Spokane7
52°
January 30, 2012 in Opinion
Nation needs gun dialogue
In a democracy, nothing is supposed to matter more than the will of the people.
So it was painful to watch last week as the will of the people was overturned and one of Arizona’s duly elected representatives was forced from office. It wasn’t a recall vote or scandal that did it. No, the people’s will was overturned by a gun.
After a year of upbeat bulletins and proclamations of her miracle recovery, the decision by Rep. Gabrielle Giffords to leave Congress comes as a bit of a blow. In a video she explains that she needs to concentrate full time on her rehab. Giffords speaks clearly, but with a sometimes odd cadence, as if picking her way through an unfamiliar language – evidence of the brain injury she sustained when she was shot in the head last year at a constituents event in Tucson. Twelve other people were wounded, six killed.
This episode joins a long list of elections overturned and social movements derailed by men with guns, as in the shootings of Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley, Huey Long, Malcolm X, Medgar Evers, the Kennedy brothers, George Wallace, George Moscone, Harvey Milk and Martin Luther King Jr. Somehow, people who should never have guns never have trouble getting them. John Kennedy’s assassin, a disaffected former Marine who had once defected to the Soviet Union, bought his by mail order. King’s assassin, a wanted fugitive, bought his over the counter.
Jared Loughner, the man now in jail for the Tucson massacre, was able legally to obtain a gun despite the fact that he was a mentally deranged man who had been rejected by the U.S. Army and kicked out of a community college. Which suggests that, while Loughner may be unbalanced, American gun laws are downright insane.
And they will likely stay insane, so long as our politics remain a hatefully polarized affair where the two “sides” glower at one another like boxers in their respective corners and “compro- mise” is a dirty word.
After all, the solution here is not rocket science.
We need meaningful background checks on all gun purchases – no loopholes. A mentally unstable man should not have legal access to a gun, period.
We need to ban fully automatic weapons from private use. The hunter who needs a gun that fires hundreds of rounds a minute isn’t much of a hunter.
We need to encourage gun safety classes so that poorly secured firearms stop ending up in the hands of little children.
At the very least, we need to have a serious national dialogue about these and other possible solutions.
But we won’t. Too many on the political left still seem to harbor a fantasy of getting rid of all guns and refuse to distinguish between responsible gun owners and those criminals or deranged people who have no business with firearms. Too many on the political right still harbor the paranoid delusion that any talk of gun control is code for confiscation by jackbooted thugs riding black helicopters.
So nobody talks. Nobody listens. Meantime, our unwillingness to get serious about an epidemic of gun violence brings us the equivalent of 11 Columbine massacres every week – three 9/11s every year. Every once in a while, as now, it even overturns an election. The carnage goes on, and on.
And sadly, that, too, reflects the people’s will.
Leonard Pitts Jr. is a columnist for the Miami Herald. His email address is lpitts@miamiherald .com.
Gloomy prediction in Egypt 
Jeffrey_Grey on January 30 at 5:52 a.m.
I wonder if some of the folks around here will even notice that Mr. Pitts correctly presents the issue as a failure of extremes on both sides - the right and the left - to engage in a meaningful give-and-take dialog?
I’m betting ‘no.’ I’m betting that salient point will be ignored in favor of reflexive recitations of all the old, standard, dogma-approved and dogma-sustaining squawking points.
ChefGus/ John Olsen on January 30 at 7:27 a.m.
Jeff… thanks for weighing in on this… you are correct i feel… most of the owners of guns are not a threat or in any way mentally ill. The system for checking on records of mental health history and or criminal history, or domestic violence history are poor at best…
One can go to a gun show at the fairgrounds and buy a gun and ammo from a “Collector” and not even have to show a concealed weapons permit…
The truly insane, like those listed in the article are impossible to “control”…. so what to do???
Idaho actually has more strict requirements to get a concealed carry permit than Washington….. go figure…
I saw an elderly ( as in older than I) man at Cabella’s recently buying a 1911 and he did not have a clue about which end of the weapon worked…. he wanted it for “home protection”….. and it statistically puts he and his “home” more at risk if he is not trained or conversant with procedures to follow in your home if you are broken in to….
Thanks as always for your comments…initial and follow up.. J
johnclarke on January 30 at 7:28 a.m.
I noticed.
I don’t really see a sporting need for even semi-automatic rifles, or high capacity magazines for pistols. The moment I say that, someone will be arguing “well if the gubmint will only let you have 33 round mags for your Glock, then what’s next? 32 round mags?”
These arguments are absurd, the United States is not Somalia and the days of the armed militia are long gone.
