Second Amendment Scholar: No Individual Right To Bear Arms
Fordham Professor Saul Cornell says our founders never intended the Second Amendment to give a green light for individual gun ownership.
He explained the history on radio with me Wednesday night.
Copyright 2015 Liberaland
jybarz December 10th, 2015 at 10:11
That’s right, not an individual gun right.
It’s gun nuts’ individual right to be stupid.
Aahh, let them shoot themselves, but unfortunately others like children are amongst the innocent victims.
Stupid, stupid, stupid!
Tommie December 10th, 2015 at 10:19
Haha, the republicans are going to go after this guy BIG time!
Chris December 10th, 2015 at 10:20
Now he needs to have an educational session with Justice Scalia.
To which he’d undoubtedly reply, “Applesauce!”
Dwendt44 December 10th, 2015 at 12:57
Not to mention Scalia has stated that there’s no reason why gun control can’t be implemented.
Maskof1000Faces December 10th, 2015 at 23:43
The SAME ‘Justice Scalia’ that thinks blacks should be in ‘slower’ schools?
Mmm-kay.
Paul Joe G December 13th, 2015 at 15:43
Liberals think blacks should be in slower schools. Hell, a couple of years back a school district in Berkeley, Ca did away with their science program because (black)kids were failing too much.
Red Eye Robot December 10th, 2015 at 10:30
The internet regrets to inform you that you lost this Argument June 26, 2008. Furthermore, there will never be any gun control legislation passed in an election year, Not even if the Democrats had 270/67 and the Whitehouse.
rg9rts December 10th, 2015 at 11:06
HEY GARY!!!!! HOWS IT HANGIN???????????
fahvel December 10th, 2015 at 12:03
some old folks have a drip, regular and annoying – reminds me of you.
bpollen December 11th, 2015 at 04:38
Yeah, cuz the Supremes never change rulings, right? Sure worked that way with the Voting Rights Act, Dred Scott, Roe v. Wade, Citizens United, the Miranda warning decision, and a ton of others you can find here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions
Your claims of victory are premature. Heard that about you in other areas too!
The Original Just Me December 10th, 2015 at 12:24
The United States of America is a Country founded upon the principle of One Government, Of the People, BY the People, and For the People. Therefore, If the majority of the People say the Amendment allows FREE ownership of Arms, then THAT is what it IS. Even the people who do not like guns will mostly say the Second Amendment allows private Citizen ownership of Arms. I am solidly behind the Right to Own and Bear Arms, BUT !, I am also against ANYONE owning a firearm that is specifically designed and engineered to only be used for KILLING PEOPLE. “BAN ASSUALT WEAPONS NOW !”
MyDogsAreSmarterThanYou December 10th, 2015 at 12:35
What does it matter if a weapon was designed for killing a person or killing a deer? Getting shot by the latter isn’t going to make you any less dead. The founders intended “the people” to have ready and free access to arms, if not to defend themselves, then to defend their country. Without going off the deep end, Americans should have access to the best weapons available.
The Original Just Me December 10th, 2015 at 12:45
There is a tremendous difference in an Assault for Human Killing gun and a fine firearm. I once had the PLEASURE of shooting a $3,500 12 gauge, side by side, Skeet gun. Yes , it would kill a Human but that would be such a waste of such a Fine piece of firearm when a baseball bat would do the job. And there Ain’t nobody going to outlaw a LouisVille Slugger.
MyDogsAreSmarterThanYou December 10th, 2015 at 13:11
Would the shotgun have evaporated after you shot it?
You could conduct an experiment and see what travels faster: a bullet or the end of a bat. I’d prefer to be the one holding the firearm in that particular test, but that’s me.
Maskof1000Faces December 10th, 2015 at 23:32
Dude… America outlawed lawn darts and Kinder eggs because of ‘safety’ reasons… so GTFOOH with that ‘ain’t nobody gonna’ stuff.
The Original Just Me December 11th, 2015 at 14:36
Do you have an anger management problem that needs seeing to?
Maskof1000Faces December 11th, 2015 at 14:54
Not at all, merely dissecting a rather poor argument. (y)
bpollen December 11th, 2015 at 23:54
Jarts didn’t have an a front organization in possession of an entire party. There was no National Lawn Darts Association with massive funding by Lawn Dart companies and Lawn Dart owners.
bpollen December 10th, 2015 at 19:47
Firearms (and cannons) were developed for warfare. Like with nuclear power, the first to come is the weapon, then comes the civilian uses.
granpa.usthai December 10th, 2015 at 23:57
nothing in the 2nd about ‘going off the deep end’ either – pure conjecture by NRA propagandist.
Nukes work on the exact same principle as bullets (only with a bit heftier outcome) primer-detonator-chain reaction in a confined area to produce force.
dewired4u December 10th, 2015 at 13:12
not quit, here are a few that the majority were for the were found unconstitutional: slavery, voting rights for women and minorities, a women’s right to chose, the right to marry who you chose, etc.
amongoose December 10th, 2015 at 17:02
” If the majority of the People say the Amendment allows FREE ownership of Arms, then THAT is what it IS”
.
No, that’s a democracy, we are a republic.
The right to bear arms is codified by the Constitution, not public opinion.
The supreme court seems to disagree, they say it IS an individual right.
And as with all it’s decisions it must be accepted as settled law, right?
bpollen December 10th, 2015 at 19:42
“Current Law.” Not “settled law”.
As Dred Scott and Citizens United shows, the Court changes its mind.
tracey marie December 10th, 2015 at 20:10
yet your kind on the right push and pass VOTER RIGHTS.
amongoose December 10th, 2015 at 20:33
Yep, the civil rights act was passed thanks to Republican votes.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/10/politics/civil-rights-act-interesting-facts/
tracey marie December 10th, 2015 at 20:39
had to stretch backwards…now, focus, we are talking about you and the present.
amongoose December 11th, 2015 at 07:47
Well then until the supremes strip the right away we still have i, the right to bear arms.
Why can I not protect myself and family?
Because some people aren’t good with guns so we all have to have them taken away?
My right to self defense trumps your right not to feel uncomfortable.
danvail December 11th, 2015 at 07:52
Here’s the problem in a nutshell – I could care less what guns you own – just don’t parade down the street wearing them showing how tough you are – keep them at home and use them for defense AT HOME – if and when the US Government calls out the militia – then bring them out – AS INTENDED. Walking down the street fully armed, locked and loaded – is looking to either intimidate or kill – one of the two.
If you are locked and loaded walking down my street – I will become locked and loaded to protect myself – see how this works?
amongoose December 11th, 2015 at 08:06
So I have no right to self defense when I’m outside my home?
Don’t like open carry because it exposes the weapon and makes it easier to disarm you.
But I do carry everywhere I go. I don’t patronize businesses who by their choice do not permit weapons in their establishments, because I don’t care to be put in a position to be a victim.
.
But if I’m “locked and loaded” and posing no threat, especially with concealed carry, what is the problem?
Last time I shot somebody I was in a O.D. green uniform.
The problem isn’t legal CHL/CCW carriers, it’s criminals with guns they aren’t legally allowed to have that are the problem.
The San Bernardino killers got their rifles through a straw buyer (illegal), modified them to accept detachable magazines (illegal), built pipe bombs (also illegal), so how many more laws would have stopped them?
Legal gun owners aren’t the problem. CCW holders are the ones following the law.
Obewon December 11th, 2015 at 08:49
LMAO! “But I do carry everywhere I go”-LowTekRedNeck BOO! Make that 2 cases of Depends adult diapers to go…
danvail December 11th, 2015 at 17:12
No you have no right to walk down a public street with an assault rifle slung over your shoulder for no other purpose than you think you can. You can bring it out – advise you not to walk down my street with it – I take guns seriously – you bring one out to me I assume you are going to use it and act accordingly.
That’s it in a nutshell – simple.
Jimmy Fleck December 11th, 2015 at 17:35
Actually, in some states at least, that is exactly the right that the public has.
amongoose December 11th, 2015 at 18:09
You would shoot someone walking down your street with a slung rifle?
Unless they are threatening you or others in the neighborhood with that rifle,
that’s murder.
.
Most of those open carry advocates carry that rifle over their back, many muzzle down, that’s a long process to unsling from that position and fire.
If you have a rifle sling it that way and check your response time.
danvail December 12th, 2015 at 12:42
The whole point is – in a nutshell – common sense. When you are walking down the street with an assault rifle designed to kill people – some might take you seriously. There is no need to walk down the street with an assault rifle in an urban setting. There is only two purposes for doing this intimidation or assault. Neither is acceptable.
amongoose December 12th, 2015 at 13:51
So a non “assault rifle” would be acceptable?
Like I said before, the man with a rifle slung over his back is not a danger due to the slinging of the weapon.
Do you own a rifle?
If you do sling it, barrel down, over your back and time how long it takes to make it ready for usage.
.
Rights cannot be determined by what bothers people, or makes them uncomfortable.
Personally, don’t believe in open carry, makes it too easy to disarm you.
But rights are rights.
If you don’t like a law, work to change it.
whatthe46 December 12th, 2015 at 14:11
it’s not a danger to anyone, until he decides to use it.
bpollen December 11th, 2015 at 23:50
“But if I’m “locked and loaded” and posing no threat…”
Somehow, if somebody so scared that they have to go EVERYWHERE armed, I have serious doubts about their own estimation of the threat they pose. That lady shooting across a parking lot at shoplifters didn’t think she presented a threat either. She thought she was “helping.” Bet everybody in that parking lot agreed that wanton firing in parking lot poses no threat.
The problem isn’t legal CHL/CCW carriers, it’s criminals with guns…
Tell that to the family of the victims in Oregon, the victims of Charles Carl Roberts, victims of Seung-Hui Cho and Jared Lee Loughner and Nidal Malik Hassan and James Holmes and Tyler Peterson (whose weapon was given to him by – The Sherrif’s Department!) and other legal owners. Every owner is not a criminal until he is. Does it make it better if the gun was legal? Are you less dead?
amongoose December 12th, 2015 at 08:24
I’m not scared, because I am armed and able to defend me and mine.
Have never had to pull it, and hope I never do, my wife pulled hers in public once, no shots fired, when confronted,the perps ran.
.
You can’t stop all the worlds crazies. Laws don’t stop criminals, that’s why they are criminals.
bpollen December 10th, 2015 at 22:48
Great. 51 years ago Republicans made a sensible decision. That sure rebuts complaints about how they are behaving almost two generations later. This year they are protecting the rights of terrorists to own guns. Considering that the national median age is 36, most people probably aren’t impressed by what Rs did waaaay before they were born. They are, on average, more concerned with the present.
Got anything comparable in THIS millennium?
amongoose December 11th, 2015 at 07:42
Guns for terrorists, are you referring to the no fly list?
If you are the list is the problem, it is a violation of the fourth, and fifth amendments. Have you done any looking at that no fly list? The ways you are put on it, and the almost non-existent procedures for getting off of it are Orwellian.
You are denied rights without any judicial oversight. There is no judicial review or any oversight of it.
.
Used to be liberals believed in personal freedom and rights, what happened?
bpollen December 11th, 2015 at 23:34
If you are the list is the problem”
Yet, I don’t hear any of the Republicans saying a DAMN thing about fixing the list. I don’t hear a Damn thing about HOW to fix the list. I hear Repubs and Conservs that ask why those on the list are even in the country. The same damn people who don’t want to restrict the ability of the people they don’t think should be hear to purchase weapons.
I believe in personal freedom and rights. But I despise the hypocrisy. Guess which party is responsible for the no-fly list? Guess which party has done nothing to correct the errors on the no-fly list that they created? Name the Republican who has offered a bill to correct the no-fly list. I’ll wait. To say that the errors of one thing prevent you from doing another when you refuse to do anything about the former, that’s the very definition of hypocrisy.
amongoose December 12th, 2015 at 08:24
“I don’t hear any of the Republicans saying a DAMN thing about fixing the list. I don’t hear a Damn thing about HOW to fix the list. ”
.
Neither do I, both parties seem to have decided we serfs are just that.
Why aren’t democrats making a fuss over it as well?
Aren’t they the party who professes to protect civil liberties?
granpa.usthai December 10th, 2015 at 23:51
until it winds up back @ the supreme court. In the meantime, how do they justify banning some ARMS, but not others when there is absolutely NO ban of any arms listed?
THERMO NUKES FOR ALL!
christian_928 December 11th, 2015 at 09:26
I don’t think so. I believe supreme court decisions can, and in some cases, should be revisited. I sincerely hope the citizens United decision is not only revisited but rewritten as we need to agree corporations are NOT people and money is not speech. When a corporation can go to prison then I will agree they are people but not until!
The Original Just Me December 11th, 2015 at 14:33
Do to the size of population, Yes, we have a representative form of government. But, it is the Democratic process of general population voting that determines who Represents us. Therefore it is supposed to be our majority views that are presented to the government. It is Too Bad that it doesn’t work as it was laid out.
amongoose December 11th, 2015 at 14:53
That’s the way it was set up by the founders. A representative republic to protect borders, and rights. Each state was to be an individual experiment in democracy.
.
Oh, and change that first word before the grammar nazis see it.
The Original Just Me December 11th, 2015 at 15:01
I will DUE that. Unified national defense and to regulate Interstate commerce. That was the main reason for the Unification of the 13 original states.
christian_928 December 11th, 2015 at 09:22
Actually that is NOT correct. The majority of people don’t have anything at all to do with the constitutionality of a given issue. It either is it isn’t regardless of what the citizenry may or may not want. For example, if a majority of the people in this country wanted to make it illegal for Jews to own property they wouldn’t be able to do that. Such a law wouldn’t pass constitutional muster and would there for be invalidated even if 90% of Americans wanted it.
The Original Just Me December 11th, 2015 at 14:29
What you say is true. But, the Constitution CAN be Amended to anything. This process requires that the people vote, in each state, to Ratify the Amendment. Therefore, it is the People who determine what is in the Constitution. It is a long and lengthy process which can prove quite difficult. but If the will of the people is strong enough, anything can be done OR undone.
Jimmy Fleck December 11th, 2015 at 17:33
Agreed. So those that want to remove the 2nd Amendment already have their path laid out for them. I suggest they start asking political candidates to run for office on the platform that they will vote to repeal the 2nd Amendment. If the vast majority of the population agrees then these candidates will win in a landslide. It will naturally follow that 3/4ths of the states would easily ratify the repeal as again a vast majority support the removal of the 2nd Amendment. Then all of the gun laws they want passed will fly through the new Congress and be approved by the Supreme court if anyone were to challenge them.
Bladen December 11th, 2015 at 17:31
Assault rifles are military weapons capable of automatic fire. They cannot be bought in a gun store. The rifles that the media calls assault rifles are not assault rifles they are just rifles with cosmetic flourishes. Automatic firing weapons have been banned from the public since the 20s. So you are safe,
James Chant December 11th, 2015 at 18:23
“Therefore, If the majority of the People say the Amendment allows FREE ownership of Arms, then THAT is what it IS.”
Ah… no. The Founders wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights with the idea of protecting the rights of the individual, not the majority.
In their view, when the majority ruled over the individual, there was tyranny.
You are also wrong about modern military firearms being “specifically designed and engineered to only be used for KILLING PEOPLE”.
Anyone who actually understands firearms will tell you they, and the ammo they use, are actually designed – on purpose – more to wound than kill. Why? Because a wounded soldier requires two other soldiers to remove them from the battlefield, thus reducing the number of enemy combatants you face. Dead soldiers just get left there until the battle is over while their comrades fight on.
You should also know that ammo purposely designed to kill is outlawed on the battlefield. In fact, if you were caught in combat with such ammo by the enemy, you would most likely have been executed on the spot.
You in fact stand a better chance of survival being shot several times by a modern military firearm and ammo, then you do being shot just once by a modern hunting rifle, or even the “lowly” musket ball.
Most people don’t realize that the AK-47 round, and the popular .30-30 Winchester deer hunting round are ballistically almost the same. However, many people have survived being shot in the chest by a AK-47. But not many people have survived being shot in the chest by the .30-30. That’s because one is purposely designed to wound, and the other is design to kill and kill with one shot.
And no. If you say you are for the right to keep and bear arms, and then add a “but”… you actually are not for that right at all. And its obvious you don’t understand what the term “arms” means.
The Original Just Me December 11th, 2015 at 22:26
that is quite a discourse. The main complaint I read about form our soldiers is the no knock down power of their ammo. If you do hit something, it only leaves a puncture wound and not a knock down hit. The ammo is made more for armor piercing and not stopping power. Also I was taught that tyranny was when the Minority ruled the Majority by force. The Bill of rights is to Protect the rights of the People and does not designate Minority or Majority.
James Chant December 12th, 2015 at 00:24
FMJ (Full Metal Jacket) ammo is designed to do that, so it is more survivable. It does not expand to transfer the bullet’s energy into the body. If the military wanted the bullet to achieve it’s full effectiveness to kill, they would have used a expanding bullet like a soft-point or a hollow-point. Both of those are illegal to use in warfare because of that reason, as they are less survivable.
It is however, not armor-piercing. Those have a steel core, not a lead core.
This is one reason why the German’s complained about the Allies using shotguns in trench warfare in WWI. Soft lead Buckshot and Slugs were definitely less survivable than a FMJ rifle round. People don’t understand that the musket ball was even worse. That would hit bone and just shatter it, sending bone shrapnel through the body. You could take a hit in a limb with a modern military round and have a good chance of keeping it. Not so with a musket ball, you were going to loose that limb for certain.
Nope, not the minority or the majority, the individual’s rights are to be protected. Otherwise there is tyranny. The basis for the Constitution and Bill of Rights is your rights end where another person’s rights begin. No one person or group is above anyone else. No one person or group can infringe upon the rights of another.
The basis of Constitutional Law is pretty much the same. The idea is you are free to do as you please, as long as you do not infringe upon the life, liberty, or property of another living human soul.
MyDogsAreSmarterThanYou December 10th, 2015 at 12:38
George Mason would like to tell the lot of you to take a hike.
PlanB December 10th, 2015 at 17:57
Jews didn’t have the right to own property in most of Europe and now he is going to tell me something about gun ownership? Idiot.
bpollen December 10th, 2015 at 19:40
Yeah, cuz Jews in Europe were covered by the American Constitution.
PlanB December 10th, 2015 at 21:28
No…Napoleon let them settle in Poland and own land. Do you know what a history book is?
bpollen December 10th, 2015 at 22:29
Yeah. I actually HAVE a number of them. That’s where I learned that Napoleon wasn’t covered by the Constitution of the US either, so what he did has no bearing. What happened in Europe in the past to Jews doesn’t really affect whether or not you can control guns. Nor does the history of other pogroms of the oppressed and/or minorities. Can’t talk gun control cuz – Hittites, Midianites, Amorites, and then the Christian victims like Jews, Albigensians, Cathars, Muslims, Manichaeans, Waldensians, Paulikians, Runcarians, Josephites and more. Just look at what the Hutus did to the Tutsis – That proves you can’t talk about gun control. And the attempted genocide of Native American populations. Tamerlane attempted genocide – can’t talk about guns. So did Genghis. No talking about gun control because cuz – Zulus!
I do know about history. Enough to know that what happened to the Jews in Europe has been a theme running throughout recorded history. Egyptians and Babylonians and Assyrians and Greeks and Romans all conquered Israel, took their stuff, murdered many. By your standard, NEVER would be the time to talk about gun control
granpa.usthai December 10th, 2015 at 23:48
Napoleon did sell a lot of land to US though. Land that we could have just claimed like we did from the native Americans – some land that Russia had laid claim to, land that for a thousand years before Columbus came along the Chinese were camping on while they did trade with Central and South American native empires.
bpollen December 11th, 2015 at 01:48
But the French represented a much greater threat than the Native Americans. And the Franco-American Alliance from the Revolutionary War had only officially ended a couple of years before. They had quite the army, and were supposedly our allies (and supposedly civilized, Christian, and white.) Made buying the land a much more sensible choice.
Much easier to justify taking it if they are “savages” and “pagans.”
PlanB December 11th, 2015 at 16:51
The French in the US were mostly trappers, fur traders and Jesuits.
bpollen December 11th, 2015 at 17:04
Your point being?
PlanB December 11th, 2015 at 18:44
They have tiny forts that spotted the US and they did not control the whole territory enough to own the land. It’s almost a Papal thing. As if every Catholic church meant that the Vatican City owned all the countries it was in.
bpollen December 11th, 2015 at 22:43
France (you know, where the French come from) had one of the most powerful armies in the world at that time. We would still be British if it wasn’t for the French. So, I ask again, your point is?
PlanB December 12th, 2015 at 00:44
And we would speak German if it wasn’t for the English. How stupid are you?
bpollen December 12th, 2015 at 00:48
Got a cite, link, corroborating evidence about the Germanification of America? Of course not. You are totally fact free.
PlanB December 12th, 2015 at 01:18
You mean like most of the world nationalizing the oil in their ground while foreign corporations plunder the US’s. No. Don’t have those facts around.
bpollen December 12th, 2015 at 01:36
Obviously, the answer to my question is NO. Because you provided diddly.
PlanB December 11th, 2015 at 16:50
Yeah, isn’t that interesting that the French and Russians could sell land they the hardly owned or hardly controlled. Sort of like the Spanish selling to the Indians before they allowed independence of their uncontrollable territories.
PlanB December 11th, 2015 at 03:38
Maybe the jews shouldn’t have been the tax collectors for the Roman Empire. My belief is that guns are the greatest equalizer on the planet. Sounds like a lot of jews don’t want people equal unless they are going to run the show. What jewish programs do you watch?
bpollen December 11th, 2015 at 04:25
“Maybe the jews shouldn’t have been the tax collectors for the Roman Empire”
If all the Jews were tax collectors, who were they collecting from? In Judea. Amongst the Jews. And didn’t the Christians canonize one of those Jewish tax collectors?
“My belief is that guns are the greatest equalizer on the planet.”
How wonderful for you. Facts would be more useful.
“Sounds like a lot of jews don’t want people equal unless they are going to run the show.”
Maybe if you avoid Stormfront, you’ll hear less anti-Semitic sounds
“What jewish programs do you watch?”
My TV Guide doesn’t list religion of programs. Which one does? Do the programs have to have a Jewish mother to be considered Jewish?
Now, your gun fetish and antisemitism are pretty apparent, but what the hell you are talking about is not. If you can try the rational approach, maybe we can discuss. Otherwise, Cletus, humoring your delusions is counter-productive.
PlanB December 11th, 2015 at 16:48
Oh god, go back to watching NBC and CNN. The commies still love you. Oh, and screw your god too.
bpollen December 11th, 2015 at 17:05
Thanks ever so much for the mature response. I really appreciate you spending SO much time to think of just the right intellectual argument.
PlanB December 11th, 2015 at 18:45
And you refer to Stormfront…gtfo.
bpollen December 11th, 2015 at 22:42
Yes, I did. Because that’s a hang-out for you anti-Semites.
PlanB December 12th, 2015 at 00:45
Maybe I went to an all self hating jewish school. There are plenty of them out there.
bpollen December 12th, 2015 at 00:46
Maybe? If you don’t know, the fault is yours.
PlanB December 12th, 2015 at 01:19
I hate that. Cause there isn’t no way of knowing. It’s almost as if I have to do research all on my own or have some liberal jewish professor tell me to look at all the facts about gun ownership.
bpollen December 12th, 2015 at 01:36
Again, your ignorance about your education is YOUR problem.
As is your Antisemitism.
PlanB December 12th, 2015 at 07:47
I don’t care for comic book religions. Fake off.
PlanB December 12th, 2015 at 00:56
You ever hear of diaspora and how Jews got all through Europe of the fact that the Kremlin was made to look like something from Jerusalem? They were easily recognized by Romans and were very good with extracting taxes from the populace. After the fall of Rome, there was an amazing amount of hatred of these tax collectors (does it even matter that most of them were jewish) and at the first opportunity the were purged, shunned or forced to be second class citizens or just not allowed to own property.
bpollen December 12th, 2015 at 01:07
Bigot claims that Jewish history disproves gun control? Ignorant.
Anti-Semite pontificating on the diaspora to prove that all Jews were tax collectors? Priceless.
PlanB December 12th, 2015 at 01:14
And you can’t refute anything. Jews didn’t have property until people had guns. Please go back to the rock you originated. No parent would ever claim you.
bpollen December 12th, 2015 at 01:32
Prove that Jews owned nothing until guns were invented.
I’ll wait. Of course, you have to provide proof from 1700 BCE to at least 1300 AD when firearms were invented. And since you claim that they COULD own property after that invention, please explain the MIddle Ages.
PlanB December 12th, 2015 at 07:53
Guns brought down kings. So many jews in the US that owned slaves, owned property too. Judah P. Benjamin practically ran the Confederacy. How you like those apples?
bpollen December 12th, 2015 at 16:18
Whoopee. Still no facts. Still no explanation how “Jews” disproves gun control. Still no explanation for “Jews owned nothing prior to the invention of firearms” that you claim. In point of fact, you haven’t backed up anything you’ve said.
Big mouth on an empty head.
PlanB December 12th, 2015 at 08:55
And this jew is telling me that the constitution barred people from owning guns and it’s all found in the Bill of Rights. Piss off comic book religion sell out.
tracey marie December 11th, 2015 at 23:17
inbred
PlanB December 12th, 2015 at 00:38
floozie
bpollen December 12th, 2015 at 02:23
You ARE smarp! Smarp as a whit!
PlanB December 12th, 2015 at 07:39
drone bzzzz
bpollen December 12th, 2015 at 16:03
No facts. Continuous fail.
tracey marie December 10th, 2015 at 20:09
hahahaha, you believe there are fema camps…bwahahahaha
PlanB December 10th, 2015 at 21:27
you have something to say?
bpollen December 10th, 2015 at 22:33
Was it tough for you to understand?
Statement: definite or clear expression of something in speech or writing.
Pretty clear and definite that she ridiculed you (since you are confused, that means “made fun of you.”)
PlanB December 11th, 2015 at 16:47
Shut up. You have nothing to contribute.
bpollen December 11th, 2015 at 17:10
Such devastating wit! Such incisive commentary!
“Shut up.” Did you think that one up yourself? Awesome!
You’re like the George Armstrong Custer of comebacks!
PlanB December 11th, 2015 at 18:39
retard
bpollen December 11th, 2015 at 22:59
You’re really straining your vocabulary.
Apparently don’t have enough wit to manage anything other than insult.
Must make you really proud when you can’t match wits with those you called retarded.
PlanB December 12th, 2015 at 00:41
nothing but insults from trashy democrats, go play with your fellow criminals who want to ban guns.
bpollen December 12th, 2015 at 00:52
I know 6 year old’s better at insults than you. They also argue better.
I didn’t realize that you were a trashy democrat. Thanks for claiming it. Trashy democrat blowhard that loses arguments to those he thinks are retarded. Yo mama must be SO proud!
“Mama, Mama, I lost to a retard!”
PlanB December 12th, 2015 at 01:16
Drone on.
bpollen December 12th, 2015 at 01:43
No facts. More fail.
bpollen December 12th, 2015 at 01:48
Facts? Nope.
tracey marie December 11th, 2015 at 23:17
asshole and inbred
PlanB December 12th, 2015 at 00:38
floozie with more holes than I.
tracey marie December 11th, 2015 at 23:17
stfu
tracey marie December 10th, 2015 at 22:38
http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/2917/168/original.jpg
PlanB December 11th, 2015 at 03:39
HAHA, found one.
bpollen December 11th, 2015 at 23:22
A clue?
Darlene December 11th, 2015 at 06:50
The history of the Jewish people has nothing to do with Cornell, anymore than the history of your ancestors has anything to do with you. He is an educated man, and an expert on this topic. Are you?
PlanB December 11th, 2015 at 16:46
Saul, Paul or none at all. This is to say that a man has a right to defend himself. No educated man is going to say he is the authoritarian figure on the subject. Gun make people equal. And educated or king they will all bow down to the power of gun ownership. Cause he who owns the guns do not have to bow down to every rule that a government may make because every man is flawed but every man strives to be at least equal to every king.
bpollen December 11th, 2015 at 22:53
Guns make people equal? Howzabout if they have MORE guns, or BIGGER guns, or more people WITH guns?
“…they will all bow down to the power of gun ownership.”
Really? You own a gun and people with frickin’ armies bow down to you? I think the Native Americans prove pretty conclusively that simply HAVING guns doesn’t make armies surrender. David Koresh had guns and the FBI didn’t bow.
“Cause he who owns the guns do not have to bow down…”
The Confederacy begs to differ. Custer had rifles at Wounded Knee.
PlanB December 12th, 2015 at 00:43
Spain had an army. What happened with the history of Spain? Let’s talk Europe where they ban guns first and then we will get to more important places like land of Indians or something.
bpollen December 12th, 2015 at 00:48
Nobody but you is talking about Spain. Got a fact? Nope, not so far.
PlanB December 12th, 2015 at 01:16
Oh gosh. Drone on.
bpollen December 12th, 2015 at 01:42
No facts. More fail.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/70eb1bd3e7573552c5dd7670898c32c5f5560d6b71899c45df65ba9edede8de1.jpg
whatthe46 December 12th, 2015 at 01:37
was your father’s plan b to abort?
PlanB December 12th, 2015 at 07:46
Abort? You mean kill? Or do you mean to shove a coat hanger up someones genital region without any consequences? What is this abort?
whatthe46 December 12th, 2015 at 01:37
this guy is an idiot.
bpollen December 12th, 2015 at 01:47
I think you over-estimate him…. (heheheheh)
tracey marie December 11th, 2015 at 23:19
your guns give you a false sense of security because you have nothing else to feel like a man or ebven empowered.
PlanB December 12th, 2015 at 00:37
not when there is so many stupid women around
whatthe46 December 12th, 2015 at 01:36
you must really hate your mother. learned to hate women from your father/grandfather, one in the same?
PlanB December 12th, 2015 at 07:47
Go vote for Hillary and prove my point.
Maskof1000Faces December 12th, 2015 at 14:57
Voting for a woman wouldn’t in any way prove your point that ‘women r teh stupid’…
PlanB December 12th, 2015 at 01:20
The police use them. Stupid woman.
whatthe46 December 12th, 2015 at 01:35
don’t call her stupid! get it together ok! and your statement is like comparing apples to oranges. so, i guess you’re ok with nuts, criminals and psycho’s, right to buy weapons. any civilian, that feels the need to carry a gun, or assault weapon into the grocery store, is fk’n nuts.
PlanB December 12th, 2015 at 07:51
So someone grabs a knife in the grocery store and comes at you with it…you are in a wheelchair and have full use of your hands. Guns are the solution to that problem. Apples and oranges grow on trees and people compare prices, color and over all value about eating them. Stupid.
Maskof1000Faces December 12th, 2015 at 14:56
Someone grabs a knife in the grocery store and walks up behind the person with the gun in the wheelchair and stabs them in the back of the head.
Gun defense nullified.
Making fantasy bullshit scenarios up on the fly is fun!
PlanB December 12th, 2015 at 00:51
He isn’t an expert. He is a paid lackey by “the establishment” to spew propaganda in favor for their agenda. Let’s discuss the meaning of “regulate” to prove my point and his propaganda agenda.
christian_928 December 11th, 2015 at 09:12
I’m sorry, what kind of idiotic comment is this? What the hell does Jews being able own property Europe in the far past have to do with the United States constitution and the rights it grants American citizens? Its so like a right winger to start throwing out bigoted nonsense when they have nothing to add to a discussion! Go back to your video games the grown ups are talking now!
piotr1600 December 11th, 2015 at 14:30
The BOR does NOT grant rights.
Period.
Those rights exist simply for us being alive. The BOR explicitly enumerates some of the most important of our rights, but these are by no means all of them.
And any ‘scholar’ who cannot ascertain by both wording and reading the writings of the founders where they explicitly DO intend for all the first 10 rights to be *individual * rights is blind ideologue denying reality.
PlanB December 11th, 2015 at 16:43
Someone gets it.
bpollen December 11th, 2015 at 23:02
And where did you become a constitutional scholar? What’s your CV? Where’d you matriculate? What University do you teach at?
