Media is Pissed about 2nd Amendment Rulling

[n0ov]

Supreme Court ruling on Second Amendment sends liberal media into temper tantrum


http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/5795

Chicago Tribune:
Repeal the 2nd Amendment
No, we don’t suppose that’s going to happen any time soon. But it should. The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is evidence that, while the founding fathers were brilliant men, they could have used an editor.
The Founding Fathers needed an editor? Who? Like you? Keep dreaming, you arrogant dolt. The court has spoken. The collectivist fantasy you've been desperately shoving down people's throats is over.

The New York Times:
Impact of Gun Ruling Limited, Experts Say
The individual right to bear arms identified by the Supreme Court on Thursday will have little practical impact in most of the country, legal experts said ...
Little impact? You think a ruling that tells legislators nationwide that they can't continue to violate citizens' rights will have little impact? You've got to be kidding.

The Salt Lake Tribune:
Second Amendment: U.S. Supreme Court should have left precedent alone

The U.S. Supreme Court's holding Thursday that the Second Amendment enshrines in the Constitution an individual right to keep firearms in the home outside the context of a state militia was wrongly decided and turned decades of settled judicial precedent on its head.
Settled judicial precedent? Nothing was settled. But it sure is now. This ruling doesn't just draw a line in the sand, it erects a 50-foot stone wall between citizens and gun-grabbing activists and legislators.

CBS News:
Outrage Over Gun Ruling
In cities that have high gun-related death tolls, many leaders are outraged over the Supreme Court's decision overturning a ban on owning handguns.
Outraged? Sure, they're outraged. They're outraged that they can no longer chase the red herring of gun bans to pretend they're "fighting crime." Now they might have to actually do something that works. Like arrest and punish criminals perhaps?

Don't like the ruling? Call 1-800-WAA-AAAA

[N5NPO]

Elites and politicians prefer unarmed peasants.

[KG4JYD]

While I agree the ruling was good, I don't think it was as positive as it could've been.

There was a post in another thread about how the court didn't get specific about rights vs privileges. In other words rights cannot be denied without due process while privileges are doled out.

[NL7W]

Elites and politicians prefer unarmed peasants.

So right you are!

[k9kxq]

You funny, but I can't agree more...

kxq

[AE6IP]

In regard to the scope of the right, the Court wrote, "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Sounds like the court did more or less what I'd suspected it'd do: Strike down the D.C. law as too restrictive without claiming that control laws were automatically unconstitutional.

The majority opinion coming from the most conservative judge on the court should, but won't, shut up the gun nutters about their "absolute" right.

On the other hand, the majority did affirm that the 2nd amendment is an individual right, which should make the gun nutters happy.

[KG4JYD]

The majority opinion coming from the most conservative judge on the court should, but won't, shut up the gun nutters about their "absolute" right.Name calling twice in one post? Pathetic as usual.

Oh, and you want to shut up people whose opinions you disagree with? Authoritarian as usual.

What kind of liberal are you?:rolleyes:





But - to address the subject at hand... if the Founders wanted guns to be restricted they would not have written "shall not be infringed". They would've written "except for the following locations, times, circumstances, etc"

[AK7V]

This gun nutter's happy about the individual right, for protection, affirmations.

Time will tell what effect the ruling (the first substantial 2nd ammendment SCOTUS ruling, despite what some of the articles posted above imply with "settled law") has on people. But I'm happy Mr. Heller can take his pistol home with him if he chooses.

[AE6IP]

But - to address the subject at hand... if the Founders wanted guns to be restricted they would not have written "shall not be infringed". They would've written "except for the following locations, times, circumstances, etc"

And if they wanted gun ownership to be an individual right, they wouldn't have mentioned the media. Looks like Scalia was wrong twice.

No right is absolute, Matt, since all must be curtailed at the point where they conflict with other rights.

[K4KWH]

"When guns are outlawed, only OUTLAWS will have guns"!!! :mad: That is an absolute truth! Funny thing about that. My Dad had a old shotgun that stood in the corner since 1953 only being used to shoot skeet, and some other sport shooting. Never fired in anger. I was NEVER allowed near it before the age of 10. At age 10, Dad showed me the basics of gun safety, firing it to demonstrate its power. He taught me to fear its devastation and to RESPECT its correct usage. At 13, I got to fire it under his watchful eye. I have never forgotten his rules.

