"You want my weapons? This is how you'll get them." ~~James Von Brunn

[sharesunited]

Thanks once again Second Amendment!

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/06/note_found_in_von_brunns_car.php

[tridim]

1. I still want to know why a convicted felon was allowed to own weapons.

Not a peep about this little fact in the MSM.

[brendan120678]

3. I haven't heard much about the weapons at all in the MSM...

were they "legally owned" weapons?

[vaberella]

7. You had to have watched Chris Matthews yesterday. He went on and on about it.

Actually he nearly wanted to declare them unlawful.

[X_Digger]

8. He wasn't 'allowed'..

..it's not like there's a special grease that they apply to convicts fingers that makes guns just slip out of their hands.

According to the DOJ, ~80% of the guns used in crime come from family/friends or the black market. Until we know more about how Von Brunn got his gun (and we may never know, if the gun is older than 1968) then it's useless to speculate.

[tridim]

9. I'll speculate however I want thankyouverymuch. nt

[X_Digger]

10. Didn't say you can't, just that it's useless :) n/t

[Indy Lurker]

70. He was not allowed to to own weapons.

In fact as a convicted felon, he was NOT allowed to own firearms.


But as with many criminals who are willing to murder, they don't always obey gun laws.


You've probably hear this before, but gun law are only followed by the law abiding.



(on edit my "n" key is sticking)

[benEzra]

87. He wasn't, but the .22 rifle appears to be a pre-1968, from news reports. (n/t)

[AtheistCrusader]

92. He probably found that piece of junk in a garbage can. NT

[rl6214]

99. He was not "allowed" to own them

He broke the law.

[LeftinOH]

2. Now, can we take away his weapons?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

52. They could have taken them anytime he was legally barred from ownership.

[slackmaster]

108. He was legally barred from having firearms since his 1981 convictions

Yes, of course.

[ingac70]

4. You'll probably need that Amendment to defend yourself...

from the likes of Von Brunn and Roeder. Most likely sooner than later.

[sharesunited]

11. Ugh to the circular reasoning. Resisting government oppression is supposed to be the 2A's purpose.

As a result, we are subjected to individuals' such as Von Brunn's subjective decision that the time to resist has come.

Revisit Heller and narrowly construe this bloody "right."

[anonymous171]

84. 1st Amendment was intended to allow citizens to speak truth to power

Obviously that hasn't happened, just look at our media. We should get rid of that too.

[TornadoTN]

5. Obama was created by Jews now?

Well, lets add that to the pile of conflicting right-wing talking points regarding our President.

[Paul_D]

6. Sounds a little batty to me...

So basically this guy is several sandwiches short of a picnic. His comment on getting his weapons makes no sense, and the rest of it is just ramblings of a racist, anti-semitic asshole. Hopefully people can seperate him from millions of sane, law abiding gun owners and not think that we are all cut from the same mold.

[Aristus]

35. Ever notice when there's one of these unconscionable massacres, some one mentions the phrase:

"Law-abiding gun owners", and that's just supposed to make everything all right? Law abiding gun owners? Oh, well, that's okay, then. Nothing to see here; move along...

Can we leave North Korea alone if Kim Jong-Il promises to be a law-abiding nuke owner? I'm sure if he promises, that'll be good enough for the international community, right? No one ever used nukes to massacre a bunch of innocent people...

Oh wait, that's right; someone did: it was us!

[Thothmes]

57. Lets rush right in there in confiscate Kim Jong-Ils nukes.

[anonymous171]

86. No one is innocent in total war.

Which is why war is bad and should never be fought unless in defense.

But that isn't really relevant to this thread anyways...

[Euromutt]

91. One death equals a massacre now?

Not that I'm trying to imply that one death doesn't matter, but I spent four years working for a UN war crimes tribunal, and I have a bit of a problem with referring to a single death as a "massacre."

As for North Korea, they've already proven themselves not to be "law-abiding nuke owners." They signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and broke that repeatedly; then when they were called on it, they withdrew (which requires six months' notice that they didn't give, so they violated the treaty even in rejecting it). So we'd be right not to trust Kim Jong-Il, because he's lied so many times before.

However, the actions of a Freeman whackjob like Von Brunn do not reflect on other gun owners. Like, the ones who actually own their firearms legally on account of not having felony convictions. Von Brunn had already proved himself to not be "law-abiding," and by possessing a firearm, he demonstrated that he still wasn't.

[slackmaster]

109. Not really

But someone nearly always says "He seemed like a nice guy. Real quiet. Just kept to himself."

Or "My baby didn't do nuthin' wrong!"

[Raskolnik]

12. Thanks again, First Amendment!

If we could have restricted this man's ability to publish and consume literature that supported his despicable views, he almost certainly would not have committed this crime.

When are we going to do something about all these silly civil liberties?

