Second Amendment News and Views.

[Foster]

I wish the media would quit referring to Modern Sporting Rifles as Assault Weapons or Rifles
Assault Weapon or Rifle means is Full Automatic Fire AKA machine gun

Semi Auto rifles are not assault weapons but are Modern Sporting Rifles.
AR-15 is not an Assault rifle but a M-16 is an Assault Rifle.

Also leave the High Capacity Magazines alone as well

[jay]

Have you signed the petition to have Pearce Mirgan deported for his foreign views on gun control ?

I signed one to have the NRA deported to Syria. LOL

I remember the NRAs solution to 911 was to issue every airline passenger a gun.
This way the good guys out number the bad guys and they know it.

[kmn007]

All I been hearing is Bullshit excuses from all of you Gun Loving Asshole. I wish you suffered the pain and angushed that the parents of conn has suffered. There is no need for Semi Automatic Guns. If that makes your Ball Bigger to own one of them, Maybe you should use youe Semi Automatic Gun to shoot your Loving Ass Off. PS Merry Christmas!!
Prayers to the 26 Souls Lost.

[poppo]

All I been hearing is Bullshit excuses from all of you Gun Loving Asshole. I wish you suffered the pain and angushed that the parents of conn has suffered. There is no need for Semi Automatic Guns. If that makes your Ball Bigger to own one of them, Maybe you should use youe Semi Automatic Gun to shoot your Loving Ass Off. PS Merry Christmas!!
Prayers to the 26 Souls Lost.

Most of you anti-gun folks don't even know what a semi-automatic gun is.  And those that think banning guns will somehow keep them out of the hands of criminals are either delusional or just plain ignorant. Mostly the latter.

If you think guns are so bad, why don't you post a "Gun free house" sign on your doors and front lawn and let us know how that works out for you. We see how well the gun free zones worked out at Columbine, Aurora, and Newton.

My prayers also go out to all of the victims that might still be alive if the law abiding citizens would have been allowed to carry in those GFZs.  

Merry Christmas to you too.

[cowboygames]

Anyone notice how the anti-gun nuts are the first to lose their cool and start using profanity to describe those that disagree with them? They seem to lash out at the concepts they have no understanding of. Thank god they don't own guns...

[jay]

I am Canadian. We have gun control.
While my heart goes out to the family and lived ones lost I don't believe there is a "technical" solution to the mass shootings that can be fixed by a policy or law. Subsequently I don't take sides on the gun debate.

Ban all guns .... Never get that past the constutionalusts. Even if you could there are too many guns in circulation already. Then there is Mexico - the us has not been able to stem the flow of drugs good luck on guns.

Ban full automatics. - a willed person simply orders the conversion parts online - bits of metal are not illegal.
This is like selling a slot machine permanently altered to take non-currency. 5 min work to reverse this.

Ban semi automatics - this slows the crazys down but I used to be able to get 10 shots off in 30 seconds using a bolt action 22 hunting gophers.

Robin Hood was just as deadly using arrows.

A crazy person with the intent to do harm is going to do this regardless.
If you analyze the shootings not one of these occurred without significant premeditation.

I can buy diesel and fertilizer a lot easier than guns and ammo.
Timothy Mcvay filled up a truck with the above and took out a government building from the street.
I can pull up a lot closer to any school or mall than he ever did.

My point is we need to do a better job of managing the nut jobs of this world and not go after the tools as the crazies will adapt.

Switzerland has a fully automatic in every home. I dont believe i have ever heard of mass shootings.The difference is that all males from 16 - 50 spend 6 weeks a year in the army. They do a lot of physogical testing and any one with an off profile doesn't get a gun

I think the US should restrict gun ownership to those with appropriate training and physological profiling.
Guns arn't toys but they are often treated that way.

[poppo]

Ban all guns .... Even if you could there are too many guns in circulation already.

Exactly. This is the number one reason a ban will never work. And since many States (like TX) don't have any registration, there would be no way to ever track most of them down.

Ban full automatics. - a willed person simply orders the conversion parts online - bits of metal are not illegal.

Full-auto guns are already banned in many States, and for those that allow them, there is a lot of red tape to get one and they are very expensive. This is one of the main misconceptions of the anti-gun crowd. They confuse full-auto with semi-auto.

Ban semi automatics - this slows the crazys down but I used to be able to get 10 shots off in 30 seconds using a bolt action 22 hunting gophers.