Daddy is gone now, and the gun stands in MY corner just like it did for all these 50+ years. Never fired in anger. Never used to threaten. It is for the protection of me and my family and property. Break in my house while I am in residence, you get a warning. Keep coming and .....! GUNS DO NOT WALK OUT OF THE CORNER AND SEEK OUT VICTIMS TO KILL INDISCRIMINATELY. IT TAKES A PERSON WITH MOTIVE AND INTENTTO PULL THE TRIGGER! Anyone that thinks that removing guns from law-abiding citizens would abate crime is naive, or consumately stupid to say the least. Minus the gun, if I want to KILL someone badly enough, I can find a way. There are a couple of towns in the US where citizens (no felons, etc) are REQUIRED to have guns! Guess what! Contrary to what the el pinko liberals believe, CRIME rates FELL in those cities to unheard-of lows!!! Believe this, liberals: I-WILL-NOT-RELINQUISH-MY-GUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The REAL issue here is NOT the abatement of crime! It is about C O N T R O L!!!! Leftists simply cannot STAND the idea that MR and Mrs America can have the ability to control their own destiny and run their own lives!!! :mad: Its why we have "Socialistic IN-security!!!!!!! Any stupe knows that had that consistently-broke monster been handled corrrectly, most pensioners would be millionaires by now---or, at least, quite wealthy. Certainly not squeaking by on just a grand or two each month. NOOOOOOO! Couldn't have THAT, now could we!!! Why that would cause the masses to NEVER vote for their socialist sh-- policies. But each of the leftists' programs have been designed to do ONE thing: BUY votes from the "poor" to keep them AND their failed policies in power. Guns are just ONE facet of it. Libs, stay OUT of my life, go to the blazes and when they pry my gun out of my cold, dead hands (that never hurt anybody in 60 years)................................. :mad:

[KG4JYD]

And if they wanted gun ownership to be an individual right, they wouldn't have mentioned the media.Huh? This makes no sense. Have you forgotten to take your meds again cupcake?:)




No right is absolute, Matt,Rights are absolute and can only be taken away by due process because of a violation of someone else's rights.

since all (rights) must be curtailed at the point where they conflict with other rights.I would say "infringe upon the rights of others" but I think we agree on the basic premise here.

[kc7jty]

are all gun owners nutters?
Look how nutter the Brits are yet they don't own guns.

[W3MIV]

Rights are absolute and can only be taken away by due process because of a violation of someone else's rights.

An amusing circle, is it not? Rights are absolute, except when they're not.

Martin is quite correct in his assertion that every right has a limit beyond which there lies a compelling public interest in setting the limit. Hence Holmes's famous dictum that one does not have the freedom of speech to shout "fire!" in a crowded theater. Another of his grand lessons was that a man's right to swing his arm ends at the beginning of Holmes's nose.

Just as your right to be secure in your home may be breached by the authorities under defined circumstances, so, too, can one's right to keep and bear arms be circumscribed by defined circumstances.

And, for the record, Miller never set any precedent. Heller does establish a precedent. The next step must be application through the XIV to the states.

[kb1oev]

Sounds like the court did more or less what I'd suspected it'd do: Strike down the D.C. law as too restrictive without claiming that control laws were automatically unconstitutional.

The majority opinion coming from the most conservative judge on the court should, but won't, shut up the gun nutters about their "absolute" right.

On the other hand, the majority did affirm that the 2nd amendment is an individual right, which should make the gun nutters happy.


Those you refer to as gun nutters I will call pro rights people. The reason that many of these pro rights people fight tooth and nail to prevent any form of gun control is because if they didn't, then the right to bear arms would be slowly whittled away to nothing.

Think of it like this, the FCC decides they want to re-allocate a few kc's in the 10m band. Sure, no problem we have plenty of bandwidth there, take em. If they get away with that without any resistance however, they will be back for a few more kc's and then a few more, and eventually if nobody stands up and says wait a minute, all of the HF bands will be gone. Just try working DX on 2m reliably.

Back on the gun issue, rules and regs only really effect law abiding citizens anyway, so they aren't all that effective at stopping crime.

[K8YZK]

Albert we agree on something,

As far as being a gun nutter, I am glad in the decision the Court made but wish it was a little stronger. I own exactly ZERO guns.

As far as those that live in area's with a lot of shootings, anyone want to take a guess on how many of those guns are legally registered? I would say probably 90% of them are not. It is not those that follow the laws, and get trained on the correct way to shoot the weapon that are the problem, it is the criminal that is. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

[ad5mb]

better a gun nutter than an anti-gun nutless.

[AE6IP]

Huh? This makes no sense. Have you forgotten to take your meds again cupcake?:)

Poor proofreading, cupcake. s/media/militia/

[quote]Rights are absolute and can only be taken away by due process because of a violation of someone else's rights.