Orphan on January 30 at 7:39 a.m.
Pitts should do some research.
Fully automatic weapons are essentially unavaliable to most people. Since 1968 I can only recall one time a legal automatic weapon was used in a crime. Oh yeah the starting price of an automatic weapon is around $20K. We cant stop drugs at our borders what makes anyone think we can stop guns from crossing the boarder.
I find it odd that Pitts wants meaningful background checks for all gun purchases and at the same time he wants to ban fully automatic weapons. The few people that own full auto weapons have to pass a very tough background check and pay a $200 dollar tax. These people are checked out to the max but still Pitts demands that full auto weapons be taken from private hands.
Background checks are already done on every new firearm sold in the US.
I am glad to see and agree with Pitts when he says “We need to encourage gun safety classes”.
What does hunting have to do with the second amendment or owning firearms.
Substitute owning a Bible, Book of Koran or Book of Mormon for owning guns in Pitts essay and see if you would still support his statements. The 2nd Amendment is a right just like freedom of speech or freedom of religion, if you would not support the banniing of high speed printing presses why would you support banning full auto weapons. Only if you can support a background check and mandatory classes before purchasing a bible can you support support the same thing for purchasing a firearm.
Lastly laws only cause law abiding people to alter their actions criminals dont care, laws do nothing to prevent criminals from doing crimes.
Jeffrey_Grey on January 30 at 7:50 a.m.
“Fully automatic weapons are essentially unavailable to most people.”
Fine, I grant that point. So yes, Pitts got one point wrong.
But he got far more right.
“Background checks are already done on every new firearm sold in the US.”
So how did Lee Harvey Oswald get one? How did James Earl Ray - a wanted fugitive get one?
How did Loughner get one?
Clearly, the system we have now doesn’t prevent some people who shouldn’t have a gun from getting one. It’s therefore not enough to say, ‘We have a system in place.’ The reply is, ‘The system doesn’t work as well as it needs to work.’
“What does hunting have to do with the second amendment or owning firearms.”
If you’re bow hunting, then it has very little to do with firearms. If, on the other hand, you’re hunting with a firearm …
Duh.
“Substitute owning a Bible, Book of Koran or Book of Mormon for owning guns in Pitts essay and see if you would still support his statements.”
Or, you could stick with the subject Pitts is discussing. That is unless your arguments are getting weak, in which case, by all means; see if you can deflect the topic to something else.
“Lastly laws only cause law abiding people to alter their actions criminals dont care, laws do nothing to prevent criminals from doing crimes.”
So we should just do away with laws? Clearly, a bank robber isn’t being deterred by laws against robbing banks because he’s still doing it. Therefore, by your ‘logic’, we should do away with laws against robbing banks because the only people such laws deter are honest people who wouldn’t rob a bank anyway.
WillyPeter on January 30 at 8:35 a.m.
Sometimes, Jeff, you’re hopeless. On purpose, I think….:-)
remember_alamo on January 30 at 8:37 a.m.
The NRA is talking and has meaningful dialogue but it seems citizens who want to ban all firearms are not listening. Mexico has banned all citizens from owning firearms and the military is on every corner trying to fight the drug cartels. Do we want the gangs and the drug crime by disarming the citizens so that the military has to take over. Reminds me of when the government banned alcohol the crime was rampant.
The 2nd Amendment to our Constitution has nothing to do with hunting etc. but everything to do with protecting our country from the enemy that is within. The citizens in the middle east are not allowed to have weapons and the military can shoot them down like dogs.
Orphan on January 30 at 8:48 a.m.
Jeffery too many points being debated here here so I will only bring up 2 of yours
1. So how did Lee Harvey Oswald get one? How did James Earl Ray - a wanted fugitive get one?
Both incidents happened before mandatory background checks were required. Harvey ordered his rifle mail order,, you cant do that anymore. Not a valid argument Jeffery.
2. HUnting has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment, show me where the constitution mentions hunting. DUH
Jeffrey_Grey on January 30 at 8:49 a.m.
Very substantive rebuttal on the facts, WP.
“The NRA is talking and has meaningful dialogue but it seems citizens who want to ban all firearms are not listening.”
Only seven posts and I win my bet.
Jeffrey_Grey on January 30 at 8:55 a.m.
“Both incidents happened before mandatory background checks were required. Harvey ordered his rifle mail order,, you cant do that anymore.”
Why not? Wait… could it be because someone thought it was necessary to institute laws to prevent such things from happening? But how can that make sense if laws don’t deter bad people from doing bad things, they only deter good people who wouldn’t do bad things anyway?
