Gun-toting soccer mom is shot dead

[charlie]

Meleanie Hain, the pistol-carrying Lebanon mom who received national attention for taking a loaded gun to her daughter’s soccer game, was shot to death Wednesday night with her husband in an apparent murder-suicide, police said.
...

Meleanie Hain was thrust into the national spotlight when she took a gun, in plain view and holstered on her hip, to a soccer game Sept. 11, 2008, at Optimist Park in Lebanon.

Her permit to carry a gun was revoked by Lebanon County Sheriff Michael DeLeo on Sept. 20, 2008. DeLeo said Hain showed poor judgment in wearing her gun to the game.

Hain’s permit was reinstated by Lebanon County Judge Robert Eby on Oct. 14, 2008, but the judge asked her to conceal it when she goes to soccer games. Hain said she would continue to carry it openly under the Second Amendment.

Hain then filed a lawsuit against DeLeo for $1 million in U.S. Middle District Court seeking reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and costs, emotional distress and lost wages.



http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2009/10/gun-toting_soccer_mom_is_shot.html

[LeftyMom]

1. If only she'd had an... oh, wait.

HOLY SHIT, THAT KID'S HAND IS ON HER MOTHER'S FUCKING GUN! Lovely parenting, there.

Maybe now that Mom's dead and Dad's going to prison that kid can be raised by people who aren't complete morons.

[TheWraith]

3. The father is dead too.

Both parents died in a murder suicide. It's not known yet who killed who.

[LeftyMom]

10. Well, hopefully the girl winds up with somebody competent.

That picture scares the hell out of me. The child (who appears to be a bit slow, but maybe she just had her face screwed up strangely when the photo was taken) is touching her loopy Mom's gun and Mom doesn't appear to have noticed. It's lucky nothing horrid happened to the kid first.

[lunatica]

61. You're diagnosing a child as being slow from a photograph?!

?

[LeftyMom]

77. I'm just saying the expression on her face is odd

and leads me to wonder if she might be. Can't really tell from one photo.

[armyowalgreens]

24. That is a passive locking holster. You cannot just grab the gun and pull.

[Maru Kitteh]

39. Toddlers and little kids accomplish the 'impossible' all the time

They're fast, they have frenetic energy levels, tiny hands that fit into small gaps, persistence, they're below the line of sight. . .

Amazing little creatures those little humans.


Regardless of the holster, given the mentality of these two (former) half-wits, it is something of a miracle that poor kid didn't end up the victim of her parents stupidity before they self-destructed. She's still a victim, but at least now she's got a chance.

I'll bet she grows up with a vociferous hatred of guns.

[rd_kent]

102. From reading your post, I assume you KNOW what a moron is....

[Horse with no Name]

2. This is the problem with guns

Morons are allowed to have them.

[Scout]

59. don't forget assholes ... they are allowed to have them too n/t

[Flabbergasted]

63. Uh.....no

The danger is the evil liberals who want her to keep her gun locked up.

.sarc.

[Bolo Boffin]

4. Another mindless crime.

And the article doesn't say who shot who and committed suicide, either. And now three kids without parents. Very sad.

[Hekate]

5. All the time the danger was in her own home, not from some stranger in the street....

This is very sad.

At least, thank God, their children were not killed, as happens too often in cases such as this.

Hekate

[Horse with no Name]

7. Amen to that

Unbelievable stupidity.

[MajorChode]

21. Who the fuck worries about getting mugged at a kids soccer match anyway?

There's no nut like a gun nut.

[jberryhill]

43. It's Not All About Mugging, You Know....

I'll bet the ref never made a bad call against her kid.

[MajorChode]

56. Good point

I bet she doesn't get bullied by the other kids either.

[Jack_DeLeon]

82. thats right because going to a soccer game automatically protects you...

and your family during the entire rest of your journey. :eyes:

I carry a handgun most times, albeit concealed so only those that know me know. I've had friends question me why I carry to such and such an event, they ask "do you really think something is going to happen here." I say that probably not, but even if I was sure that nothing would happen there, who is to say that something couldnt happen anywhere else along my journey to there and back home or anywhere else I am planning on going that day. I'm not necessarily carring because I fear something will happen at any given "safe" location but everywhere else along the way. Also my gun is alot safer from being stolen while it is on my person instead of at my home or in my car.

[Prism]

6. Sad

But occasionally the tree of stupidity must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of the ignorant and psychotic.

I feel for those kids.

[csziggy]

38. I love that - can I borrow it?

"occasionally the tree of stupidity must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of the ignorant and psychotic."

It would be good on a protest sign or a T-shirt!

[Prism]

49. LOL, be my guest n/t

[MrModerate]

8. But hey -- she was "protected" because she carried a gun. n/t

[lapfog_1]

11. Uh, she COULD have been the one doing the shooting.

we don't know yet. All they said was murder/suicide but not who was doing the shooting.

[MrModerate]

12. Does it really matter? She's dead. He's dead. Protection? Not hardly. n/t

[lapfog_1]

14. Well, if she was the one doing the shooting

then, yeah, your comment on her gun not "protecting" her doesn't make much sense. Only something like a straight jacket and a padded cell can protect you from yourself.

But let's wait until the police report is released.

[MrModerate]

16. But my point is that it doesn't matter who the shooter was.

She professed to believe that guns were necessary to protect her life and freedom. The outcome in her case was a resounding No.

[MajorChode]

18. Be that as it may, there's something to be said for convienience

If you are considering suicide and/or murder, it's a lot easier and convenient to pick up a gun than a hammer even though both can be effective.

[Ineeda]

32. Murder/suiciders are the lowest

either they decide to kill someone and are too cowardly to face the consequences or they decide that their life is not worth living and take someone else with them. No sympathy whatsoever (except for those left behind - kids or otherwise.)

[ManiacJoe]

123. You seem to be working from the misbelief

that having a gun magically protects the owner. It does not. It does give you another tool in the toolbox should the need to defend yourself arise. Assuming you have it with out at the time of need.

[armyowalgreens]

26. Hey, let's all take a moment to turn this tragedy into a tool to further our own agendas.

:sarcasm:

Disgusting.

[951-Riverside]

57. Yes lets.

This just proves that many gun owners are irresponsible nut jobs.

BTW, The 2nd amendment should be removed because

1. Its outdated and doesn't specify the type of weapons you can own.
2. It doesnt specify where you can have a gun or how it can be carried.
3. Felons cannot own weapons even though they have the same right as every American under the 2nd amendment.

[Pavulon]

65. Then by all means get the votes, the idiots who banned booze did

fix the document.

[MrModerate]

75. Sure, because this tragedy had no roots in public policy whatsoever . . .

It just happened, and there's no point in discussing why, or whether it needed to happen.