"absolute" and "can be taken away" are contradictory, Matt. You've just said the same thing I said, and the court opined, but in different words.

[AE6IP]

are all gun owners nutters?

No.

When I use the term "gun nutter", I mean the subset of gun owners who are so obsessed with the 'right' part of the 2nd amendment that they forget that rights come with responsibilities and that it's OK for the government to specify what those responsibilities are.

Anyone who objects to any and all restrictions on gun ownership, with out regard to the reason behind the restriction is a gun nutter.

And yes, that fringe has its equivalent on the other side of the argument: those who would ban any and all weapons without regard to reasonable use.

[AE6IP]

Those you refer to as gun nutters I will call pro rights people. The reason that many of these pro rights people fight tooth and nail to prevent any form of gun control is because if they didn't, then the right to bear arms would be slowly whittled away to nothing.

See, that's a good example of nuttery. The right to free speech has been regulated since the earliest days of the union, but has never been whittled away to nothing. There have been times when it has been over-regulated, but those periods have always ended with a return to more sane speech rules. Gun regulation would be no different, without the nutters, and is a hodge podge of silly poorly thought out laws with them. They do their cause more harm than good, if that is their reason.

Back on the gun issue, rules and regs only really effect law abiding citizens anyway, so they aren't all that effective at stopping crime.

Alas, that's not true, nor is stopping crime the only reason for regulation.

Not all proposed gun regulation would stop crime. Some, such as the California ban on "assault rifles" is so poorly thought out as to be laughable. Some, on the other hand, such as waiting periods, have a demonstrable impact on crime, while inconveniencing legitimate owners very little. Other, such as often proposed but never implemented compulsory range qualification for ownership, would increase, possibly dramatically, the safe use of guns.

The problem with gun-nutters and their foaming about absolute rights is that it becomes impossible to have a dialog about what reasonable regulation is, so, on the one hand, regulation that would save lives doesn't get passed, while grandstanding responses to tragedies results in poorly though out legislation like the CA assault rifle ban.

[n0ov]

Those you refer to as gun nutters I will call pro rights people. The reason that many of these pro rights people fight tooth and nail to prevent any form of gun control is because if they didn't, then the right to bear arms would be slowly whittled away to nothing.

Think of it like this, the FCC decides they want to re-allocate a few kc's in the 10m band. Sure, no problem we have plenty of bandwidth there, take em. If they get away with that without any resistance however, they will be back for a few more kc's and then a few more, and eventually if nobody stands up and says wait a minute, all of the HF bands will be gone. Just try working DX on 2m reliably.

Back on the gun issue, rules and regs only really effect law abiding citizens anyway, so they aren't all that effective at stopping crime.

Great point. Also consider this, how would the anti-gunner folks feel someone waged an assault on their 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech privileges, the same way the 2nd Amendment has been under attack for so long.

Both privileges come with responsibility, after all, shooting off your mouth at the wrong time can be just as damaging (if not more so) than some idiot discharging a weapon at the wrong time. All depends on the intended target and other innocent by-standers that happen to be in range of the "verbal or written discharge"

[KD6NIG]

I don't think they are pissed, per se. I think a good portion of it is stirring the pot so the debate continues, and more copies of newspapers keep rolling off the presses. Also helps the hit counter and advertising revenue.

I think if anything this ruling will bolster sales and hits. They may be mad about it in editorials, but I'm sure they won't complain about the hit counters.

You know there are bloggers out there too who will be patting themselves on the backs as they rise in the ranks of most visited also.

Not all rhetoric is honest opinion, especially on the internet :) Look at all the replies to this topic and the other one about it already.

[n0ov]

Give that man a cigar! (or at least a new roll of coax)

[W3MIV]

Not all rhetoric is honest opinion, especially on the internet :) Look at all the replies to this topic and the other one about it already.

Do you assert, sir, that our idiots are liars as well as idiots? :rolleyes:

[KD6NIG]

I assert that someone is making money off of all the ads being displayed as we all type our replies on either side of the coin on this and many other matters.

And I know there are no complaints about that whatsoever.

If we could have another controversy in Ham Radio on the scale of the elimination of code......

This ruling is a bloggers and media's dream. Yet another thing to ensure the opinion pages get read and letters submitted to the editor in outrage. You can't beg for this kind of content :)

[ac4ut]

Give that man a cigar! (or at least a new roll of coax)



and take 2 interns out of petty cash.

[AE6IP]

Great point. Also consider this, how would the anti-gunner folks feel someone waged an assault on their 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech privileges, the same way the 2nd Amendment has been under attack for so long.

