain is illegal, i guess we'd better stop using it." And if the government starts banning AR's that's just going to open the flood gates to other guns, such as the one's we use for providing food to our families. This is a JOKE!!! I wish our Congressmen and women would get a clue about the real world and what will actually happen if some of their bills pass.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from abmcp13 wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

I totally agree with you, Love2hunt. All of the conservatives and even moderates saw this coming from a mile away! Globalized health care will be horribly disfunctunal, just like everything else that the government touches. And we might as well kiss the second amendmant good bye! If this bill passes it will be just the begining! I dont mind the fact that the Democrats are for the environment, but it would really help if I had guns to use in it!!!! This CHANGE is a total JOKE!!!! Biggest mistake voters could have made!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from kcozad wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

You guys do realize the 2nd amendment wasnt created for hunters? im a strong proponent, although, that outlawing certain guns doesn't stop criminals from getting them illegaly.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Oldhunter wrote 5 years 5 weeks ago

I have many firearms, but have never owned an assault rifle and never will. I have hunted for years and love to reload and target shoot.I don't own a semiautomatic or 20 round clip and don't want any.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ChuckyDeeInNC wrote 5 years 5 weeks ago

Disappointing, but hardly a great surprise as Obama came from a state noted for trampling the rights of LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS to defend themselves underfoot, while failing to address the REAL problem: Violent Criminals ant their use of firearms in the commission of felonies. What ever happened to "Three Strikes?" In my opinion, "TWO STRIKES" is more than enought to determine a pattern of criminal behavior highly unlikely to be changed that should result in a lifetime of HARD LABOR behind bars. Yet the Liberal Obama-ites want only to blame this behavior on the "Evil Black Gun." If we used the same reasoning, we should OUTLAW CARS, since the "EVIL CAR" is used in almost every violent crime committed. Just where does this blame-placing end???

Let's get back to a too-oft-undiscussed principle called Personal Accountability for one's own actions. We have to abandon this utterly useless notion left over from the Age of Dr Spock that everyone is a "victim" of some unseen force that propels them to pick up an "evil" handgun or "black rifle" and committ horrible crimes. It's not the gun that pulls it's own trigger, stupid----it's the idiot behind the trigger that commits the crime. And they don't have to use a gun---a kitchen knife, baseball bat, or bare hands will do in a pinch. Are we going to ban all these, too?

When we stopped PUNISHING people for their criminal acts and made them "victims", that's when our crime problem got out of hand. Get back to the basics. Besides, check what Canada's experience has been with their Long Gun Registry: found to be of little use in preventing crime and costing BILLIONS (*Not the budgetted Millions)---Canada is ready to scrap this pile of legislative dung! We should take note and save the money to revive our ecomony instead!!!!!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from jcarlin wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

Also, please excuse my ignorance, but I've never seen a box of ammunition labeled "cop-killer". What family of bullet type is lumped into that?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tim Platt wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

Obama has spent more in 30 days than W spent in 8 years... He is growing government every day and infringing upon every aspect of our lives. He will tax everyone with any money into oblivion and give it to minorities who have 14 children and provide health care for illegal immigrants until we are all broke. That's pretty much the way socialism works. You want change? That's what we get... the non working baby makers and immigrants have finally outnumbered us and are in charge of America. My advice is to quit your job, divorce your wife (you can still live with her) and get on the Government payroll. Either that or revolt...

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

Mr Diehl,

I'm sorry to inform you of this but you are wrong on almost all counts.

firstly, it sounds as though you oppose any compromise at all on the second amendment. I hope you realize that the second amendment protects the right to bear "arms" meaning weapons. Notice how it doesn't say "right to bear firearms"

So, a position of zero-compromise on the second amendment means that all arms should be available to all citizens? Howitzers? Abrams tanks? Chemical Weapons? Nuclear bombs? While this may satisfy our ideological need for pure liberty; how does this make our nation stronger? How does this make the US a better place to live?