Get a grip.

[armyowalgreens]

85. Feel free to discuss it in another thread.

[Jack_DeLeon]

84. Maybe it didnt protect her but she atleast had the option to try

Guns arent magical talismans that protect you from evil, sometimes good people die trying to save themselves or others. Atleast she had the option, where as some people foolishly believe its better to not have any option.

[lapfog_1]

9. I feel sorry for her kids.

but, at the same time, I sorta really wish she and her husband had decided to "have it out" before they passed on their genetic material.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bigbrother05]

22. Actually think the greater concern is the lessons taught

Let's hope that compassionate individuals will provide guidance for the kids to overcome this tragedy and the terrible example of their parents actions. The children and the greater community are truly victims in this case.

[JackRiddler]

15. Tragic for the little girl and for her now departed parents.

Can people resist the sick schadenfreude and smugness that makes several of the respondents here look like heartless, clueless morons? Especially sickening is the respondent who makes fun of the little girl (based on a photo diagnosis a la Frist). Yeah, packing obviously was a very bad idea for this woman and her family, and that is the case in general. This is still tragic and no cause for jokes.

[bobburgster]

17. NRA Ad?

The whole story sounds like an NRA ad.....they surely can put a positive spin that it is the result of the County Sheriff attack on our Second Amendment rights.

[LostInAnomie]

19. That poor little girl.

She and her siblings were in the house when the shooting took place.

Thank God her parents 2nd Amendment rights weren't restricted in any way though.

[democracy1st]

20. RIP

[Bucky]

23. How heart breaking. That adorable child is going to grow up without her parents now

I'm not sure there's a political angle in all this... but here is a real cost to the cultural fetishism over guns. People bury their insecurities in gun, use them as an expression of self, and eventually things like this tragedy can occur.

[The Straight Story]

25. She carried her gun and used it legally, and yet people are still afraid of her?

(well they aren't now, I meant in general).

Terror! Terror! Everyone run scared from the muslims, errr... gun owners.

[armyowalgreens]

27. Such a tragedy for the kids.

Sometimes this world really blows.

[DainBramaged]

28. I guess her selfish patriotism was carried to the extreme

She got to carry her gun, die by it, and leave her kids a mess for the rest of their lives, all so that she could open carry anywhere.

What a patriot.


:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[benEzra]

133. She was unarmed at the time and shot by a rogue LEO, apparently using his duty weapon

after she sought a protective order against him.

But don't let trivialities like that get in the way of a good hatefest. She liked guns so she fucking had it coming, right?

:sarcasm:

[old mark]

29. Anti's celebrate another gun death.

Hope you all are having a big party over this one, this story was posted twice.

Makes you happy, I guess.

mark

[tekisui]

33. It is a tragic story.

It is sad that the issue is so divisive that any tragic story involving guns is latched on and politicized by both sides. I have come to the position that, like drugs, you cannot legislate guns away. IMO, the best we can do is make common sense safety laws to protect children and accidental shootings. And, of course, provide quality and accessible mental health care to everyone.

[baldguy]

36. And gun worshippers insist that the gun is innocent.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

48. What crime should the gun be charged with?

[Pavulon]

66. As innocent as the car of a DWI driver

who zips into your passenger door smashing the head of your significant other. One persons choice just destroyed a life.

The body is just as dead. Though it is not really news because this is a normal way to die and the case here is all about the drama.

And to top it, the person who just killed your passenger will do very little jail time in many states..

[Scout]

62. no more than gun nuts celebrating the murder of a teenager, shot in the back

for stealing a tv.

makes you guys cream your jeans.

[friendly_iconoclast]

145. Cite, please? Or is that too much to ask?

n/t

[Scout]

168. just read some of the gungeon threads besides this one....

not exactly crowing over a shooting in the back, but here is a similar example i didn't have to search for:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=259478&mesg_id=259625

"If a criminal is killed in the process of committing a crime that is good for society as it will protect them from future predation from said criminal."

[BoneDaddy]

30. For people like this

the dysfunction is much much deeper than simply carrying a gun. Obviously, this family had some serious problems.

[wicket]

31. RIP

[lightningandsnow]

34. The sad part is, most homicides are committed by someone known to the victim...

and women are more likely to be killed by their own partners than anyone else.

[paparush]

35. Poor kid(s). nt

[SsevenN]

37. You guys are disgusting.

Okay, since She was involved with lots of forum activity, it's pretty well known already what happend.

she was shot by her HUSBAND, who is a SWORN LEO (cop). He had a history of domestic violence, she was filing for divorce, and didn't know how he would take it. NOT WELL is the answer.

BTW her gun is LOCKED UP when she is at home. (Child saftey, ya know?)

So now that you guys have acted like total jerks, all I can say is congradulations on being disgusting.

Sometimes you guys make me sick.


http://forum.pafoa.org/news-123/74912-sad-news-meleanie-hain-shefearsnothing-killed-tonight-page-2.html

[TexasObserver]

40. "Gun nut killed at home with family gun" is not really news, is it?

We didn't kill her. That gun nut's husband did.

She picked him. She bought into his violence and his reliance on guns.

Blame yourself. Blame people like you.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[armyowalgreens]

90. Your words are seriously gross on levels I rarely see in here.

Pat yourself on the back for me.

[TexasObserver]

91. I don't value your opinion.

[PavePusher]

93. Very Progressive of you. n/t

[armyowalgreens]

That person just earned a very rare spot on my ignore list.

You really have to be a total asshole to get on it.

[TexasObserver]

130. Putting people on Ignore is lame. Posting about it is even more lame.

Thanks. Now I know I don't have to pull any punches responding to your posts.

[LynneSin]

41. Clearly you don't get the irony here

this woman was so damn proud to tote her gun around thinking it somehow made her a better person. And it wasn't so much that she carried a gun to her child's soccor game but that she made such a public display about it. She said she was attacked unfairly well hell - when you put yourself out there like that you better be ready to deal with the criticism in return

And yet it was a gun that killed her. The irony is this woman somehow felt she was more protected by carrying a piece of metal around on her hip. The truth is she relied on the wrong thing to protect herself.

There are too many people that live a life of delusion because they believe that somehow owning a gun makes them 'protected'. The only thing that gun made her was a fool.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

70. Bingo

Thanks for saying what I wanted to.

[TommyPaine]

171. Yes, this defines irony. (nt)

[Strelnikov_]

67. "You guys" ???????????????????

[Joe Fields]

71. It makes me sick that a cop had a history of domestic violence.

It makes me sick that a COP, a man sworn to protect and defend, would use the very instrument of death and destruction that he was trained NOT to use, unless ABSOLUTELY necessary, on his SPOUSE.

Divorce or no, it sounds like you are excusing the brutish act of a rogue cop.

Take your disgust somewhere else, please.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

44. Her Police Officer husband murdered her, then he killed himself.

"Her husband was a parole officer in Berks County and a former prison guard at the State Correctional Institute in Camp Hill. He also had worked part-time for Lebanon County Central Booking."

Wow... that sure is a a case against Concealed Carry for civilians!
:sarcasm:

[TexasObserver]

45. She embraced a lifestyle that glorifies guns and thinks they're the solution to conflicts.

SHE wore a gun to her child's soccer practice.

SHE was a gun advocate.

SHE evidenced the mindset of one who thinks a gun is a good solution to conflict.


LIVE BY THE GUN, DIE BY THE GUN.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

47. Actually, guns are pretty good solutions to dealy conflicts/threats.

Can you think of better solutions when a deadly conflict presents itself?
How many of these solutions you come up with does an armed person STILL have at thier disposal?

Sure, fleeing is one way - but it's not always an option.
When armed you have more options... you can still flee or defend yourself.

[Ineeda]

50. pfft.

That 'solution' didn't do her or her kids much good, did it?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

51. Would you suggest she would have been better off unarmed?

Do you suggest that this case itself, one data point, is enough "proof" to discredit guns as an effective self defense solution?
If so, that's asinine. Especially considering she was in her home, around her family, and likely not even carrying.
I would have to assume many people with CCW permits do not carry around their house.

I have never seen ANYONE claim that carrying a gun WILL protect them from ALL threats. Gun owners get assaulted and lose... it happens. All the time. That's reality. Constructing this straw-man is equally asinine because nobody advocates this. You might as well go debate with a grapefruit if you feel like creating false opposing viewpoints to argue against.

The only point I'm stating is that having a means of self defense (taser, gun, mace, knife) affords a victim more options. In addition to fleeing or another response... they also have the option to stand up to the violence. No one has ever advocated just because you have a gun means you HAVE to use it... or always have a right to. The truth is sometime certain options are not available, and you'd better hope you have other options or else your at the mercy of a criminal.

[Forkboy]

52. It's hard to be worse off than dead.

[kiranon]

58. +1. n/t

[TexasObserver]

53. Well, you certainly have learned the weak ass rationale for such.

You sure sound scared of your shadow, but then, gun worshippers tend to be very, very afraid.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

54. So you can't offer any answers and revert to name calling... how typical.

You seem to disagree with the concept that victims should have the additional option of standing and fighting rather than just running away. Why?
Do you prefer victims unarmed?

Or perhaps you side with the moral superiority of a defenseless raped victim versus the hubris of an armed victim standing over a dead rapist...?
Your logic is intriguing...

[TexasObserver]

55. It's not name calling, so stop pretending you're a victim.

See, you are so afraid of your shadow that you mischaracterize my comments. I didn't call you any names, but because you frighten so easily, you accuse me of doing so.

Learn the difference between someone calling you names and someone accurately describing your responses.

You like to pretend the issue is whether some imaginary victim is going to shoot the bad guy, if only the imaginary victim had a gun. In the case of the dead gun toting mother, she had a gun. She was trained. She knew how to use it. But she's still dead, because the thing that killed was the idiocy between her own ears, and the idiocy between her gun toting husband's ears.

Owing a gun increases the odds that you or a family member will die from a gun. That's a simple fact that even you should be able to understand.


This isn't about gun rights. This is about the fact that many who are drawn to guns are emotionally or mentally incapable of handling them smartly. Women who are drawn to gun loving losers often live to regret it. They aren't saved by a gun.

[Regret My New Name]

73. That's too close to sounding like "She was a stripper who chose to live that life"

Can't say I'm too comfortable with that. The argument would make more sense if she was outside of her home and armed, and then shot with her own weapon. However, that's not how this played out.

[TexasObserver]

74. No, it's nothing like that. Not even remotely.

Even by DU standards, that's a ridiculous stretch you've made in the interest of shoring up your weak ass argument.

You also fail to see that it is the choice she made to adhere to a gun toting Neanderthal which sealed her doom. She was proud to be a gun toting mother. She loved the intimidation of wearing one.

LIVE BY THE GUN, DIE BY THE GUN.


Leave strippers out of it. They make an honorable living.

[Regret My New Name]

79. Ehhn, well I guess we're going to have to disagree.

While I think she's a nut job her self for wanting to carry a gun to her daughters soccer games, I just can't bring myself to blame her for being murdered by her asshole husband. The way I see it, even if she herself wasn't a gun toting mother, she most likely would have suffered a similar fate. I also cannot get in line with saying that she put herself in the position by marrying the guy. If we do that for her, then that means that we're going to blame every other person for entering an abusive relationship(if it was even always abusive, maybe the guy was usually a nice enough guy but snapped for whatever reason... I dunno)

Anyway, I think she was an idiot for her previous actions, but even idiots don't deserve to be murdered.

[Jack_DeLeon]

80. So police officers should die by the gun?

I own a gun, I carry one around most days, I dont depend on it for my livlyhood thus I dont live by it.

Police officers carry a gun as part of thier job does that mean you think they should or will die by it?

FWIW this tradgedy is one more data point that shows the trend that law enforcement types are more likely to commmit muder and other crimes than concealed handgun license holders, yet I imagine that you are one of those who think that only the police should be armed. :eyes:

[TexasObserver]

83. If I want to argue with gung ho gun owners, I'll go to their forum.

[Jack_DeLeon]

86. So you would rather just talk to yourself and like minded individuals....

to make yallselves feel better about your own opinions. If someone believes differently or trys to actually debate well you didnt want to talk to them anyways? :eyes:

[TexasObserver]

88. There's nothing you can say I haven't already heard said better.

You: "Guns ... blah blah blah ... defend yourself ... blah blah blah ... permit to carry ... blah blah blah ... substitute penis."

Me: "Yawn."

[Pavulon]

97. blah. I got no better idea, so i shit on yours

how in a world where your are king and jeebus rolled up into one do you "fix" gun violence in america. Ban, (like the drug ban) what is the secret sauce?

[TexasObserver]

109. There is no "fixing" gun violence in the US ....

There is no "fixing" gun violence in the US, short of significant reductions in the number of guns and the availability of ammo. Given the second amendment and our history, there are not going to be any significant changes one way or another regarding gun ownership and use.

I favor reasonable restrictions, and that includes a restriction upon non LEO wearing side arms in public. I don't trust the judgment of ANY person who isn't LEO and who thinks wearing a side arm in public is a good idea.

[PavePusher]

115. Yet you don't seem to get in a tizzy...

over the thousands of other people in proximity to you who have non-firearm means of causing death and destruction at whim.