Actually, it’s a valid argument.
“2. Hunting has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment, show me where the constitution mentions hunting.”
If you own a firearm to go hunting, then the Second Amendment does apply. It applies to the ownership of a firearm regardless of why you own it. I’ll stoop to WP’s brilliant argumentative technique and ask if you’re being intentionally dense.
rosehips on January 30 at 8:56 a.m.
really, how many citizens want to ban all firearms? There are more brainwashed individuals who listen to flamers and believe what they say about how liberals want to ban all guns than there are people who actually advocate for a complete ban on guns.
Luckily it’s fairly easy to recognize the kooks. But not always. Same for crazed killers.
gmorton on January 30 at 9:05 a.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,
“So we should just do away with laws? Clearly, a bank robber isn’t being deterred by laws against robbing banks because he’s still doing it.”
Correct. Laws do not deter criminals. They do, however, allow the State to remove those criminals from the street if they are convicted.
The trouble with onerous firearms registration laws is that they are redundant – there is no reason, and little motive on the part of law enforcement, to enforce those laws against persons who are doing nothing illegal with the firearm (other than failing to comply with registration requirements). And for the person who uses the illegal firearm in a crime, if caught he will be removed from the street anyway, for the crime itself. The registration red tape accomplishes little or nothing, except give the government information as to which citizens possess firearms and what types.
On the other hand, it is reasonable, and perfectly constitutional, to revoke the right to keep arms from someone who has been convicted of a crime, especially one involving a firearm, just as it is reasonable and constitutional to revoke that person’s right to vote or his right to liberty. It’s also reasonable to ask citizens who sell firearms to check to see if a prospective purchaser has been thus barred from possessing a firearm.
Pitts says, “Jared Loughner, the man now in jail for the Tucson massacre, was able legally to obtain a gun despite the fact that he was a mentally deranged man who had been rejected by the U.S. Army and kicked out of a community college.”
As far as I know, one does not forfeit one’s civil rights because they are “mentally deranged,” or because they’ve been rejected by the Army or kicked out of college. Should their right to vote also be revoked for such reasons? Mr Pitts needs to grasp the meaning of “due process of law.”
The_Seer on January 30 at 9:08 a.m.
Dealers and/or individuals at gun shows sell firearms all the time to people without conducting background checks because they aren’t required to conduct background checks.
I’ve always had a theory about gun ownership. Here goes: For a man, the number of guns in his household is directly opposite the size of his penis. More guns, small member. Less guns, larger junk.
Of course, my methods are non-scientific and could have exceptions, but I bet I’m pretty close.
Same goes for the type of vehicle you drive. Smaller rig, bigger jig!
Jeffrey_Grey on January 30 at 9:10 a.m.
rosehips,
I own several firearms including a semi-auto assault rifle. As is my right.
I have no interest in seeing the government empowered to take those weapons away from me, especially given the state of the nation / world these days.
I am interested in seeing the same thing Mr. Pitts is asking for; rational regulation of an inherently dangerous instrumentality. NOT confiscation. NOT denial of access under the guise of unreasonable regulation.
For goodness sake! We license drivers of automobiles and require proof of proficiency in the name of public safety - and cars have a purpose other than to inflict injury. Guns, on the other hand, exist only to inflict injury. Yet we don’t license or require proof of proficiency for them. It makes no earthly sense!
And please don’t try to draw a distinction based on the fact that gun ownership is some kind of sacred right. We apply reasonable regulation to even the most fundamental of rights all the time. That’s all I’m asking for here.
gmorton on January 30 at 9:15 a.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,
“For goodness sake! We license drivers of automobiles and require proof of proficiency in the name of public safety . . .”
There is no constitutional right to operate a motor vehicle on public roadways. There is a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
gmorton on January 30 at 9:16 a.m.
You do not need a State license to exercise your constitutional rights, Jeffrey. That is oxymoronic.
gmorton on January 30 at 9:20 a.m.
Leonard Pitts wrote,
“In a democracy, nothing is supposed to matter more than the will of the people.”
That’s true. Fortunately, the US is not a democracy; it is a constitutional republic, wherein a written Constitution trumps the will of the people, or at least majorities of them.
Jeffrey_Grey on January 30 at 9:23 a.m.
gmorton,
I stand by my critique of the logic that says we shouldn’t have firearm laws because such laws wouldn’t deter criminals. By that flawed logic relating to the deterrence effect of laws, we shouldn’t have any laws because laws don’t deter criminals. (Or so the fractured reasoning goes.)