Of course, everyone thinks those are ridiculous ideas, but that's what a zero-compromise view of the 2nd amendment dictates. So, by agreeing with me on this point you are saying that there is room for compromise within the 2nd amendment.

The truth is that if you study U.S. history you will see that nearly all the rights in the constitution are subject to certain conditions.

- We are constantly restricting "freedom of press" in order to protect national security secrets.

- Police may violate the 4th amendment and enter your home without a warrant if they feel someone's life is in immediate danger.

- Your right to assembly can be violated if the police believe a "riot" is underway.

- If you are a doctor or lawyer you are not allowed to exercise your right to free speech with regards to your client's legal or medical information.

The truth is that all rights are subject to negotiation. Which at first sound like a rather weak and cowardly argument. However, it is how things happen in the real world.

If you unwaveringly stick to a zero-compromise ideology you will be marginalized and your opposition will steam-roll legislation right over you that is completely opposed to your view point.
(this is the easy path)

If you are willing to make some wise compromises you can achieve an outcome that respects your core principles while only giving ground on minor points.

This is indeed a difficult path to follow.(both emotionally and in terms of effort) However, it is the ONLY way for us and our country to succeed long term.

-3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bella wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

Ahh the human condition. Poor boundaries and unwillingness to compromise on all sides. First, what attitudes are held in common? Everyone agrees that some military grade weapons do not belong in civilian hands. Both sides make strident comments about what they think the other side wants, then escalates and globalizes that assumption. An assault weapons ban is assumed to be a stepstone to the abolishment of access to all arms, without a moments consideration if that is even possible to do so. Through conceptual inflation conservatives morph into fascists mirroring the liberals morphing into communists. Conservatism isn't fascism any more than liberalism is communism. People fling around yesterdays political slanders as if they still had meaning. The Nazis if not gone have been blasted into insignificance, likewise the communists have devolved into parody as new issues rise that cause the old conflicts (even unsettled ones) to fester on backburners while new horrors hatch out to give us all consternation. Why don't we agree on boundaries with regard to civilian weapons ownership? Because PC Metrosexuals who have gotten mugged too many times think they can legislate 9mms away from street thugs? Because Self Appointed Colonel Of His Own Damn Militia thinks he has to resist black helicopters? Why don't we encourage Mr Wimpy Metrosexual to take some Karate classes and buck his ass up a bit so he wouln't piss himself every time he encounters an aggressive panhandler. Personally I have stated my dislike for "black rifles" but is is solely an asthetic choice I admit. I have a friend who likes to shoot a Barret .50 and I would never want him to loose the priviledge of so doing. Of course this guy is a pillar of the town, Big guy in the Lions Club, repairs the police cruisers, He continues to earn the trust and respect of his peers. I might be tempted to allow this guy to own and fire an 88mm flak gun if he wanted but we gotta have some boundaries.
I suspect I have some problem with this "being prepared to resist the government thing". I am still kind stuck on the notion that the government is by, for and of the people. As I is a people, is I to somehow expect to resist myself somehow? I am a veteran, wore the uniform saluted the flag, and the concept that I might be somehow separated from that union to the point of requiring military grade weapons to resist it very unfortunate and disturbing. I know aspects of our system do need to change, and it never happens fast enough to satisfy anyone but things do change, if slowly. If it were to come that an oppressor need be resisted with violence, hasn't anybody been paying attention? Assault weapons are very limited in scope and they have charicteristic signatures. If I were resisting somebody I think I would plan to be more subtle and get higher body counts in other ways. Guns are almost a distraction to a saboteur.Technology is so delicate and we have become so dependant on it Hey as far as I am concerned we won a victory for democracy and American Ideals last fall! The system actually works! Yea! So please, work with it. Compromise, set boundaries, be nice. Something tells me this will all be rather irrelevant all too soon anyway, so put your energies into getting other aspects of your respective lives in order, I'm sure we have enough guns to tide us over whatever. Gotta go shovel out now, an assault weapon is no help at all when the sky is falling. Chicken Little was right you know...

-6 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment