So, we're willing to spill more blood on the Altar of the Sacred Second Amendment.

Question, which countries in the world allow a person with a gun within shooting range, even long shooting range, of their leader?

Only the US.

Apparently we're willing to risk spilling innocent blood so that a few cranks can exercise their Constitutional right to carry a gun in the presence of the president. Sorry, but this is stupidity. Not just because you're risking the life of the President, but more likely, you're risking the lives of innocent bystanders. Sooner or later one of these idiots with a gun is going to fire it, and once again we'll water the Altar of the Second Amendment with the blood of innocents.

I don't give a damn about states' rights,etc. There should be no legal reason for people to carry a gun in the presence of the President, there's simply too much potential for violence and insanity.

Honestly, do you think that the Bush SS allowed this sort of gun carry within range of the president? Hell, you couldn't even get within protest distance, much less shooting distance. Why do Democrats feel the need to coddle these people?

If you've got a gun, then you don't get to carry it within a mile of the president unless you're a law enforcement officer.

and stated his support for these idiots in their right to carry guns to these Presidential events.

They are all spineless in speaking out with reason - leave the guns at home.

He could have talked some sense into his republican "brethren". (He could have tried, at least).

Hmmm. Get him on Rachel Maddow's show. She's the best.

Oh, they were shot and killed by gun nuts?

kennedy was a member of the NRA. was he the "gun nut?"

lee harvey oswald was NOT a member, nor do i see evidence he was a "gun nut".

nor was kennedy, but he (out of the two) was the only NRA member.

i am pretty sure the grassy knoll was not a member, but it's hard to confirm or deny

They were all killed by nuts. The gun was just the tool.

last night on the teevee.

The story was about states that are beginning to allow GUNS IN BARS. Bar owners and police were, understandably, concerned. Shit, even lawless old Tombstone made people check their guns when they entered the bar.

And what does the moran say? "I have a right to protect my family!!"

In a bar? What the HELL is your family doing in a bar?

Jesus Mary and Joseph. And they're worried that Obama is going to come to people's house to take guns away from law-abiding citizens. Hell, no, we're back to the old shoot-em-up West.

Guns in bars.

Guns at political rallies.

Jesus Mary and Joseph

it is always still illegal to consume alcohol while carrying a firearm.

to carry it in concealed and drink themselves stupid. Stupider. It's moving the boundary. The boundary isn't a brightly colored line everyone observes perfectly all the time. It's the fact that the boundary just moved that they respond to. It's the approximate placement of the boundary they respond to. Make the highway speed limit 65 MPH and people will drive 75. Why not make the limit 75 then to spare all these people, who're after all only doing what everyone else does, from being lawbreakers? Because then they'll drive 85. And when they drive faster more of them will be killed in accidents.

Assholes could carry a gun concealed into a bar and drink before the law gets changed to allow guns in bars. The difference is now they've received a signal that this is closer to OK, that it's a minor infraction of the rules instead of a big one, and you can bet more assholes will do it.

That doesn't mean jack. Make it legal to have a gun in a bar some will feel empowered to carry it in concealed and drink themselves stupid.

If it's already illegal to drink while in possession of a firearm, and your hypothetical person is already willing to break that law, what makes you think they aren't going to bring firearms into bars regardless of what the law says about that, too?

it is not "already illegal to drink while in possession of a firearm" in many jurisdictions. that's a matter of state law (or in some cases, city or county). there is NO such law in WA state prohibiting drinking alcohol while in possession of a firearm.

...and it's illegal to bring a firearm into a drinking establishment (i.e. any premises declared off-limits to persons under 21 by the state Liquor Control Board, for the benefit of non-Washingtonians).

I actually rather like the Washington approach; you can visit a decent restaurant while carrying, and you can even have a glass or two of wine with your meal. But you can't carry in establishments that exist primarily to serve alcohol for consumption on the premises, and if you've consumed to the point that you'd be a menace to public safety behind the wheel, you can't be carrying either. I think that's a perfectly reasonable state of affairs.

.

Cries of "it's going to be a bloodbath!" always go unfulfilled.

you do realize the law varies state by state, so by saying 'always illegal' you are making the claim about every state law.

note that WA state does not allow guns in bars (except for law enforcement). we have no law against consuming alcohol while carrying a firearm.

it is perfectly legal in WA state to consume alcohol while carrying a firearm. like while sitting in a restaurant that serves liquor, or on your own property, or at a party, etc.

so, i can already (just in my home state) prove you wrong. if you disagree, please cite the RCW that criminalizes consuming alcohol while carrying a firearm. hint: there is no such law.

RCW 9.41.098 (1)(e) does provide for the forfeiture of firearms found in the possession of a person "under the influence" outside his home or fixed place of business. That implies that there is a law that makes it illegal to be publicly intoxicated while in possession of a firearm. Do feel free to correct me, but I'd wager RCW 9.41.270 might be applicable there. Certainly, I think carrying while legally drunk qualifies as "in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that <...> warrants alarm for the safety of other persons."

NONSENSE!

It is perfectly legal to carry guns in bars in PA and drink too.

And guess what? Nobody gets shot by people who carry legally!

The anti-2A people only have illogic an obfuscation on their side.

shoot-outs around these parts.

MY family just might be in the bar having dinner; also around these parts it is quite common to serve decent food along with alcohol, and even where there are...OMG...bars (hmmm...most restaurants I know of have bars actually).

Of course if I am drinking a lot then I don't carry, and if I carry I don't get drunk.

Not all that hard.

That doesn't seem fair.............

You grabbers always like to say guns in bars, even in states where bars don't exist. My home state of Virginia for instance, every year it is turned down with a bunch of babies crying about guns in bars, well look up the ABC code, bars don't exist, only restaurants.

These laws affect the guy going with his family to a steak house, but they never have deterred someone with criminal intent.

is a moran?

:thumbsup:

put an end to the sacred 2nd.

Allow some reasonable "hunting" guns but the 2nd as currently framed is insanity. The 2nd amendment is a relic of the 18th century and has no place in the 21st century. It is insane to believe that owning a gun will somehow prevent government tyranny.

I don't have a problem with people open carrying guns. However when it is at a political rally, especially a contentious one such as these no health care/hate Obama rallies, well I have a huge problem with people carrying. It's just utter stupidity and insanity.

Yeah, I think the time is coming soon when we have to put an end to the sacred 2nd.

Just try it. All the people currently satisfied to just carry them around as a show of force will turn to real force.

It is insane to believe that owning a gun will somehow prevent government tyranny.

Tell that to the Vietnamese, the Afghans, the Mogadishus, and the Iraqis.

That my first reaction differs from the one I have on further reflection... but despite Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, etc. I really think it is insane to think that a first world government can be resisted with guns. I suppose in certain apocalyptic scenarios but I'm willing to attempt to ride that out with a hunting rifle.

Anyway, I confess to ambivalence on the 2nd if that is still permitted.

The difference between an uprising here and an uprising "over there" is that when it's here, it is affecting the ability of the 1st nation in question to continue to wage war. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan... we can just leave whenever we want to. And nothing they do takes away our strategic ability to manufacture the sinews of war. We can fight in those countries as long as we want to, until the our people finally say "enough" or some other event causes us move out.

However, such an event happening here, for example, would immediately impair our ability to fight here. If a state is in rebellion, it's people are not paying taxes, not engaging in commerce, not joining the military, not growing food, and not manufacturing war materials. Destroying a "rebel" ammunition plant also destroys the plant for "loyalist" use. Burning the fields of a rebel state also robs the loyalists of the fruit of those lands. And there's a hell of a difference between American soldiers killing "foreigners" and American soldiers killing Americans.

Etc. Civil war hurts a country twice, for every person killed on either side is a loss for the country as a whole.



However, the other issue is that for Americans to actually reach the point of active rebellion on anything like a large scale (I'm talking WAY past Waco or the Michigan Militia) the country would have to be so badly off as to be far past the point of the Great Depression. In other words, yes, you'd need Apocolyptic conditions before the masses rose up and took up arms against the American central government. Let's face it; we're pretty comfortable here and we don't want to mess that up any more than we have to.

but despite Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, etc. I really think it is insane to think that a first world government can be resisted with guns.

In all my examples, a 1st world nation was successfully resisted by a much less sophisticated nation.

And, as Krispos pointed out, in all of my examples, the aggressor nation had the luxury of a homefront infrastructure that was completely invulnerable to attack. This means that all of its citizenry, tax base, and manufacturing base was completely invulnerable.