[sharesunited]

21. Words don't kill and maim.

Anger and paranoia can be relatively harmless if not enabled with kill power.

[X_Digger]

33. I suggest you rethink that..

.. words have done more to kill people than all the guns in the world. The pen really is mightier than the sword.

[sharesunited]

34. OK I re-thought it. I'm correct.

That pen-is-mightier expression is figurative. Words motivate, but weapons implement.

[X_Digger]

38. Yes, more 'control the tool not the idea' sounds good. {sarcasm}

593,493 in the Old Testament and 181,253 in the New Testament giving 774,746 words- my guess is that when you add up all the deaths from religious pogroms, holy wars, and crusades, you'd have one word for every four deaths.

[sharesunited]

41. How were those deaths administered?

Were the victims talked to death?

No, they were dispatched by extrinsic physical means.

And in biblical times, it was nothing as convenient as a gun.

[Raskolnik]

40. That's right. Words are tools people use to cause the deaths of others.

Which individual was more dangerous to the Jewish people? Julius Streicher with his pen, or James von Brunn with his rifle?

[sharesunited]

42. Now there's a classic apples and oranges. Did Streicher round up Jews?

No, men with guns did.

[Raskolnik]

45. I believe you are missing the point.

Unless you wish to remove all ability to do harm to others from the state as well as individuals, words will always be capable of causing great harm by inspiring and directing our worst nature.

As long as people are capable of hating each other, some will use their words to bring harm to innocent people. Sometimes that will involve guns, sometimes it won't. Hate radio in Rwanda directly fueled a genocide carried out largely with machetes, clubs, and rape. Kristallnacht involved relatively little gun violence, but plenty of misery for innocent men, women and children.

[sharesunited]

50. What would happen to a U.S. radio station's license if a broadcaster called for machete attacks?

This is a limit on the first amendment which is socially desirable, isn't it?

A commensurate limit on the second amendment is lagging far behind, specifially because of gun love.

Gun love: A psychological sense of inferiority, helplessness or perceived victimization which only convenient mass killing power can assuage.

[Raskolnik]

55. Again, you're missing the point. Words can, and do, inflict massive damage

And its just not supportable to suggest that firearm regulation is somehow less restrictive than that currently applied to speech. It may not fit with what you want to believe, but firearms are already heavily regulated in regards to their features, how they are sold, and who may own them. If speech was subject to the same kind of regulation to which firearms are (and for the most part, rightfully so), we would, excuse the pun, be up in arms about it.

And knock it off with that "gun love" nonsense. We're talking about civil liberties here, and that kind of silliness just blows up the discussion. You wouldn't refer to "abortion love" in discussing abortion policy, and you wouldn't accuse someone of having "lawyer love" for advocating for strong 5th Amendment protection, so it doesn't make sense to do it here.

[sharesunited]

62. In the case of the 2A, a civil liberty whose harm outweighs its legitimacy.

The Constitutional reason given for allowing gun proliferation just doesn't stand up. Hence, there is an unspoken sentiment involved, and I am expressly calling what it I believe it to be.

I do find some significant parallels in discussing reproductive choice and the RKBA. Threat to life versus its preservation. Personal dominion over one's own body versus exercise of dominion over the bodies of others.

But abortion love? No, not apt.

[Raskolnik]

63. Then amend the Constitution, don't subvert it.

I don't respect those who pick and choose which portions of the Constition are worth observing, and which can be swept under the rug. That way lies trouble.

[sharesunited]

67. It is the job of the judiciary to interpret the Constitution.

We don't need to amend it to address every changing situation. Case law shapes the scope of its meaning.

Revisit Heller and reign in this bloody "right."

[Raskolnik]

68. And you want a civil liberty protected by the Bill of Rights "interpreted" out of existence.

Do you believe your Fourth Amendment rights should also be effectively abolished (without constitutional amendment) if the state decides that the risk of terrorism is just too great to justify observing such an antiquated amendment?

If you think the Constitution protects too many civil liberties, then change the Constitution. Don't treat it like a salad bar.

[sharesunited]

72. It is not a big stretch to correctly rule what a well regulated militia means.

The Court has mistakenly chosen to rule instead that this express language referring to a well regulated militia does not mean that gun proliferation among the public should be prohibited.

There is no adequate justification for this position on Constitutional grounds.

The only reason for it is gun love, pure and simple.

[Raskolnik]

74. This ground has been pretty well trod in the last year. Your side lost.

If you want to restrict a civil liberty protected by the Constitution, then use the process that is provided in the document.

[sharesunited]

76. Or revisit the precedent and overturn it.

Just like Plessy v. Ferguson was reversed by Brown v. Board of Eduction of Topeka.

That's a recognized process too.

[Raskolnik]

79. But you very clearly don't want the 2A to be reinterpreted, you want it ignored. n/t

[Statistical]

89. This is what I don't get about antis.

The founders were smart enough to know an inflexible document would break under the stress of time.

They expressly provided a mechanism to amend the Constitution.

It has been amended 27 time.

Don't like the 2nd - fine
Don't think it is necessary - fine
Don't think any benefits outweight the costs - fine

Use the power the founders put in place.
However most antis know that amending would be difficult.
They want the easy way out where their view just magically becomes the rule of law.

Also I think they realize they are the rapidly shrinking minority.
A reactionary view that has been fading for 2 decades.

In another 10 years the concept of "collective right" will sound about as stupid as the German's belief in a master race.

Anyone who has actually studied historical document including quotes of the people who wrote the Constitution could never believe they didn't intend for the people (as in individuals) to have the right to keep and own firearms.

There is no historical support for the "collective rights argument".

[gorfle]

103. Yes, it is indeed.

It is not a big stretch to correctly rule what a well regulated militia means.

The Court has mistakenly chosen to rule instead that this express language referring to a well regulated militia does not mean that gun proliferation among the public should be prohibited.

There is no adequate justification for this position on Constitutional grounds.

The only reason for it is gun love, pure and simple.

Yes, it is quite clear what a well regulated militia means, and it is also clear what our founders intended by setting up a decentralized military system made up of state-sponsored militias.

Unfortunately, the militias as they knew and understood them - designed to eliminate the need for or at least counter federal infantry forces - no longer exist. There have been no organized militias in this country since the passage of The Militia Act of 1903 (the Dick Act), which federalized the State Militias and created the National Guard.

The second amendment reads:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So I have a question for you:

Given that the Militias spoken of in this passage no longer exist, how are we to interpret the rest of the amendment?

Do we ignore the entire amendment, or do we just ignore the part about Militias?

[Thothmes]

59. Maybe it was easier because their fire arms had been confiscated

by the State?

[anonymous171]

85. The Rwandan Genocide was instigated by hate radio and carried out with machetes

[rl6214]

100. But according to many posts here

Words do kill and maim.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x228410

How many posts have there been stating that Bill orielly is responsible for Dr Tillers death?

[JonQ]

117. I made that exact point

right after you, didn't see you had it covered.

I'm going to go get some popcorn, the backpedaling should be good.

[JonQ]

116. So you think the claims that oreilly

hannity, etc are in some way to blame for the Tiller murder are ridiculous then?

Words don't kill, and yet people make the argument that they do *when it is convenient for their cause*.

Words kill when: it can be used as justification for silencing political opponents.
Words do not kill when: it can be used as justification for dissolving the 2nd amendment.

Sounds like fascism to me.

[biermeister]

80. and I thought I was sarcastic, wow nt.

[Raskolnik]

82. Its our greatest renewable natural resource. n/t

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

13. Yeah, because guns are going to magically vanish if we repealed the 2nd Amendment, right?

How about we attack the lack of mental health care infrastructure that might treat psychos like this guy? You know, cure the disease and not treat the symptoms?

[kenny blankenship]

15. Oh no. It would be the work of generations. You'd need a body of laws w/ a safe country as its goal

Criminalize possession of certain/all kinds of firearms.
Register all firearms/firearm sales, with stricter background checks and waiting periods.
Tax ammunition to death.
Add/expand mandatory sentencing for possession of a firearm while committing a felony.
Add on an automatic 40 year sentence for anyone discharging a firearm in the commission of a felony.

You can't wave a magic wand and make a violent, heavily armed, and increasingly dysfunctional society safe and peaceful overnight nor even over the course of a single generation. It takes steady application of multiple legal tools, and the willingness to heal a sick, self-destructive society.

[krispos42]

23. And at the end...

...you have a country with zero gun deaths. Yay....



Never mind all the non-gun deaths. Those don't matter. What only matters is GUN deaths.


Crappy economy, broken homes, underfunded schools, drug addiction, gangs... all those things can exist. They don't need fixing. We only care about those things because of all the gun deaths. But they're perfectly acceptable just as long as nobody gets shot.

[kenny blankenship]

24. Of course that's EXACTLY what I meant.

I'll just let the idiocy of your distortions stand for all to gawk at.

[krispos42]

98. Why we're all standing around and gawking...

...let's gawk at precedent.





Wow, the UK' 1989 ban and confiscation of "assault weapons" and 1998 ban and confiscation of handguns has dropped their gun homicide rate to historic lows! :woohoo:


That doubling from the last 20 years or so? Doesn't exist because they're non-gun deaths.

[derby378]

26. And you'll make society safe and peaceful at the barrel of a gun?

That's bascially what you're proposing, by turning our nation into a police state.