Have you thought about being a bit more consistent in your mistrust?

[TexasObserver]

120. Good Lord. Are you reading from an NRA pamphlet?

The first time I heard the arguments you're making, LEAVE IT TO BEAVER was still on TV.

None of them are new, and none of them persuade me.

[rd_kent]

104. Hahaha! That has to be the STUPIDEST extrapolation I have ever read!

[beevul]

162. Make sure to scream that loud and proud...

Next time a LEO is shot and killed by a criminal, wont you?


"LIVE BY THE GUN, DIE BY THE GUN." TexasObserver

[JVS]

68. So she was murdered by a cop? It figures. Sounds like she was living a loony-toon lifestyle and ...

it caught up with her.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

46. I'll bet her daughter's team got pretty favorable calls from the refs

[RagAss]

60. Sad...rest in peace.

[Strelnikov_]

64. " . . couple’s three children were home at the time . . "

" . . and were not injured. They are staying with relatives and friends, police said."

[Geek_Girl]

69. I think this story proves

Your more likely to be killed by someone you know than by a random stranger wanting to do harm to you.

[PavePusher]

94. One anecdote does not "prove" anything.

One data point is not a trend/slope/curve.

Fail.

[frogmarch]

72. "The way people look at me sometimes

when I am out running errands, I feel as if I am wearing a scarlet letter, and really it’s a Glock 26."

I like that quote.

What a terrible thing for the kids.

[jobycom]

76. This proves no one's point of view, it just demonstrates how sad life can be.

[WildEyedLiberal]

78. +1000

The ghouls on this thread braying about how she asked to be a victim of domestic violence because she carried a gun in public (which have absolutely nothing to do with one another, to anyone with rudimentary critical thinking skills) are disgusting.

[Jack_DeLeon]

81. Funny how some people applaud this woman's murder by her husband...

simply because of her political beliefs?

I would think many feminists should be calling out all the sick assholes who are doing so? Did not this women deserve her life, her freedom to think and live as she wanted, to be free from an abusive husband who ended up murdering her. IMO its unfortunate that she didnt kill him first but who knows maybe she tried, but unfortunately it would seem some people here would want to deny women (or anyone else) the proper tools to alteast do that.

[TexasObserver]

87. Funny how you completely mischaracterize the assessments of her.

As for this woman, yes, she deserved to live. But don't kid yourself. She chose for her partner the man who killed her. He wasn't even a real cop. He was a wannabe, like those guys who like to carry guns and think they're Walker Texas Ranger, instead of Barney Fife.

This woman wore a gun to a kid's soccer game. That makes her dangerous, both to herself and others. She was brazen. She wanted to shock. I will not lament the passing of any such persons.

Her husband killed her, and then had the decency to kill himself. Now maybe their kids can grow up in a more normal family and not end up as messed up as their dead parents.

[armyowalgreens]

89. I would say something to you right now. But I like being able to post at DU...

So I'll remove the profane parts.


You haven't met this woman. You don't know the family. Yet you are on here saying that you are apathetic over her death because she legally carried a hand gun to a soccer game. I live in a community where people carry firearms.

It's not necessary and therefore is probably not all that smart. But if I heard about one of them being killed by a spouse, I would be very sad. They wouldn't deserve to die. They most certainly deserved to live. And the fact that they are dead would be very sad indeed.

They could have been extremely loving parents for all we know. Sometimes people do things that we cannot explain without being much closer to the situation.

She didn't chose a partner knowing that there would be abuse resulting in her own murder. That is misogynistic garbage.


I say this with as much disgust and shock as can possibly be conveyed over the internet...

What you said is truly despicable. Simply revolting. And I'm glad the kids will likely never read the drivel you wrote because they don't deserve to suffer from your ignorance.

You may feel superior posting judgment of this woman on the internet. But maybe, in the future, you should consider your words more carefully. You are talking about real people. I don't think you understand that. I don't think any decent human being could be conscious of this situation and post the things that you just said.

So I'm just going to assume that you got ahead of yourself and posted some things that you didn't mean.

[TexasObserver]

92. I've never been persuaded by one of your posts.

This one is no exception.

Try to engage in fewer personal attacks. Talk about the woman, not me.

[Scout]

98. i wonder how many of these gun nuts berating you....

are the same ones who crow "righteous shoot" when someone is shot in the back running away with a tv they stole.

[Jack_DeLeon]

99. IMO the life of someone who violates the rights of others is...

worth less than the life of someone who doesnt, albeit how much so depends on their actions.

You might disagree with me and say that all lives are worth the same but there are many who dont hold that view.

If a criminal is killed in the process of committing a crime that is good for society as it will protect them from future predation from said criminal.

As far as we know this woman never violated anyone's rights or broke any law.

[Scout]

100. fortunately when it comes to law, your opinion means jack shit n/t

[armyowalgreens]

135. "If a criminal is killed in the process of committing a crime that is good for society"

What a ridiculously horrible thing to say.

I personally know people who are convicted felons. Your argument chain is filled with logical fallacies.

[TexasObserver]

101. They always assume every discussion is about them and their RKBA!

I don't dispute THE right to keep and bear arms, but unlike most of them, I actually understand the constitution as it exists, not as some ignorant rube thinks it exists. Most of our constitutional rights have reasonable restrictions upon them.

Can you own a shooting range? Sure, but not in some towns. Not next a day care center.

Can you own guns? Sure. If you're not a felon. If there's no court order saying you can't.

Can you wear your guns? In your house, you can. On street? That's idiocy.



The right to keep and bear arms does not mean every yahoo with the price of a gun and a room temperature IQ can wear his or her gun when he or she goes to the kid's soccer practice.

[armueller2001]

103. The judge that heard her case appeal

determined that the RKBA meant she could wear her gun to soccer practice legally.

What would you say the definition of "bear" arms means?

"keep" = own at home
"bear" = carry elsewhere

[TexasObserver]

105. I don't know about the "judge that heard her case," but I'm not taking your word.

And I'm not taking his word, either.

I didn't say it was illegal in every venue for one to wear a firearm in public. It depends mainly on the locals. I said it's unwise, and that illegally is a matter of whether a local or state or federal authority restricts the wearing of guns in public.

Does you have an unfettered right to wear your weapon in public? Absolutely not. It's subject to reasonable restrictions. Any town in America could pass and make stick a prohibition against wearing guns publicly. Any state could do likewise. And the federal government could, too. They all have reasonable bases to restrict the wearing of guns. And their restrictions are constitutional exercises of their right to exercise their protections of the public from people who don't have good sense.

If you learn nothing else today, learn this: YOUR interpretation of the second amendment does not matter. Neither does the opinion matter of your ignorant gun toting friends. The Supreme Court's interpretation matters.