See, most of us will buy the word of people who actually have studied the subject in school over some rube on the interwebs.
MyDogsAreSmarterThanYou December 12th, 2015 at 09:50
None of these things are required to understand the Constitution.
bpollen December 12th, 2015 at 13:50
You don’t have to have a medical degree to physically perform surgery but that doesn’t mean I’d let you operate. You don’t have to be a lawyer to represent someone, but I wouldn’t take advice from a yutz on the internet over the advice of an actual lawyer. You don’t have to be a climate scientist to understand global warming, but that doesn’t mean I’m gonna put all my money behind Sen. Inhofe getting it right. You don’t have to be a pilot to understand flight, but I’d rather have someone trained sitting in the cockpit.
If you put your expertise above those who have actually studied the subject, I need some offer of proof of your competence before I find you more credible than the professional. “Yes, Bubba, you think I have the blahs, but my doctor says I have lung cancer. What do doctors know?”
piotr1600 December 12th, 2015 at 22:01
I pity you.
bpollen December 12th, 2015 at 22:56
So you have no expertise.
PlanB December 11th, 2015 at 16:40
Know your history before you talk to me. Back to school for you.
christian_928 December 11th, 2015 at 17:12
I have no need to go back to school to speak to you or anyone else. The fact remains that your comment has NOTHING to Do with The subject. Black people were considered to be 3/5 of a human being and were not eligible to own property either but that STILL has NOTHING to do with it. You’re another one of those people who have no actual point based in reality so you spew out nonsense. You don’t need to come to an internet thread to sureptitiously declare your racism. Why don’t you go stand on a street corner with a sign telling everyone you hate Jews or whoever else? That would be equally as useful as you pretending to have a clue here.
PlanB December 11th, 2015 at 18:38
Maybe I am atheist and hate all idiots who think their comic books are better than mine. Meantime stfu. I don’t need some idiot telling me what the constitution says or what he thinks it means. I know what the word regulate means, that jewboy doesn’t. So suck it.
bpollen December 11th, 2015 at 23:04
Again, you just show that you have nothing other than insult to contribute. And every time you throw out insults rather than rational arguments, you make it clear that you have to stay in the shallow end of the intellectual pool. And the anti-Semitism shows that you need water-wings even IN the shallow end.
PlanB December 12th, 2015 at 00:40
anti-semite? What does that mean? I hate people from Jordan? Or I am not letting people from that area rule over me? Fuckccccccccc UUUUUUUUUUUU
bpollen December 12th, 2015 at 00:56
I’m not here to teach you English. You made it here, you can go to the Google machine and edumacate your own self.
Again, no facts, just insults. As if you had a motto of “Have keyboard, will derp!” What a hollow man.
PlanB December 12th, 2015 at 01:15
Shut up, your English skills bore me.
bpollen December 12th, 2015 at 01:43
No fact. More fail.
Maskof1000Faces December 12th, 2015 at 03:55
Two complete thoughts… they should be separated not by a comma but a semi-colon, or – more-accurately – a period.
Capitalize the ‘y’ in ‘your’, please, as it would then be beginning of a sentence.
… speaking of ‘English skills’…
PlanB December 12th, 2015 at 07:38
asno
PlanB December 12th, 2015 at 07:56
What is a semite? Small semi? You used the word first…tell me what your name calling word means? Doesn’t mean a comic book religion does it?
bpollen December 12th, 2015 at 16:06
Up to you to enlighten yourself about words.
Suggestion? A dictionary. Or Google it.
tracey marie December 11th, 2015 at 23:20
stfu…that is all you have besides stupid trolling
PlanB December 12th, 2015 at 00:37
says the troll
whatthe46 December 12th, 2015 at 01:54
do you tell your mammy/sister, one in the same to suck it? furthermore, there was a time when black people were not allowed to own property. homeschooling did you some serious damage. bassackwards idiot.
PlanB December 12th, 2015 at 07:44
Please tell me if a slave didn’t own a boat, have a wife, own a book or did they have it codified in law that black/slaves could not own property? Where is your source for this information?
PlanB December 12th, 2015 at 00:48
wait…you are saying the government didn’t allow blacks to own property? Where exactly do you get this information? Just prove it or stfu with your stupidity.
bpollen December 12th, 2015 at 02:21
No. Reading comprehension is an issue for you, obviously. Slaves WERE property. They couldn’t own property based on what were called Slave Codes.
Here’s the Britannica, a much more credible source than a fact-free stooge on the intertubes:
http://www.britannica.com/topic/slave-code
PlanB December 12th, 2015 at 07:42
So you are saying only blacks were slaves? Maybe they were called something else back then. And you are saying they didn’t own a whip, fork or personal property or they didn’t own land? But I fail to see anything where it says it’s illegal for slaves to own property. Where is your legal source? Do you know how to research? Or you just spouting off again?
Darlene December 12th, 2015 at 10:27
You can read all about it here…http://www.ushistory.org/us/6f.asp
bpollen December 12th, 2015 at 16:21
History says blacks were slaves.
And I gave you a source. If you want further info, look it the hell up.
tracey marie December 11th, 2015 at 23:21
how about you try school
PlanB December 12th, 2015 at 00:36
and learn punctuation or how to be a punk?
Maskof1000Faces December 12th, 2015 at 03:52
Capitalize ‘and’, please. Sentences begin with capital letters.
… y’know… while we’re on the topic of grammar, and all…
“People in glass houses…” and all that.
PlanB December 12th, 2015 at 07:39
more asno
Carla Akins December 12th, 2015 at 08:41
I am sorry I didn’t catch this entire exchange sooner, that said you have taken a legitimate opposition view and turned into a trolling session. You are done here.
Darlene December 11th, 2015 at 06:47
For all of you who wish to keep your guns based on the 2nd amendment: Be prepared to be called to war to defend this country. The right to bear arms was so that everyone could be part of the militia…the pre-cursor to our current military.
William December 11th, 2015 at 09:42
Be prepared to be called to war to defend this country”.
PlanB December 11th, 2015 at 16:42
Exactly.
Alistair December 11th, 2015 at 17:13
Actually Darlene, it’s arguable that the militias are more like our current day National Guard.
tracey marie December 11th, 2015 at 23:10
why are they not enlisting?
Paul Joe G December 13th, 2015 at 15:27
10 U.S. Code § 311 – Militia: composition and classes
(a)
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
MyDogsAreSmarterThanYou December 12th, 2015 at 09:27
No, militias are most definitely not the precursor to the modern military. The US Army was established in 1775, and militias fought in the Revolution with the Army.
Darlene December 12th, 2015 at 09:33
Word Origin and History for militiaExpand
n.1580s, “system of military discipline,” from Latin militia “military service,warfare,” from miles “soldier” (see military ). Sense of “citizen army” (asdistinct from professional soldiers) is first recorded 1690s, perhaps from asense in French cognate milice. In U.S. history, “the whole body of mendeclared by law amenable to military service, without enlistment, whetherarmed and drilled or not” (1777).
MyDogsAreSmarterThanYou December 12th, 2015 at 10:06
Using that timeline, the professional military is the precursor to militias.
Darlene December 12th, 2015 at 10:17
I am only talking about the United States, since that is the subject of this conversation. The 2nd Amendment is part of the Constitution, written in 1776, so, no, that timeline tells you that the militia is the precursor to our modern military.
“The beginning of the United States military lies in civilian frontier settlers, armed for hunting and basic survival in the wilderness. These were organized into local militias for small military operations, mostly against Native American tribes but also to resist possible raids by the small military forces of neighboring European colonies. They relied on the British regular army and navy for any serious military operation.”
Gary Downing December 11th, 2015 at 15:38
The stupidity of most is unreal. The Second Amendment was speaking about a well regulated Militia, which in fact was needed at that time to protect the states. It did not say give every farmer a gun or an M-16.
Most of the uprisings were from slaves or in some cases groups of farmers who were losing land due to taxation. Rebellions were part of history and most of those who took part in those rebellions used staffs or garden tools, clubs and things like that.
The Militia was there to stop those events and later became the National Guard.
The NRA should be under fire every time a person is killed in this nation as they once were a group of concerned gun owners and today they are nothing but promoters for gun sales.
The NRA makes a percentage off of every new weapon sold in this nation and that means it can be boat loads of arms going to places like Syria or Iran.
Reagan created and passed into law three different weapons bans at separate times.
Those laws stayed until the Bush Administration and congress refused to renew any of them. With money in their pockets from the NRA why would they care about any kinds of gun control? Its only your kids that can get killed, correct?
Realistic laws need to be put in place to control who gets his or her hands on a weapon.
PlanB December 11th, 2015 at 16:41
Shut up. You know nothing.
tracey marie December 11th, 2015 at 23:13
stfu you iratial man child
PlanB December 12th, 2015 at 00:39
I always thought that was with two r’s but you proved me wrong
bpollen December 12th, 2015 at 02:28
You don’t deserve the extra “r.”
“Shut up.” Now THAT puts the “butt” into “rebuttal.”
PlanB December 12th, 2015 at 07:39
drone on
BasqueCO December 11th, 2015 at 23:34
Speaking of stupidity: not understand ing a militia was made up of volunteers who brought their own guns from home. How can that even exist without individual ownership?
Oh and secondly well regulated only applies to the militia. Notice is says “a well regulated militia” , not “a well regulated people”?
bpollen December 12th, 2015 at 00:11
So tell me how every yokel with a gun and doubts about their masculinity are “well regulated.” I hear a little ways downthread you quoting this little tidbit:
Who are these militia? Are they not ourselves?
Sounds like you are trying to say we ARE the militia but we are NOT the militia at the same time. Notice how you say “well-regulated militia” not “well regulated people” while also saying that WE are the militia.
BasqueCO December 12th, 2015 at 00:21
Actually most gun carriers are pretty smart and well trained. Nearly decade in law enforcement and I have rarely ran into “yokels” carrying.
A militia is different from THE militia which is everybody. A militia is a group of volunteers who when asked or called for by the government, show up with their own guns to serve in a military fashion. Even Hamilton in the Federalist Papers acknowledged that the attempt to train the entire population for military service AKA regulated would be fruitless. Shall I supply that quote as well?
bpollen December 12th, 2015 at 00:40
Right. You are using militia to exclude the people and include the people. I guess I don’t see the difference because the text of the Amendment says “A” militia, not “THE” militia. Either we ARE the militia, or we are NOT. You can’t be both dead and alive. Tall and short. Are and are not.
A militia is a group of volunteers who when asked or called for by the government, show up with their own guns to serve in a military fashion.
That’s a fair description of what the military is, except they provide the guns. Which states have a militia? Is there a federal militia? Are we all part of the militia or not? When was the last time we called up a militia?
So, we ARE the militia, we are NOT the militia, the Militia Act of 1903 says that every able bodied man between 17 and 45 are part of the ‘reserve militia” and yet you are saying that they regulating that militia is fruitless. Plus that apparently means that women AREN’T entitled to gun rights because they aren’t considered part of that militia.
Either we are or we are not the militia. You don’t get to have it both ways. If everybody is part of the militia that is necessary for the security of the free state, it would follow that everybody should be well-regulated.
Quotes of others doesn’t make your argument any less self-contradictory.
Paul Joe G December 13th, 2015 at 15:37
10 U.S. Code § 311 – Militia: composition and classes
a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
burqa December 13th, 2015 at 21:07
The form, generally, was for the weapons to be stored in armories.
The reason they tried out this private ownership was to save money on armories and because they knew an individual would keep his own gun in better working order than an indifferent armorer working for the government.
While the Second Amendment of the Constitution doesn’t regulate all the people, the rest of the Constitution, as well as the U.S. Code, does.
You didn’t mention whether you studied 18th century American history for your degree. It doesn’t appear so.
Had you done so, you would have come across the philosophy held by our Founding Fathers regarding regulations.
The Founding Fathers’ philosophy considered man in 2 basic states. One was the “natural man,” who was basically a lawless savage. At the other end of the spectrum was the “civilized man.”
The main thing that differentiated the civilized man from the natural man was the civilized man had developed a society with rules and customs that regulate behavior.
The mark of a highly civilized man or society was the degree to which they regulated themselves.
So, the more regulation, the better, generally speaking.
Though I don’t have a history degree, I don’t mind teaching the subject to those who do…..
BasqueCO December 11th, 2015 at 19:09
Not an individual right eh? “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” -George Mason Co-author of the Second Amendment
tracey marie December 11th, 2015 at 23:12
OFFS, if a gun makes you feel like a man you have bigger problems then being a teabagger
BasqueCO December 11th, 2015 at 23:30
I was a man long ago with or without guns which are my profession. I’m not a teabagger, a Republican or even conservative. I’ve voted 3rd party since Perot. FAIL
tracey marie December 11th, 2015 at 23:37
you have always been a child
BasqueCO December 11th, 2015 at 23:40
Right. I’ll make sure and remember that when I put on one of my two uniforms over my bidy armir and kiss my kids and wife goodbye and leave my own house in my own work…LMAO
William December 12th, 2015 at 09:14
How does a uniform make you any more or less an expert on this subject.? Stop playing the “I’m better than you because I served” card. You’re an embarrassment to the rest of us veterans.
MyDogsAreSmarterThanYou December 12th, 2015 at 09:18
No, William. His reference to his service is in response to tracey’s accusation of him being a child. As a veteran and former LEO yourself, you should know that he may be many things, but a child is not one of them.
William December 12th, 2015 at 09:29
I believe the “child” reference was directed at a level of maturity.
I cannot see where military service in any way makes anyone more or less an expert in the second amendment. The “put on my body armor and kiss my family goodbye” was perhaps the lamest example of trying to illicit credibility I have ever seen.
My service doesn’t make my opinion any more or less valid…unless you want to talk about the Allison, 4 bladed, full feathering, constant speed, variable pitch, hydraulically controlled propeller. Then I’m all over that shit.
Paul Joe G December 13th, 2015 at 11:19
Your hostility towards and/ or ignorance of the document you swore to uphold is what’s embarrassing here, William.
William December 13th, 2015 at 12:41
What’s embarrassing is some phony trying to instill the theatrical and completely bogus image of somebody wearing body armor as he gets on a plane for deployment, and using that as a talking point. Grow up. This is a liberal web site and nobody is buying your “Murica,” hillbilly bullsh*t.. and yes Jefferson did impregnate his 14 year old servant. I believe you are entitled to a refund from whatever institute that awarded you your *cough* “degree”.
burqa December 13th, 2015 at 20:34
BasqueCO: “ when I put on one of my two uniforms over my bidy armir and kiss my kids and wife goodbye and leave my own house in my own work”
Leave your house in your own work?
Sounds as if you’re a taxi driver, working for a company whose drivers wear a uniform.
Got any medals for parallel parking in a tight space, there, cabbie?
Paul Joe G December 13th, 2015 at 11:17
Pathetic display of using ad hominem when you don’t have an argument there, Tracey,
tracey marie December 13th, 2015 at 11:28
spot on assessment of ammosexuals.
burqa December 13th, 2015 at 20:30
George Mason?
Did someone mention George Mason?
Let us get a more precise idea as to his ideas on the militia. After all, he wrote the Virginia Declaration of Rights, from which the Second Amendment was taken from:
“… SEC. 13. That a well-regulated militia, or composed of the body of
the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free
state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous
to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict
subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/virginia_declaration_of_rights.html
Paul Joe G December 14th, 2015 at 20:39
And how would one guarantee that a stranding army would be kept under strict subordination to the civil power after the citizenry has been disarmed?
BasqueCO December 11th, 2015 at 19:11
“The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for THE POWERS OF THE SWORD ARE IN THE HANDS OF THE YEOMANRY OF AMERICA FROM SIXTEEN TO SIXTY. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared to any possible army must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are these militia? Are they not ourselves? … Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.” -Tench Coxe, February 20, 1788
tracey marie December 11th, 2015 at 23:11
shut up, you sound like a 16th century wanna be savior.