The 1st amendment has been under attack just as long as the second. One doesn't see the emotional outcry associated with it one sees with the second because it doesn't directly entail issues of life and death and so is harder to manipulate people into being excited about.

Both privileges come with responsibility, after all, shooting off your mouth at the wrong time can be just as damaging (if not more so) than some idiot discharging a weapon at the wrong time. All depends on the intended target and other innocent by-standers that happen to be in range of the "verbal or written discharge"

Exactly. What distinguishes "gun nutters" from other advocates of gun ownership is their unwillingness to accept that it is reasonable for the government to specify the responsibilities for gun ownership.

[KB9YCO]

Welcome back folks, once again it's that exciting part of the program where I make my usual, predictable, and redundant comment, enjoy!

THEY AREN'T LIBERALS! IF THEY DON'T RESPECT CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED FREEDOMS THEN THEY AREN'T LIBERAL! PERIOD, END OF STORY! THAT WHOLE 'LIBERAL MEDIA' LOAD IS A BUNCH OF BS ANYWAY, THERE ARE JUST AS MANY 'CONSERVATIVE MEDIA' OUTLETS OUT THERE WHINING ABOUT WHAT THEY DON'T AGREE WITH.

liberal:
favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression.
free from prejudice or bigotry; open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.

We now return to our regularly scheduled left versus right stereotype bonanza!

[K9STH]

I agree that gun ownership requires a sense of responsibility including the proper use of the firearm and proper storage of the firearm. Unfortunately, gun control laws have done little, if any, to curb the use of firearms in the commission of crimes. In fact, there is concrete evidence to show that restricting gun ownership results in an increase in crime. A case in point is Washington, DC, of which the recent Supreme Court ruling directly applies, wherein private ownership was curtailed (basically non existent) yet the crime rate including murder is the highest in the nation.

In those states with "right to carry" laws crimes against persons have gone down substantially when the law was enacted. Frankly, more and more of the less law abiding residents are not taking a chance that the intended victim is unarmed and thus does not present threat to the criminal. The result is that the crime rate has subsided. Now crimes against property have often been stable or even on the increase. But, the crimes against persons rate is dropping in those areas in which the right to carry laws are in effect.

As for myself, I have not seriously considered going through the procedure in the State of Texas for acquiring a concealed carry permit. Now it is legal in Texas for a resident to carry a handgun in their vehicle if they are traveling. Now traveling is defined as going outside of one's county. For me that presents no problems because I live about 1/4th mile from the county line. However, I do not usually carry a handgun in my vehicle.

As I have pointed out numerous times I own a total of 2 handguns. The first is a .32 calibre 5-shot revolver that was made in the 1890s. Frankly, it is not safe to fire although I keep it around (it belonged to my grandmother) for sentimental reasons. The other handgun is a reproduction 1851 Colt Navy black powder .36 calibre revolver that I use for Civil War living history. The only time that it is in my vehicle is when I am traveling to and from a living history or similar presentation. At the same time I also have my M1850 field officer's sword with me. I can definitely do more "damage" with the sword than with the .36 calibre revolver.

Again, I have 3 shoulder weapons: A .22 calibre bolt action 8-shot rifle that my father gave me for my 10th birthday 54 years ago (it is in excellent condition and shoots very accurately); a Winchester Model 37 single shot 16 gauge shotgun (that belonged to my grandfather); and a U.S. Carbine .30 calibre M-1 (manufactured by Winchester that I got through the NRA when I was a freshman in college). I do keep loaded magazines for the .22 calibre rifle and the M-1 Carbine in my bedroom (but not in the weapon). Whenever my grandchildren visit I definitely make sure that any ammunition cannot be found by them.

The registration of handguns, the waiting period to allow for background checks, and so forth have done very little to keep the weapons out of the hands of criminals. Now I am not against (nor am I for) these regulations. However, it is the law abiding persons who follow the rules. There are just way too many ways for a criminal to acquire a firearm without having to comply with the regulations. The result is that the regulations have basically had no impact on the criminal use of firearms. However, statistics have shown that the legal possession of firearms does help curtail crime.

Is a legally obtained firearm used in the commission of a crime by the person who obtained it? Yes, in a VERY few instances. However, statistics show that over 99 percent of the firearms used in the commission of a crime have been illegally obtained (by theft, unlawful purchase, and so forth). In contrast, as pointed out above, the possession of a firearm by law abiding persons has definitely reduced the crime rate.