[kenny blankenship]

30. Horseshit. I can't walk into a corner drugstore and buy a handgrenade - doesn't make a police state.

But you just keep going over the top with your paranoid rhetoric if you feel you must. Just makes my job easier.

Just keep it up.

[derby378]

32. Peace is like morality - you cannot impose it by force

It doesn't work that way. Wake up.

[cherokeeprogressive]

31. With what legal tool will you confiscate the guns (rifles and handguns) and ammunition

that I keep locked in a safe inside of my private domicile?

How will you do that? Knock on my door? Ask to look?

See how well that works out for ya...

[gorfle]

104. Better get cracking...

Oh no. It would be the work of generations. You'd need a body of laws w/ a safe country as its goal

As Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who would forsake essential liberty to gain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Criminalize possession of certain/all kinds of firearms.
Register all firearms/firearm sales, with stricter background checks and waiting periods.
Tax ammunition to death.

Well you better get cracking then - you've got your work cut out for you.

Add/expand mandatory sentencing for possession of a firearm while committing a felony.
Add on an automatic 40 year sentence for anyone discharging a firearm in the commission of a felony.

No problem here. Most firearm owners I know are all for stiff penalties for people who break the law using firearms. The NRA also backs this position.

You can't wave a magic wand and make a violent, heavily armed, and increasingly dysfunctional society safe and peaceful overnight nor even over the course of a single generation. It takes steady application of multiple legal tools, and the willingness to heal a sick, self-destructive society.

Hint: You can't make a society safe and peaceful by removing firearms. You simply make it a society where the weak are at the mercy of the strong.

[sharesunited]

16. Treat guns like child porn. Zero tolerance.

The disease in Von Brunn's case appears to be radical, unjustified opinions about how the world works.

The disease in Von Brunn's case appears to be the unwarranted perception that certain values he holds dear are being eroded by forces with which it was his duty to do battle.

Do you propose to institutionalize or stigmatize anyone who suffers from these disorders?

Wouldn't that be a greater threat to liberty?

[X_Digger]

17. Soldiers & Police as pedophiles? n/t

[sharesunited]

20. Those persons are authorized by society to bear arms.

Just like pharmacists have custody of opiate pharmaceuticals and are authorized to dispense them.

Whereas the same opiate pharmaceuticals in the hands of the general population are a menace to society.

[X_Digger]

29. So not BAD pedo's, the GOOD kind. gotcha. n/t

[sharesunited]

39. The subject is contraband. Not sexual deviancy.

I was responding to a sarcastic post about guns being made to magically vanish.

Heroin used to be sold over the counter at drug stores.

Society put a stop to that.

All it took was a recognition of the harm being done.

[X_Digger]

88. Talk to me again when there's a constitutional amendment to keep and bear heroin. n/t

[Euromutt]

93. And since then, heroin has been unavailable in the US, right?

Oh no, wait, I remember: there's more of it than ever, it's more pure than ever, and the highly lucrative trade in it and other drugs has given rise to criminal gangs and the widespread erosion of civil liberties in the name of a "War on Drugs" which was lost practically as soon as it was declared.

Whatever the harm of having heroin available over the counter was, there's no way it measures up to the harm that has been inflicted by making the stuff illegal.

[Euromutt]

102. Addendum re: "Society put a stop to that."

It wasn't really society in general that pushed through the Harrison Act, was it? Rather, it was a comparatively small segment of society, composed of self-righteous moralists who, aided by such illustrious publications as the Journal of the American Association and the New York Times, managed to foster and exploit public hysteria about crime, aided by a healthy dose of bigotry, to force acceptance of prohibitions on a class of goods of which the aforementioned moralists disapproved for personal reasons. The goods in question were a cause of crime, it was claimed, and the legislation would promote public safety. Appeals to international standards were also made. Mind you, the Harrison Act was sold to the public as only regulating these goods ("reasonable," "common sense," "sane" regulation) but was really intended to prohibit distribution and possession.

Gosh, doesn't that sound awfully familiar?

So maybe we can learn something from that experience. The Harrison Act was the first step towards almost a century of drug prohibition which utterly failed to eradicate the class of goods in question, but did succeed in driving control of distribution of that good into the hands of organized criminal gangs and criminalizing citizens who otherwise never broke the law. Because of its ineffectiveness, attempts were made over the years to facilitate enforcement by eroding civil liberties, which failed to anything but exacerbate the problem by undermining respect for the rule of law among private citizens, and replacing the maxim of "to protect and serve" among law enforcement with an attitude of "us vs. them," as well as facilitating corruption in law enforcement and other parts of government.