BasqueCO December 11th, 2015 at 23:29
You gathered all that from a quote? I’m just a guy with a history degree from the GI Bill after multiple combat tours to Iraq and Afghanistan, 15 years active duty.
tracey marie December 11th, 2015 at 23:37
you are a cjild trolling
BasqueCO December 11th, 2015 at 23:43
Quoting the Founding Fathers that shows this man to be wrong is ‘trolling’ now? Riiigght….
William December 12th, 2015 at 09:12
Another Glenn Beck “founding fathers” fan eh?
If Thomas Jefferson were alive today he would be at the very least a lifetime member of the registered sex offender list and at most in jail. Stop trying to justify the slaughter of Americans based upon what you “THINK” someone was believed 200 years ago.
BTW. The so called “founding fathers” were for the most part rich white slave owners. People of color, native Americans and women couldn’t vote. One would have thought your “degree in History” would have included that course.
Welcome to the 21st century.
Paul Joe G December 13th, 2015 at 11:14
It was the same 200 year old “obsolete thinking” that ensured your right to express your opinion there, William. Judging by your career history,you also swore an oath to defend it. Doesn’t look like you’re really interested in doing that
William December 13th, 2015 at 12:46
Confiscation order.
Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha.
Another “crawl under a rock and hide from the invisible gun confiscating unit. So tell me Skippy? When exactly is the President coming for your gun? I mean it’s been like seven years right…
Oh wait… I forgot.
He’s busy invading Texas.https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d565bfdc60425a0d9f98d9166927bb31f06a0fdede5b8a6fd4cf20f272078d05.jpg Glenn Beck yellow stain conspiracy clown. Thank God people like you aren’t in charge of anything.
You have no idea what my career history is. I can however insure you it didn’t include strutting around telling other people I was an authority on constitutional law just because I served.
William December 13th, 2015 at 12:50
Confiscation order?
Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha.
Another “crawl under a rock and hide from the invisible gun confiscating unit. So tell me Skippy? When exactly is the President coming for your gun? I mean it’s been like seven years right?
Oh wait… I forgot.
He’s busy invading Texas. Thank God people like you aren’t in charge of anything.
You have no idea what my career history is. I can however assure you it didn’t include strutting around telling other people I was an authority on constitutional law just because I had a uniform. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d565bfdc60425a0d9f98d9166927bb31f06a0fdede5b8a6fd4cf20f272078d05.jpg
whatthe46 December 13th, 2015 at 13:05
creepy how people like him are so damned paranoid. guns and paranoia, a dangerous combination.
William December 13th, 2015 at 13:17
I know the type. They have this creepy delusion that some “Gubmint” agency will take away their guns. To that end they view themselves as some heroic bulwark against government tyranny as they stand with one hand on the Constitution, and another on a rifle. What’s equally disturbing is their inane habit of dismissing the wholesale slaughter of Americans as they simply shrug their shoulders and subscribe to the notion that we are powerless to do anything because of the second amendment. The genius of our Constitution is that it left a way to change the document as time and progress made parts of it obsolete or irrelevant.
The best explanation of this I have ever seen was oddly, from Joe Pesci
. “https://www.youtube.com/embed/ImTi03FPBr8”
whatthe46 December 13th, 2015 at 13:26
well said.
Paul Joe G December 13th, 2015 at 16:08
Deflection and hyperbole doesn’t actually pass as a counterpoint, bud. Just because the NRA and other gun rights groups have kicked his ass over the last 7 years doesn’t mean he hasn’t tried. Obama’s voting record as senator clearly shows his stance on gun ownership. He supports an all out assault weapon ban. And guess what an assault weapon ban requires? Confiscation.
And just because I don’t know every little detail of your career doesn’t mean it’s not common knowledge that entering such occupations involve taking an oath to uphold the COTUS which is something you have said is now obsolete. So why don’t you try and put up some actual data that backs your argument here? All you’ve demonstrated here so far is that your’re constitutionally illiterate.
BTW, just because you’re constitutionally illiterate doesn’t mean the people you argue with here fashion themselves as constitutional scholars.
Oh, here’s some more “nobody is coming for your guns” stuff. LOL
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bd10b626d42d2ea0edada363c2df5c51d963923435b556414a26d6fee46d5cd1.png
William December 13th, 2015 at 16:29
“Just because the NRA and other gun rights groups have kicked his ass over the last 7 years doesn’t mean he hasn’t tried
Please be so kind to list any anti gun legislation the President has signed in the last 7 years”.
In the meantime lets all have a gander at the “gun rights” champions and their agenda.
BTW. The President isn’t actually involved in the day to day operation of the NYPD. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ea5cdc627cf920499ce84f6028c2de86231f25938248ac3387fef96fcb82d96b.png
Paul Joe G December 14th, 2015 at 20:36
1: The president hasn’t signed any anti gun legislation because thanks to congress, it hasn’t been able to make it to his desk.
2:Can you explain how your example of confiscating guns from violent criminals has anything to do with the purpose and meaning of the 2A? Or are you just throwing that in there to blur the line between violent criminal and law abiding gun owner like so many other anti 2A folks like to do?
3: (yawn) Driving on public roads is a privilege. Keeping and bearing arms is a guaranteed right. Try again.
4:OMG you’re finally resorting to using the “nuclear strawman” argument now? HAHA! One would think with your mil experience that you can tell the difference between arms and WMD’s
5: Here’s his voting record on guns. He’s about as friendly to the 2A as that douche Santorum is to gay rights. Show me anywhere in there where he hasn’t been hostile to civilian gun ownership.
http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/barack_obama_gun_control.htm
William December 14th, 2015 at 20:49
You posted a document that originated from NYPD and eluded to this administrations anti gun stance.
I asked you to supply me with any anti gun legislation this president has signed
you cannot
you lose…
again.
Hirightnow December 14th, 2015 at 20:55
“alluded”
(I’m having too much fun reading this battle to really care, but still, sir… it’s just as easy to get the spelling correct. After all, one wouldn’t wish to appear to be a looser…))
William December 14th, 2015 at 20:57
duh-oh
Hirightnow December 14th, 2015 at 20:57
:P
Paul Joe G December 14th, 2015 at 22:45
Good Lord. You’re acting like what is pretty much common knowledge doesn’t exist. You are aware that a law has to get through congress before it goes to the president’s desk, right?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gun-control-overhaul-is-defeated-in-senate/2013/04/17/57eb028a-a77c-11e2-b029-8fb7e977ef71_story.html
William December 14th, 2015 at 22:56
Yeah come to think of it, the President DID sign some gun bill into law.
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Guns-Now-Legal-at-National-Parks-84930387.html
Be sure to chime in when Obama takes your guns away. In the meantime I think you have him confused with this guy. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9efe825447cfd9f8cfad10baf5424a4af0a80899954b061f547e37f564703cd8.jpg
Paul Joe G December 14th, 2015 at 23:05
That National Parks thing was a rider on a credit reform act Obama wanted to pass. He wasn’t going to get congress to pass it unless he signed it with that attached.
Reagan was a total fuckhead when it came to domestic policy. You can thank Carter and Mondale for making him look so damn good.
Again, here’s Obama’s voting record. If he had the house on his side right now our gun rights would be in the shitter.
http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/barack_obama_gun_control.htm
William December 14th, 2015 at 23:11
…..and et he signed it and didn’t veto it.
Try again.
William December 15th, 2015 at 00:15
Nice try. I am addressing President Obamas veto/sign into law record, not shit he said when he was a senator. Keep trying.
Paul Joe G December 19th, 2015 at 15:18
I posted his voting record, William, not “What he said as senator”? Save it with the manipulative semantics . You’re arguing that him signing a credit card reform bill that had one rider on it that let people ccw in Natl parks means that he’s not trying to shit can civilian gun ownership. He’s praised Australia’s and UKs gun laws (you know those involved mass confiscation, right?). You know how the 3 branches work right? Congress didn’t let the bills he wanted to pass get to his desk. I don’t know how many times I’m gonna have to tell you that. Feel free to put up something that proves otherwise. Posting recycled occupy Democrat memes and condescendingly saying “try again” aren’t actually counterpoints.
William December 14th, 2015 at 20:53
BTW. You’re confusing President Obama with this guy. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/00c9cb8a0b60e8cb211e51aa9d70787130efb4f4d1fae7cfb696dfab237c77b5.jpg
Paul Joe G December 14th, 2015 at 22:54
Reagan was by no means a supporter of the 2nd Amendment or the Bill Of Rights for that matter. You seem to automatically assume that anybody who disagrees with the left’s assault on the Bill Of Rights has their head up the GOP’s ass as far as you have yours up the Dem’s.
William December 13th, 2015 at 17:02
Please point out the part where I said the constitution is obsolete
Had you even a 6th grade knowledge of American History you would understand that we have changed the constitution 27 times.
In keeping with your limited knowledge, I’ll explain in detail.
The 21st amendment repealed the 18th amendment.
Paul Joe G December 14th, 2015 at 18:38
Like I said above to Burqa, using examples where the COTUS was amended to expand and protect the rights of the individual to support your argument for repealing an amendment out of the Bill Of Rights is horseshit.
William December 14th, 2015 at 20:34
You Do realize that the 21st amendment repealed the 18th amendment right? Oh who the hell am I kidding. You’re a hopeless bagger who is only aware of whatever Limbaugh, Beck or Oreilly dumped into your empty, camo clad skull.
Paul Joe G December 14th, 2015 at 22:33
Do you drink a lot at night or do you always have this much trouble with reading comprehension?
William December 14th, 2015 at 22:57
I don’t watch much TV, but your lack of facts and a lucid argument is duly noted.
William December 14th, 2015 at 20:37
Take it from me. Stay right where you are. We’ll let you know when it’s safe to come out. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3d135f157d1ba3cc9923d6f3a005d58c72cfa84a80e23646b6a7b9c00399ec5e.jpg
burqa December 13th, 2015 at 20:16
Paul Joe G.: “And just because I don’t know every little detail of your career doesn’t mean it’s not common knowledge that entering such occupations involve taking an oath to uphold the COTUS which is something you have said is now obsolete. … All you’ve demonstrated here so far is that your’re constitutionally illiterate. ”
He didn’t say the whole thing is “obsolete,” but that’s ok, lets see if you are any more constitutionally literate.
By your logic, opposition to one sentence in the Constitution means one believes the entire thing is “obsolete.”
Let’s take the 3/5ths rule.
Did those who opposed and eventually got rid of that part believe the entire Constitution was “obsolete”?
Or would you agree that they just objected to one part of the Constitution but believed the rest was valid, like William here does?
Paul Joe G December 14th, 2015 at 18:31
Your example is a change to a clause in Article 1(passing of the 13th and 14th kind of did that in) . William’s example is the repeal of the 18th amendment, ending prohibition. The purpose of both of these changes was to EXPAND personal liberty and better protect the rights of the individual, not restrict them under the guise of public safety. Using these as examples to support your argument for gutting amendments in the Bill Of Rights doesn’t really hold any water.
Them southern segregate assholes were big fans of gun control btw,
burqa December 14th, 2015 at 19:23
You completely missed my point.
Just because someone does not agree with one sentence of the Constitution does not mean they believe the entire thing is “obsolete.”
The segregationalists were, for the most part conservative, of course, as were those who favored Prohibition.
Fortunately for America, the liberal side won both arguments.
This comes as no surprise, because on these matters liberals always win.
The best conservatives can do is delay, but eventually the liberals win.
Perhaps you’ve noticed that we’re winning on gay rights.
The lot of the conservative is to be continually fighting rear-guard action, as they are doing now with gay rights.
It was the same with women’s liberation.
It was the same with civil rights.
It was the same with the right for labor to organize.
It was the same with Prohibition.
It was the same with giving women the vote.
It was the same with abolition of slavery.
It was the same with our Revolution, where the conservative Tories came in second place.
Part of the fun in this one is we get to see the Conservative Two-Step where they jump back and forth between identifying people as Democrats or Republicans when these conservatives want to be confused with liberal Republicans and seek to conflate liberals with conservative Democrats.
Stick around.
It shouldn’t be long before we have a discussion touching on economics and you’ll get to see the facts on how the economy performs under Democrat or Republican presidents and congressional majorities. You’ll wonder why you chose the side with such a dismal record…..
Hirightnow December 14th, 2015 at 20:52
You need to change your screen name to “Pit Bulldog”; You don’t give up or let go, and it’s fun to watch you tear things (in this case, arguments) apart.
burqa December 13th, 2015 at 20:06
You think they’ll come for your guns before or after they finish that 12-lane highway from Mexico to Canada that will cut this nation in two as part of the North American Union?
burqa December 13th, 2015 at 20:03
Never heard of Tench Coxe, but I believe those guys who engaged in the Whiskey Rebellion shared his opinion and soon found out how wrong they were…
Also, when you were studying history you should’ve noticed the date of the Tench quote in comparison with the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, which places the militia under the control of the federal government.
Your quote refers to the Congress under the Articles of Confederation.
Or, shucks, perhaps your history degree is in ancient Egyptian or Chinese history or something and you never got around to U.S. history…..
William December 12th, 2015 at 09:07
See. There we go again.
I’m right because I’m a veteran of ______ fill in the blank.
burqa December 13th, 2015 at 19:55
One hopes you are grateful the liberals provided that GI Bill…….the new GI Bill was written by Jim Webb, by the way.
Oh, and also by the way, just before the invasion of Iraq the Bush administration tried to eliminate hazardous duty pay, but fortunately the librul Democrats stopped it.
burqa December 13th, 2015 at 19:24
Was Tench Coxe involved in the Whiskey Rebellion?
vinceway December 11th, 2015 at 21:58
Our constitution is not very specific and has permitted many far reaching interpretations some we like and some we don’t like. It’s not surprising with a majority of right-wing judges that the 2nd amendment would be interpreted in favor of the gun manufacturers.
SoCalCop December 13th, 2015 at 12:32
The government does not make firearms, has never made firearms, and will never make firearms. That’s left up to gun manufacturers. Taking that one step further, the original AR10 was made by Armalite (which is what AR stands for, not Assault Rifle). Samuel Colt created arms that were adopted by the military of the 19th century, and John Browning created what is known as the M1911, the common .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol used by the military for over 100 years. So if you could make American firearms manufacturers go away, what alternative would you suggest to replace the arms that law enforcement and the military use?
William December 13th, 2015 at 13:03
The government does not make firearms, has never made firearms. What?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield_Armory
SoCalCop December 13th, 2015 at 13:52
Springfield produced ammunition cartridges. That would be the bullet, and powder contained in a paper cartridge that was used as the wading. They did not make firearms.
William December 13th, 2015 at 14:52
Uh..no.
The Springfield Armory, located in the city of Springfield, Massachusetts, was the primary center for the manufacture of U.S. military firearms from 1777 until its closing in 1968.
Numerous firearm models produced at the Springfield Armory from 1794 to 1968 were referred to as “Springfield rifles”.
SoCalCop December 13th, 2015 at 14:54
Were any of them developed by the government? That would be a NO! Gunsmiths, civilians, developed the technology, not the government.
William December 13th, 2015 at 15:09
The fact is the government produced guns for nearly centuries in government owned factories. The workers were paid by the government and the raw materials and resources were paid for from the government coffers. The links are pretty clear.
I understand your embarrassment and deflated ego after chiming in with such a bold, albeit false assertion. Some people will celebrate the gift of information and some will consider it an attack on their self proclaimed “expertise” I yield to the emotion motivates your back peddling
SoCalCop December 13th, 2015 at 17:27
Perhaps I was being too simplistic when I used the term “make”. I should have said create, as in develop, from concept, to creation. Just because a person or entity produces the materials, does not mean that they make the item. Those that created the firearms did not do so on behalf of the government. And if it wasn’t for these private persons developing the technology on their own, the device would not exist. So I’m thinking in a much broader perspective. And I continue to assert, the government NEVER created a firearm. It has always been firearms manufacturers.
William December 13th, 2015 at 17:54
“Those that created the firearms did not do so on behalf of the government”.
Actually that is precisely what “they” (the folks who worked at any of the Government arms factories did).
BTW. Government owned factories have also developed firearms from start to finish.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankford_Arsenal
Do continue though. Your stupidity and your shuffling about IE the difference between “create and make” is starting to intrigue me.
SoCalCop December 13th, 2015 at 18:09
Name a firearm not produced with technology from private gunsmiths.