Glen, K9STH

[NC5P]

In countries like England where they outlawed guns, they started outlawing just about everything else that could be used to defend one's self. I don't remember where but I saw a news story about a man with one leg who defended himself against a mugger with a crutch, only to be prosecuted for possessing a weapon. There is a real agenda to the elitists and it looks a lot like occupied Europe in the forties.

[KV1M]

In countries like England where they outlawed guns, they started outlawing just about everything else that could be used to defend one's self. I don't remember where but I saw a news story about a man with one leg who defended himself against a mugger with a crutch, only to be prosecuted for possessing a weapon. There is a real agenda to the elitists and it looks a lot like occupied Europe in the forties.

What a load. Provide some linkage for a dumb claim like that.

[K0RGR]

Over time, I've come around to a more conservative position on guns.

Years ago, I thought it would be appropriate to ban handguns, and I still think we could largely live without them. Handguns serve very little military purpose, and I do agree that private gun ownership has at least something to do with our enduring freedoms, because it gives even our military pause to think before contemplating an overthrow of the government.

But, even handguns have a place. Ever seen a Grizzly bear? I'm not even sure a 44 magnum would help much in a Grizzly attack, but I'd prefer to have the option of finding out if facing that situation. I like to fish in the same rivers those bears do. And for that matter, I like to fish where the black bears go too. Ever seen a black bear run? Ever seen one climb a tree?

I still see no purpose in allowing fully-automatic weapons, though. Nobody needs a Street Sweeper for self defense or "their collection".
We had a nutjob spray a crowded playground in Stockton, CA years ago. One time was enough. Oh, I know, the teachers and little kiddies should have all pulled their Uzi's and let the perp have it ... yeah, that works out really well.

Overall, America is still a pretty wild place, and guns belong in the wild. But we need to find some level of common sense, and stop talking about absolutes.

[ad5mb]

liberal:
favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression.
free from prejudice or bigotry; open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.


I see your definition and raise you:

disingenuous (dĭs'ĭn-jĕn'yū-əs)

adj.
Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating: “an ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical operator, who … exemplified … the most disagreeable traits of his time” (David Cannadine).

Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-naïf.

Usage Problem. Unaware or uninformed; naive.


The meaning of words changes over time. You don't have to like that, but you can't stop it. The current meaning of liberal:

http://www.threesources.com/simmons.jpg

[wa6ccw]

Don't like the ruling? Call 1-800-WAA-AAAA

http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/animated/anim_63.gif

[w6vps]

I was very pleased with the high court's ruling.

But don't rejoice too much. Watch California closely. The anti-gun politicians are going after ammunition step by step. Quite a clever move actually as no one seems to know or care except the NRA.
I'm saving my money to either buy reloading gear or to be able to drive to Nevada and buy ammo.

Paul

[n2ize]

I don;t see why the law prohibits children from carrying guns. Where in the constitution does it say kids can't bear arms. Every child attending school should be packin from nursery school on up.

[kb3laz]

I don;t see why the law prohibits children from carrying guns. Where in the constitution does it say kids can't bear arms. Every child attending school should be packin from nursery school on up.

I agree, I would have been responsible in kindergarten with an HK!:p

[kc7jty]

In countries like England where they outlawed guns, they started outlawing just about everything else that could be used to defend one's self. I don't remember where but I saw a news story about a man with one leg who defended himself against a mugger with a crutch, only to be prosecuted for possessing a weapon. There is a real agenda to the elitists and it looks a lot like occupied Europe in the forties.
And this is exactly why there are so many gun nutters. They know damn well the ultimate goal.
Heston's words ring so sweet.

[KV1M]

And this is exactly why there are so many gun nutters. They know damn well the ultimate goal.
Heston's words ring so sweet.

Yet his characterization of England is pure grade A manure and that little story a fiction.

[AE6IP]

Is a legally obtained firearm used in the commission of a crime by the person who obtained it? Yes, in a VERY few instances. However, statistics show that over 99 percent of the firearms used in the commission of a crime have been illegally obtained (by theft, unlawful purchase, and so forth). In contrast, as pointed out above, the possession of a firearm by law abiding persons has definitely reduced the crime rate.

Nonsense on all counts. The statistics necessary to support such claims simply aren't available. Nor is it likely that they would sustain the claims if they were.

In particular, "reducing the crime rate" is a non-starter, since the crime rate varies as a consequence of a wide range of factors, and there are precious few examples in the world of situations in which an unarmed citizenry became armed, so there are precious few opportunities to demonstrate such a correlation.

[N9XR]

I agree, I would have been responsible in kindergarten with an HK!:p

Yeah. The next thing you know, children will lose their right to vote and to drink alcohol.