“The trouble with onerous firearms registration laws is that they are redundant…”
So is any law if you view it only with respect to law-abiding citizens. It’s the same fractured logic: We don’t need laws to deter law-abiding citizens, and criminals don’t care about laws to begin with. Ergo - why have laws?
As to forfeiture of civil rights based on physical or mental disability; I agree up to a point. The point being the need for due process of law. Of course, the question then becomes how do you get the questionable individual into the system to begin with?
Which brings me back to the need for reasonable regulation in the form of licensing.
Look, I know libertarians like you will never accept that a right like firearm ownership can ever be predicated on something like licensing. You’ll never agree to something like that. So be it. But for everyone else who’s still amenable to reason, let me ask a question:
You’ll notice something very unusual about the ‘right to bear arms’ clause of the Second Amendment. There’s language appearing there that doesn’t appear anywhere else in any discussion of rights. That language is, “well regulated”. Now I grant you, that language actually applies to the real intent of the Second Amendment, which was the creation and maintenance of a “well regulated militia”. But still, unlike any other of the rights the Founding Fathers enumerated, only the right of firearm ownership was deemed to be subject to “regulation.”
I submit, unless you believe you can pick and choose the words and meaning of the Constitution, that language sets the right of firearm ownership apart from any other right. It is specifically singled out as needing regulation.
Jeffrey_Grey on January 30 at 9:28 a.m.
“There is no constitutional right to operate a motor vehicle on public roadways. There is a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.”
And as I said and as apparently flew right over your head, we regulate constitutional rights all the time. You yourself previously stated several examples. To them I would add the old standards of freedom of religion not granting the right to engage in human sacrifice, freedom of speech not granting the right to yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater just for fun, and freedom of the press not granting the right to knowingly publish treasonous or libelous material.
“You do not need a State license to exercise your constitutional rights, Jeffrey.”
Show me where I said it would be a state license.
And by the way, who handles the details of my exercise of the right to vote in federal elections? Do I have to go down to the federal building to register to vote? Or can I instead do it at the Washington State D.M.V.?
Orphan on January 30 at 9:34 a.m.
Jeffery Driving a car is a privilege owning firearms is a right.
Freedom of speech, religion and owning firearms are all sacred rights. Why do you insist on attempting to treat the 2nd Amendment differently than all the rest?
BTW the 2nd Amendment regulates the government not the people, just so we are clear here.
People driving cars kill far more people than firearms every year.
Doctors kill about 11 times as many people as firearms every year.
Is it reasonable to license and prove proficiency for owning a bible?
Guns exist for protection from our government, criminals and anyone else that would attempt to deprive me or mine of our freedom, lives etc. Funny how you look at it the other way around.
“.We apply reasonable regulation to even the most fundamental of rights all the time.”
But only after the fact Jeffery no other right is penilized before the act except for firearms. Example it is unlawful to carry a firearm into a post office because someone might do something unlawful with it. It is not unlawful to speak until you cause harm with the speech. Once again you want to treat the 2nd amendment differently than all the rest.
gmorton on January 30 at 9:39 a.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,
“Ergo - why have laws?”
I answered that. In order to remove persons who commit crimes from the streets. But if a person commits a crime with a gun, and is caught, he’ll be removed from the streets anyway, whether the firearm was registered or not. Hence the registration laws are redundant with respect to their ostensible purpose.
” … only the right of firearm ownership was deemed to be subject to ‘regulation.’”
No. The term “regulation” in that Amendment refers to militias, not firearms ownership. And it does not mean bureaucratic regulation, *a la* the CFRs. “Well-regulated” means “well-trained, well organized, and disciplined.”
Orphan on January 30 at 9:40 a.m.
Jeffery For gods sake the definition of “well regulated” at the time was functioning properly. Well regulated did not mean functioning under a lot of rules & laws. A well regulated clock kept time properly it was not subject to a lot of laws.
gmorton on January 30 at 9:42 a.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,
“Of course, the question then becomes how do you get the questionable individual into the system to begin with?”
When he commits a crime, or possibly deemed incompetent to own a firearm following a civil proceeding.
Jeffrey_Grey on January 30 at 9:51 a.m.
“No. The term “regulation” in that Amendment refers to militias, not firearms ownership.”
Then the right must relate to militias and not private ownership too, because the language of the amendment very clearly bases the right of firearm ownership on the need for a well-regulated militia, doesn’t it?