William December 13th, 2015 at 18:28
I don’t need to. You stated that the government has never made a gun. The fact is they have made millions of them in factories wholy owned by the government….and yes some were exclusive designs from the Franklin Springfield and Harpers Ferry arsenals.
Google Harpers Ferry. Should you spend a little more time reading and less trying to weasel your way out of your completely false assertion you might appear a little less stupid .
Stick around. Next we’ll talk about the U.S Navys aircraft factory.
SoCalCop December 14th, 2015 at 01:29
Oh I’m sure you did a wiki search for something. Nice try though.
William December 14th, 2015 at 01:49
Try? I didn’t need to try a thing. You popped in here, spewed bullsh*t and when you were outed you tried to divert, weasel and back peddle. The U.S Government has manufactured guns. Lots and lots of them. You failed as a troll. It’s ok. I understand.
SoCalCop December 14th, 2015 at 02:14
I didn’t divert at all. Show me technology in a small arm that wasn’t invented by a gun manufacturer. The government didn’t make a single firearm without technology from a gun manufacturer.
You open your yap, go to wiki for the answers, and try to come off as some kind of expert. I know your type, and you don’t know crap.
William December 14th, 2015 at 11:22
AGAIN. Your original post stated “The government has never made a gun”. Fact. They have made millions.
Do continue.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5413b93e2cee86be486247e120fa50d0eb805b0ea826778f9693f27162ddbe45.jpg
SoCalCop December 14th, 2015 at 12:02
I asked this once, but I can see it needs to be asked again…better yet, let me give you an anecdote. I have an AR15, but I did not buy the entire firearm assembled from a gun store. In fact, I bought the lower receiver from a gun store because It has the serial number on it. And I bought the rest of the parts online, because parts are just parts and I can; I mean why not use what Uncle Sam taught me, right?
So I have all of these parts, and I assembled my AR15. One day I plan on assembling one with an 80% lower…you know, one of those evil “ghost guns”. Anyway, here’s my question to you, did I create an AR 15, or merely assemble one? I look forward to your answer.
William December 14th, 2015 at 14:05
Again… you stated the Government never made guns.. They made millions of them. Suck it up cupcake.
SoCalCop December 15th, 2015 at 01:03
That’s, “Suck it up Buttercup”. If you’re going to use an insult, at least use it correctly…sparky.
William December 14th, 2015 at 14:14
Here are your exact words.
“The government does not make firearms, has never made firearms, and will never make firearms.
Watching your frustration and overt butthurt is fun. Please continue.
SoCalCop December 15th, 2015 at 01:02
Frustration??? Butthurt??? Oh no, no, no my dear boy. I do not get frustrated or butthurt. You see, I am the Troll King. And you cannot frustrate or make butthurt, the Troll King. :-)
Sorry to burst your bubble there sparky. ;-)
William December 15th, 2015 at 09:15
Yet you fail so miserably.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ea45bd269942ff459569b854ebc18a10af4464154ae3acb871d7a6dbfc7462fc.jpg
William December 14th, 2015 at 11:38
..and I know your type. Which is why I like outing phony cops and watching trolls with illusions of armed grandeur descend into a quagmire of emotional immaturity
SoCalCop December 14th, 2015 at 11:52
I’m sure there are allot of bad guys that wish I was a phony cop, but okay. :-)
William December 14th, 2015 at 14:17
You are not a cop. You’ve never been a cop. You’re a wanna-be who gets his personality, courage and fortitude from a holster.
But, heck it’s your fantasy, do continue.
SoCalCop December 15th, 2015 at 00:59
Well that’s typical of a Bolshevik – keep telling yourself that until you actually believe it.
William December 15th, 2015 at 09:13
A real cop would never post the bullshit you post. You are a disgrace to the other cab drivers.
SoCalCop December 15th, 2015 at 10:37
Okay, so you’re saying that way back when, the U.S. government, through the Harper’s Ferry, and Springfield Armories, produced MILLIONS of firearms for militia use correct? Put another way, the U.S. government was a gun manufacturer right? They produced millions of firearms over a period of what, several decades for those men from the age of 17 to 45 so that they could fulfill their obligation to militia service right?
I’ll just leave it right there.
William December 15th, 2015 at 11:13
No stupid. Can’t you read? Those arsenals made weapons for the U.S. Military, for close to two centuries.
You should probably stick to something you know..
whatever that is. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f0823e811987c8f8c484bd53c2991bcda690f0e1be1d97cac700a26e6e6165b0.jpg
SoCalCop December 15th, 2015 at 11:30
And part of the military, according to the militia act of 1792, is the militia. Just to be clear, the National Guard wasn’t established until about 1903. So the militia prior to that was able bodied males from the age of 17 to 45 years.
William December 15th, 2015 at 11:16
Let’s try again. Read slowly.
The Springfield Armory, located in the city of Springfield, Massachusetts, was the primary center for the manufacture of U.S. military firearms from 1777 until its closing in 1968. The site is preserved as the Springfield Armory National Historic Site, Western Massachusetts’ only unit of the national park system. It features the world’s largest collection of historic American firearms.[2]
Famous first as the United States’ primary arsenal during the American Revolutionary War, and then as the scene of a confrontation during Shays’ Rebellion, the Springfield Armory in the 19th and 20th centuries became the site of numerous technological innovations of global importance, including interchangeable parts, the assembly line style of mass production, and modern business practices, such as hourly wages. Numerous firearm models produced at the Springfield Armory from 1794 to 1968 were referred to as “Springfield rifles”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield_Armory
SoCalCop December 15th, 2015 at 11:26
Yes, I know, we’ve already established that you know how to plagiarize Wikipedia. So the U.S. government is a gun manufacturer, correct?
burqa December 13th, 2015 at 19:40
SoCalCop: “Those that created the firearms did not do so on behalf of the government. ”
Wrong.
I am a direct descendant of Fielding Lewis.
He was married to George Washington’s sister here in Fredericksburg. During the Revolution, Lewis opened up a plant to manufacture weapons for the liberals fighting the conservative redcoats and their sniveling Tory allies. As far as I know, the only customer of weapons made here by Fielding Lewis was the Continental Congress.
Those weapons were made on behalf of the government.
While it is true that private citizens have made advances in weapons technology in certain cases, it is not true to imply they made all those advances independent of the government. The government has provided specifications that caused the private citizens to change the weapons they produced. Today the government decides what it wants and puts out bids and companies then try to make what the government wants.
In the news recently, Boeing apparently got the contract for the new long range bomber. The government will not be buying them off the shelf, but will be telling Boeing what to build.
SoCalCop December 14th, 2015 at 01:28
Fielding Lewis must be rolling over in his grave right about now.
William December 13th, 2015 at 13:04
The government does not make firearms, has never made firearms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpers_Ferry_Armory
SoCalCop December 13th, 2015 at 13:29
They provided the workspace, and the C O N T R A C T for civilians to produce arms, but the government has never produced arms. The closest “government employee” would have been John Hall, who was a gun smith.
William December 13th, 2015 at 14:55
Yes of course. They owned the factory and hired civilians to work there. Your statement that the government did not manufacture firearms is patently false.
tracey marie December 13th, 2015 at 15:03
so the government subsidizes gun manufacturers…that means they do have a part in the manufacturing.
burqa December 13th, 2015 at 19:45
SoCalCop: “the government has never produced arms
You oughta see what they do up at Quantico with their sniper rifles……
Also, besides the links William has provided you, read up on what they used to do at the naval yards in Washington, D.C.
They built warships.
Quite a few of the early ones were built in government yards.
SoCalCop December 14th, 2015 at 01:25
But the upgraded parts are made by civilians. Nice try though.
bpollen December 12th, 2015 at 16:13
He did not. If you can’t refute his actual words, just making it up is clear evidence you have nothing.
Paul Joe G December 13th, 2015 at 11:32
Nice. Lot’s of filler language being used to spin the prefatory clause so it can be used to discredit the operative clause. Saul Cornell is arguing that the Bill Of Rights ensures us as much right to keep and bear arms as some schmuck in China’s Red Army.
SoCalCop December 13th, 2015 at 12:19
Saul Cornell is an idiot, has always been an idiot, and will always be an idiot. He “thinks” that “well regulated” means strict control…he should probably find an new profession because if the rest of his history is as bad as this, his former students should demand their money back.
Taken from the “Oxford English Dictionary”, it says:
1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”
1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”
1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”
1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”
1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”
1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”
“The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.” – http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
So, in the case of the militia in the 18th century, they didn’t say that the militia was highly restricted, it was in fact highly trained. And as a person who owns firearms would know, having them affords a person the opportunity to constantly practice with them, whether it is on a standing target, or better yet, live game during a hunt.
I might also add that “liberal” had a different meaning back then in that it meant, and in some cases means today, an abundance of something. So I propose that “liberal” should no longer be used to describe the left. A more accurate description should be “Bolshevik”, as in the Bolsheviks of 1917. But that’s just me.
In a recent article I read, James Carville, Bill Clinton’s campaign manager, is cited as saying that, “Not only are most Democrats politically clueless; they’re easily manipulated by the puppet masters of their party as well”. Apparently professor Cornell is no different than any other Bolshevik in the Democrat Party.
By the way, I am a retired police officer, and served in the United States Army as a military policeman. I own several firearms, and began learning about firearms at right around 8 years old. My knowledge of firearms prior to military service is why I excelled on the range while in the military…which provides anecdotal justification for the Second Amendment.
Just sayin’. :-)
tracey marie December 13th, 2015 at 12:30
go stroke your penis replacement instead of spamming
SoCalCop December 13th, 2015 at 12:37
Ah, Bolsheviks never disappoint. Never an intelligent response, just one ignorant comment after the other.
By the way, have you always had an obsession with male genitalia?
tracey marie December 13th, 2015 at 12:44
http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/2917/168/original.jpg
SoCalCop December 13th, 2015 at 13:08
Why thank you! I pride myself on making people laugh…especially at their expense. :-)
Paul Joe G December 13th, 2015 at 15:46
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
burqa December 13th, 2015 at 17:17
SoCalCop: “Ah, Bolsheviks never disappoint. Never an intelligent response, … ”
Oh, so now you’ve decided to resort to name-calling, as if that’s what you regard as being “intelligent.”.
If you can refer to someone on the Left as being on the extreme edge of the political Left, then the same standard can be applied to you and we can call you a fascist.
“You’re a Bolshevik!”
“You’re a fascist!”
“You’re a commie!”
“You’re a Nazi!”
That the best you can do?
That’s what you think is “intelligent?”
Name-calling and personal attacks instead of fact-based point-counterpoint debate in which ideas collide?
SoCalCop December 14th, 2015 at 11:51
Name calling? Nope, just a more accurate description of socialists in the current democratic party.
burqa December 14th, 2015 at 18:38
Of course it is name-calling.
In debate it is the equivalent of raising a white flag of surrender, a tacit admission your ideas are inferior thus you resort to personal attacks and inflamatory language as a substitute for fact-based arguments.
Rather than discuss ideas, you descend to the level of insults on a personal level.
Ever heard the adage that great minds speak of ideas, average minds discuss events, and poor minds talk about people?
SoCalCop December 15th, 2015 at 00:57
As a general rule, the so called liberal subscribes to the tenants of socialism, ie wealth redistribution, socialized medicine, executing the unborn…the list goes on. So Bolshevik IS appropriate.
burqa December 16th, 2015 at 16:40
There you go again, conceding points made.
You sure do a lot of that, but are at least consistent.
When it comes to debate points, you surrender faster than the French army in 1940.
So it’s back to imagining that bringing up a different topic somehow addresses the one you ducked.
Perhaps you’d like to go back to name-calling.
MyDogsAreSmarterThanYou December 13th, 2015 at 13:57
Well, you know what they say “You can’t spell ‘wimp’ without ‘MP'”
Just messing with you.
You have to know your post is an exercise in futility. I generally consider myself a liberal in many areas, but I absolutely don’t get this fascination with trying to claim that the authors of the Constitution meant the possession of arms to be limited to some government-controlled entity. I actually had one try and tell me that the Constitution didn’t give individuals the right to peaceably assemble, because somehow individuals can’t assemble, and that because the First Amendment recognizes the right of “the people,” and not individuals, to peaceably assemble, then same is true of Second Amendment where the right of “the people” to keep and bear arms is recognized.
I can’t say as I know a whole lot about Volokh, but I do like his take on the freedom of the press referring to an actual printing press.
SoCalCop December 13th, 2015 at 14:15
While I agree that the willfully ignorant will by their own actions remain ignorant, it is not for them that I write my comments. The Bolsheviks call themselves open mined and tolerant, but by their actions are the most close minded and intolerant of anyone I know. So, I write my comments so that the Bolsheviks are challenged and don’t have the last word on the issue. So I don’t really consider it an exercise in futility. On the contrary, it continues to hone and sharpen my knowledge and resolve.
One final note, like the lemming, there are those that blindly follow without question. I’m the person standing between them and the cliff shouting danger. If they choose to walk around me and go over the cliff, that’s on them. But if I say nothing, it’s on me.
tracey marie December 13th, 2015 at 15:07
how old and frightened are you, bolsheviks…join this decade at the least
SoCalCop December 13th, 2015 at 17:20
Appropriate label considering your philosophical position. When I say you, I mean lefties in general.
tracey marie December 13th, 2015 at 17:26
old frightened man afraid of change word.
SoCalCop December 13th, 2015 at 17:31
Appropriate avatar. Little Yorkie going yip, yip, yip, yip. :-)
tracey marie December 13th, 2015 at 18:40
appropriate avatar, big ears and old man dreaming of when he used to have relevence…bet you were violent
Peter January 16th, 2016 at 14:26
We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.
tracey marie January 16th, 2016 at 14:32
Visit violence, do you get “excited” typing those words?
Peter January 16th, 2016 at 14:50
Are you preoccupied with sex?
burqa December 13th, 2015 at 17:38
All you gotta do is read the whole Second Amendment, rather than chopping it up. It essentially says that we will be defending the nation with militia and the militia members will keep and bear the weapons they’d use in the militia.
Unfortunately, we see people on the Right ignoring the first part of the sentence which sets the pretext, and we see others on the Left ignoring the part about the people keeping and bearing the arms. Thus both sides skew the Second Amendment, rather than taking it as a whole.
History shows that the Founding Fathers were mistaken in their belief that the nation could be defended by militia. The militia had a rather spotty record in combat, so we went to a professional military larger than the Founders wanted. Ever heard of the “Bladensburg races?” The professional British army not only whipped the militia at Bladensburg, Maryland in the War of 1812, but many of the redcoats fell out due to heat exhaustion when they chased the fleeing militia. Indians under Bluejacket beat the daylights out of the militia.
So what we have is an outdated amendment. We no longer have a need for a militia to defend the nation, therefore there is no need for citizens to keep and bear the arms they’d use in militia service.
The reason for assigning militia members gun ownership was an economic one. Coming out of the Revolution we were in deep debt and having citizens keep and bear arms eliminated the need for large armories where the guns were likely to not be as well maintained as those kept at home by the militia member who would need his musket in good working order when he went into battle.
Oh, and the “arms” owned by citizens was not confined to muskets and pistols. They owned warships and the most advanced artillery of the day. They were allowed to own whatever they could afford. I’m not certain, but I don’t think convicted felons were denied gun ownership in the early days, either. On these points conservatives have compromised over the years to where they are not very consistent when it comes to what was available in real life, arms-wise, in the early days of the nation.
SoCalCop December 13th, 2015 at 17:49
You do realize that civilians own tanks, cannons, machine guns, and warplanes, right?
You do realize that all a person has to do in most of the United States is pay a tax, and go through a background check, and they can own machine guns that were made prior to 1985, right?
Just thought I’d mention it.
burqa December 13th, 2015 at 19:06
Yeah, under very strict regulation.
It’s nothing like the days of the Founding Fathers when a citizen could own the most advanced weaponry of the day.
Any citizen who wants one cannot buy the most advanced weaponry made today.
Would you be in favor of removing all the regulations regarding ownership of weaponry of all sorts?
Would you make it legal for drug gangs to own 155 mm howitzers?
Nor may we walk in a store and buy fully automatic weapons with the only requirement being we have enough to pay for it.