These nuts who think they can draw a line and determine who should not carry guns are totally against the constitution.

[KB3LIX]

Did you REALLY expect a different reaction from big city politicians and the media ??????

[KI4ZSZ]

Nobody needs a Street Sweeper for self defense or "their collection".


An actual "Street Sweeper" is a poorly designed South African semiautomatic 12 guage shotgun with a revolver type action. It is very slow to reload. I much prefer the Remington 870 12 guage shotgun with an 18.5" barrel. 4 rounds verses the 12 rounds of the "Street Sweeper", but a faster reload...it's also very well balanced and fits me very well.


Don't base your thoughts of what a citizen "should not be able to own because it has no sporting purpose" merely on appearance. Do some research into actual facts, not mere emotional reaction. Some of the most evil looking weapons (like the Tec-9) are some of the worst POS you will ever see, while the most innocent looking weapons (like your grandfather's hunting rifle) are very powerful, accurate, and effective.

On the same note, those who argue that the "Founding Fathers did not intend for us to have machine guns because they could not envision them" annoy me. Well, the Founding Fathers didn't know about radio, TV, or the internet. I do not argue for your 1st Amendment rights to be restricted, no matter far your opinions/beliefs are out of line with mine...

And remember, the Founding Fathers, with the memory of a Revolution recently concluded, put the provision of the 2nd Amendment in to ensure that the citizens had a final, last, ditch, measure to keep the government from going too far. They placed it 2nd in the Bill Of Rights, right next to the right to free speech unrestricted by the government (John Adams would try to restrict this with his Sedition Act). The 1st and 2nd Amendments are equally important, but the 2nd guards the 1st Amendment and the rest of the Constitution, whether you agree with it or not...

[KV1M]

Only in the context of a well regulated citizens militia.

[KI4ZSZ]

Only in the context of a well regulated citizens militia.

Citizens ARE the militia. The took their privatly owned weapons (muskets, rifles, AND cannon), gathered in groups, and went to war against the British gov't. I'm a CITIZEN, not a SUBJECT, like you are.

You don't even have a dog in this fight, anyway...ya'll have already given up your arms...

[ad5mb]

Aw, let KV1M alone.

Reading comprehension problems AND obsessive compulsive personality disorder. Has to make life unpleasant.

[KV1M]

Nice hate spewage, replacing Dilmus I see.

No, you alone are not a well regulated militia, you are a Jethro with a hand cannon. Comprehension problems seem to be yours to bear in this case.

As for ignorance, yours is showing dear.
We are citizens over here, not subjects. That ended before WWII.

And I am still a US citizen as well so I definitely have a dog in this fight.

[kq9j]

Welcome back folks, once again it's that exciting part of the program where I make my usual, predictable, and redundant comment, enjoy!

THEY AREN'T LIBERALS! IF THEY DON'T RESPECT CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED FREEDOMS THEN THEY AREN'T LIBERAL! PERIOD, END OF STORY! THAT WHOLE 'LIBERAL MEDIA' LOAD IS A BUNCH OF BS ANYWAY, THERE ARE JUST AS MANY 'CONSERVATIVE MEDIA' OUTLETS OUT THERE WHINING ABOUT WHAT THEY DON'T AGREE WITH.

liberal:
favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression.
free from prejudice or bigotry; open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.

We now return to our regularly scheduled left versus right stereotype bonanza!

All the right wing dittoheads haven't got the faintest clue that these "liberals" they constantly yap about are the farthest thing from "liberal" in the true sense of the word. By the above definition true liberals would align with neither the Democrat OR Republican parties these days. Both parties have done their best to usurp our personal liberties under the guise of either cradle to grave protection or moral leadership. Liberals strongly support the right of private citizens to bear arms.

[KB9YCO]

All the right wing dittoheads haven't got the faintest clue that these "liberals" they constantly yap about are the farthest thing from "liberal" in the true sense of the word... liberals would align with neither the Democrat OR Republican parties these days. Both parties have done their best to usurp our personal liberties under the guise of either cradle to grave protection or moral leadership. Liberals strongly support the right of private citizens to bear arms.

Exactly right, and the sooner that people start to realize that the two-party system is the problem and not the solution we might see a return to the liberal principals that this country was founded on. It's much of the media coupled with the big-money-fueled political propaganda that is the problem.
Unfortunately, people actually believe (no offense AD5MB) the following [in bold]:

liberal:
favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression.
free from prejudice or bigotry; open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.