In a civil war, none of this is true.

be ultimately effective. Maybe you can go back in time and tell the Minutemen they're pursuing a lost cause.
Wouldn't bother me too much, I like cabbage soup and boiled potatoes. :D

Or didn't you notice smart bombs, F22's, sonic energy beams and tactical nuclear weapons? Not to mention the many modern forms of crowd control.

I'm still ambivalent about this issue. My natural instinct is to conclude that an armed citizen is bad thing but I'd like to think a little more about this one before going toe to toe in a debate thank you.

the forces of any government but with a lot of help and some disillusioned soldiers from the 'other' side? One thing to remember though, regarding nukes and F22s...you can kill a few ants with a shotgun...and hope you don't run out of shells before the resistance runs out of bodies.
:shrug:

it all fell apart. Imagine for instance that Bush/Obama had not succeeded in the TARP fund and the economy had really crashed including runs on the banks, etc. Followed by a gas crises with gas hitting $10 per gallon. I do believe this could happen and I think I'd like to have an assault rifle under those circumstances. So yeah, in a civil war situation or in an "all fall down" situation. I'd like to think these couldn't happen here but I know that isn't true. I recall how close it came to all falling down during the simple power outage of 2003.

Anyway, this scenario is why I am ambivalent.

line from The Lion in Winter.

Prince Richard: (the sons - in the dungeon - think they hear Henry approach) He's here. He'll get no satisfaction out of me. He isn't going to see me beg.
Prince Geoffrey: My you chivalric fool... as if the way one fell down mattered.
Prince Richard: When the fall is all there is, it matters.

Just as the potential of an armed individual sends an important message to a mugger, the knowledge that there are millions of armed citizens who will use whatever weapons they have to do whatever they can makes the road to the need for armed rebellion much longer.

I expect millions of people who are willing to shoot back are much more willing to vote before they have to shoot.

As always, whenever someone makes the "what will your pea-shooter do against tanks and bombs" argument, theres an assumption that somehow the people the side that just has the firearms will try to in the first place.

And that assumption is where that argument fails, every single time.

Not so much about the heavy artillery, but admitting that while your natural instinct is to oppose an armed citizenry (although I do not understand WHY), you admit that you need to think about it a bit more.

Too many who are on the anti-gun side of the argument dont want to think at all - they merely wish to emote. For that, sir, I salute you.

Are you joking?????????????????

http://ccwsaveslives.blogspot.com/

One the second doesn't have jack shit to do about hunting. Most gun owners are not hunters. It is like saying the 1st is limited to debate clubs.

Second nothing is stopping anyone from trying.
1) Have your Congressman propose an amendment to the Constitution
2) Get 2/3rds vote in both houses
3) Get 2/3rds of the States to ratify it.

You could substantially rewrite, limit, or completely repeal the 2nd. OF course then you need to start on the task of doing the same thing to the 26 states that have a "2nd amendment like" amendment in state Constitution.

If you feel strongly about it and are willing to put a lifetime of effort into pushing it you might accomplish repealing the second. Just to get you started though I would drop the hunters strawman. You could outlaw hunting in all forms and all fashions and it wouldn't have anything to do with the second.

Second nothing is stopping anyone from trying.
1) Have your Congressman propose an amendment to the Constitution
2) Get 2/3rds vote in both houses
3) Get 2/3rds of the States to ratify it.

Please be advised that it requires 3/4 of the states to ratify an amendment.

US Constitution, Article V:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;...

"Yeah, I think the time is coming soon when we have to put an end to the sacred 2nd."

And you would call yourself a Democrat or liberal? :puke:

imagine the level of disagreement among republicans...your idea looses.

This is only while posted in GD.

...not in your lifetime, or the lifetime of your great-great-great-great-grandkids.

If you believe there is any hope in hell of getting it repealed, you just go right along and give it a shot.

If you think an armed populace has no chance to prevent tyranny, then frankly you have not been paying any attention to history, and you kinda suck at math too.

If only 1% of the gun owners in this country decided to unite for the purpose of armed insurrection, the war would be over before it began. Quantity has a quality all its own - and that would be 1 million armed individuals.

This conversation has been had before, and people like yourself always tend to forget that the military will not automatically be on the side of the government - and that they're not going to use the really heavy weapons on US soil. Oh yeah, AND you're forgetting that it wouldnt be a stand-up, toe-to-toe fight either. It would be just like the beginning of the American Revolutionary War - only with the numerical superiority on the revolutionist side.

They have tried your method up in Canada, and guess what? Criminals still have guns and are killing people. Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal are all having huge problems with gun violence.

It's worth noting that it isn't actually even an Amendment 2 issue. It is actually an Amendment 1 issue, having to do with citizens' right to gather for political purposes. And, as the US Supreme Court has consistently ruled, this is the Amendment 1 right that has the most restrictions, as it balances with "law and order" issues.

A person does not have the "right" to walk anywhere they please, or to drive on streets that are normally open to the public, in an unrestricted manner when the President of the United States is making an appearance.

have not thought about it that way

And he had a permit for it, but he wasn't aiming it at anything - would he have been left alone?

Today, all he would have had to claim is his Second Amendment rights and he would have been left alone.

Finding a lone person with a rifle in a tall building overlooking a presidential motorcade is a little different from someone standing in public as part of a political demonstration while in possession of a firearm.

in most of the country. In fact, in most of the country, permits are not required for any firearm. Neither is registration.

Just thought I'd clear that up.

Oh yeah - do try to remember that when JFK was shot, people carried guns all the time. Remember, Jack Ruby just happened to be in the area and just happened to have a gun on him. (I know i know - this requires we believe the Warren Commission report verbatim, but work with me here)

CNN Link

So the Secret Service should do what? Go door to door and collect all the guns. What about checking all the cars?
How will they enforce the no gun zone 1/2 mile out. 1/2 mile radius = 21 million square feet.
So the perimeter would need to cover 21 million square feet. You are going to screen, search, and metal detect everyone at that radius.

Likely the Secret Service thinks that is a stupid and useless waste of resources.

Instead they ensure the there is no line of sight from the unsecured area to where the President will be visible in the secure area.

It isn't like the limo stops 500 ft OUTSIDE the secured area and the President walks in. No the Limo will stop INSIDE the secured area at a spot determined by the SS to have direct access to the speaking location and the limo, the path, and the speaking location all are not visible from outside the secure area.

Your "law" would be little more than a feel good nothing that severely overstreatches the SS by making them cover a 21 million square foot perimeter that is neither necessary nor useful.

a handgun with plain sights is an instrument that makes it near impossible to hit a human sized target AT ALL at far shorter distances.

handguns aren't magick, and shooting somebody from 1/4 mile away with a handgun would fall under "the most lucky shot in the world"

let alone 1/2 mile.

Because you must not know much if you somehow think 1/2 a mile is justifiable for handguns.

Most hand guns become extremely inaccurate within 300 feet or so. And that's if you are a very good shot.


It's already illegal to carry guns anywhere near the president. What more do you want?

frisk everybody within a half-mile of any point that the President is going to be at? And also search all homes and confiscate all firearms in that same area?



Here's the real issue: nothing has changed, but now you're aware of something you weren't aware of before and now you're reacting.

Because I don't think that's what happened.

should I turn my firearms in when before the President arrives and retrieve them afterward?

Who would I turn them in to? Where would these firearms and the firearms of my neighbors be stored? What type of records would have to be kept. How much would all this cost?

Say that I'm innocently driving down a street and happen to come within 1/2 mile of a Presidential event. I live in Florida and I can carry a loaded firearm in my vehicle. I may have absolutely no idea that the President is in town.

Should the police set up roadblocks on all streets within 1/2 mile of the event and search vehicles and arrest drivers with firearms in their cars or confiscate the weapons? How many police would that take? What sort of traffic tie up would occur every time the President visited? How many drivers who just happened to be innocently within the distance would decide to vote against the President at their first opportunity?

I can see the film on the news now. Some poor SOB is talking to a reporter and saying, "I was headed home from the late night shift and and no idea that the President was at an event down the street from where I live. I get stopped at this roadblock and this big cop asks if I have a firearm in the car. When I tell him that I do, I get dragged out of the car, body slammed on the pavement, cuffed and hauled off to jail. There's a whole bunch of us there, and some are other people from my neighborhood. We get treated like criminals or terrorists and all we are doing is legally carrying firearms in our cars. This is total bullshit and you can bet I'll never vote for another Democrat as long as I live!"