You can bear arms anywhere some government allows you to do so. If you think it is a right that is constitutional and not controlled by local officials, I encourage you to start wearing your gun everywhere and get yourself an education that will last a lifetime.

[PavePusher]

116. The government does not 'allow' me to do anything.

The government can, under certain constraints, restrict me from narrowly defined acts, or make them unlawful.

You do not seem to understand the intent behind the construction of our government. I suggest some supplementary education.

[TexasObserver]

118. Sure it does.

It allows you drive a car on public roads.

[X_Digger]

137. And what will you do when...

.. the SCOTUS "allows" the second amendment to apply against state and local governments?

"Any town in America could pass and make stick a prohibition against wearing guns publicly. Any state could do likewise. And the federal government could, too."

48 states have some mechanism (open or concealed) for carrying a gun in public. 41 states don't give the local law enforcement a choice in the matter, the state _must_ grant a license to applicants who meet well defined criteria.

I have to agree with PavePusher, though, you need to take a remedial class in government. The government doesn't 'allow' you to do things, they tell you what you cannot do- all else is legal. (Nulla poena sine lege)

[TexasObserver]

147. You're not licensed.

You're not licensed to give legal opinions, because you're not trained or qualified to do so. That means your NRA interpretation of the constitution doesn't mean squat. There is no basis in Supreme Court decisions for your "bear arms" interpretation. Besides, it almost certainly means to bear arms in war, not to walk strapped down the street of your hometown. Neither Historians nor jurists agree with your NRA interpretation of the term.

You're just another gun owner with a slogan and bad attitude. You guys don't know enough law to make bail.

Yes, many states allow citizens to carry conceal. That doesn't make it a good idea. It's a privilege, not a right. Do you know the difference?

[X_Digger]

152. Post Heller, you're blowing smoke.

Heller is only the latest decision to say that it's an individual _right_.

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

As the SCOTUS said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), "{t}his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

Yes, many states allow citizens to carry conceal. That doesn't make it a good idea. It's a privilege, not a right. Do you know the difference?

Ask Justice Ginsburg about that 'bear' terminology-

"In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of "carries a firearm" in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that "{s}urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate{s}: 'wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.'"

Having restrictions on a right does not make it a privilege, no more than requiring a permit to stage a demonstration makes the first amendment's association clause a privilege.

Again, you need to take a remedial government class. (You might at least want to bone up on the ninth, tenth, and fourteenth amendments.)

[TexasObserver]

157. Thanks for proving you DON'T understand HELLER or the law on this issue.

Thanks for proving you don't understand HELLER.

I'm going to teach you something today, so you won't embarrass yourself the way all the gun advocates routinely do by not understanding the law. I'm going to direct you to the part of the opinion in HELLER in which Justice Scalia, writing for the majority and the opinion, addresses AND ENDORSES the historic restrictions on walking around strapped. Now you'll know what the law is under HELLER regarding this fantasy you have that the Supreme Court gave an indication it approved of your "we get to carry guns under the second amendment" notion.
----------------------------------------------------------------

From the Opinion, this is Justice Scalia addressing the point you think you're going to win before the Supreme Court, post HELLER:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott 333.

For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489-490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884).

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

HELLER dealt with a federal law which attempted to prohibit private ownership of guns. It held that the second amendment gave a right to an individual to own a gun, and that right could not be generally denied without a basis.

HELLER is entirely consistent with my position throughout this thread: the second amendment guarantees the right of individuals to own guns and keep them in their homes. That's not an issue.

Heller does not speak to the issues you urge. Like many who don't understand the first thing about the law, you think that just because you can find a line in an opinion (or dissent) that you think supports your garbled interpretation of the constitution, that's sufficient support in the case law record for your mad rantings. You're wrong. There's a reason people (except those like Oily Taint) go to law school.

[X_Digger]

158. Very nice straw man you've constructed there..

You seem to think I've stated that Heller 'grants' the ability to walk around anywhere / any time armed.

Please, quote where I said anything to that effect.

Take note- "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

Such as.. not only.

"the second amendment guarantees the right of individuals to own guns and keep them in their homes." -- among other places, as yet not codified, yes.

Again, you seem to think you are allowed only the privileges the government bestows on you, rather than everything not restricted is permitted.

Engrish, it's what's for suppah.

[TexasObserver]

161. It's not a straw man but it is over your head. You're out of your league.

I'm sure there is something out there in which you have some expertise, but it's not law. It's not reading and understanding cases. It's not interpreting the constitution under Supreme Court cases.

Stick to discussing your silly notions of law with other equally uninformed gun advocates.


You shot your mouth off about your imagined right to walk around strapped post Heller, then when I body slammed you with the language of Scalia in Heller addressing that, you whimpered away mumbling "straw man."

[X_Digger]

163. You have no clue..

Please, do, quote me saying what you seem to _think_ I said.

As far as the progression of Gura et al moving cases through the SCOTUS, it's a process, that's slow moving, yet inevitable..

-Heller - individual right held against abrogation by the fed
-Chicago - individual right held against abrogation by the states
-Heller II - outside the home (This one will force DC to start granting concealed permits again.)

[TexasObserver]

166. I'll take that as your unconditional surrender.

Your view of the law reminds me of the hysterically funny absurdities that Oily Taint proposes.

[X_Digger]

167. And I'll take that as a fart in a hurricane..

.. see, same effect.

[armyowalgreens]

126. I happen to think that's murder.

[PavePusher]

96. T.O. is not apathetic, s/he is applauding. Sickening. n/t

[TexasObserver]

106. Personal attack. Try to follow the rules. Talk about the issues.

The mods work to keep discussions focused on the issues not the posters.

Why don't you follow that, and focus on the issues, not the personal insults you feel compelled to hurl at those who don't share your point of view?

[PavePusher]

142. Here is the evidence of my label for you.

Post #40:
"Gun nut killed at home with family gun" is not really news, is it?

We didn't kill her. That gun nut's husband did.

She picked him. She bought into his violence and his reliance on guns.

Blame yourself. Blame people like you.




Post #45:
She embraced a lifestyle that glorifies guns and thinks they're the solution to conflicts.
SHE wore a gun to her child's soccer practice.

SHE was a gun advocate.

SHE evidenced the mindset of one who thinks a gun is a good solution to conflict.


LIVE BY THE GUN, DIE BY THE GUN.




Post #55:
It's not name calling, so stop pretending you're a victim.
Edited on Thu Oct-08-09 12:33 PM by TexasObserver
See, you are so afraid of your shadow that you mischaracterize my comments. I didn't call you any names, but because you frighten so easily, you accuse me of doing so.

Learn the difference between someone calling you names and someone accurately describing your responses.