We can actually see a fair amount of this in the implementation of existing gun control measures, particularly at state and local levels. "May issue" laws that grant local law enforcement commanders the authority to decide who and who does not merit the right to carry a firearm in public have led to preferential treatment for the rich, famous and/or influential. For example, a suspiciously large number of holders of concealed carry permits issued by the sheriff's office of Contra Costa county, California, are people who have contributed to the sheriff's political campaign fund. In New York city, the lieutenant in charge of approving permit applications was investigated for allegedly accepting backstage passes for an Aerosmith concert along with the permit applications of lead singer Steve Tyler and lead guitarist Joe Perry. Back in the 1960s, the police chief of Boston, MA denied handgun permits to any recent immigrants (including one shopkeeper who had been robbed three times).

Only quite recently, NYPD officers gunned down (with the NYPD's customary lousy accuracy, missing four shots out of six) a black man with a gun, only to find that he was (or, to be more grammatically correct, "had been") an off-duty fellow officer. These things happen in an organization that has been conditioned to think that "civilian + gun = criminal."

As you said yourself, sharesunited, just up-thread (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=229000&mesg_id=229049):

The disease in Von Brunn's case appears to be radical, unjustified opinions about how the world works.

In the case of Von Brunn's opinions, it led to one death. Perhaps you ned to re-examine your own opinions to ensure that the body count resulting from your own opinions won't be higher.

[Callisto32]

94. And stopping people from putting what they want into their bodies was wrong, too.

You never answered my question about why you think it is okay to advocate using force against others to keep them from possessing things you don't like, while those of us who believe that it is okay for people to simply have the means of violence, not actually to employ it, are crazy. So, I will now give you another chance.

[gorfle]

105. MAKING DRUGS ILLEGAL - FANTASTIC EXAMPLE

Heroin used to be sold over the counter at drug stores.

Society put a stop to that.

All it took was a recognition of the harm being done.

And what has been the result of this criminalization of heroin?

1) massively increased police powers of the state
2) no reduction in availability of heroin
3) massive drug-related gang warfare
4) multi-billion dollar illegal drug business
5) huge expenditures of resources to find and prosecute and house offenders, with little effect
6) incarceration of large swaths of non-violent members of society

Yes, Society did a fantastic job "putting a stop" to heroin.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

27. And in the meantime, you'll have a society where only cops and criminals have guns.

Much respect as I do have for cops, I don't necessarily like that concept.

As for "institutionalizing" or "stagmatizing" people suffering from disorders... uhm, you're missing the whole point of bolstering our mental health care infrastructure. We need to move past the stigmas of having a mental illness. We need to treat people BEFORE they need to be institutionalized.

[derby378]

28. Treat blogs like porn. Zero tolerance.

It's the Department of Pre-Crime all over again. You want to talk about threats to liberty? There you are.

[sharesunited]

47. Even Von Brunn's blog harmed no one.

As offensive as it was, his blog only consisted of words, photos and cartoons.

Words, photos and cartoons did not kill that museum security guard.

[Raskolnik]

49. You're right again. Von Brunn killed that security guard.

So why do you want to focus on the tool he used to do it?

[sharesunited]

51. Without that tool, he would have had to get up close with some other means.

A much more favorable scenario for the dead guard.

And a much less likely task Von Brunn would be willing to undertake.

[Raskolnik]

61. Was the outcome more favorable for the folks in the Murrah Federal Building

Because a truck bomb was used instead of a gun? Was the outcome for Matthew Shepard more favorable because they just beat him and left him to die instead of shooting him?

People have an amazing capacity to hate. I would rather focus on dealing with the causes of their hate, as opposed to blaming it on the tool they use to carry out their bullshit.

[sharesunited]

69. Do both. Walk through this world with love and enlightenment.

And simultaneously deprive haters of their means of conveniently dealing mass death to others.

[Raskolnik]

71. Love and enlightenment are all well and good, but I want law abiding citizens to be able to

meet the von Brunn's of the world with something more than nice cup of tea.

[sharesunited]

73. If you enable the Von Brunns of the world by allowing them to arm themselves...

then you can never get ahead in a public safety sense. You can never be fast enough or vigilant enough to prevent a goof with a gun from getting the drop on you.

[Raskolnik]

77. Individually, maybe, maybe not. But as a whole, you bet your ass you can.

I'm not one to romanticize armed resistance against tyranny, but I am also under no illusion that the rule of law will be with us in perpetuity, and that there is no chance that good people will be forced to defend themselves against those responsible for its end.

I fully admit that there is a cost to allowing citizens to keep and bear arms, but I also believe that civil liberties often endanger public safety, and we have historically agreed with that bargain. Folks such as yourself seem to want to renegotiate that bargain.

[gorfle]

106. right.

Without that tool, he would have had to get up close with some other means.

Because the car bomb hasn't been invented yet.

In retrospect, we should be glad the geezer showed up with a .22 rifle and not a U-Haul full of ammonium nitrate, like McVeigh.

[aikoaiko]

14. Civil rights are sometimes exploited to do great harm.

Its a shame, really.