If that's the way to help Obama get reelected or to keep the Democrats in power, then medical insurance companies are really our best friends.

edited for fat fingers

Of course, they cost thousands of dollars. But I think you get my point.

There are even more readily accessible sniper rifles with ranges greater than half a mile.

It is simply impossible to completely secure every hiding place or clear shot in a one mile radius. So what good would a 1/2 mile radius be?

At some point one needs to face the reality of the situation.

be a real threat.

Nobody carried a gun "in the presence of the President". the President was indoor and the shooter was outdoor 200 ft+ away. The "shooters" never had a line of sight to President. Without line of sight a firearm is next to useless.

Of course any "shooter" trying to guess where the President is and shoot blindly through walls would be at a massive disadvantage to the LEO who do have a direct line of sight to the shooter.

The Secret Service is very good at their job. They use "passive defense" which is proactive rather than reactive. They simply ensure the President is never outside the limo at any location that the "shooter" could have a line of sight to the President.

The President was never in any danger.

unlike most of the armchair experts here, especially those who think we need a 1/2 mile radius (lol) of handgun free zone to ensure the presidents safety, have NO idea how the SS works inner and outer perimeters and safety concerns.

you do, and that;'s refreshing. i;'ve worked with them a half dozen times, and they are on the fucking ball.

Obama never was in any danger.

The fact of the matter is, these "cranks" as you call them ARE EXERCISING THEIR CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS UNDER LAW.

It is perhaps a shame that the President of the United States must, after all, mingle with the average citizenry while they go about the business of living in a free country with all the rights enumerated in its Constitution, but that's the way it is.

It's not like these people are in the venue with the President. They are not in the same convention center. They are standing outside, in public, where all of their other constitutionally-protected rights exist, too.

...but that doesn't mean that there aren't limits on it.

:shrug:

apply to the venue where the president is.

Even the President.

Guns are as natural to the environment as clouds or squirrels.

Of course, sane people realize this is not so.

I've never seen or heard of one except from your posts. If i were to take you at face value, i'd believe they were everywhere.

Of course guns are not natural to the environment. They do not grow wild - they are tools made by people. Good thing too really. Without weapons, man would have been extinct a very long time ago.

Sane people realize this - and realize that those who think people worship guns are probably not quite stable...

.

The government so severely outguns the general population that everyone might as well be carrying slingshots. The second they decide to take any right away, it's gone, and every single gun owner in the United States is just as powerless to do anything about it as anyone who doesn't own them. Don't waste our time with that bullshit again.

The government so severely outguns the general population that everyone might as well be carrying slingshots.

You might want to check in with the Vietnames, the Afghans, the Mogadishus, and the Iraqis.

He thought his guns guaranteed him whatever freedoms he chose, and he ended up as a crispy critter. And he wasn't even going up against the armed forces.

Do you know what the difference is between a criminal and a revolutionary?

Numbers.

If you don't have the numbers, and Koresh did not, then you end up being called "criminals".

Seriously. The US government, including ALL of the state and local law enforcement agencies, would be hard pressed to put a million people in the field with arms.

There are ~100 million households with guns in the United States.

What was that about severely outgunning the general population?

Before you start whining about your guns being taken away, maybe you should protest the establishment of a permanent armed force for security.

No, a well regulated militia is the ultimate security for a free state.

The militias that were intended to serve this purpose were usurped by the federal government in 1903. Now that responsibility falls to the people, whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

how parrot-like you sound, don't you? You are spouting NRA propaganda almost word-for-word. Has it ever dawned on you 2nd Amendment "patriots," that when the Bill of Rights was written there were only a few states, and a couple of million people around (at most)? We now have 50 States, and over 300 million people, most of whom do NOT want the job of carrying guns to protect ourselves from non-existent "enemies of the state."

You can have your gun, but please don't wave it my face, and stop whining that you have "rights." We ALL have the same fucking rights, but most of us recognize that along with "rights" comes social responsibility, and common-fucking-sense.

The founding fathers were smart and progressive enough to consider the fact they didn't know everything.
To make the Constitution flexible they added the ability to amend it and repeal previous amendments by further amendment.

If the 2nd has no place is modern society then fine, repeal it however rights don't go away because you or anyone believes they are obsolete.

said nothing about rights being "obsolete." My point was that rights carry responsibilities, and when the Bill of Rights was written, it's fair to assume that people in most communities, and neighboring communities, knew each other. They banded together for mutual protection, and there were no police forces or standing armies. That is not the case today, and common sense should apply in the exercise of ALL rights.

The First and Second Amendments have co-existed more or less peacefully until just recently. When American citizens feel it necessary to arm themselves at public gatherings, then we have either digressed to the point of anarchy, or a new form of social irresponsibility is gathering.

Waving your gun in my face, and screaming about your "right" to do so, while "legal," is neither responsible, nor patriotic. It is akin to terroristic threatening, and intimidation for the sake of theater. How is carrying a gun (by a private citizen) to a public gathering (with official security in obvious abundance) "necessary to the security of a free State?"

Shouldn't "waving a gun in someone" be called illegal entry?...;-)

To me, and to the majority of sensible people in this country, simply standing next to me and my family at a public event wearing a loaded weapon is a senseless "in your face" statement, and the equivalent of "waving it in my face."

And yes, I know all of the "technical" terms for what, and what is not, legal. Gun nuts are using the 2nd Amendment, and their "rights" to be confrontational -- period. That, in and of itself, already shows poor judgment, so why should I believe that they would show better judgment in the use of their shiny guns?

You, and the NRA die-hards who support this insane display of deadly force, are doing absolutely nothing to further your fringe group cause for open carry. Those places where it is "legal" may be forced to reconsider if you manage to intimidate and piss off enough mainstream Americans.

Why can you not take yes for an answer, and drop the pretense that you are part of anything even resembling a "well-regulated" militia," or contributing the "security of a free State?"

especially when they devolve to "NRA propaganda" and "NRA die-hards".

i have yet to be called a NARAL diehard, or promoting NARAL propaganda when advocating for choice. but when one advocates for 2nd amendment rights, the anti's instantly make the NRA association.

it's very telling

"anti" 2nd Amendment at all, and most Americans who own guns are responsible citizens. Those who want to be in everyone's face by carrying their big shiny guns to public events, ARE influenced by the NRA gun lobby. They are NOT "responsible" gun owners, and do absolutely nothing for their (or your) cause.

Thanks for your support of NARAL, but what about "choice" for non-gun owners? DC v. Heller said absolutely nothing about open-carry, or potentially endangering the lives of other US citizens. What it DID do, was to emphasize certain "restrictions" which are allowable to the 2nd Amendment:

The adjective "well-regulated" implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.

All reasonable Americans should expect that the "proper discipline" part of that definition would include the "right" to impose restrictions on when, and where, guns may be carried in public, and the requirement for at least some semblance of training. But of course, that is up to the various states. I would imagine that when enough States and localities have suffered civil suits for personal injury, their laws may change.

Finally, it is not "illogical" to point out that the NRA is a corporate lobby organization for the various gun manufacturers, and is in the business of promoting pro-gun "propaganda." ALL lobbyists are distributors of propaganda favorable to their employers. To the NRA, the 2nd Amendment is little more than a selling tool.

On the other hand, NARAL has no "product" to sell, represents no particular manufacturer, and therefore has no selfish "profit motive." They represent an ideal, and fairness.

The NRA certainly supports choice for non-gun owners. If you dont want one, dont buy one. Simple as that. Im sorry you believe mere ownership or carriage of a gun is endangering anyone's life, but you're simply wrong on that. You can also believe the earth is flat, but it isnt.

Sorry - but you dont have the right to restrict MY rights - especially if my exercise of them does not harm you in any way. Some mythical harm which you attribute to nothing more than your own feelings doesnt count.

The NRA is not a corporate lobby organization for ANY gun manufacturer. Hate to break it to you but that isnt their job. So yes, it is illogical.

The NRA represents gun owners. Nothing more. It has over 4 million members of ALL political backgrounds. This isn't some secret information - it is freely available.

NARAL absolutely has a "product" to sell, in the same way that the NRA does. Like NARAL, the NRA represents no manufacturer, and as they are both NON-profit organizations, profit is not the motive. Even if it were, incidentally, that isnt a BAD thing. The NRA ALSO represents an ideal, and fairness.

The problem is, you dont know jack about the NRA except whatever anti-gun crap you have read.

Ignorance is not something of which to be proud. Why dont you learn a few things before you start spewing easily discreditable garbage.