As noted above, most anti-gun people don't even know what a semi-auto gun is. I can pull the trigger on a revolver just as fast as any semi-auto.

I can buy diesel and fertilizer a lot easier than guns and ammo.
Timothy Mcvay filled up a truck with the above and took out a government building from the street.
I can pull up a lot closer to any school or mall than he ever did.

Yes,  and he killed 168 people, 19 of them children. Where is the call to ban fertilizer, diesel, and trucks?

I think the US should restrict gun ownership to those with appropriate training and physological profiling.

That will not really work as the criminals and those who are unstable will still get them. Here in TX we have to take a course in order to get a concealed carry license. I personally don't have a problem with that as I think people should at least have a basic understanding of the laws, and know which end of the gun the bullets come out of.

That said, I am personally against any mandatory training to own a gun, as that violates our 2nd Amendment right. Those that are legally declareded mentally unstable are already banned from owning a gun. But as noted above, that does not mean they can't still get their hands on one.

The bottom line is no amount of gun laws or bans will stop a lunatic from doing bad things. The only thing it will do is provide more defenseless targets.

[jay]

Concealed weapons permits are the  number one cause of polite drivers.
No one gives a Texan the finger .... LOL

[PLUNGER BOY]

All I been hearing is Bullshit excuses from all of you Gun Loving Asshole. I wish you suffered the pain and angushed that the parents of conn has suffered. There is no need for Semi Automatic Guns. If that makes your Ball Bigger to own one of them, Maybe you should use youe Semi Automatic Gun to shoot your Loving Ass Off. PS Merry Christmas!!
Prayers to the 26 Souls Lost.

Based on your comment and anger by the anti gun group . Your President and his  anti gun views forced sales of hundreds of thousands of ammunition and ALL the Military look alike guns into the public hands . If the liberal media and the democratic base had looked at the reel cause of the problem the gums and ammo would still be on the stores shelves . GOOD THINKING ON YOUR PART . PS its Christmas Night and i just went TARGET SHOOTING  no one was hurt either SEE ITS JUST A SPORT . Merry Christmas to you also P.B.

[Foster]

I am a democrat and I do not believe in any gun control
The way they should handle crimes that result in bodily injury or death from any weapon is that person spends a long time in prison which at any time the Federal Gov can pursue charges if a gun is used to increase the time spent in jail
 
Yes I do believe that if more people are allowed to keep guns including at their job, no one would think of attacking a mall, school, post office or the like again.

Australia has very tight gun control and shortly after iwent into effect crime went up by 60 percent, that tells me that gun control does not work.

I even support non violent criminals getting their gun ownership rights fully restored
which they should not have to do anyways
The Second amendment says these rights shall not be infringed
if It was up to me 1968 gun laws and NFA laws would be removed by congress and the president
the reason I say this if some one uses a gun in a crime they better plan on spending at least 20 years in prison making pebbles out of boulders. (or some other work that saves the tax payers money)
if they kill (not justifiable homicide) two or more persons with a gun they get lethal injection within 10 years of conviction.

 

[brichter]

I agree with every post on this page but one... of course you all already knew that.  

It's time to start addressing the problems, not the symptoms. 

I also find it pretty hypocritical how the liberals blame Reagan for all the crazies running the street, but they don't want to have anything to do with changing it. 

[proten]

A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.
From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control.
From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and
from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and
others who were unable to defend themselves were
rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935.
From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964.
From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970.
From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956.
From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated
in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

You won't see this data on the US evening news,
or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives
and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely
affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control,
please remind them of this history lesson.

With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.

[FORDSBS]

Well said Proten & all others. I AGREE. 

[Joeylc]

Hmmmmm   

[Joeylc]

I guess im a ass hole then......... 

Join the NRA... http://membership.nrahq.org/Default.asp

... Fighting for your 2nd Amendment Rights......


<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/5ju4Gla2odw&rel=0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/5ju4Gla2odw&rel=0</a>

[proten]

Here in Texas they are giving Teachers the right to
carry concealed weapons in school to protect thier students.

[Joeylc]

A must see !!!!!!!!!!!! Gun Control Is Bullshit !!!!  and this is from 2008   

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/SCXtfR0_roE&rel=0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/SCXtfR0_roE&rel=0</a>

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/MtqufzEFCzw&rel=0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/MtqufzEFCzw&rel=0</a>

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/YoIKlO20RqM&rel=0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/YoIKlO20RqM&rel=0</a>

 

[FORDSBS]

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/2h1QNTQDnoU&rel=0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/2h1QNTQDnoU&rel=0</a>

[uniman]

It's time to start addressing the problems, not the symptoms.  