Conservative claims to want things to be as they were when the Second Amendment was passed are bogus.
The fact is they are fine with restrictions on ownership of weapons. The only difference is what restrictions they favor.
And while I am aware of citizens owning warplanes (typically prop-jobs), I am unaware of citizens owning fully armed warplanes.
How many citizens own F-18s armed with Sidewinders and carry bombs, for example, hmmm?
burqa December 14th, 2015 at 16:40
As I pointed out below, civilian ownership of tanks, warplanes and cannons is strictly regulated.
Do you favor those regulations or would you prefer to eliminate all of them so that MS-13 can have that stuff?
Dave G December 13th, 2015 at 17:52
There is enough good reason to maintain the amendment (and its state-level corollaries): Training.
The commandant of the Marine Corps recently sent me a letter, transferring me from one list to another, where he can still recall me to active duty, at any time.
If he needs to call me back, it is reasonable to believe that I may be in dire need of being proficient in those skills I learned the first time around. Marksmanship is a perishable skill. Despite Shannon Watt’s, et al wishes otherwise, I still practice with a rifle that is ergonomically ( yet, not functionally) similar to the rifles I use in uniform, in order to maintain my proficiency in the use in arms.
So, what is the impetus for the second amendment? To prepare a nation to fight (and win battles) in armed combat against an enemy.
How do you do that? By writing rules that makes training more difficult for everybody? Or do you foster an environment that facilitates training relevant to the task of the second amendment?
Ignoring that “regulated” means and meant the quality of the marksmanship training (trained to a minimum standard), and choosing to instead believe that burdening the militia (unorganized and otherwise) with all manners of excessive (and completely unrelated to the actual act of firing) administrative codes is far from being an effective way to prepare an army to properly load, aim, fire and hit a designated target, using both rifle and pistol, with repeatable accuracy and precision, in order to wage and win wars.
Currently, there really isn’t another kind of rifle would better fulfill the intended use of the 2nd amendment but an AR-15/M4 type, and Beretta M9 type pistol, in exactly the configuration, and with all of the accouterments, as used by servicemen in their duties and qualification, and civilian Service Rifle and Pistol competitors at Camp Perry.
Care to discuss who is constitutionally obligated to performing militia duty, who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia? The various state governors may also call up their state’s unorganized militia, as is codified here in WA, per http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=38.04.030 and http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=38.08.050 ). That makes “all able bodied citizens of the United States and all other able bodied persons who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, residing within this state, who shall be more than eighteen years of age…” available to Gov. Inslee for call up “…to perform such military duty as the circumstances may require…”
However, he is only responsible for training and equipping the organized militia, as evidenced by http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=38.20.050
“Under the direction of the governor, the adjutant general shall, at the expense and in the name of the state, buy or lease, establish, equip, maintain and control such small arms ranges and issue such ammunition, transportation and supplies as may be necessary to provide each unit of the organized militia of Washington with adequate means and opportunity for thorough instruction in small arms”.
Even if the states had the means to arm every 18 year and older able bodied citizen that could possibly be called up, it would be useless to do so without them (us) receiving adequate training, which won’t be possible under the exigent circumstances that would require a call-up of our unorganized militia.
So… we do this on our own.
Any other lawful use that we have for firearms is an ancillary benefit of the natural right of self preservation, and those statutes all utilize that ability, to ensure that we can also respond to threats to our community.
burqa December 13th, 2015 at 18:39
Having known a number of commandants (Shepherd, Shoup, Greene, Cushman, Chapman, Wilson, Davis), I am sure if you are recalled, you will be “well-regulated.”
While it is nice to have some familiarity with firearms before enlisting, I am confident in Marine Corps training in marksmanship.
(Marines taught me. The one who taught me the most was recommended for the Medal of Honor on New Britain and Pelelieu during World War II, by the way. Silent Lew Walt shot expert from the time he was a butter bar to when he retired with 4 stars on his shoulders.) By the same token, I see so many examples of poor handling of weapons by civilians that I doubt these bad habits are very welcome. I am much more comfortable shooting with Marines and have done so since I was a kid. For years I had access to the indoor ranges at Quantico, by the way.
We are in agreement on the purpose of the Second Amendment.
I doubt there was much marksmanship training for the militia in the early days of the republic.
In more recent times, we have the example of Carlos Hathcock, who learned to shoot hunting food for his family in Arkansas, without much government regulation at all.
I also agree with you that the Second Amendment is referring to firearms used in combat, but you’re leaving out the militia part.
The militia was distinct from a professional military. Reliance on the militia was a terrible mistake. When they broke and ran at Bladensburg, they opened the way to Washington (the Marine contingent there fought well, of course).
Oh, and I believe they are phasing out the Beretta but I can’t recall what it is being replaced with.
Dave G December 13th, 2015 at 21:50
RE: The M9
“…The Marine Corps is closely following the Army’s efforts to develop a next-generation pistol. But since the Marine Corps issued M4 carbines to many who would be in a position to traditionally carry a pistol, like officers, the service is not driven by the same sense of urgency as the Army, which is now pursuing development of the Modular Handgun System. The MHS will replace the 9mm Berretta M9, and could provide a heavier hitting round.
The Marine Corps is participating in the program to have input on source selection, Woodburn said, with the likelihood that whatever the Army eventually adopts will be adopted by all services.
The Marine Corps’ current inventory of pistols, however, should suffice through the early 2020s, based on their planned life-cycle, he said…” — http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/tech/2015/09/17/marines-unveil-plan-modernize-their-small-arms-arsenal/72006282/
You may be thinking of the Colt M45A1 now being fielded with Recon Marines assigned to MEU(SOC).
burqa December 13th, 2015 at 22:26
I just recall an article I read a couple of months ago. As I recall, they had not only decided to phase out the Beretta, but had selected a successor, but my memory is vague and I wouldn’t bet on it.
Dave G December 13th, 2015 at 22:14
RE: “… firearms before enlisting, I am confident in Marine Corps training in marksmanship.”
And that has always been subject to the whims of budgets, operations tempo and competing with all of the other annual training requirements, just like every other service. Building credible riflemen, and more so those capable of training such credible riflemen, takes a lot of time.
Pres. T. Roosevelt’s last message to Congress emphasized this point: “The
great body of our citizens’ shoot less and less as time goes on. We should encourage rifle practice among school boys and indeed all classes, as well as in the military, by every means in our power. Thus, and not otherwise we may be able to assist in preserving peace in the world… The first step – in the direction to avert war if possible, and to be fit for war should it come, is to teach men to shoot.”
burqa December 13th, 2015 at 22:59
Back when I was training guys to work on my construction crews, a lot of the time I preferred guys with no construction experience so I didn’t have to take the time to get rid of their bad habits in order to train them right.
I could buy us each a Lear jet if I had a nickel for every time I saw someone pick up a pistol and saw their index finger go right to the trigger, or the times when someone handed me a rifle without opening the breech. More often than not, when I’m around a civilian, including those who grew up with guns; when they bring them out it’s just one error after the other and that makes me more nervous than I care to be.
I don’t know about now, but in the past the Marines didn’t let budget fluctuations or other factors interfere with marksmanship training.
I’ll tell you where I think so much of the gun debate is missing the boat. On the Left, many squall that fewer guns would make us more safe and they’ll cite countries like Britain or Japan’s gun death stats. But then we hear many on the Right squalling that we’re safer with more guns, and they can cite countries like Switzerland that have high levels of firearms ownership and low gun death rates.
I don’t think either is correct.
While I could support closing the gun show loophole and a few other things, I don’t see the answer in more gun control. By the same token, I don’t think making more guns available would do any good either, in terms of lowering our firearm homicide rate.
The above arguments where we see lower deaths from guns in countries that either have more guns than we do or far fewer just show me that the problem isn’t too many or too few guns.
To me, the problem is we’re just a more violent society. People shoot each other for the most trivial of things.
I think if we are really concerned with the numbers of citizens killed by guns each year, we would be addressing the violent nature of American society.
Good grief, today I heard stats that held that the #2 or #3 killer of American teenagers is firearms, and that guns kill more college students than alcohol.
I don’t know how to go about making our society less violent, I just know we need to do so because we are losing waywayway too many Americans to other Americans who are quick on the trigger.
In high school I took an NRA firearms safety class that was very good. There were no politics discussed and that’s the NRA I’d like to see more of. They need to be running big ads on firearms safety because we have far too many accidental shootings. One scenario I’ve seen quite a few times over the years is where a cop will be in the po-lice station locker room changing clothes and they’ll shoot themselves in the leg.
I have read far too many articles where a kid will pick up a semi automatic pistol, eject the magazine and then shoot themselves or a friend, thinking the weapon was unloaded when there was actually a round in the chamber.
But when the NRA runs full page ads in the Washington Post, they don’t talk about the 10 Commandments of Firearms Safety they taught me. This pisses me off because a longterm ad campaign on firearms safety could significantly reduce accidental deaths.
Dave G December 13th, 2015 at 23:49
The safety campaign has been there, along with the NSSF. Firearms homicide rates are 1/2 of what they were in the Clinton era, and nonfatal firearms injuries have fallen similarly.
Why does the NRA have to run those particular political ads? Could it have anything to do with being placed in a defensive posture every year since 1968?
When the NRA started out, it was about building a better military rifleman, something that congress and TR supported when the national service rifle matches were opened to all citizens in 1907, and the US Army’s DCM (which had to privatize as the ODCMP after Clinton and Teddy Kennedy gutted it in the 90’s) was using its ranges and instructors to foster civilian shooters using surplus rifles. Now that more civilians are stepping back to that idea, too few ranges are to be found, and too many legislative roadblocks are being thrown in their path. That doesn’t mean that their right went away.
Since the shooting public (who compose the body of the NRA) is returning their emphasis to the original NRA core principle, how is giving into the gun control industry’s agenda of AWB and magazine limits, paying for the government’s permission in order to exercise their civil rights, et ctera ever going to be in their best interest? There have been PLENTY of compromises made by the shooting community since 1934, that have always been immediately rewarded with a new set of ransom demands.
I’d much rather be on the range, than worrying about my governor placing names on a “no guns” list because he saw their name on a error-prone “no-fly” list of people (like Teddy Kennedy) who haven’t been charged, adjudicated and convicted of committing any crime worthy of stripping away their civil rights. I’m not alone in that sentiment.
burqa December 14th, 2015 at 16:37
Violent crime has been declining since about 1990, the peak may have come a couple years previous,
While I question your stat of homicides being half of what they were under Superstar Bill Clinton, if that were so, and this was a way of taking a shot at Clinton, methinks it would make Ronald “Dutch” Reagan look even worse.
Dave G: Why does the NRA have to run those particular political ads? Could it have anything to do with being placed in a defensive posture every year since 1968?
I don’t think so. I think it has more to do with money and power and being players on Capitol Hill. There was gun control legislation passed before the NRA was founded and if we’re going to object to it, 1968 is hardly the place to start. I’m not saying they should not do any lobbying, nor am I saying they are not doing any safety instruction. My issue is the balance between the two.
There would be no need for any gun control at all if people would handle firearms correctly. Unfortunately, this is not the case. In such discussions, frequently we only look at deaths, but there are thousands of nonfatal cases each year of people being shot. I think we really need a campaign whose goal is to reduce the numbers of accidental discharges. There are just too many firearms owners who do not handle their weapons responsibly and the NRA is perfectly positioned to play a major role in the effort.
I’m a Southern country boy and have been around guns all my life and began shooting when I was 10. I spend more time in the woods than most folks and I get a sick feeling when I come across a deer stand that has a pile of beer cans under it. Unfortunately, this is all too common.
Gun control did not start in 1934, either. I believe they go back at least to the 18-teens. I recall reading about such legislation, as I recall it banned concealed carry in Ohio.
Back then and in the colonial period, only assassins and robbers carried concealed weapons, and they were not carried overtly in town, either. That was viewed as being uncivilized and the sort of thing only white trash would do.
As for the no-fly list/ no-gun list, people on it mistakenly can appeal to be taken off it. It can be tightened up by including a full name and birthday, for example. It was not Teddy Kennedy himself who was on the list, but the name Theodore Kennedy that was on there because the other guy was in the IRA or something. I would prefer to not have a terrorist, even if he’s Irish, on the same plane as I.
burqa December 13th, 2015 at 18:55
To go with my post, below in response, we agree more than you think. Please try not to read into what I write.
As far as who is elligible for the militia, at the time the Second Amendment was passed it was generally accepted that every able bodied white man was expected to fall out.
This was quite controversial at the time because we need to remember that in those times we had a tiny upper class and a small middle class and most people wer epoor and couldn’t afford good weapons. Many felt this was an undue burden.
There were two major reasons for giving militia members responsibility for keeping their arms – money. We began in debt and they Founding Fathers did not want to spend a bunch of money on armories and armorers. The second reason was they believed the guns would be better maintained that way.
I do not deny we have state militias today. That in no way contradicts or rebuts the point that the militia referred to in the U.S. Constitution is that which the federal government would call up, staff with officers, order them around and disband them at the pleasure of the federal government. We should be careful to not conflate the 21st and 18th centuries.
But I will say that these groups today calling themselves “militia” are no such thing. They are not called out by or commanded by either the state or federal government.
Finally, I feel I must return to my point that reliance on militia for national defense was a terrible mistake.
SoCalCop December 14th, 2015 at 01:46
This is the current state of the 21st century militia.
10 U.S. Code § 311 – Militia: composition and classes
(a)
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32,
under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of
intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female
citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1)
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)
the unorganized militia,
which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the
National Guard or the Naval Militia.
And in California.
Military & Veterans Code
122. The militia of the State consists of all able-bodied male
citizens and all other able-bodied males who have declared their
intention to become citizens of the United States, who are between
the ages of eighteen and forty-five, and who are residents of the
State, and of such other persons as may upon their own application be
enlisted or commissioned therein pursuant to the provisions of this
division, subject, however, to such exemptions as now exist or may be
hereafter created by the laws of the United States or of this State.
In other words, IF you are male, or a female in the national guard, you are part of the militia.
burqa December 16th, 2015 at 16:27
Yeah, those National Guard troops did greeeeaaaaat in Korea….then, as now, and as in the 18th century, when it comes to warfare, militia were unreliable unless deployed alongside full-time troops.
Now excuse me for a minute while I return to your post, above, where you claimed militia were the special forces of the 18th century.
That one gets me to giggling.
Please stick around…….don’t take your comedy chops elsewhere….
burqa December 13th, 2015 at 18:00
Sure, “well-regulated.”
The federal government called up the militia, they didn’t call themselves out like the posers do today.
The president was the commander-in-chief and the Congress outfitted them.
“Strict control?”
The federal control over the militia was certainly firm.
The militia formed when the federal government called them out. Their officers were appointed by the federal government. They came and went according to orders from the federal government and they went home when the federal government disbanded them (unless their enlistments expired first and Andrew Jackson wasn’t around).
The Second Amendment is clear – since we will be defending the country with militia, the citizens making up the militia would keep and bear the arms needed for militia duty.
The premise in the first phrase of the Second Amendment proved to be faulty. The Founding Fathers feared a military coup and wanted to keep the military as small as possible and mistakenly believed the militia could provide national defense.
The Second Amendment was based upon the the Virginia Declaration of Rights which says:
“… SEC. 13. That a well-regulated militia, or composed of the body of
the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free
state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous
to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict
subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. …”
http://www.constitution.org/bcp/virg_dor.htm
Combat with the Indians and with the Brits in the War of 1812 showed what a faulty premise dependence on the militia for national defense was.
Firearms ownership by citizens rests atop that faulty premise.
Oh, and by the way, if we’re going to be strict constructionists and are cemented in the late 18th century, we may as well consider the arms private citizens were allowed to own. If they could afford it, they could own the most advanced artillery of the day. They also owned warships. People convicted of felonies were allowed to own weapons after they got out of jail.
The political Right has compromised on these freedoms.
Come to think of it, the political Right doesn’t seem too too interested in restoring the freedom to buy a fully automatic weapon off a store shelf, no questions asked, either.