Boy did you ever tell me. You are correct, however, that I don't know enough about the NRA to argue with someone who is an expert on the subject. I withdraw my criticisms, and will endeavor to learn more.

Thanks for the education, and I apologize if you got the impression that I wanted to restrict your rights by asserting mine. That was not my intent at all.

As I've said many times, I am smart enough to steer clear of people carrying loaded weapons (if I know about it), just as I don't go to an ATM in the "bad" part of town at 2:00am.

The only thing I have just a small problem with, however, is the premise that I should automatically "trust" someone carrying a loaded weapon, because it is their "right." Should I also believe everything I hear, because Free Speech is a right?

...anyone. HOWEVER - you should not automatically assume they are up to no good either.

Do you trust cops when you see their guns? WHY? Because they have a badge? All THAT means is they work for the state and were attracted to a position of petty power.

The guy with a CCW is not someone you need to worry about. Statistically, he is far more law abiding than cops, and much more than the general public as well.

The guy walking around with a gun on his hip in plain sight is not necessarily someone you should be afraid of either - anymore than you would be afraid of someone with a tool belt on his hip. Sure, he COULD use the gun to harm you but probably wont - anymore than J. Random Idiot walking down the street will just decide to attack you out of the blue.

Basically the thing i have a HUGE problem with is that you are automatically assuming someone carrying in public is a threat, just because he is carrying. Thats no different than saying a black man in public is a threat just because he is black.

You ARE trying to restrict my rights by asserting your right to speech because you're forgetting that your rights end where mine begin. I have a right to be armed, and in doing so, that does not threaten you in and of itself. If you FEEL scared, that is YOUR problem. It is wrong to attempt to use the power of the state to suppress my rights because of your feelings.

Last but not least, you absolutely SHOULD learn more about the NRA. The garbage you have regurgitated about them is just that - garbage. They dont give two shits about the manufacturers. They have their own lobbying groups. The NRA's focus is the private citizen - always HAS been.

Unlike the Brady Campaign, the NRA actually does things to help reduce crime and accidents:

They worked closely with Virginia to help develop Project Exile.

They have the Eddie Eagle program to teach children about firearms safety - and the primary message it teaches is when they see a gun they are to IMMEDIATELY run and tell a trusted adult.

They run hunter and gun safety programs all over the country for all age groups.

They have worked closely with many law enforcement agencies to develop training and safety programs.

During the civil rights movement, they worked with the NAACP and other minority rights groups to ensure THEIR firearms rights were secure.

Do you want me to go on? Are you starting to realize that maybe, just MAYBE, what you believe about the NRA is incorrect? They are not some multi-billion dollar lobbying organization made up of a few hundred people representing the manufacturers. They are a non-profit representing gun owners. They are a political force to be reckoned with, not because of their money, but because of their MEMBERSHIP. The membership comes from all over the nation; old, young, married, single, straight, gay, rich, poor, Democrat and Republican. Congress cannot ignore them without ignoring their own constituency.

I'm not even a member of the NRA - for one simple reason really - I don't think they go far ENOUGH in protecting my rights. They are too quick to give in when they should be standing their ground. If you're going to attempt to discredit them though, at least have the decency to know who they are and what they do.

few flaws in your assumptions of my assumptions:

Do you trust cops when you see their guns? WHY? Because they have a badge? All THAT means is they work for the state and were attracted to a position of petty power.

Actually, most "cops" have been psychologically tested, and undergone extensive training, before they are allowed to carry in public and be trusted with the use of deadly force. So, yes, I trust them to exercise good judgment when carrying out their job of protecting and serving the public. I concede that not every private citizen who openly carries is a nut job, but since I don't know them, I have no way of knowing their skill level or mental state, and caution is the mother of longevity (learned that in Viet Nam). Those carrying concealed are below the radar, so they are non-issues (until it's too late).

Basically the thing i have a HUGE problem with is that you are automatically assuming someone carrying in public is a threat, just because he is carrying. Thats no different than saying a black man in public is a threat just because he is black.

WTF? Uh, no one I know was born with a gun strapped to them, nor was I aware there was a difference between a "black man in public" and all other unarmed men (or women) in public. The comparison between choosing to wear a loaded gun in public, and someone's race says more about you than anything else you've argued, and I have absolutely no response to that assinine statement. I'm seldom at a loss for words, but you got me with that one.

You ARE trying to restrict my rights by asserting your right to speech because you're forgetting that your rights end where mine begin. I have a right to be armed, and in doing so, that does not threaten you in and of itself. If you FEEL scared, that is YOUR problem. It is wrong to attempt to use the power of the state to suppress my rights because of your feelings.

Your first sentence here totally escapes me, but I have never argued about the "legality" of open-carry where it is indeed "legal," but only the common sense of openly carrying in a crowded public place. As I have stated in other posts, I am quite willing to vacate the area where you are openly carrying, and retreat to safer grounds. That, I believe, is exercising my right of association, is it not? In actual practice, I will most likely never have to make this decision, as I live in Hawaii.

Last but not least, you absolutely SHOULD learn more about the NRA. The garbage you have regurgitated about them is just that - garbage. They dont give two shits about the manufacturers. They have their own lobbying groups. The NRA's focus is the private citizen - always HAS been.

I have already conceded this point, and although I don't agree with the aims and goals of the NRA (for vastly different reasons than you), I concede that they are not direct lobbyists for gun manufacturers, nor are they a totally evil organization. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

And lastly, I support your right to "keep and bear arms," but see no earthly reason to openly carry a loaded weapon in a brightly lit, crowded public place. Obviously you believe otherwise, and that's what makes this country so great. We do not need to agree, or even be friends, in order to peacefully co-exist.

Because they are ALL "in your face".


"To me, and to the majority of sensible people in this country, simply standing next to me and my family at a public event wearing a loaded weapon is a senseless "in your face" statement, and the equivalent of "waving it in my face.""

1950's and '60's Civil Rights marchers were "in your face".

Gay rights demonstrators are "in your face".

Anti-war demonstrators are "in your face".

Marriage Equality demonstrators are "in your face".

Pro-choice (and anti-choice) demonstrators are "in your face".


I guess it comes down to whether or not you agree with the position of the "in your face" people, not whether or not they are actually following the law, huh?

For the record, I support all of the above "in your face" exercises of Civil Rights. The firearm I carry is NOT "in your face". It is in a secure holster, and I am not doing anything with it that is unlawful or disorderly. You have nothing to fear from me unless you assault me. If that is not your intention, then I will remain peaceful and on many subjects, on your side.

and I've been in other people's faces a lot during my stay on the planet. But the only time I ever got into someone's face with a gun, was in Viet Nam. I don't believe that a fellow US citizen deserves that kind of disrespect, or threat of bodily harm, unless they have done something to deserve it.

But then again, that's just me. Believe me, if I see you (or anyone else) carrying, I will not be anywhere near you -- for long, at least. The one thing I have learned very well, is that people with loaded weapons tend to be as serious as a heart attack, and just as dangerous.

"I don't believe that a fellow US citizen deserves that kind of disrespect, or threat of bodily harm, unless they have done something to deserve it."

I'm not threatening you. How many times do I have to say that?


"Believe me, if I see you (or anyone else) carrying, I will not be anywhere near you -- for long, at least."

If you wish to inconvenience yourself that badly, it's your problem, not mine. Once again, I am not a threat to you.


"The one thing I have learned very well, is that people with loaded weapons tend to be as serious as a heart attack, and just as dangerous."

Well, I should probably be happy that you take me "seriously", except that you don't, as evidenced by the fact that you haven't listened to a thing I've said.

Good night.

a nice guy, and would not purposely harm anyone -- unless they deserved it. Fact of the matter, however, is that I don't know you, I doubt that you advertise the fact that you can be trusted, and I have no way of knowing just what your intentions are.

My best course of action to ensure my own safety, and so as to eliminate all doubt, would be to retreat from someone who is openly carrying a loaded weapon in a public place for no apparent reason, other than to prove that they "legally" can. Handy maneuver that, retreat, and absolutely no inconvenience at all. Right up there with defensive driving, conflict avoidance, and "better safe, than sorry."

If the same situation occurred in a remote area, like a hunting preserve, or on a private ranch, for example, and the purpose for openly carrying a loaded firearm was evident, then I most likely wouldn't give it a second thought. Unless, of course, you were practicing your "quick draw" in the parking area.

Thankfully, I will never have to exercise the "retreat" option in Hawaii, and I have no plans to visit any "openly-armed" localities on the Mainland before I take a dirt nap...;-)

Best, and good night.