[WeDidIt]

18. That note sure blows the wingnut talkingpoint about Obama's speech in Cairo

outta the water.

The wingnuts started claiming that Obama being hard on Israel sparked this.

That shit don't fly no more.

[Codeine]

19. The Pukes used 9/11 hysteria to take away our right not to be spied on.

It seems my own side wants to use the hysteria generated by these shootings to take away our right to own weapons.

I'll just have the Bill of Rights in it's entirety, please. No Cafeteria Constitution for me.

[sharesunited]

22. The Second Amendment is subject to interpretation.

You can have the entire Bill of Rights, but subject to judicial review which promotes the least harm to society.

[Codeine]

25. I enjoy freedom.

I prefer the most open interpretation of this and all of the other amendments.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

[sharesunited]

36. I know that sounds like a commendable ideal. But the BOR gets limited in all sorts of ways.

We have a social compact to limit them when the common good is better served by doing so.

[derby378]

37. I quote NARAL: "Who Decides?"

If the past eight years of Bush administration tyranny has taught me anything, it's that we should not place too much trust in our government officials to save us from ourselves.

Be careful what you wish for - you just might get it.

[sharesunited]

44. Is that a call to anarchy? I'm not sure what that is.

We have a Constitution, a collection of statutes and cases, and a jurisprudential tradition to set forth our rights and obligations and the limitations thereon.

Not infallible, but when it goes off the rails we seek to put new figures in power. And we renounce force and violence in doing so.

[derby378]

60. Not infallible, true, but when our current leaders resist a peaceful transfer of power...

The people cannot be all, and always well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13 states independent 11 years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure.

Thomas Jefferson (letter to William Smith, written November 13, 1787 in Paris)

[sharesunited]

66. Remember that Jefferson's writing dates from a time when the sides were better matched.

The sophistication of the weaponry held by the authorities was not much better than that in the hands of the People.

There has been a divergence in that sophistication.

Armed rebellion is no longer an option.

Violent resistance and overthrow is unlawful and can only be renounced.

The Second Amendment simply represents a danger to public safety now.

[LadyHawkAZ]

90. May I inject an opinion here?

Actually a couple of opinions.

My ex-husband beat me up, then came back after I'd had him arrested for it and raped me. In defiance of a restraining order and pending charges. After that I got my concealed permit. There will not be a repeat of this problem.

Not only do I not trust the government to protect me from the government, I don't trust it to protect us from each other either. There's a certain amount of responsibility for our own freedom and our own safety that we all have to take on our own. I personally prefer not to wait until someone has injured or killed me in order for them to be arrested and charged. I'm very funny that way.

I don't think that the problem is with the availability of weapons or the right to own them. I think it's with the fact that we are not taught what this right means or how to properly apply it. Driving, which is legally considered a privilege, is a mandatory course in school. Gun safety is not. Neither is respect for the rights of other people. There are no courses in "do not steal" or "no, you can't make fun of his cross/crescent/star" or "do not hit Billy". It's assumed that parents will have taught this, which has to be the stupidest assumption ever made- parenthood only requires a practical exam, not a written. So we have kids growing up with the idea that they have rights, but only a vague idea of what that means in practical application, and THEN we drop a bunch of rights in their lap and expect them to know how to use them. And then we are very surprised when it turns out they know more about how to drive a car.

Lots of rights, no concept of responsibility. There's the problem.

Taking away rights doesn't solve that problem, it just means we all have a few less rights. That's a slippery slope I prefer not to go sliding on. We barely survived eight years of Bush's erosion of the Constitution, and I would prefer not to see any more damage done in that direction. The Second Amendment is there for a very good reason. Given the choice between the two, I'd prefer to spend the energy on getting rid of the reason than getting rid of the right. It makes more sense to me.

As with all opinions, YMMV.

[gorfle]

111. Armed rebellion is no longer an option.

The sophistication of the weaponry held by the authorities was not much better than that in the hands of the People.

There has been a divergence in that sophistication.

Armed rebellion is no longer an option.

Violent resistance and overthrow is unlawful and can only be renounced.

The Second Amendment simply represents a danger to public safety now.

If armed rebellion against technologically superior forces is no longer an option, how do you explain:

Vietnam vs. the United States
Afghanistan vs. the Soviet Union
Iraq vs. the United States

In each of these cases a vastly technologically inferior force resisted a superior force, and won.

And moreover, in each of these cases, the aggressor who lost didn't even risk their homeland resources.

Imagine a civil war on the aggressor's home soil. The economic impact alone would be devastating.

Look at the DC Snipers - two guys shooting out of the keyhole of the trunk of a car:

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

They effectively shut down commerce in a large area as people quit shopping or otherwise going out in the open. Two guys.