You like to pretend the issue is whether some imaginary victim is going to shoot the bad guy, if only the imaginary victim had a gun. In the case of the dead gun toting mother, she had a gun. She was trained. She knew how to use it. But she's still dead, because the thing that killed was the idiocy between her own ears, and the idiocy between her gun toting husband's ears.

Owing a gun increases the odds that you or a family member will die from a gun. That's a simple fact that even you should be able to understand.


This isn't about gun rights. This is about the fact that many who are drawn to guns are emotionally or mentally incapable of handling them smartly. Women who are drawn to gun loving losers often live to regret it. They aren't saved by a gun.





Post #74:
No, it's nothing like that. Not even remotely.
Even by DU standards, that's a ridiculous stretch you've made in the interest of shoring up your weak ass argument.

You also fail to see that it is the choice she made to adhere to a gun toting Neanderthal which sealed her doom. She was proud to be a gun toting mother. She loved the intimidation of wearing one.

LIVE BY THE GUN, DIE BY THE GUN.


Leave strippers out of it. They make an honorable living.




Post #87:
Funny how you completely mischaracterize the assessments of her.
As for this woman, yes, she deserved to live. But don't kid yourself. She chose for her partner the man who killed her. He wasn't even a real cop. He was a wannabe, like those guys who like to carry guns and think they're Walker Texas Ranger, instead of Barney Fife.

This woman wore a gun to a kid's soccer game. That makes her dangerous, both to herself and others. She was brazen. She wanted to shock. I will not lament the passing of any such persons.

Her husband killed her, and then had the decency to kill himself. Now maybe their kids can grow up in a more normal family and not end up as messed up as their dead parents.






Post #119:
It isn't bigotry to lament the bad choices troubled people make.
Edited on Fri Oct-09-09 02:49 PM by TexasObserver
A woman came into the public eye for her wearing a pistol as a sidearm to her child's soccer game. That is conduct that is indicative of a person with serious emotional issues. It speaks to her need for attention, for her need to communicate to others "I can shoot you if I want to," and a need to make herself the focus of attention at her child's game. Given the atmosphere at such games, anyone with a gun is a concern, unless they are present in an official capacity for law enforcement.

She married a man who was on the fringe of law enforcement, one of those lower level guys who NEEDS it more to shore him up than most real cops.

She chose the man who killed her. She bought into the notion that guns make people safe. She died because of those two things.

It isn't bigotry to point out these facts and to call it what it is: a tragedy made possible by bad choices in life.

You simply want this to be about gun rights, but it's really about people who buy into the "guns will save me" mentality







You have consistantly ridiculed a persons' personal, lawful, ethical choices. You have insinuated that she was an unstable, mentally ill person. You have implied that she was endangering her children. You have suggested that she was a violent braggart, ready to kill without reason. You have frankly celebrated that you believe she got what she deserved. You have not evinced an instant of sympathy for a victim of a crime. You display all the qualities of a bigot. Either embrace it or refute it, I care not. At this point I will not engage you further. Good day to you.

[TexasObserver]

151. I said "Good Day!" sir!!

You're a riot!!

Thanks for the laughs.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

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

[TexasObserver]

107. Another personal attack. How progressive of you.

Grow up. Stop being so petulant. Either talk about the topic or leave the thread.

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

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

[TexasObserver]

110. Please try to follow the rules. Attack ideas, not posters.

You continually attack personally those who do not share your personal point of view.

Do you understand why so many here don't trust you and others like you with a gun in public? If you can't follow simple rules of decorum in a message board forum, if you lose your shit so easily you can't even talk on a message board without turning into a raging abuser, why should people here think you're emotionally sound enough to ever have a gun in public?

[SsevenN]

111. Which poster did I attack?

Calling a spade a spade isn't a personal attack.

Person who believes A is murdered, it's sad. Person that believes B is murderd, it's funny. THAT is bigotry. I call it like I see it.

[Scout]

113. why don't you ask the mods that deleted your post what was wrong with it? n/t

[SsevenN]

114. Done.

Let's see what they say.

[Name removed]

112. Deleted message

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

[PavePusher]

117. Don't worry about it SsevenN.

It is apparently O.K. to spew about bigotry done by conservatives, but if you point out blatent bigotry done by 'progressives', you are suddenly a pariah.

There's a lot of that hypocrasy on both ends of the political scale.

Makes me feel more like a libertarian every day.

[SsevenN]

124. Thanks...But...

Doesn't seem to matter, I guess using the B-word gets your post tossed in the trash, regardless of the posts Validity.

[armyowalgreens]

136. It's a sexist term. You should not being using it.

Your post loses validity when you use such terms.

[PavePusher]

139. ?? O.K., I'm lost what word are we talking about now? n/t

[armyowalgreens]

141. The B-word. You guys are talking about "bitch" right?

[PavePusher]

143. "Bigot", actually. Some of our posts have been deleted.

See my post #142.

[armyowalgreens]

144. Ah okay. Ignore my previous comments.

[TexasObserver]

119. It isn't bigotry to lament the bad choices troubled people make.

A woman came into the public eye for her wearing a pistol as a sidearm to her child's soccer game. That is conduct that is indicative of a person with serious emotional issues. It speaks to her need for attention, for her need to communicate to others "I can shoot you if I want to," and a need to make herself the focus of attention at her child's game. Given the atmosphere at such games, anyone with a gun is a concern, unless they are present in an official capacity for law enforcement.

She married a man who was on the fringe of law enforcement, one of those lower level guys who NEEDS it more to shore him up than most real cops.

She chose the man who killed her. She bought into the notion that guns make people safe. She died because of those two things.

It isn't bigotry to point out these facts and to call it what it is: a tragedy made possible by bad choices in life.

You simply want this to be about gun rights, but it's really about people who buy into the "guns will save me" mentality.

[SsevenN]

121. Maybe I should have been more clear

I'm not specifically referring to your posts. While I disagree with you, you have been for the 'most' part, very civil.

There are PLENTY of other sarcastic to down right cruel posts floating around DU that reveal the outright haterd of this women simply because she openly carried.

This is NOT about the 'guns will save me' metality.

Show me ONE RKBA advocate on this site that has said guns will always save me. NO ONE SAYS THAT. You know it, and it's intelectually dishonest to shoehorn that in to your nice little strawman.

My posts, related to this incident are here simply to point out the hypocrisy that exists in certain peoples posts. (Even though half of them have been removed because I said Big....umm the B-word :crazy::crazy:)

This is about getting people to understand Meleanie was a mother of three, who had a crappy husband, who paid the ultimate price. And it's about getting people to treat her like a person, not some sick dog that needed to be put down anyways.