It is not the weapon which makes a man dangerous - it is the man who makes the weapon dangerous.

total agreement. My point, however, is if I do not know the "man," I have no way of knowing if he is dangerous, or not. To my way of thinking, an armed stranger has the potential to be more dangerous than an unarmed stranger.

I haven't seen ANYONE waving their guns at any of these events???

...it's hard not to sound like a parrot.

You are spouting NRA propaganda almost word-for-word.

Not surprising, since I am a member of the NRA.

Has it ever dawned on you 2nd Amendment "patriots," that when the Bill of Rights was written there were only a few states, and a couple of million people around (at most)? We now have 50 States, and over 300 million people, most of whom do NOT want the job of carrying guns to protect ourselves from non-existent "enemies of the state."

First of all, the fears of a tyranny by an over-powerful central government are as valid today as they were 200 years ago.

Secondly, just because most of the people have become apathetic in their civic duty of bearing arms does not mean that those who have not become apathetic should not be able to do so.

Finally, the founders made provision for revisions to the Constitution. If most of the people no longer believe in the right of the people to keep and bear arms, they can revise the Constitution.

You can have your gun, but please don't wave it my face, and stop whining that you have "rights."

You will never see my guns in your face unless you try and restrict my rights. Be content that all you hear now is whining. It's a tamer sound than gunfire.

and I will never agree on the definition and intent of the 2nd Amendment, and I appreciate your reasoned responses.

I am not an "anti" 2nd Amendment proponent, but I do believe that even the DC v. Heller ruling pointed out the need, and requirement, for responsible ownership. I just don't believe that the Founders envisoned citizens of the USA fixating on being fully armed and suspicious of their neighbors and government 24/7, and thankfully the vast majority of Americans don't believe that way either. By that I mean, that the vast majority of Americans do NOT carry their guns in public.

I disagree with your take that our government is, or has the potential to become, our "enemy," but then again you are thankfully in the minority on this issue as well. When 80-100% of the American population is armed and dangerous 24/7, I will have been long gone...;-)

I disagree with your take that our government is, or has the potential to become, our "enemy," but then again you are thankfully in the minority on this issue as well.

To be clear here: You believe that our government will forevermore be beholden to the well and interest of its governed?

the purpose of the rest of our Constitution? As long as We, the People, are in charge of our government, and our blood-soaked, and hard-won Constitution remains in effect, yes I firmly believe that we will persist as a free nation.

All elected officials and military members take an oath swearing to defend our Constitution (NOT our government) from all enemies, foreign AND domestic. The Founders wrote that "God damned piece of paper" after defeating an absolute Monarch and declaring freedom from his oppression.

I trust and rely on that old, crumbling "piece of paper" to keep me free and protect my liberties much more than a few paranoid armed fringers, who are fixated on one sentence in an entire sacred and blood-soaked document which has endured the test of time.

And please stop comparing the Germans and Hitler to our United States of America. The Germans still had a monarch at the time, and absolutely no Constitution. The same goes for the Russians, and most of the rest of the societies the RKBA crowd loves to trot out as examples "what could happen in the USA."

We've already had our Revolution AND a bloody Civil War which upheld our hard-won Constitution and its principles. Or, are you seriously proposing that you support another rebellious antebellum South, or something similar, who believed that their "government" was oppressing them? What is to keep bigots, racists, and other "anti-government" idiots (like the "Viper Reserves" whose right-to-carry you defended in AZ) from attempting to overthrow our lawful government? You, and the NRA? Please...

saw "threats," but all it took was a democratic election and the application of the provisions of our Constitution to counter them. I never saw the need to advocate the overthrow of our government to counter any "threats." Did you?

We're getting into some very deep water here, and I hope that everyone has operable life jackets.

The gun grabbers say you didn't do anything with your guns during the Bush administration. So there were plenty of people on DU that saw the need to overthrow the government during the Bush years, those people just didn't have the stones or the guns to do it themselves. I don't see any current threats however it is foolish to think that there will never be a time that there won't be a threat so serious that citizens need to take up arms. Moreover it is mind numbingly stupid to willfully hand over any freedoms and give control of those freedoms to whatever government might someday be elected or take power.

David

did our Constitutional form of government become a separate entity from its people? If you are referring to the Civil War, then we need to first define who gets to determine the level of a "threat so serious that citizens need to take up arms?"

Can you tell me who will make that decision in a democratic society? Will it be the NRA? Or, a white-supremacist group? Or, maybe a State like Texas who attempts to secede from our Federation of States, and declare war on our government?

When, and a very unlikely "if," that time ever comes, an "armed populace" will be the least of our concerns. The very fabric of the world will have been torn, and all bets will be off.

And lastly, how is restricting the "right" to carry a loaded firearm in public giving up a "freedom?"

I'm guessing each individual gun owner would have to make that decision on their own. If at some point in the future "all bets" are off, it is my desire to have access to firearms at that point and at all points in between.

David

Please link to the NRA propaganda that you referenced him as parroting almost word for word. If you are going to make an accusation you should be able to back it up.

you got me. I keep forgetting that the 2nd Amendment is the most important provision of the Constitution to you gun guys, and it is blasphemy to criticize the NRA and its "right to carry" fanatics.

I apologize. I really do. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

I haven't seen anyone here claiming a Constitutional "right to carry" that is a state issue. Criticize the NRA all you want, if you are going to accuse another DUer of doing something nefarious you should have the facts to back it up. I think the entire Constitution is important. I don't want to get rid of any of it unlike some here.

David

do not want to "get rid of," or change any part of the Constitution either, and never, ever, stated that I did. Accusing me of that is the same as what you accuse me of -- isn't it?

As I've said before, we all have a right to disagree about what the Founders actually meant, and neither side has a monopoly on wisdom. If I have wrongly accused "another DU-er" of something, then I apologize. I maintain that each and every State, City, County, and other municipality has both the duty, and the right, to impose whatever restrictions on carrying a loaded weapon in the public arena that serves the needs and wishes of their citizens.

It is very easy for emotions to take over when discussing something as important as the safety of the president of the United States, the public as a whole, and the "right" of racist hate groups to threaten others with deadly force, as in the case of the Viper group in AZ.

If possible -- peace. If not, be well.

Bill

No one has argued that states don't have the right to restrict carrying firearms in public. Arizona just doesn't regulate open carry for those who possess firearms legally, that is a state issue not a Constitutional one. People threatening anyone with deadly force should be arrested, prosecuted and hopefully convicted and imprisoned.

David

were both "assuming" too much, and talking around each other. It appears that we are in complete agreement, and that's a good thing...;-)

If it's not against the rules you will usually find me pretty direct. It wouldn't have put unlike some here, I would have said unlike you, but I had seen no evidence that you believed that. Anyhow off to a meeting.:toast:

David

knew better than to wander into a biker bar, and pick a fight. But noooooo, I just had to see what would happen...;-)

Of course that'll never happen - their GOP masters won't let it, because it's too lucrative..

Why should the NRA advocate the dissolution of the military? That isnt their mission.

BTW - when you say things like "...their GOP masters...", you sound like a conspiracy nut. Come up with something a BIT more grounded in reality, would you? You make us ALL look bad when you spew such mental vomit.

:(

A nice little blond wig. Possibly a nightie. For those lonely nights...

However - my ownership and carriage of them most certainly ARE protected.

All these views you attribute to these mythical gun-worshiper's seem to be yours and yours alone. You may want to seek some help with that...

If they say he is safe from these people who are openly carrying, then I believe them.

I'm all for the reasonable protection of the President, but if openly carrying a weapon is permissible, then I won't begrudge someone for doing so.

If the 2nd amendment means people can carry guns into Presidential rallies, then clearly they should be allowed to take guns to any large gathering, political, social sports, whatever.

If this is indeed so, then surely this would be the end of the unfettered "right" to bear arms. At least one might hope so.

- P

The list of prohibited places is much smaller than the "list" (no such list exists the statutes simply indicate where it is prohibited).

many sports events for example, take place on private property. there is a clear distinction.

any private gathering can (and often do) tightly control firearms. many don't. the mariners for instance, don't check for guns. i've worn my gun at a mariners game before. it's not illegal, nor do they check. (fwiw, i did it post-shift. i went right from work and thus still had my gun on me.).

many, if not most political events occur on PUBLIC property. on PUBLIC property, it is much more difficult to restrict rights (1st amendment, 2nd amendment, etc.).

much like the "free speech" zones Bush used to corral the protesters. One Constitutional right is just as important as the other.
Why not handle it in the same way?