I see your definition and raise you:
disingenuous (dĭs'ĭn-jĕn'yū-əs)

adj.
Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating: “an ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical operator, who … exemplified … the most disagreeable traits of his time” (David Cannadine).

Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-naïf.

Usage Problem. Unaware or uninformed; naive.


The meaning of words changes over time. You don't have to like that, but you can't stop it...

I couldn't disagree more, the meaning of the words have not changed, it's the propaganda perpetuated by the political power players and the media that want people to believe that certain words are "bad" and fit into a narrow stereotype that have changed, or at least worsened. Liberal being a perfect example of those misconceptions, actually conservative is quite misused these days as well. It mostly has to do with the furthering of various agendas, nothing to do with the meaning of the words themselves actually changing. Another large part of the problem is 'the people' swallowing up and believing the propagandist media (Rush Limbaugh, Air America, etc.) rather than using common sense or objectivity (or a dictionary!) The words haven't changed, they're still the same in every legitimate dictionary that I see, it's just that many of 'the people' have changed and gotten lazy, suspicious, non-thinking, generalizing, distrustful, accusatory, and looking to lay all the blame on anything and everything that they deem to be the 'other side' without really seeing the whole picture that have changed, and worsened. The words remain the same, people's misconceptions and fears change and the political powers use that to their advantage.

[AK7V]

How come people owning guns has been politicized?

[KI4ZSZ]

How come people owning guns has been politicized?

Because it's harder to install a totalitarian regime with an armed populace. And because it's easier to get people to lay down their arms when you ostracize them, labeling them as nutjobs and whackos. Only recently has militia become a dirty word, same as "gunowner".

you alone are not a well regulated militia, you are a Jethro with a hand cannon

KV1M, what about the British Home Guard during WWII? Oh, they were militia...private citizens who took up their arms to defend against the Nazi threat.

Alone I am a capable rifleman. Joined together with others like me, we can be a capable fighting force, even through we may be small in number. Our forefathers were private citizens who picked up their personal weapons and heeded the call to defend their country.

The early colonists of America considered the militia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia) an important social structure, necessary to defend their colonies from Indian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States) attacks. "They were a group of citizens who would be ready to fight in any emergency" All able-bodied males were expected to be members of the local militia, though in practice there were many possible exemptions to service including: conscientious objection, attendance at college and engagement in important business.

That quote is from Wikipedia on the general subject of Militias in the US.

Aw, let KV1M alone.

Reading comprehension problems AND obsessive compulsive personality disorder. Has to make life unpleasant.

But tweaking leftists is so fun!

[AK7V]

Too bad these guys didn't have a gun. My heart goes out to their families.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/robbery-may-have-been-motive-for-murder-of-french-students-860492.html

The bodies of M. Bonomo and M. Ferez were discovered late on Sunday evening after reports of a fire at the property. It was thought at first that they died in the fire but a pathologist later discovered that M. Bonomo had been stabbed 196 times, while M. Ferez was stabbed 47 times. Det Ch Insp Duthie said they were the worst injuries he had seen.

M. Bonomo's cousin Leo Bonomo, 51, visited the crime scene yesterday. "Our family in Europe are very shocked," he said. "There are slightly different cultures between here and mainland Europe. I think it's getting terrible over here. Knife crime is getting ridiculous and I know the Government are trying their best but a deterrent punishment is really the way to go."

[KV1M]

You are attacking your own straw man.
I NEVER said take away your guns or that you shouldn't be able to own firearms. Nice try though.

I did say that the 2nd does NOT cover private gun ownership, and it doesn't.
It covers gun ownership by militia members. Well regulated militias (the exact wording), not groups of Jethros with hand cannons and a score to settle. You example from Wikipedia even highlights this.

Your private ownership of a firearm when not a militia member is not covered under Constitution, though I do believe you should be able to own one anyway if you can prove that you aren't a total nutter and danger to your neighbors.
Probably not an assault weapon though, unless of course you are a militia member (a well regulated one at that) then it goes with the territory.

Got any more straw men you want to knock over? It really is funny to watch you guys set them up.

[w4glm]

"When guns are outlawed, only OUTLAWS will have guns"!!! :mad: That is an absolute truth! Funny thing about that. My Dad had a old shotgun that stood in the corner since 1953 only being used to shoot skeet, and some other sport shooting. Never fired in anger. I was NEVER allowed near it before the age of 10. At age 10, Dad showed me the basics of gun safety, firing it to demonstrate its power. He taught me to fear its devastation and to RESPECT its correct usage. At 13, I got to fire it under his watchful eye. I have never forgotten his rules.