Look at the 10 or so insurgents who attacked the financial center of Mumbai a couple of months ago:

\http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumbai_attack

10 men armed with assault rifles and grenades killed some 300 people. Can you imagine the financial impact if such an attack happened on Wall Street?

13 drug gang member shot up Acapulco in a fight with authorities:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1903913,00.html

And it has had a major impact on tourism income.

What impact to you think the shooting at the Holocaust Museum will have on museum attendance there?

There are between 40 and 80 million firearm owners in the United States.

Can you imagine the economic impact alone if even 1% of them were involved in such activities? That's 400,000 to 800,000 people.

[Euromutt]

114. That's an argument for LESS gun control

If the point of the Second Amendment, among other things, was to enable the people of the several states to rise up and overthrow the federal government if it became tyrannical, then it follows that any measure that results in "a divergence" of "the sophistication of the weaponry held by the authorities" and that of the weaponry held by the people is illegitimate. You might as well argue that, since the government has the technological means to place wire taps on telecommunications, and has proven itself willing to use such in violation of the law, we should scrap the Fourth Amendment. Let me paraphrase:
"Avoiding government surveillance is no longer an option.
Resisting government surveillance is unlawful and can only be renounced.
The Fourth Amendment simply represents an impediment to public safety now."

[Statistical]

115. So is your position that you are advocating a repeal of the 1984 machinegun ban?

Just because the 2nd isn't effective (in your opinion) doesn't give you or anyone else the legal authority to just make it go away.

The press is controlled by a tiny majority. Maybe we should just erase the 1st?
Collecting DNA from every citizen would solve thousands if not millions of crimes.

The founders gave you an option. You can work to repeal the 2nd. Don't pretend it doesn't exist because you don't find it useful. Any govt who can "undo" the 2nd via extra legal authority can "undo" anything it wants.

[Raskolnik]

43. And people have wanted to "interpret" away the freedoms protected by the Constituion

since its inception. Opposition to civil liberties isn't exactly new.

[sharesunited]

46. Such interpretation is what keeps dynamite and grenade launchers from 2A protection.

There must be some level at which you can accept interpretation as being consistent with both freedom and the public good.

[Raskolnik]

48. There is. And I am always going to be skeptical of those who wish to whittle

down our civil liberties in the name of "safety."

You refernce dynamite and grenade launchers, but I do not believe any serious people interpret the Constitution to protect those items from regulation. So why not put your cards on the table? How would you "interpret" the 2A to increase the public good?


edit typo

[sharesunited]

54. Halt retail sales of new guns and ammunition.

That's just me.

All I can do is agitate, agitate until enough people are sick of going down the NRA's primrose path of more guns somehow being the solution.

Endlessly more guns is a downward spiral to a destroyed society.

[Raskolnik]

56. At least you're honest, I'll give you credit for that.

But be serious--you don't really think a ban on the sale of new guns would be constitutional, do you?

[sharesunited]

64. What is the Constitutional problem with such a ban?

2A proponents like to assert the plain meaning of its words.

Keep and bear arms. OK.

Does it say manufacture or sale?

[Raskolnik]

65. That's cute, but I don't believe for a second that you honestly believe that.

And even assuming that you could wave a magic wand and make such a proposal constitutional, you do realize that guns are made out of metal and wood and plastic, and last a really, really long time, right?

[sharesunited]

75. Oh it will take years to reduce the gun population.

But the longest journey begins with the first step.

Stop introducing new poison. Turn off the tap.

[Raskolnik]

81. How's "turning off the tap" working out in the war on drugs?

First, guns take more than a few years to go away. Unless you are proposing confiscation (which thus far you have not admitted, but I suspect that's what you really want), there are enough firearms in the U.S. to last for a couple hundred years without another one being manufactured.

Second, I assume you are aware that guns are not exactly the most difficult items in the world to manufacture? Given a couple months to set up a shop, a few competent machinesmiths could turn out as many functional (if not beautiful) firearms as people were willing to pay for.

[Euromutt]

95. And empirical evidence indicates that people who want guns for criminal purposes...

... are willing to pay more than those who want them for self-defense or recreation.

According to the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/30/ukcrime1), a Glock pistol that sells for $500-600 new in the United States sells for ₤2,000-3,000 (~$,3,300-4,500) on the UK black market. And even at prices inflated six to nine times by illegality, they sell readily.

According to the same article, what is currently popular among British criminals are IMZ Baikal MP-79 tear gas pistols (http://www.baikalinc.ru/en/company/64.html), which are smuggled into the UK and converted locally by replacing the barrel and some other parts. Since the MP-79 is essentially a Makarov pistol (http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg21-e.htm), which IZM also makes (http://www.baikalinc.ru/en/company/266.html), converted to fire tear gas rounds, converting one "back" to an actual Makarov isn't that complex. The going rate is ₤1,000-1,500 on the black market, and they sell like hot cakes (an actual Makarov would fetch at most $300 on the legal US market).