So that is already being done in everything but name only. If you want to call it the "2nd amend zone" instead of "protest zone" go ahead.

You WANT to be like the previous administration now? Why didn't you say so 10 months ago, we could have skipped all the drama...

They are everywhere not prohibited by law. The guy was already in a "right to carry arms" zone. Bush's free speech zones were unconstitutional, and if the irony of a "free-speech zone" doesnt smack you in the face, then you need to reevaluate your principles.

(Unless you are SS or an authorized police officer)

It needs to be that simple.

Pass it at the Federal level.

Considering that even 22mm rifles and pistols have a range of over a mile, the President would still be in danger, but a 1/2 mile radius is a good tradeoff for reasonableness and managability.

Perhaps also ban 50 caliber rifles within 2 miles of the President, but enforceability might be difficult in dense area that have lax gun laws.

but I have an extensive collection of firearms in my house. Some are for hunting, some for target shooting, some are very valuable collectors items and some are for self defense. All are properly stored in a safe.

The President is going to be at this event for one hour and there is absolutely no way that I could get a glimpse of him from my house.

But the law you suggested has passed and for that one hour time frame I will be a criminal.

Obviously, I have to turn my firearms in while the President is in town. So:

1) Who do I turn them in to?

2) Where will these firearms and the firearms of all my neighbors be stored?

3) What type of paperwork and records will have to be filled out?

4) What happens if the police lose or damage one of my weapons? Say that I turn in a very valuable handgun such as a S&W .357 Registered Magnum from 1935 in pristine shape and worth many thousands of dollars. When I get it back, I find a nasty scratch on the barrel. Can I sue for damages?

5) How much would all this effort cost the tax payer? Would cities have to build special armories to house the weapons when the President showed up in town?

Your 1/2 mile radius doesn't sound reasonable or manageable to me. Any attempt to pass such a law would undoubtedly give control of the Congress back to the Republicans at the midterm election.

That kind of caliber--about 9/10 of an inch for the metric-impaired--would commonly be considered a cannon. One exception would be the Japanese WWII Type 97 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_97_20_mm_anti-tank_rifle), which was termed a "rifle" though that was, frankly, pushing the envelope of the term.

So I'm going to presume that you mean firearms chambered for .22 inch rimfire rounds. Let me introduce you to the term "maximum effective range." Yes, the box the rounds come in warns that .22LR bullets can travel a mile, but your chances of reliably hitting what you were aiming at at that range are practically zero. To the best of my knowledge, 100 yards is about as far you can shoot a .22LR and stand a decent chance of hitting what you're aiming at, provided it's a stationary target. Even then, you're going to see a bullet drop of about 8 inches at that range (i.e. the bullet will impact some 8 inches below the point of aim).

To provide some context, back when I was doing my national service in the Dutch army (I'm an immigrant), the standard individual weapon for infantrymen was the FN FAL, chambered in 7.62x51mm NATO. In the hands of the average infantryman, this was considered to have a maximum effective range of 300 meters, though the iron sights were zeroed for 250 meters. The squad machine gun, the FN MAG (known as M240 in U.S. service), was considered to have an MER of 600 meters. Each rifle squad would also have a designated marksman, armed with an accurized FAL with a telescopic sight; his MER was considered to be 800 meters, i.e. half a mile, for man-sized targets. The Soviet Dragunov sniper rifle was considered to have a similar MER, though it turned out the Sovs themselves actually reckoned 600 meters.

So to even begin to be a threat to a man-sized target at half a mile, we're talking four foot-long (give or take four inches) rifles, with scopes, chambered for comparatively high-powered rounds, and accordingly weighing ten pounds or more to absorb the recoil. Rifles chambered for Magnum rounds like the .300 Winchester and .338 Lapua Magnums will extend that range to about 1,100 meters, but those rifles are concomitantly longer and heavier. Why does that matter? Because you don't just snap off a shot of opportunity with that kind of gun. You have to set it up and spend at least several seconds aiming. During that time, your intentions are visible.

Consider this: marksman/sniper rifles, even .50-cal anti-materiel rifles, have been around since Clinton's inauguration, and Clinton was pretty hated by the right wing whackjobs. And yet, nobody managed to so much as take a shot at him from outside the Secret Service's security envelope, let alone from within. Could it be that the Secret Service has a pretty shrewd idea how to keep the POTUS safe, even from snipers ensconced in a building half a mile away?

Moreover, and I'm not the first to say this, it's pretty much unheard of for any presidential (would-be) assassin to advertise the fact that he's carrying firearms. Maybe it's not the guys who are openly carrying that you need to get your panties in a wad about.

I shoot 22lr at 100, 200 & 300 yards. I use Standard velocity ammo (CCI or Aguila) out of an ancient Savage rifle. It is a lot of fun to use reactive targets (pop cans etc.) because when you pull the trigger you can do the "1000 1, 1000... pop!" count in your head as that bullet is sloooooow and gets slower over range. At 300 yards you are lobbing the bullet at the target :P A slight breeze can string your bullets quite a bit and a real breeze makes this durn hard. 200 yards I'll hit the can 8/10 times in dead air, 100 yards I can pull a 2" group of 5 off the bench and 3-4 inches prone.

But yes, for most real applications, 22lr is for 25 - 75 yard work. On the range... you can try anything and it will only cost you a nickle! On Edit: If you get a chance, give the 22lr a shot at distance work, it is a lot of fun. Just be ready to click that scope about 70 adjustments or so :P

Cheers.

I'll believe that. When I was doing basic training in the Dutch army 16 years ago (I'm an immigrant), a couple of our drill instructors tried engaging a man-sized target at 800 meters with an Uzi. Basically it was like playing artillery, with the firer shooting upwards at a 60-degree angle or so, and the second guy observing the fall of shot with binoculars and calling out adjustments. They did eventually hit the target, but that was by the 30th round or so.

Pretty sure a 22mm has a longer range than a .50... Considering 20mm is the size you see the A-10 Warthog shredding armor plated tanks with.

And it's a specialized caliber only used in the GAU-8/A, the 30 x 173mm. Actually, the Bushmaster II cannon will use the same round, but that's still under development.

But 20mm is used in the M61 Vulcan guns found on F15s, F16s, F/A-18s and the Phalanx anti-missile CIWS (aka "R2D2"). And the 3-barreled M197 gun on the Marines' AH-1W helicopters. It won't take out main battle tanks, but it's pretty effective against lightly armored vehicles, or aircraft (given a sufficiently high volume of fire).

Anyone who can handle a 22 mm pistol must be some sort of super human freak.

You must be talking about a .22 CALIBER...

On edit:

Actually their failure to deal with slavery was its biggest mistake....

Incorporating the 2nd amendment, especially the way it is written is up there though!

that there is anything inherently "wrong" with the 2nd Amendment, except for the way it has been interpreted by various groups.

In the recent DC v. Heller 5-4 decision, the SCOTUS narrowly held that:

"the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" and "that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense."

And, further:

"The adjective "well-regulated" implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."

Please note that Heller said absolutely nothing about "open-carry," or "concealed-carry," but specifically addressed "self-defense within the home." They also addressed the "imposition of proper discipline and training" as a reasonable restriction to this right. How the various States enact legislation pertaining to the discipline (where, when, and why?) and training (how?) of their own citizens is quite another matter.

Having pointed out all of the above, neither the Constitution, nor the SCOTUS, has addressed the issue of the "freedom from guns," nor should they need to. Just as the 1st Amendment also guarantees us freedom from religion in public places, and freedom from the abuse of free speech in public places," the 2nd Amendment also guarantees citizens freedom from being being abused by intimidation, or the openly implied threat of violence, in a public place.

ALL "rights" are double-edged swords, and neither favor those who choose to exercise them, nor those who choose freedom "from" them. Many codified civil laws are meant to address the concerns of the latter group, and are reasonable, and Constitutional, restrictions to enumerated "rights."

"They also addressed the "imposition of proper discipline and training" as a reasonable restriction to this right."

I've read Heller back to front a couple of times since June last year, and I didn't get that impression at all. Yes, that is a quality of a 'well-regulated' militia, but nowhere did I see them assert that that level of discipline and training is required or attached to the right.