There are many different lifestyle choices, as long as those choices don't hurt other peoples lives no one deserves to die for their decisions. THAT'S my point. She was a person, a good, honest one, who died in a terrible circumstance. And dancing around in her blood is simply cruel.

[benEzra]

128. I have read elsewhere that she was unarmed at the time she was shot...

and she was shot in the back. Agree or disagree with her views on guns (and I personally don't open carry), her views on gun ownership/use by non-LEO's seem to have very little to do with this murder, since she was apparently shot in the back while unarmed by a rogue LEO who seems to have used his duty weapon.

Yes, she chose the man who killed her. She also wised up and rejected him, split with him, and tried to get a restraining order against him. Does that count for anything?

[TexasObserver]

129. Her loaded 9mm was nearby, in her bag.

[benEzra]

132. Inside her bag, hanging on the back of the door, where she wasn't.

As I said, it appears she was unarmed and shot in the back by a rogue LEO, presumably with his department-issued weapon, who likely came back to the house to kill her. Had that gun been secured in a safe, or had it not been in the house at all, it would not have changed the outcome one iota. Heck, had she been a gun-control activist who believed that only LEO's like her husband should be allowed to touch guns, it wouldn't have changed anything.

All this "she had it coming because she liked guns" bullshit upthread is disgusting.

[TexasObserver]

134. Stop trying to suggest the loaded gun wasn't nearby or that she wasn't packing.

And stop repeating your dishonest claim that I have said she had it coming because she liked guns. Those who lie with dogs get up with fleas. She chose the world that ended her life, both the man and the method. She lived the harsh consequences of her bad choices, one of which was to think guns are a great thing to have around the family.

[benEzra]

140. A loaded gun in a bag "over there" is not "packing", as you well know.

She was unarmed and shot in the back, while her video chat was running, she was apparently working in the kitchen when shot, and she was shot by a law enforcement officer.

And I was objecting to the undercurrent of glee that is running through most of this thread, not so much to anything you said. I even agree with pretty much everything you said in post #122. I do think most people would consider your "those who lie down with dogs get up with fleas" comment pretty offensive if you said it about a rape victim, rather than a woman who was murdered by a rogue LEO she was trying to get away from, but other than that I am not bashing you here. I am just sickened by all the "she brought this upon herself because she owned a gun" bullshit; the only way she brought this on herself was that she trusted the wrong bad-cop guy enough to marry him, and then didn't take him seriously enough as a threat after the separation, and I don't think that's worthy of the hate she's being posthumously subjected to.

[benEzra]

173. The only loaded gun in the room was the one in the hands of her LEO husband. (n/t)

[TexasObserver]

122. I'll speak on behalf of sensible gun owners.

I own guns. I am an expert marksman and have been for 40 years. I even have military medals for it.

But I don't fondle them with one hand while whacking it with the other. They're weapons. They're dangerous. Sensible people don't brandish them anywhere. Sensible people don't think of them as anything but the last possible solution to a very bad and immediate situation.

Those of us who actually know how to use them know that retreat and taking cover are the first thing any civilian should do if faced with a circumstance where a side arm might be used. First we play defense and protect our body. We're not cowboys. We want to resolve things without getting shot or shooting anyone. But it if comes to that, the use of guns with deadly force is acceptable.

We also know that if you get ambushed in your home by thugs who are waiting there for you, all the guns in the world won't help you. In fact, in that situation your guns are more likely to be stolen or used to shoot you, if not both.

Sensible people don't relish the idea of killing another human being, for any reason. If it's a necessity, well, it's not one that should ever make a person feel good. Regret is the proper emotion. Regret that it had to be done and that one took a human life.

I'm a second amendment supporter and I do understand it. That means I don't buy the "but only for militias" argument on the left or the "I have a right to wear it" arguments on the right.

[ManiacJoe]

125. I am at a loss

on how to reconcile this post with your posts from the top of this thread. Maybe it is just your writing style....

[TexasObserver]

131. If you decide you can put it into words, let me know.

Understanding guns and owning guns is not the same as thinking they're the first option when trouble starts. I don't trust any civilian that wants to walk around strapped. History has taught me that people who own guns who aren't nuts don't act like that. We don't take Lee Harvey Oswald photos of ourselves, either.

Guns are for killing. You should never point one at anyone unless it's loaded, chambered, and you're prepared to make a kill shot. And you should never, ever, allow anyone else to point one at you. They're all loaded.

[armueller2001]

146. "I don't trust any civilian that wants to walk around strapped."

Well, you should. Studies in TX and FL have shown that people who go through the trouble to obtain CHL permits are over 5 times less likely to commit a crime than the general public. About .01% of permit holders have their right to carry revoked for firearms violations (that's 1 in 10,000). They're not the ones you need to worry about.

But I guess they're all just "nuts"

What does the meaning of "keep and bear" mean to you?

[TexasObserver]

149. If you want to know what "keep and bear" means, don't ask the NRA.

Ask the Supreme Court. Ask Historians. Ask lawyers.

"Keep" means own.

"Bear" means to bear arms in war or military actions. It doesn't mean to openly wear guns on the street. Don't you think if your approach had any validly, someone would used it in the 19th century, when many towns had an ordinance requiring men not to bring or wear their guns into town?

The problem with trying to talk to gun fans about guns is that most of them get their "education" from other equally uninformed people. You're led by what you want the law to be, instead of what it is.

If you have a Supreme Court case that you think grants you the right to walk down the street of any town in America, openly strapped, please provide that case and the language which grants you such right.

It's not a right, it's a privilege, to wear a gun in public. If you think it will ever be a right, you're badly, badly misinformed. Do you know the difference? Do you understand that the goverment is the public acting through its representatives, and that WE, THE PEOPLE, don't want you and all your friends walking around at malls and kids sports events openly brandishing your weapons?

Spend more time reading LAW and less time reading Guns & Ammo.

[X_Digger]

153. Ask Justice Ginsburg..

In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of "carries a firearm" in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that "{s}urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate{s}: 'wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.'"

[PavePusher]

154. Note, if you will...

that T.O. has not privided any support for her/his assertions other than "Because I said so". That, along with demonstrated ignorance and bigotry, has led me to stop responding to her/him.

I think I can state, with reasonable assurance, that s/he is a lost cause.

[X_Digger]

155. Oh I know..

.. but I won't let flagrant codswallop stand unchallenged, if for no other reason than to demonstrate to others how asinine some posters can be, and how weak their positions really are.

[PavePusher]

156. I applaud your persistance and dedication. Thank you for your efforts. n/t

[TexasObserver]

160. I don't usually argue case law with amateurs, but I'm making an exception now.

You should have stopped before trying to argue case law.

From the Supreme Court's 2008 decision, with Scalia (your hero) writing for the majority:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott 333.