I agree with this post only.

Warped people bent on killing will find a way, gun or not.

What happened recently around the country makes me sick. And I can understand those who scream ban the guns. It's an understandable emotional reaction. But of course it would never work. 

[jay]

I haven't annyoyed Buzz in months.......    With his new status I hope I don't get banned..... 
Orginal Article: http://news.yahoo.com/constitution-check-no-limits-second-amendment-rights-110207314.html


Constitution Check: Are there no limits on Second Amendment rights?
By Lyle Denniston
Lyle Denniston looks at some recent quotes about the restricted rights from gun owners, which show conflict over the Second Amendment even among people on the same side of the issue.
 
.THE STATEMENTS AT ISSUE:
“The fact is, all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be.�
 
 â€“ Dick Metcalf, in an article titled “Let’s Talk Limits,â€� published last October by Guns & Ammo magazine, leading to his firing as a columnist for that publication, as recounted in a story January 5 in The New York Times.
 
“We are locked in a struggle with powerful forces in this country who will do anything to destroy the Second Amendment.  The time for ceding some rational points is gone.â€�
 
 â€“ Richard Venola, a former editor of Guns & Ammo, in a comment quoted by The Times in that same story.
 
WE CHECKED THE CONSTITUTION, AND…
 
In only one place in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights is there a provision that flatly bars the government from regulating one of the protected rights.  That is in the First Amendment, declaring that “Congress shall make no law respectingâ€� the rights listed in that Amendment.  The “right to keep and bear armsâ€� is not one of those rights; it is contained in the Second Amendment.
 
The Second Amendment’s text, of course, does say that the right it protects “shall not be infringed.â€�  Is that the same thing as saying that government may pass “no law respectingâ€� gun rights?
 
Let us suppose that, constitutionally speaking, those two phrases do mean the same thing.  But, as history has shown, there if flexibility in constitutional meaning: “No law,â€� for example, does not really mean “no law.â€�
 
The only place that Americans can look for a binding interpretation of what the Constitution’s words mean – other than to the people acting through the amendment process to make a new constitutional declaration – are the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court.
 
The reality is that one can look in vain throughout the entire history of the First Amendment for any indication that the rights to religious and press freedom, the right to free speech, and the right to complain to the government about one’s “grievances� are absolute rights, beyond any type of official regulation.
 
Over the time since 1791, when the Bill if Rights was ratified, the Supreme Court has given its blessing to an entire governing edifice that regulates First Amendment rights: the laws of libel and defamation, limits on publishing secret military strategy, regulation of “obsceneâ€� and “indecentâ€� expression, and limits on “hate speech.â€�  Famously, the court has said that one has no right to shout “Fire!â€� in a crowded theater.  Even the right to worship freely sometimes is curbed by laws that regulate conduct that has religious meaning.
 
In contrast to the First Amendment, there is very little constitutional history about the meaning of the Second Amendment.  In fact, until just five years ago, the “right to keep and bear armsâ€� was not generally understand as a personal right to have a gun, even for self-defense.  It was only in 2008 that the Supreme Court declared that such a personal right does, indeed, exist.
 
That decision, in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, is – so far – the most important decision the court has ever issued on the scope of the “right to keep and bear arms.â€�  But in that very ruling, the Court said explicitly: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.â€�  It went on to say just as clearly that it was not barring the government from imposing “reasonable regulationâ€� on that right.
 
Is a “reasonable regulationâ€� of gun rights, then, an “infringementâ€� on those rights?  If the word “infringementâ€� means to encroach on something, as one does when one “trespassesâ€� on someone else’s private property, that does not support the idea that Second Amendment rights are absolutes.  Government can “trespassâ€� on private property to put out a fire, for example.
 
Still, the debate goes on about when, or if, government should have the power to regulate gun rights.  The statements quoted above, from two gun rights enthusiasts, suggest that even within that community, there can be disagreement about whether the time has come to agree on some “rational pointsâ€� about the Second Amendment.
 
The Supreme Court, of course, could re-enter into that national debate if it felt a need to clarify just what kind of “regulation� of gun rights is allowed without being found to violate the Second Amendment.
 