The thing is that to a criminal (especially a street-level dealer), a firearm is a capital investment; it provides street cred, a means to settle disputes in an industry where you can't take a business partner to court, a means to rob another dealer and prevent him from robbing you. As long as there are criminals who feel they need guns, someone will provide a supply to meet the demand; if the guns can't be acquired domestically, they'll be acquired overseas.

And as my dissident colleague above rightly notes, firearms are not particularly complex pieces of machinery to make. During the Dutch "police actions" in what is now Indonesia, the Indonesian nationalists cranked out their own crude copies of the British Sten gun (which was already pretty crude to begin with) in small workshops (normally used for repairing bicycles and agricultural implements); ugly as sin, but they worked.

[one-eyed fat man]

96. ingenious devils

With the banning of handguns in England one of the side effects has been the proliferation of submachineguns from Eastern Europe. The penalty is the same, so "in for a penny, in for a pound"



Another innovation is the cell-phone gun. Again, likely from eastern Europe the existence of these things will very likely get you shot, and justifiably so if you point a phone at a cop.

Most cops will tell you that one of the tip-offs that someone carrying a gun may not be not legally doing so is the lack of a holster. Criminals also use off body carry, like carrying the gun in a paper sack so it can be ditched without a lot of fanfare.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_KidQawqCyP0/Sa_zz0Tbo0I/AAAAAAAABCk/aVMjEBSAzVM/s400/hi-caliber.org+1.jpg

Another ingenious criminal combined a fully functional squirt gun with a sawed off 12 gauge shotgun.

But we have been assured, if we only declare gun-free zones, all our problems will be over.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0vyxgJLJVA

[Statistical]

97. Repeal the 2nd then. Too easy. You see a problem and there is a solution.

To take the road that you or anyone can decide what civil rights are "needed" or "relevent" though is horribly dangerous.

How many people have been assaulted, raped or killed because of the 4th and 5th amendment? Without a doubt we would be safer (from criminals) in a society where the 4th & 5th don't exist. What if someday someone decides enough is enough. The right against warrantless searches stops tomorrow.

If you think the 2nd is out-dated, obsolete, dangerous, or no longer needed then fine, REPEAL IT!.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Thomas Jefferson

[gorfle]

113. How...

Halt retail sales of new guns and ammunition.

How do you see this as being consistent with both freedom and the public good?

If the government stopped all retail sales of computers, or printing presses, or telephones, or any other means of communication, would this be consistent with the right to freedom of expression?

If the government stopped in and halted all sales of new guns and ammunition, I don't see how this could possibly be seen as being consistent with the freedom the 2nd amendment conveys.

[gorfle]

112. Yes there is but in order to determine this...

Yes, there is some level at which we can accept interpretation as being consistent with both freedom and the public good.

But first, before we can talk about freedom and the public good, we have to agree on what the intent of the second amendment was.

What do you think the intent of the second amendment was?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

53. Yes it was interpreted most recently in the Heller decision.

[gorfle]

107. We just had that judicial review.

See Heller.

[lpbk2713]

58. Chuck Heston's legacy.

I have to wonder what Chuck might have to say for himself today?

[LanternWaste]

78. For better or for worse...

For better or for worse, this is a major reason why I avoid civilians carrying whenever I'm aware of it, and whenever possible. I hear that same bombastic, aggressive rhetoric coming from too many gun owners; and regardless of whether I believe they have the capacity or not to lift their words to actions, I believe that prudence is the better part of safety.

And just so no one gets snooty, or lifts their fists in righteous rage-- I don't want to grab anyone's gun-- purchase all you want/all you need-- that's irrelevant to the decisions I make for myself, I don't really care about the difference between semi- and fully-automatic, I laugh when I see the question, "do you actually know what an assault weapon is...? posed. As they are all of them irrelevant to me and the choices I make for myself. And as much as you have may have the right to carry your weapons into a bar, I also have the right to leave.

[anonymous171]

83. I know! If anything this event shows that we need to crank up the anti-gun rhetoric

so more RWers snap and kill people.

[jeepnstein]

101. He was a prior felon.

The man had already given up his right to keep and bear arms. He is just a typical scum bag white supremacist who is looking to destroy the country that prospered him. He'll suddenly be very interested in his own civil rights as he faces murder charges.

He has nothing in common with the vast majority of lawful gun owners in the United States.

[slackmaster]

110. The Second Amendment is not the issue, sharesunited

[proteus_lives]

118. So someone else commits a crime.....

And judging by your posts on this thread your solution is take away my guns. What crime have I committed? Why do millions of Americans deserve to lose their rights?

So we can be "safe"?

Pointless fear-mongering.