Hirightnow December 14th, 2015 at 20:31
Here…hand this to SoCal…
https://foodsafety.ecolab.com/wcsstore/productimages/large/50241-03-11.jpg
burqa December 16th, 2015 at 16:20
He’s gonna need to gob it on with a snow shovel…..
burqa December 13th, 2015 at 20:36
Sure.
The Second Amendment clearly states that we need a well-regulated militia for self defense and that is why the people have the right to keep and bear arms.
The Founding Fathers did not want a large professional military -they thought the country could be defended on land by militia.
This was a faulty notion, given the way Bluejacket handled the militia and what the redcoats did to it at Bladensburg. The militia was not as highly trained as you claim.
Se premise the Second Amendment is based upon is faulty.
Coming out of the Revolution we were in serious debt and storing weapons in private homes of militia members was seen as a way to save money that would otherwise have been spent on armories.
Too bad you’re hung up on the word “liberal.” It shares the same root as “liberty,” and since the Left has been responsible for the major expansions of our liberty it is an apt appellation.
The Left fought the Revolution on our side, the Right sided with the redcoats.
The abolitionists were on the Left, the pro-slavery folks were on the Right.
Same with giving women the vote, empowering labor and civil rights.
Part of the fun in discussing Left-Right differences is when we get to real life events in our history, most conservatives will refuse to identify the sides of various issues in terms of where they were on the political spectrum. It is quite easy to turn the most hard core Tea Partier into a RINO because invariably they will give the Right the heave-ho and identify with the Left.
SoCalCop December 14th, 2015 at 01:51
Compared to people now days, the militia was like the Green Beret.
burqa December 14th, 2015 at 18:45
Today our Green Berets are Special Forces, generally regarded as superior to regular line infantry.
At the time of our Revolution, militia was considered inferior to regular line infantry.
They performed so poorly during the War of 1812 that it was recognized that we made a terrible mistake in relying on militia for national defense.
The Second Amendment is therefore outmoded, though [obviously] still on the books.
SoCalCop December 15th, 2015 at 00:53
That’s because the standing Army at the time would be superior to the Green Beret of today. That’s taking into consideration that both sides are equally equipped with the same arms and equipment.
burqa December 16th, 2015 at 16:18
That makes no sense whatsoever. The more one looks at it, the more ridiculous it is.
First, you tried to make the false claim that the 18th century militia was the special forces of their day, which is untrue.
So after losing on that point, you tried to salvage by a distraction.
Then you tried comparing 18th century infantry to 21st century special forces.
That being so obviously silly, you tried to put lipstick on the pig by giving them the same weapons and equipment, as ifan 18th century soldier would know what to do with that gear and could automatically adapt to tactics that had advanced greatly by the time the 21st century rolled around.
Shall we toss in their deficit in training and physical fitness, too?
…………………….Time for you to try another diversion…..
SoCalCop December 15th, 2015 at 10:50
And yet the U.S. government didn’t repeal the Militia Act of 1792. Why do you suppose that is?
burqa December 16th, 2015 at 16:07
I take it you concede my points.
I’m beginning to get used to this.
If this were a debate you would lose.
Peter January 16th, 2016 at 14:13
“This was a faulty notion”??? Seriously? *facepalm*
Peter January 16th, 2016 at 14:16
Who formed the KKK in the Southern states so as to restrict the evolving civil rights of the freed African-American slaves? Who instituted draconian gun laws in the Southern states so as to prevent freed African-American slaves from protecting their lives, liberties, and properties? Come on…you can say….D E M O C R A T S. Perhaps you and Professor Cornell need to revisit your source material and interpretations of history.
Dave G December 13th, 2015 at 12:30
A much better con law scholar, whose name is much better known outside of the academic world: Prof Eugene Volokh wrote “…Debates rage about the meaning of the Second Amendment; but observers often miss that there are forty-five right-to-bear arms provisions in American constitutional law, not just one. Forty-four states have state constitutional rights to bear arms.
Most are written quite differently from the Second Amendment. Nearly all secure (at least in part) an individual right to keep some kinds of guns for self-defense. Some date back to the Framing; some have been enacted in the last four decades…”– http://www.trolp.org/main_pgs/issues/v11n1/Volokh.ppf
SoCalCop December 13th, 2015 at 12:39
I’ve always enjoyed reading his commentaries. He’s extremely intelligent.
Nancy Weaver December 13th, 2015 at 14:44
Eugene Vokokh is the gun industry’s ‘scholar’. He and the gun industry have been lying to America for much too long. And we are much too gullible! Only in America, land of fools and guns.
SoCalCop December 13th, 2015 at 14:51
Have you considered voting with your feet? There are plenty of countries that think as you do. Or instead of leaving the country, just move to a place in the U.S. that has strict gun control. Someplace like Chicago, New Jersey, New York City, Washington D.C.
tracey marie December 13th, 2015 at 15:11
Have you considered taking your violence and anger for a walk to a country with plenty of guns, try the M.East, seems like your kind of place
SoCalCop December 13th, 2015 at 17:17
If you’ve noticed Tracey…darling…the middle east has come here and brought their violence with them. Oh did I mention that I live in San Bernardino county?
tracey marie December 13th, 2015 at 17:20
hahahaha, stop soiling yourself.
burqa December 16th, 2015 at 16:05
So you’re conceding the point she made?
You do a lot o that…..
burqa December 13th, 2015 at 16:41
Ahhhh, so now we have us a lawman advocating a form of censorship when he runs into an argument he doesn’t like.
That’s not how we do it in America.
We don’t just go on forever maintaining the status quo.
No, our history is one in which we have perfected our union, bit by bit, usually after protracted debate in public forums of various sorts. The Love-it-or-leave-it argument doesn’t reflect American values established by the Founding Fathers. Rather, it reflects intolerance and runs contrary to the principles held by our Founding Fathers when they wrote and adopted the Constitution (after kicking conservative redcoat ass in the American Revolution).
Try adopting some of those classic American values, SoCalCop, such as appreciating dissent. After all, if one’s argument is strong, there should be no fear of debate and no need to silence the other side by exiling them out of the country or off somewhere you don’t have to deal with them.
You can read in the Federalist Papers, such as #10, where the Founding Fathers sought to increase the number of parties participating in public debate. They found the notion of silencing members of a faction an odious idea.
They took the opposite tack you’re on, SoCalCop. They welcomed more debate and sought to increase, rather than decrease, the numbers of those participating in public debate.
SoCalCop December 13th, 2015 at 17:15
Censorship? People do it all the time. People don’t like California gun laws, so they move to Arizona. How’s that censorship?
burqa December 13th, 2015 at 19:13
You don’t like someone’s opinion.
Rather than engage in point-counterpoint debate, your solution is to get rid of the person making the argument you don’t care for.
It’s a form of censorship as well as an indication as to your confidence in the strength of your argument.
Further weakening your argument is the fact you have not taken your own advice and moved.
I don’t know if you see it or not, but I think others can see you asking someone else to do something you refuse to do yourself.
This weakens your argument even further.
There are things going on where I live that I don’t care for.
Rather than take the quitter approach you advocate, I get involved and do what I can to bring about change.
We’ve been doing it that way for quite some time in America.
It’s the way our system was designed to function that we may continue perfecting our union.
SoCalCop December 14th, 2015 at 01:18
I only offered a suggestion. I’ll talk all day long about firearms.
burqa December 16th, 2015 at 16:02
Then please address the question I posed to you, above, folowing your initial response to the lady…..
It’s one thing to “talk all day,” but another to have a discussion with someone where each addresses the other’s points. Otherwise, all you got is two people talking past each other.
Another way to take it would be to conclude you concede all the points being made by me and others…..
SoCalCop December 16th, 2015 at 20:12
Concession? I was having a hard time containing myself while you were falling all over yourselves doing your dead level best to prove me wrong. I would imagine that you people were heating up the internet looking for factual information to prove this dumb cop wrong. William, I’m talking to you.
So now that we’ve established that you know how to do real research when you want to, do more honest research about what Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Adams, and the other founders really felt about personal arms. Learn the real story and history of the NRA. Learn about the “Deacons for Defense” and their cooperative roll with the NRA. Go to the Firearms Museum, and learn. You know how to do it when you’re fired up. Do it now.
I’m done here. Way to many lemmings here.
burqa December 16th, 2015 at 20:43
Yes, concession.
The point was made and you’ve had no rebuttal in 2 tries.
Would you please answer the question?
Sonny boy, I walk the streets Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Pendleton, Henry and Mason walked. I know my history allright, and have made one point after the other regarding history you have been unable to address, much less rebut.
People here have scored point after point on you and all you’ve managed to reply with is evasions and distractions and now you’re running away.
SoCalCop December 16th, 2015 at 21:05
You may walk the streets but you don’t learn by osmosis. By the way, hold old are you boy?
burqa December 16th, 2015 at 22:02
You said you were leaving.
But now you’re back.
It’s like your posts, they’re all over the place with no focus.
No, one doesn’t learn solely by osmosis, but when the book-learning is combined with actually being there, the learning becomes more vivid. This is further magnified when one actually works on those buildings and takes them apart and puts them back together again.
One is able to have more of the gnoses -type knowledge that is superior to what one would get otherwise.
My age?
All I admit to is being between 30 and death.
SoCalCop December 16th, 2015 at 22:19
Oh, you know me, just a jumble of inconsistencies. So as I understand you, you’re an expert because you…what…subcontract to repair the Latham and plaster? I’m intrigued by how you achieved this expertise of American history through working on…what…Independence Hall? Monticello? Ben Franklin’s outhouse?
burqa December 16th, 2015 at 22:38
Now, on top of a string of name-calling, ducking, didodging, trying to change the subject, historically inaccurate posts, you’re trying to guess your way through.
Sonny, I learned history in the best school system in the country then spent decades in my career with my hands on things relating to what you have only read about.
If you had not been so busy trying to substitute attitude for substance, you would have seen I was talking about a combination of 3 things – 1) the book learning, 2) living amid where the history was made, 3) working on the buildings that were there from the 1600s to the present.
It is noted that you were unable to participate in any point-counterpoint debate on issues, but are more comfortable taking it down to a childish exchange of insults. That’s all you’ve got – personal attacks that are, in debate, the equivalent of raising the white flag. It’s an admission you have nothing of substance to offer and, since you find the arguments on the other side impregnable, you resort to attacking the person making those points.
You’re on one hell of a losing streak here.
Didn’t you say you were leaving?
Peter January 16th, 2016 at 14:07
You started out very well with your conversation and debate points, but now you are devolving into a class A whiner. Get over yourself.
vinceway December 13th, 2015 at 18:43
Gun control is somewhat effect in Hawaii where it is not possible to drive. Otherwise, local gun rules are silly.
burqa December 13th, 2015 at 19:20
Why do you suggest she do what you refuse to do yourself?
Obviously you do not care for gun control, yet you live in California and refuse to leave the country or move to a state with more lax forearms regulations.
Would you be so kind as to address this discrepancy?
SoCalCop December 16th, 2015 at 23:20
I actually answered this question once, but for some reason, it was removed. So here’s my answer again. I don’t leave California because I’m not subject to the same anti-gun laws as non law enforcement. I can go to any state in the union, with my badge and ID…and LEOSA, and carry my firearm. So, I stay in California and lend my voice to the other pro 2A voices that are fighting the good fight against anti-gun extremist such as yourself and others like you. The beautiful thing is, we’re winning, and you’re not. But that doesn’t stop the anti-gun extremists. Since facts aren’t in your favor, The Michael Bloomberg’s and Sharon Watts of the anti-gun movement resort to skewing numbers and outright lies. I know firearms because I’ve owned them for decades. When some anti-gun extremist talks about the AR15 being this “high powered” weapon designed for the purpose of killing people, I know I’m dealing with a moron that parrots what they are told, or they’re a liar. So I stay in California because it is on the front lines of the battle against anti-gun extremism.
What was your other question?
burqa December 18th, 2015 at 00:18
So you’ll be moving when you retire?
I think not.
“Anti-gun extremist”?
You haven’t been paying attention – lack of focus being a continuing theme with your posts.
I am a gun owner and have often said that while some things like closing the gun show loophole or keeping mentally disturbed people from owning guns may – may – be feasible, such things just nibble around the edges.
We should not get distracted from the main problem – and that is way too many people get shot in this country for whatever reason.
I have repeatedly pointed out that both sides are in error. When we look around the world we can find countries where being awash in guns doesn’t make them safer – see Afghanistan or Israel (or the U.S.) and we can find countries with as high or higher gun ownership where the number of shootings is s than we have donwaywayway lower than in America – Switzerland or Sweden (or is it Finland? I get them mixed up). Likewise there are plenty of places where banning guns or having more restrictions on guns doesn’t make them safer, see Chicago or D.C.; and countries where it does, see Australia or Britain.
So both argumantts fail to address the problem of people getting shot here.
The problem is we are a very violent people in America. Our favorite spot is violent, we glorify violent people, even murderers get the hero treatment.
I don’t see the NRA or the 2A crowd doing anything that is making a difference in making us less violent, nor do I see the gun regulators helping much in that regard, either.
And you can cool the hyperbole – the fact is you are in favor of some gun regulation, the only difference between you and anyone else is how much you want.
If the death and injury toll wasn’t so high it would be funny seeing the way both sides fail to take into account the entire Second Amendment. The gun control crowd focuses on the first phrase of the sentence and fails to see the second phrase, which not only gives the right to private citizens, but is speaking of the military hardware they would use in combat.
By the same token, the other side fails to look at the first phrase as being what it is – the pretext upon which the second phrase rests. The reason private citizens have the right to keep and bear arms is to serve in the militia to defend the nation in place of a standing army. We now have a professional military so there is no need for private citizens to own those guns.
Both sides would prefer to argue than to address the violent nature of our siociety which is the root cause of the slaughter.
SoCalCop December 18th, 2015 at 12:25
Okay, I’m going to take this point by point. First, there is no gun show loophole. Anti-gun extremists have gone to gun shows with the intent of buying firearms, and have purchased them from private owners, but that doesn’t prove a thing simply because they were not prohibited persons. The fact of the matter is, law enforcement is all over the gun shows, and the bad guys know it. In the instances, where a bad guy attempted to buy a firearm, they were in fact arrested. The venders that have FFLs are required to do a background check on each customer they sell a firearm to, and in California, private parties do have to do a private party transfer when a firearm changes hands. So this so called gun show loophole is not responsible for firearms getting into the hands of the bad guys. The reason the bad guys get guns is because someone buys (straw purchase) it for them, they get it from a relative, they steal it, or they buy it on the black market. A gun show is way too risky for the bad guys. And lastly, FFLs have the right to refuse a sale if they think something isn’t right. And believe me when I say it, you get pretty good at spotting the individuals that know they’re doing something wrong.
Now, as for people getting shot. Suicides account for the largest part of death by firearms. That can come in the form of a person who has a terminal disease and they don’t want to face it so they off themselves with a firearm. Men will shoot themselves in the head, and women shoot themselves in the chest if they don’t have the drugs to do it. Then there is the revenge suicide. Usually they take someone with them, and sadly, in the case of divorce, they kill the kids before they kill themselves. Investigating murder suicides can be very emotional, but you suck it up and do the investigation. Have you ever witnessed the aftermath of a 6 month and two year old having their heads blown off with a shotgun by their father who was getting back at their mother for divorcing him? I have. IT SUCKS! Should we take firearms from people just because of what he or she does? I don’t think so.
But see, the anti-gun extremists want to include ALL incidents with firearms in their list of “gun deaths”. They include justifiable homicides, which includes shooting by police. Instead of just listing incidents of actual homicide, where the bad guy kills a good guy, or as is often the case, another bad guy, they paint this broad picture of 30,000 + GUN DEATHS, as if all of those deaths were unlawful homicides perpetrated against family members by white male conservative Christians who suddenly went crazy because the gun told him to do it. Seriously? So if you remove the suicides, and justifiable homicides from the equation, unlawful homicides are pretty much lower per capita than a majority of countries.