Daddy is gone now, and the gun stands in MY corner just like it did for all these 50+ years. Never fired in anger. Never used to threaten. It is for the protection of me and my family and property. Break in my house while I am in residence, you get a warning. Keep coming and .....! GUNS DO NOT WALK OUT OF THE CORNER AND SEEK OUT VICTIMS TO KILL INDISCRIMINATELY. IT TAKES A PERSON WITH MOTIVE AND INTENTTO PULL THE TRIGGER! Anyone that thinks that removing guns from law-abiding citizens would abate crime is naive, or consumately stupid to say the least. Minus the gun, if I want to KILL someone badly enough, I can find a way. There are a couple of towns in the US where citizens (no felons, etc) are REQUIRED to have guns! Guess what! Contrary to what the el pinko liberals believe, CRIME rates FELL in those cities to unheard-of lows!!! Believe this, liberals: I-WILL-NOT-RELINQUISH-MY-GUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The REAL issue here is NOT the abatement of crime! It is about C O N T R O L!!!! Leftists simply cannot STAND the idea that MR and Mrs America can have the ability to control their own destiny and run their own lives!!! :mad: Its why we have "Socialistic IN-security!!!!!!! Any stupe knows that had that consistently-broke monster been handled corrrectly, most pensioners would be millionaires by now---or, at least, quite wealthy. Certainly not squeaking by on just a grand or two each month. NOOOOOOO! Couldn't have THAT, now could we!!! Why that would cause the masses to NEVER vote for their socialist sh-- policies. But each of the leftists' programs have been designed to do ONE thing: BUY votes from the "poor" to keep them AND their failed policies in power. Guns are just ONE facet of it. Libs, stay OUT of my life, go to the blazes and when they pry my gun out of my cold, dead hands (that never hurt anybody in 60 years)................................. :mad:

Jerry, my sentiments exactly,

Good on ya, I like your thoughts and style, you done good.

Liberals get over it.

I would like to meet you one day.....Mac

[W3MIV]

...the sooner that people start to realize that the two-party system is the problem and not the solution we might see a return to the liberal principals that this country was founded on.

Hate to tell you this, Brett, but those principles on which the country was founded embodied a sufficiency of ideological latitude that the two-party system was the result that provided the flexibility needed for this untried, large-scale republican idea to survive. From the very start, there was a wide gulf between the Federalists (an early analog of today's Right) and the newly coalesced Republicans (the analog of today's Left).

Thomas Jefferson "invented" the "party" in the modern sense, and he was instrumental in sanitizing the concept and lifting it above the notion of a cabal to be disdained. The party system survives because it works; but it only works well when there are two parties (and not a menagerie of splinter groups proclaiming independent demands) and those two parties offer clear and compelling differences in political philosophy.

The trouble today is that we suffer the effects of two widely separated wings of what is, in effect if not in name, a single party -- each espousing a radically differing doctrine in small things yet pursuing the same venal ends in the larger sense. The have become the two hands in a political shell game, one left and the other right, but still attached to the same buncombe artist who sets up his table every few years for the rubes.

The answer is not a third party, for such a clique will merely gravitate toward the center of cunning duplicity and finally blend itself into one or the other of the two halves of the black hole that now holds government captive at all levels. In the 220 years since the ratification of the Constitution, no third party has ever succeeded in doing anything more than acting in the role of spoiler and assuring the election of one or the other of the candidates of the major pair. In the final appraisal, one is forced to admit that the same result in every case could have been achieved without the intrusion of the extra party, and, indeed, the result may have been a far better one had the third party never existed to intrude.

The answer is to reform the existing parties. To return each to its core values, shorn of the shared attachments to incumbency and power that gradually rise like a fog to hide ideals behind a screen of personal interest. Much as was the case at the earliest phases of the evolutions that have transformed the present parties from many earlier components along the way, it is a process of properly melding a wide range of beliefs onto a single core of political focus.

It will never happen, of course, for the huddled masses cannot initiate reform, but only respond to it. Failing leaders who are willing to break out of the deep rut that politics in the US has worn in our path since the Depression (at least), no such reform is possible. A large part of the trouble today is to be found in the primary system of choosing candidates. A strong argument can be made that the nation was better served by the "smoke-filled rooms" of the earlier years when local political organizations came together to choose the strongest candidate as a tightly managed partisan selection.

[ka5s]

re: Media is Pissed about 2nd Amendment Rulling (sic)

Chalk that up to Tenth Floor Syndrome;its members say there's no useful intelligence below the Tenth Floor. Another variety, somewhat threadbare, says there's no one worth listening to West of the Hudson River.

Cortland
KA5S