Regarding the term "well regulated", the U.S. Supreme Court said in District of Columbia v. Heller:

The adjective "well-regulated" implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.{144}

Snip//

144. Heller, Opinion of the Court, Part II-A-2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

And, I had no trouble finding the same sentence at Findlaw:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=07-290#opinion1

Nowhere did I say that the SCOTUS directly "imposed" this restriction, but rather they "allowed" the restriction and offered the further interpretation as a part of well-settled law (see the full paragraph at the Findlaw link). It is up to the various States to determine if they want to place Constitutionally-sound restrictions on any "right."

For example, a three-judge Federal Appeals court ruled just today, that DC v. Heller does NOT preclude States from requiring the registration of all firearms:

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/19/taking_liberties/entry5253857.shtml?tag=stack

.. is a definition, nothing more. Nowhere in the opinion does it apply or require it anywhere. I'm not asserting that there are no restrictions on the second amendment, just that if THAT is what you're hanging restrictions on, I think it's one heck of a stretch.

a part of the decision. I've already stipulated that SCOTUS did not order ANY form of restrictions in their decision. They did, however, leave the door wide open for the States and localities to impose discipline and training restrictions. That particular "definition" had never been articulated by the SCOTUS before. To me, a proper application of "discipline" would be a restriction on hate groups (such as those who coordinated their open-carry display in AZ) to openly carry weapons in public.

The entire Heller decision was more or less based around definitions of various parts of the sentence which is the 2nd Amendment, and especially the term "militia." In the end, however, Heller did not answer many questions which remain about the intent of the Founders, and the SCOTUS already has a few more 2nd Amendment cases headed its way.

Just as an observation, it seems ironic to me that a group which distrusts our government (and by extension, it's citizens and the remaining 99.99% of the Constitution) enough to arm themselves, relies on that same government to protect their right to arm themselves.

It's like ignoring the text of the decision in favor of a footnote- or as a friend of mine says, regarding "interpretation" of the second amendment around commas, etc- "You might as well argue about the intent of a stop sign based on the position of the bolts holding it up."

Evidently you have forgotten that every "opinion" from the SCOTUS is a result of defining the meaning and intent of words (and NOT just the words that you favor) as written in the Constitution. It's what they do -- day in, and day out.

The full sentence is NOT a "footnote," but a substantial part of the reasoning process which led to the final opinion, and direct quotes from the 2nd Amendment. Defining the terms "well regulated," and "militia," were at the very heart of Heller and the case as presented, and also of the subsequent SCOTUS opinion regarding their meaning.

I will leave you to your narrow "reading" of Constitutional law, however, and remain confident that the legality of the imposition of "discipline and training" requirements are reinforced by Heller, and are fully within the Constitutional "rights" of the various States and other local governments.

The decision addressed each of the claims made by the petitioners, and explained that no, 'well-regulated' means well trained.

The SCOTUS didn't bring up the term, nor did it apply it as a limit on the right per se. To do otherwise is wishful thinking.

They took the petitioners claims, laid them out, and then knocked them down, piece by piece. First the language & grammar, then the conclusion..

"We reach the question, then: Does the preface fit with an operative clause that creates an individual right to keep and bear arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the history that the founding generation knew and that we have described above."

The scope of Heller was not whether or not gun regulations are constitutional en masse, just whether DC's handgun ban was so.

"The adjective "well-regulated" implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training." -- to read into that -- "They also addressed the "imposition of proper discipline and training" as a reasonable restriction to this right." is not supported in the text nor any commentary I've seen from legal scholars, outside of you.

Seriously? Are you really trying to hang {"imposition of proper discipline and training" as a reasonable restriction to this right} on a sentence that knocks down one of the previous arguments?

If that's the extent of the post-Heller arguments, gun grabbers are in a world of hurt.

you win. I'm tired of this argument about the role of our current right-leaning SCOTUS anyway. Your use of the term "gun-grabber" for those of us who do NOT advocate the reapeal of the 2nd Amednment, but only argue for placing reasonable restrictions on carrying a loaded weapon in public, is disengenuous.

As far as I know, no sane person wants to take away your gun, or your right to keep one in your home.

Peace, and have a nice day...;-)

Please note that Heller said absolutely nothing about "open-carry," or "concealed-carry," but specifically addressed "self-defense within the home." They also addressed the "imposition of proper discipline and training" as a reasonable restriction to this right. How the various States enact legislation pertaining to the discipline (where, when, and why?) and training (how?) of their own citizens is quite another matter.

Having pointed out all of the above, neither the Constitution, nor the SCOTUS, has addressed the issue of the "freedom from guns," nor should they need to. Just as the 1st Amendment also guarantees us freedom from religion in public places, and freedom from the abuse of free speech in public places," the 2nd Amendment also guarantees citizens freedom from being being abused by intimidation, or the openly implied threat of violence, in a public place.

ALL "rights" are double-edged swords, and neither favor those who choose to exercise them, nor those who choose freedom "from" them. Many codified civil laws are meant to address the concerns of the latter group, and are reasonable, and Constitutional, restrictions to enumerated "rights."

Your writing denotes a complete misunderstanding of the Constitution. The Constitution is NOT a document that protects the people from anything except the federal government. Let me repeat that: The Constitution is NOT a document that protects the people from anything except the federal government.

The US Constitution is a document that limits the power of government. It does not "gaurantee us freedom from religion in public places"! It guarantees you freedom from GOVERNMENT SANCTIONED religion in public places. It does not provide "freedom from abuse of free speech in public places"! It provides for free speech without persecution from the government!

different versions of the Constitution then? Sorry, but I was under the impression that the Constitution states that the People ARE the "government."

My bad...;-)

...that leads you to that impression?

the Constitution, and ALL of its Articles (which pertain to the establishment and makeup of our system of self-government) and the last line of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address when he stated the necessity for a Civil War in order to protect our Constitution:

"It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

As you may remember, the Civil War was fought by "our government" against those who disagreed with our Constitution (an armed "militia?"), and who attempted to tear our country apart through armed rebellion for the sake of a "cause" as defined by an entire group of those who believed that our government was attempting to "oppress" them. Our government, AND our Constitution prevailed. Just try and imagine how different our country might be today, if the antebellum South had prevailed.

The Constitution, along with the Declaration of Independence, establishes both our claim to freedoms and independence, and our right to establish a Republic through our Federation of States, along with a peaceful democratic process of electing (and removing) our leaders and representatives. The Constitution itself goes into a great deal of detail as to how the three Branches of our government shall function. The Amendments to the Constitution provide further enumeration of Americans' "rights," and are allowed by Article 5.

I have absolutely no quarrel with you, and absolutely no desire to "grab your gun." Go in peace, and dream of the day when you can rise up against the tyranny of our uniquely American form of Constitutional government, which is truly "of the people, by the people, for the people" for the vast majority of American patriots.

Here is the preamble.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

This does not state that the government is the people.

Our government is specifically NOT of the people. Our government is a Republic, where the people elect people to represent them.

post again, you will note that I said the Preamble (I didn't think that I needed to quote it, being that it is a short sentence and all) AND the last line of Lincoln's Gettysburg address. And your last sentence makes absolutely no sense, as we are indeed a representative government of, by, and for the People. We, the People, have the power to elect, and to remove, the politicians who represent us in both the Executive and Legislative Branches of the Federal Government. We have that same power at each State, and City level. The Judicial Branch of the Federal Government determines if the codified laws enacted and enforced by the other two Branches of government comply with both the letter, AND the spirit, of the Constitution. The SCOTUS also interprets the law as it applies to the "individual rights" of US citizens, as in Constitutional Rights.

I believe that YOU believe that our government is some lurking monster and potential "enemy" that the People have absolutely no control over (other than by armed insurrection), but please excuse the rest of us who don't agree with your interpretation -- including President Lincoln. Just a few questions however: who will decide when, and if, to "overthrow" our elected government by armed force? Will there be a vote? Who will conduct it? Or, will a few people resort to anarchy, and attempt to secede from the USA by using their "right to bear arms?" Seems to me that has been tried before.

Every Article of the Constitution of the United States of America sets forth the requirements, methods, and processes by which the People peacefully govern themselves, through their elected representatives. The USA is a self-governing, democratic, and representative-government form of Republic. The Civil War spilled the blood of entirely too many Americans in order to reinforce that ideal.

Now, you may have the last word, and once again I have no problem with you "keeping and bearing arms," or of your misinterpretation of the purpose and scope of our Constitution. It is only open-carry in crowded public places that I have a problem with, as do many of our fellow citizens.

...even if it WERE repealed, there is still nothing in the US Constitution granting government any legislative authority over private weapons ownership?