Up to now, however, the Court does not seem to sense that need.  It has issued only one significant gun rights decision since the 2008 ruling, and that 2010 decision in McDonald v. Chicago expanded the personal right to a gun to exist at the state and local level, as well as at the federal level.  The court did not go further to explain what it would allow in gun regulation by state and local governments.
 
It has been asked, every year since then, to take on a variety of new cases, to answer some of the lingering questions: does the personal right to have a gun extend beyond one’s own home, who can be forbidden to have a gun at all, when can a gun be carried in public in a concealed way, what types of guns or ammunition can be regulated or even banned, what places in a community are too sensitive or too prone to violence to allow guns in them, how can the government trace a gun that has been used in a violent incident, how freely should gun shows be allowed to operate?
 
However, the Court has resisted giving an answer to any follow-up questions.  And what that has meant, in the national conversation over gun rights, is that anyone’s argument about the extent of those rights is just as good as anyone else’s, and neither side needs to listen to the arguments that the other side makes.
 
Gun control will go on being an issue in politics and in government, at all levels, but the constitutional rules that could shape how for government may go remain unmade.
 
Lyle Denniston is the National Constitution Center’s adviser on constitutional literacy. He has reported on the Supreme Court for 55 years, currently covering it for SCOTUSblog, an online clearinghouse of information about the Supreme Court’s work.

[brichter]

If I may, Jay, you're making a couple of mistakes here:
1) You're selecting parts of the document for review instead of reading the document and viewing it as a whole.
2) "Famously, the court has said that one has no right to shout “Fire!â€� in a crowded theater." Where did you hear this lie? 


That said, y'all can continue to argue about gun control, the 2nd Amendment, laws, etc., just like the politicians want you to, and you'll get nowhere, just like they want you to. 

[poppo]

Insert Quote

If I may, Jay, you're making a couple of mistakes here:
....
2) "Famously, the court has said that one has no right to shout “Fire!â€� in a crowded theater." Where did you hear this lie? 

Schenck v. United States

The Court, in a unanimous opinion written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., held that Schenck's criminal conviction was constitutional.
 
The opinion's most famous and most often quoted passage was this:
 The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

Full text
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/249/47

Technically though Jay should have added "if there is no fire"

[brichter]

Insert Quote

If I may, Jay, you're making a couple of mistakes here:
....
2) "Famously, the court has said that one has no right to shout “Fire!â€� in a crowded theater." Where did you hear this lie? 

Schenck v. United States

The Court, in a unanimous opinion written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., held that Schenck's criminal conviction was constitutional.
 
The opinion's most famous and most often quoted passage was this:
 The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

Full text
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/249/47

Technically though Jay should have added "if there is no fire"

"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

Since we are quoting, there's no reason to not quote accurately. Leaving out the word falsely invalidates the quote

And, the verdict in the Schenk case was later overturned (Brandenburg v. Ohio 1969), by the way...  not to mention that Holmes himself changed his view to be the opposite of what it was initially, in Abrams vs. US.

The new criteria for unprotected speech states that the speech must be directive, and likely to incite imminent lawless action. Since yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is not directive, it fails the first criteria. So, even correctly quoted, the statement is still false.

[poppo]

The bottom line is that neither the 1st or the 2nd are "unlimited".

From Heller:

2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:

Note: I am extremely pro-gun. However there are some extremists that only see "shall not be infringed" and think that means they can own/do whatever they want. On another forum there is at least one person who believes people should be able to own whatever the military has, up to and including nukes.   These extremists who go out of their way to "make a statement" are doing just as much harm as the anti-gun folks. They somehow think that they can force their way of thinking on everyone else.

[brichter]

The bottom line is that neither the 1st or the 2nd are "unlimited".

From Heller:

2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:

Note: I am extremely pro-gun. However there are some extremists that only see "shall not be infringed" and think that means they can own/do whatever they want. On another forum there is at least one person who believes people should be able to own whatever the military has, up to and including nukes.  These extremists who go out of their way to "make a statement" are doing just as much harm as the anti-gun folks. They somehow think that they can force their way of thinking on everyone else.

You and I are of the same opinion, and one has to look no farther than the open carry laws in California to see what negative effects a relatively few extremists can have on our rights.

And yes, I was just busting Jay's balls about the quote... Can't let Buzz have ALL the fun!