For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489-490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884).

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

[X_Digger]

164. And again, it goes right over your head..

""Bear" means to bear arms in war or military actions"

Bzzzt. Wrong.

With more surrounding text-

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998) , in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that “{s}urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment … indicate{s}: ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We think that Justice Ginsburg accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization.

I'm sorry, you were saying? Hrmm?

[TexasObserver]

159. Learn how to read cases, Gun advocate.

A dissenting opinion has no precedential value, and even if it did, the context of each statement matters.

Rather than follow you in your quest to catch your tail regarding Ginsburg, I'll cite you to Justice Scalia's MAJORITY OPINION in the 2008 HELLER case, which fairly forecloses your fantasy that you can walk around strapped.

Read it an weep:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott 333.

For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489-490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884).

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

[X_Digger]

165. And that has what do do with..

.. your assertion that 'bear' implies military service? You've failed to provide _anything_ even dicta, that supports that supposition.

[TPaine7]

172. I understand that you don't usually argue case law with amateurs,

and that you've already made one exception, so I simply ask you to teach me.

I am, I confess, an amateur. I have a few questions that perhaps you can help me with.

You say that if I want to know what keep and bear arms means I should ask the Supreme Court (among other sources). I did.

You say that "keep" means to own. I always thought it meant more--that it meant both to own and to possess. I could conceivably own a gun that was stored at a government armory and not "keep" it. But that difference is fairly minor and not my real point. (I simply didn't want to lie and say that I agreed with you.) Let's ignore this minor point.

You also say that

"Bear" means to bear arms in war or military actions.

Let's see what the Supreme Court says:

We turn to the phrases “keep arms” and “bear arms.”Johnson defined “keep” as, most relevantly, “{t}o retain; not to lose,” and “{t}o have in custody.” Johnson 1095. Webster defined it as “{t}o hold; to retain in one’s power or possession.” No party has apprised us of an idiomatic meaning of “keep Arms.” Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.”…

“Keep arms” was simply a common way of referring to possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else.7

At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford).When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaningthat refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “{s}urely a most familiar meaning is,as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate{s}: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We think that JUSTICE GINSBURG accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization.

From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.”8 It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s arms-bearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.” 2 Collected Works of James Wilson 1142, and n. x (K. Hall & M. Hall eds. 2007) (citing Pa. Const., Art. IX, §21 (1790)); see also T. Walker, Introduction to American Law 198 (1837) (“Thus the right of self-defence {is} guaranteed by the {Ohio} constitution”);see also id., at 157 (equating Second Amendment with that provision of the Ohio Constitution). That was also the interpretation of those state constitutional provisions adopted by pre-Civil War state courts.9 These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia.

The phrase “bear Arms” also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: “to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight” or “to wage war.” See Linguists’ Brief 18; post, at 11 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). But it unequivocally bore that idiomatic meaning only when followed by the preposition “against,” which was in turn followed by the target of the hostilities. See 2 Oxford 21. (That is how, for example, our Declaration of Independence ¶28, used the phrase: “He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country . . . .”) Every example given by petitioners’ amici for the idiomatic meaning of “bear arms” from the founding period either includes the preposition “against” or is not clearly idiomatic. See Linguists’ Brief 18–23. Without the preposition, “bear arms” normally meant (as it continues to mean today) what JUSTICE GINSBURG’s opinion in Muscarello said.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf pages 8-13

First, as an aside, "keep" does mean more than own--it means to possess. (At least that's what they seem to have said to this humble layman.)

Secondly, there's the real point--the Court said Justice Ginsberg was right. And she said what X_Digger quoted in post 153--"{s}urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate{s}: 'wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.'"

It appears (once again to this humble layman) that the Court is saying that "bear arms" does NOT mean "to bear arms in war or military actions"--at least not exclusively. It means precisely what X-digger tried to explain to you in post 153. You see, if I may presume to say so, it appear that a dissenting opinion actually does have precedential value when a Supreme Court ruling quotes it and says that it was correct--as in this case.

Once again, if I, a humble layman may presume to say so, it appears that X_Digger gave you too much credit. He assumed that you, like many of us uneducated folks here, were familiar enough with Heller not to need the full context I gave you.

Now I realize that I am not a lawyer. I probably don't know how to read case law, either, by your standards. So I hope you will forgive my impudence. If I am ignorant, I want to be corrected. So in you educated, informed, professional opinion, does the Supreme Court actually teach that the words "bear arms" mean what you say they do--exclusively "to bear arms in war or military actions"?

Or does the Court, as some of us humble laymen believe, soundly refute your point?

Please teach me.

[TPaine7]

174. Still ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ awaiting ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ instruction

Could you please come and teach us?

Pretty please!!!!

[friendly_iconoclast]

150. Well, you could have trusted Meleanie Hain. She never shot anybody.

Her cop husband, however, shot her to death.

Which one was dangerous, again?

[Scout]

169. if i wasn't already happily married, would you marry me?

finally, a gun owner who makes some fucking sense here.

i own a shotgun, but my life is such that it will most likely NEVER,ever be my first (or hopefully second or third) choice in a dangerous situation.

[TexasObserver]

170. When I was a young man, I still held some of the ideas we see touted by the pro gun advocates.

As I grew up and matured, though, I began to see those behaviors as silly and indicative of fear, not courage. When one becomes a parent, we either get serious about it or go the other way. I got serious about it. That means being smart about guns all the time, and never slipping up. It means never brandishing guns around the young, and always stressing to them the dangers of guns.

[friendly_iconoclast]

175. That's about the best example of the 'false consciousness' argument I've seen

IOW:
"If you do not agree with me, you are:
uneducated
immature
perverse
shilling for the Dark Side (GOP/NRA/Fox News/et cetera,
or some combination thereof"

I must say, you've hewed that line quite consistently in this thread.
However, you are not the first with this approach here in the Gungeon.
AFAIK, iverglas was the originator.


More discussion here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=260256&mesg_id=260266

[friendly_iconoclast]

148. You can speak on behalf of yourself. And most of your post is simple moralizing

You set up quite the strawman with this.

There might be gun owners who engage in one of the behaviors you decry.

Possibly, there are a few who meet the whole scenario you posit.

What this has to do with a domestic violence victim who was murdered by her husband is not evident.

[benEzra]

127. The word on other forums is that her law-enforcement-officer husband

shot her in the back with his department-issued service pistol, and she was NOT armed at the time of the shooting.

Not that it will make much difference to the those upthread dancing in her blood and saying that only people like her husband should be allowed to have guns...

[X_Digger]

138. Makes me ashamed to be here..

Fucking disgusting.

And here _we_ get accused of misogyny.