In fact, that's where the 4th, 5th, 9th and 10th Amendment protections would come into play.

They also dealt with slavery in that they didn't grant the federal government any authority over THAT either.

:rofl:

circumstances. Majority rules...like with Proposition 8.

:hurts:

Of President Obama.

K&U for abuse of hyperbole.

:kick:

of setting the boundaries of the secure zone around the President in such a way as to completely prevent people OUTSIDE the secure zone from being a threat, particularly when armed with civilian non-automatic centerfire .22's.

And no thanks for continuing to feed the ignorant hysteria that has completely drowned out what the President actually said at the venue. Good job, you're reacting exactly as the protesters wanted you to. :tinfoilhat:

Of course, it does bear noting that there are plenty of governments that won't trust their citizens with firearms, let alone with a firearm within theoretical shooting distance of government leaders, because those governments have a major legitimacy problem. Bear in mind most western European countries adopted restrictions on private ownership of firearms in the wake of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia because the governments of those countries were afraid that large numbers of freshly demobilized soldiers, experienced in the use of firearms and possibly a little miffed about being thrown into the meat grinder by a government that didn't even extend them the right to vote (even in countries with universal male suffrage, the voting age was not reduced from 21 to 18 until the 1970s), might get ideas about exerting influence on the nature of that government, if you catch my drift.

What I'm getting at is that keeping armed citizens a long way away from government leaders may be because the citizens have some legitimate grievances against those government leaders. A government that would trust its citizens to be armed in the presence of its leaders would be a government that had faith in its democratic processes.

There should be no legal reason for people to carry a gun in the presence of the President, there's simply too much potential for violence and insanity.


If we based everything on the POTENTIAL for a negative outcome, we would still be in the stone age.

You mean like the "potential" for the assassinations of JFK, MLK, and RFK by gun-toting "patriots?" Or the attempted assassinations of Ford and Raygun? Or the assassinations of a guard at the Holocaust Museum, or Dr. Tiller?

Yeah, move along people. No cause for concern here, and don't worry about the armed white supremacists, or the bigots, or those who really, really believe that our government should be overthrown if they don't agree with majority rule.

for cars to kill tens of thousands a year, or the potential for "life saving" drugs to kill thousands per year, or the potential for a plane to crash killing hundreds? Oh, wait, that is already happening.

cars, drugs, and airplanes are not primarily designed to kill people. I have never heard of anyone carrying a concealed car, or a concealed drug, or a concealed airplane for the purpose of assassinating a public figure. Have you?

True, cars, drugs, and airplanes could be used to assassinate someone, but guns seem to be the preferred instrument of assassins, seeing as how perfect they are for the task. I guess that bombs would be the second most popular assassination device.

I see guns as tools used for hunting and defense. Like any tool, they can be misused.

I just had to go talk to my wife, who did not grow up with guns (suburban Philly), and used to be for more restrictive gun control.

The point that she made, and I'll repeat, is that _any_ tool can be misused (as she said that, she picked up a pair of chopsticks from last night's lo mein, lol!) and the intent of the designer has little bearing on the uses to which people put them. A sharp knife is 'designed to' cut, but we don't legislate knives based on design intent.

are "tools." But unlike a knife, or a screwdriver, or chopsticks, or ANY other tool, guns have only one purpose and that is to kill. Isn't that one of the first rules of gun safety: Never point a loaded gun at anyone, or anything, that you are not prepared to kill?

Hunting, is killing food. Defense is killing someone else who is trying to kill, or harm, you. Perfectly legal, and reasonable uses of a gun, but still it is only designed for killing -- someone, or something. And, yes, there is the "sport" of target shooting, but that is a show of proficiency at hitting a target, and "killing" it.

The real subject here, is when is it "reasonable" to exercise the "right" to carry a loaded weapon in a public arena? You guys believe that is always reasonable, and many of us believe that there should be restrictions on who, what, where, and when -- and, guess what? There ARE restrictions in many areas. No one, at least no one I know, argues that keeping a weapon in your home for defense, or for hunting in an unpopulated area, is an abuse of the 2nd Amendment.

And if it's legal to open-carry, or CCW, where you live -- go for it. I can always exercise my right of free association, and stay the hell away from you. Deal?

May your arrows always fly straight and true...;-)

Thank you for taking the rational approach to dialog, I appreciate it.

I think that when you use the term "reasonable" we are thinking the same thing: common sense. The unfortunate thing is that common sense seems to be is short supply these days and those who want to restrict guns do not use common sense in their approach toward that goal, which makes those who support guns not use common sense when exercising their 2A rights.

I guess it boils down to common sense, something that those on BOTH sides of the argument need to find.

appreciate all who take a civil approach to a discussion. I allow my emotions to get the better of me at times, but I try to be logical and civil. I spent two tours in Viet Nam, in active combat zones most of the time, and was lucky enough to come back in one piece. I have owned guns, both before military service, and after, but I never felt the need to carry in public.

I realize that where one lives, and works, may dictate the conditions under which one would feel the "need" to carry, and I respect that. For instance, I live in an area of Maui where I have known most of my neighbors for over 40 years, and Hawaii gun deaths per capita are the lowest in the nation (#51). I am both grateful, and lucky to be able to live under these circumstances.

I guess if I had to describe myself, I would say that I am a bleeding-heart Liberal Democrat, a patriot who respects and supports the rule of law, and has an abiding faith in our Constitution and our democratic system of government.

I wouldn't assert that carrying should be universal, and I doubt any of the regular posters here would, either. I can't remember someone here complaining over not being able to carry in a certain place.

To me, the recent kerfuffle over carrying at town halls and outside venues where the president is speaking is merely highlighting what folks may not have known- the limits of state laws re guns. People just assumed whatever they wanted, rather than investigating what the laws actually are.

assertions on DU that 2A not only reinforces the "right" to open carry, but that it imposes a "patriotic duty" to be armed at all times. I don't believe that the majority of responsible gun owners feel that way, but that kind of one-sided thinking does persist in certain quarters.

I believe that it is way past time to tone down the rhetoric, and work together for a "reasonable" answer that will satisfy the majority of Americans. I have been guilty of ratcheting up the adversarial atmosphere, and I apologize for that.

As I stated in another post, I knew better than to walk into a biker bar and pick a fight, but noooooo, I just had to see what would happen...;-)

Hitler completely agrees with you.

and he wasn't in his presence, you know, that whole outside across the street thing vs inside surrounded by secret service peeps.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Why for gods sakes is it unreasonable to have a no gun zone wherever the President is whether they be Dem or Repub!

.. and the secret service enforces it by establishing security checkpoints within X feet of the president (media & DU handwringing aside).

I read recently that when the POTUS is in ANY building, that building takes on all of the security measures which would "normally" apply in ALL Federal Buildings. This is in addition to any extra measures that the SS deems necessary.

..consider it a roving chunk of fed property.

When I worked in Miami in 96 or 97, we had to give SS access to the roof just outside of our data center. They set up a man with a bunch of high power optics, and I assume a sniper rifle (we were _strongly_ encouraged to not come in that day, or work from home, so I heard about it secondhand from building security.)

VP Gore was visiting some rally for a Dem hopeful.

Because personally, I'm less concerned about the fact that our boy in New Hampshire was OCing than about the fact that he was holding a sign saying "It is time to water the tree of Liberty," which could be interpreted as an incitement to spill the blood of a supposed "tyrant," which in this context would seem to indicate Obama. But hey, freedom of speech, right? And maybe it'd be better if we didn't allow demonstrations anywhere near the president either. Oh sure, they say they assembling "peaceably," but we know every riot started out as a "peaceable" assembly. Why do they think they're fooling?

And how many crimes could have been prevented, and offenders punished, if we weren't so fussy about the need for law enforcement to get a warrant before conducting a search? Wouldn't it greatly expedite the process of catching criminals if the police could just search their persons, houses, cars and places of business at will? And hey, those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear, surely?

And while we're at it, think how much more effectively could we prosecute offenders if they could be compelled to testify against themselves. Probably be better if we didn't have juries either.

Let's face it, we'd all be a lot safer if we weren't so hung up on those pesky civil liberties. After all, the government always has our best interests at heart, so why should we stand in its way when all it's trying to do is keep us safe?

Did I make it?



I don't give a damn about states' rights,etc.

ooh, nice one there.

I'll admit I had to look that up, in spite of three years of secondary school Latin.

Shoot them, and then lock the rest of the protesters up proves that we are a free society. That is why Obama says that they're free to do what they want.