Now, as for us being a violent people. We’ve allowed the tiny population of atheists to get their way, and have removed the Ten Commandments from public display in most places, and our society has told the losers in our society that they are just a good as the overachiever. We tell people that the human race is a mistake and we are no better than the other animals on the planet, and we have removed absolutes and replaced it with the tired narrative, “If it feels good, do it”. Our movie theaters are full of depictions of violence, and the latest and greatest “artists” in the music industry say it’s cool to objectify, rape, and beat women if they don’t comply with their attackers demands. They promote drug use, gang violence, disrespect for authority and parents. And now schools promote Islam but reject Christianity, make it a violation to wear anything that’s patriotic, refuse to say the Pledge of Allegiance, punish kids who pray or share their faith, give out birth control to kids, tell the girls that they can get an abortion if they get pregnant and NOT tell their parents. And you wonder why our society is violent? Really? Maybe we should redo the entire constitution because John Adams is quoted as saying, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” We tell people that they have freedom, but we have failed to hold them responsible for their actions. In the case of guns, it’s the guns fault and not the person. That’s just stupid and you know it.
Now to gun regulation. My answer is no, not really. I’m in favor of punishing actions. If a person is run over by a car, stabbed by a knife, beat with a blunt object, poisoned, drowned, electrocuted, burned alive, and yes, even shot, and they die, are they any less dead from one, than from another? Of course not. This country has 20,000+ gun laws on the books nationwide, and the only people they control are those that aren’t prone to violating the law. These gun laws have not stopped one mass murder, from the San Ysidro McDonald’s massacre in 1984, to the San Bernardino massacre in 2015. But they have caused good law abiding people grief for possession of spent ammo in New Jersey, or an in tact round at an airport. A Florida man was stopped in Maryland and given a going over because his Florida license indicated he was a concealed carry holder. Is that what the gun laws are supposed to do? Since you think I like regulation, here’s an anecdote for you, in California it is a misdemeanor to carry concealed without a permit. And in California, an officer has discretion as to whether or not they will arrest for that misdemeanor. Guess what? I refused to arrest the good honest citizens of my community if I discovered they were concealing a firearm, because the laws are arbitrary and capricious. In Vermont, their guns laws cover about a page and a half in their penal code. In California, it’s ten times that and we have some of the more violent communities, like L.A., Oakland, Stockton, parts of Orange county, and so on and so forth. My first concealed carry permit was obtained in Washington state in 1977. I filled out a page and a half application, submitted my finger prints, paid $15, and waited 30 days. The only thing that has changed since then is that it now costs $50 to get your 5 year permit. In California, a person must submit a six page application, spend about $300, get interviewed, and maybe, just maybe, the good Sheriff will issue a two year permit that includes ONLY those firearms listed that a person can carry. Do I like regulation? No not really.
So let’s look at the second amendment, written by Thomas Jefferson, and approved of by Congress. In the first amendment it says, “the right of the people peaceably to assemble”, and in the second amendment it says, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”, So please tell me how one is an individual right, and the other is a collective right. In Thomas Jefferson’s draft of the Virginia constitution, he wrote, “no freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” I think that nicely sums up what the second amendment means.
And lastly, my previous comments. I said of the militia, by todays standards, the militia back then would be as good as today’s special forces. I also said that the standing army back then would be better. So let me elaborate. When you consider the amount of technology our military is given to survive under tough conditions, it’s pretty easy to deal with. I assert that if our special forces were to be given the same equipment as the militia had back then to survive, our special forces might be able to compete with them. Having been in the military, and having experienced the best equipment the military has to offer, we had it very easy compared to the militias back then. While France played a key role in helping us win the American revolution, they only chose to join the fight after the Battle of Saratoga. Here’s a page about the militias from what I consider is neutral on the subject. http://www.ushistory.org/people/minutemen.htm
Latham Plaster…damn autocorrect. :-) It should have said, “Lath and Plaster”.
burqa December 19th, 2015 at 00:28
We-ell, given what you said about the gun show loophole, if we already have such legislation in every state then you shouldn’t object to the same law being passed again. It wouldn’t be the first time such a thing happened.
On the positive side, it appears you favor such regulation, but you better be careful, lest someone accuse you of being a 2A RINO.
I also think legally purchased firearms have been used in the commission of felonies. For example, it wasn’t long ago that we saw video of a cop in South Carolina shoot a man in the back several times. I doubt that cop bought his pistol on the black market.
As for suicides, many times it is an impulsive act. For example, many times a person will go to jump off a bridge, find fences or other barriers, and not go find another bridge to jump off of, but decided to not kill themselves in the time they had to think it over.
In my experience, the removal of the Ten Commandments is overblown. First, the government should not be pushing religious regulations on citizens. Second, I went to schools that had the Ten Commandments in every classroom and no one ever bothered to read them.
I think the “20,000 gun law” argument is bogus, too. Do they cover 20,000 different ways a person may buy, sell or handle a firearm? It’s a red herring.
But your point about more regulation not preventing shootings mirrors mine. More or less regulation is not going to do much other than nibble around the edges of the problem of too many shootings. We have to reform our society, and we need more of a socila movement, like MADD did with drunk driving. I recall a time when our societal attitudes toward it were very different. For example, it was common for the host of a drinking party to give a departing guest, who was already under the influence, “one for the road,” which was often an even stronger drink.
Unless you or a source you can cite have interviewed everyone who ever considered shooting someone and then changed their mind, you can’t say whether the laws have prevented anyone from shooting someone else or not. After all, some of those 20,000 gun laws must include additional charges such as someone being charged for having a gun while in the commission of another crime.
On your comparison of right to assemble and right to keep and bear arms, both look to me like individual rights held by the citizens collectively. I think you’re plugging in a pre-packaged argument in response to a point I didn’t make. So that debate is between you and yourself.
As for your Jefferson quote, for one thing, he said a lot of things that weren’t law, but wouldn’t a felon who completed his sentence be a “freeman”? Do you know when we began taking away the right to keep and bear arms from felons who completed their sentences?
If you need to quote Jefferson, a more appropriate quote would be legislation he authored or had a role in getting passed, such as the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which says in the part about firearms ownership and the need for militia, in Section 13:
“… standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty …”
You agree with that?
You’re still stepping in it on claiming the militia were equivalent to special forces today.
Special forces today are considered generally superior to line infantry, whereas the militia was considered to be decidedly inferior to professional line infantry at the time of the Revolution. They would typically break and run from the redcoats whereas the soldiers of the Continental army would stand. The militia did not do too well alone, and had to be stiffened by the presence of the Continental Line. I am speaking generally, because there were some exceptions in terms of militia soldiers who performed exceedingly well.
My argument is cemented by the performance of, say Taliban militia versus American infantry. In Korea, we rushed national Guard troops there and they got chewed up pretty badly compared to our regular infantry.
As for lathe and plaster, I hope you realize I’m just joking. But I will point out that often plaster was not applied over lathe strips at all. I have worked on many houses built in the 30s or 40s where plaster was applied over an early version of drywall. It’s pretty interesting to me, professionally, to see how the field evolved to what we have now. For example, when gypsum panels first came out, they kind of experimented with applying it and often one finds it fastened with 6 or 8 penny common nails nailed every 4-6 inches. It was years before they figured out they needed to use the wide-headed drywall nails and even later that screws came into common use.
I have done a great deal of work with plaster. It is a dying art and I’m not exaggerating when I say I’ve probably made $50-100,000 fixing effed up repairs. Most commonly is the use or ordinary joint compound, which gets eaten up and turned to powder by the high lime content found in plaster. Plus, come to think of it, I don’t know any drywallers who even have the tools required to apply scratch coat, brown coat and white coat working plaster over lathe strips.
Before you knock it, try it. It’s backbreaking work.
What I find disappointing in your post, as well as those of the gun-grabbers, is neither side sees what I see – and that is the root cause of our high rates of shootings is the violent nature of American society.
Americans have excelled at smuggling since the 1600s and they could ban guns nationwide and all they’d do is fuel an even larger black market. If we can’t keep tons of heroin coming into the country, we won’t be able to keep just as many tons of guns smuggled in.
We need to change our society the same way we did with drunk driving, women’s lib or racially integrating our society.
Neither the pro- or anti- 2A crowds are going to ever do much good in terms of significantly reducing shootings the way they are going now.
burqa December 18th, 2015 at 00:39
To go with my post below this one, I have made a number of points you have ducked.
Here’s one I made, after you pointed out that tanks, warplanes and cannons are owned by private citizens:
burqa: “As I pointed out below, civilian ownership of tanks, warplanes and cannons is strictly regulated.
Do you favor those regulations or would you prefer to eliminate all of them so that MS-13 can have that stuff?”
Go ahead, tell us you are in favor of regulation, Mr. Second Amendment.
SoCalCop December 18th, 2015 at 12:56
I wasn’t ducking your questions, I was ignoring you because I was engaged in a conversation with someone else.
But to answer your question…well…I’ll just let this article speak for me ( http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324432004578302480951570270 )
So let me clear about MS13. Having worked on the border as a police officer, I dealt with numerous illegal aliens in the form of Mexicans, Guatemalans, El Salvadorans, Nicaraguans, and even a Panamanian. The democrats have allowed these people to come into this country unchecked and provided sanctuary to them. Do you know that in L.A. it is a misdemeanor for a police officer to help Border Patrol and INS? From just assisting INS, their whole world would be destroyed. So here’s the deal with MS13. I think they should be identified, rounded up, jailed, executed, sent back to El Salvador, and their dead corpses should be air dropped over the country as a warning to other MS13 dirtbags thinking it’s a good idea to come to the U.S. And the democrats that provided them sanctuary should be identified, along with the victims of MS13 to show the voters the misery democrats caused by providing them with sanctuary. Enough said on this subject.
Peter January 16th, 2016 at 13:30
Brilliantly said!! Thank you for your service, and for fighting the good fight against those that would deprive of us our liberties.
Hirightnow January 16th, 2016 at 13:33
Like Trump!
Nancy Weaver December 13th, 2015 at 22:02
No imagination, SoCalCop? Your response is what the gun fetishists always say. Tedious.
Carla Akins December 19th, 2015 at 04:33
Thank you burqa for such a reasoned response.
SoCalCop December 19th, 2015 at 14:38
Other than adding an additional restriction that doesn’t work, by what logic would you even consider making another law that burdens the FFL? I’m not sure how you came to the conclusion that I favor more regulation, but okay.
And so again, a so called gun owner focuses on the idiot screwing up by the numbers but ignores the fact that the other MILLIONS of gun owners did nothing wrong. Great argument there. And let’s keep banging away at law enforcement by focusing on the one bad apple but ignoring the tens of thousands of good people that serve everyday to protect their communities from those who typically vote democrat. Yeah I said it, a vast majority of bad guys are democrats and lean left of center.
Now to suicides, in my experience, attempts at public suicides are more about attention than about actually killing themselves, But you have the occasion individual that screws up and does something to complete the act. Those that don’t want to be stopped are those that complete the act in secret and are found later. It doesn’t matter if they have a firearm, they will use another means if they are serious.
The removal of the Ten Commandments isn’t overblown. It happens regularly. As for the government pushing “religious regulations”, are you suggesting that telling people not to commit theft, murder, and rape are strictly religious regulations? Are you suggesting that people should not be told that there are moral absolutes? If that’s true, then I think you’re part of the problem.
The 20,000+ gun laws that are on the books is not bogus, and yes they are primarily regulatory. Those regulations are what trip law abiding citizens up. What makes them untenable is when the government doesn’t know the regulations and arrests a person, seizes their property, and costs them thousands of dollars in legal fees to prove they did nothing wrong. Put another way, ignorance is no excuse if a person unknowingly violates the law, but ignorance is an excuse if the government violates the law? Are you okay with that?
Thank you for making my point. No regulation has stopped the commission of a crime. At least we agree on something. Penalties for committing a crime while armed are not typically laws in and of themselves. They are penalty enhancements to the original crime. Case in point, Robbery (211 P.C.) can be either strong arm (using force or fear), or armed (using a weapon) to commit a crime. A person guilty of armed robbery tends to get more state time versus a person that merely did a snatch and grab. A person who physically beats a person to steal property can face the same amount of time as an armed robber even though they didn’t have a weapon. Rape is the same thing. Burglary, the same. So there is the original crime, and then there is the penalty enhancement if a weapon is present during the commission of the crime.
So according to you, a person can only exercise their right to peacefully assemble if there are two or more people? And the second amendment is the same thing? Does that also include the 4th amendment?
I’m glad you said Jefferson said things that weren’t law. In his letter to the Danbury Baptist Church, he also said, “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State ( https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html ). So his opinion wasn’t law, but those five little words are constantly and conveniently placed into the 1st amendment as if they were law. So which is it?
In my opinion once a person has completed their sentence whether it’s a misdemeanor or a felony, their rights should be restored so long as they don’t have a propensity for violence. I have said this for a very long time, I don’t believe all felons should be prohibited from owning firearms. If a person embezzles money but they aren’t a violent felon, should they be prohibited from owning a firearm? If a person commits a computer crime, but they aren’t violent, should they be prohibited from owning a firearm? Let’s reverse that, I don’t think I want a person who is prone to violence, even if the violent acts are misdemeanors, to own a firearm. Would you? So you have to define just what you mean when you say felon.
I do agree with Jefferson that standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty. 6 million people died in Germany from a standing army. Over a million people were killed in Turkey ( http://endgenocide.org/learn/past-genocides/?id=gad&gclid=CjwKEAiAndSzBRDp5P232v-qtHkSJABw-Vdts-CZOU0eIJEVArVjvot-0I5SnIte4r88xNDTr93_LhoCFXDw_wcB ) We, as Americans have the right to defend ourselves, and the weapons in the hands of the American gun owner are greater than those of law enforcement and the military combined. Of course the government is trying to change that. Do you agree with that?
By todays standards, U.S. special forces are superior to any other modern military. I am not disputing that. But when you consider what 18th century militias endured to survive, I will bet that no member of the special forces would be willing to swap places with them. In fact, I’ll ask a coworker of mine tonight, and see what he says.
I’m going to close this out by saying this, people are not generally good. I saw that in law enforcement. Where people differ is the amount of risk they are willing to take to obtain the reward they seek. Put another way. If a person is certain that there is zero risk blowing a stop sign, they will do it. I see it in the HOA all the time. That goes the same for criminals. If they believe the reward is worth the risk, they will commit the crime. If a criminal believes they can overpower their victim, they will attack. Criminals in Chicago know that it is more likely that their potential victim can’t fight back versus a criminal in Dallas Texas who doesn’t know who’s armed. And homicides are going down nationwide as a result of this. Law enforcement managers that were opposed to concealed carry are not opposed to it now because there was no discernible increase in violent crime. Crime either remained steady or decreased.
But lets take a look at another factor that people don’t want to talk about…the true Bible believing Christian. I’m not talking about the person that says he or she is, but lives like hell throughout the week. I’m talking about the person that believes that he is a representative of Christ. The one that believes God is constantly watching him or her. The one, that if it was a crime to be Christian, you could point at without a doubt and say, he or she is a Christian. That person deals in absolutes. The absolutes are based on biblical principles of right and wrong.
Before you start banging on me about what is written in the Old Testament, let me just say this, to the Christian, that is the old covenant with God. Christians are under a new covenant and what is written in the New Testament is what you should focus on when looking at a person who claims to be a Christian. You want to change society, this should be the standard. You want to change society, there has to be absolutes. If our society is unwilling to do that, nothing will change.
Joseph A. Clark December 23rd, 2015 at 12:49
Dear “Professor” Cornell….do you know what a dictionary is used for? Look up the word “people”, please. When you read the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution, the first 3 words are “We the People”. When you read the First Amendment, it states, “the right of the people to peaceably assemble”. When you read the Fourth Amendment, it states, “the right of the people to be reasonably secure in their homes”. My Webster’s dictionary defines “people” as the plural of “person”, or a group of persons tied by race, ethnicity, clan, etc. and the last definition is “human beings”. So, given that the Founding Fathers used plain, everyday language in writing the Constitution, so that there would be little ambiguity, the word “people” seems pretty evidently to mean just what Webster’s says it means. So, now my question, Professor Cornell, where in the U.S. Constitution does the definition of “people” change to mean “states”, as you claim the Second Amendment indicates? Show it to me, sir……..and you are not going to be convincing me that you can “read” James Madison’s mind 225 years later.