If you want more proof of what the Founding Fathers really meant by “well regulated militias” as the context for firearm ownership, read Federalist Papers #29. Hamilton, after discussing the impracticality of regularly drilling all the citizens on the same basis as professional standing armies were drilled, he says:
(emphasis mine)Go ahead. Tell me that calling ‘the people at large’ into camp, inspecting their equipment and drilling them once or twice a year isn’t something slightly more ‘regulatory’ than, ‘It’s a constitutional right and therefore sacrosanct.’
Jeffrey_Grey on January 30 at 9:52 a.m.
Orphan,
You are exactly wrong. Read Federalist #29.
gmorton on January 30 at 9:52 a.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,
“To them I would add the old standards of freedom of religion not granting the right to engage in human sacrifice, freedom of speech not granting the right to yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater just for fun, and freedom of the press not granting the right to knowingly publish treasonous or libelous material.”
Correct. All rights may be exercised only insofar as they do not violate the rights of others. “Your right to swing your arm ends where the other fellow’s nose begins.”
The right to keep and bear arms is subject to the same restriction – you may not use your firearm to injure others. As long as you are *not* injuring anyone else, however, that right is no more subject to “regulation” than any other right.
The gummint may not impose a “prior restraint” on exercise of that right any more than it may impose one on the right of free speech – e.g., requiring a license before purchase of a printing press, lest some “unstable” person libel someone with it.
Truth_and_Justice on January 30 at 10:00 a.m.
@ The_Seer
And thus the ignorance is revealed. Once again the “gun show loophole” is trotted out. I will try to educate you but I’m not going to hold my breath. You wrote:
“Dealers and/or individuals at gun shows sell firearms all the time to people without conducting background checks because they aren’t required to conduct background checks.”
In the context of firearms, the term “dealer” means someone who is engaged in the business of selling firearms. A person engaged in the business of selling firearms must have a Federal Firearms License. Engage in the business of selling firearms without an FFL and you commit a Federal crime. A dealer who sells a firearm without running the required background check also commits a Federal crime. There is nothing about gun shows or Safeway parking lots or the kitchen table that relieves a dealer from this requirement. Further, even a minor paperwork error can result in the death penalty for a dealer’s Federal Firearms License. BATFE exercises no discretion and there are no intermediate sanctions.
In case I have confused you, this is the point: THERE IS NO GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE, PERIOD. Your statement above is, quite simply, false. Now that you know this, if you continue to repeat that statement, it will be a lie.
Frankly, I knew who wrote this opinion piece before I got to the end. From where I sit, take anything Leonard Pitts is in favor of and oppose it and take anything he’s against and support it wholeheartedly. The man is a mindless liberal ideologue and an idiot. Firearm ownership is at an all time high and firearm accidents are at an all time low. I don’t have the time to address the rest of the junk posted above so I will leave you with my current favorite slogan:
If you don’t have your own pistol, you may have to wait for the rest of your life for the police to bring theirs.
rosehips on January 30 at 10:05 a.m.
Jeffrey wrote: “rosehips,
I own several firearms including a semi-auto assault rifle. As is my right.”
and what part of my comment led you to believe that I don’t think you have a right to own guns? I support the right to bear arms but I won’t list my firepower here.
I’d suggest you double lock your doors, now that you’ve announced that you own a semi-automatic. But don’t take that in any way as a threat. I’m not interested in anyone else’s firearms. But somebody else might covet that big bad boy.
Jeffrey_Grey on January 30 at 10:05 a.m.
Orphan,
Referring to your earlier post:
“Why do you insist on attempting to treat the 2nd Amendment differently than all the rest?”
As I stated; the language of the amendment itself makes firearm ownership specifically subject to regulation. (That is; even more so than any other right, which - as I also pointed out - are all also subject to reasonable regulation. But I guess that point, being contradictory to your broad brush generalizations, doesn’t get addressed.)
“People driving cars kill far more people than firearms every year.”
We license automobile drivers because autos - though not designed for the purpose - can still cause harm if used negligently or without proper skill and training.
“Doctors kill about 11 times as many people as firearms every year.”
We license doctors for the same reason - though not their purpose - incompetent or unskilled doctors can cause injury.
Firearms exist solely for the purpose of causing injury. But we don’t license them.
“Is it reasonable to license and prove proficiency for owning a bible?”
Can you put a bullet into the brain of a Congresswoman with a Bible?
“Guns exist for protection from our government, criminals … yatta yatta yatta”
And how does requiring proof of competency and reasonable regulation interfere with any of that? Indeed, shouldn’t something so important to our personal interests require us to be proficient? If protection from harm is the goal, shouldn’t we demand as much regulation as we can get so as to keep weapons out of the hands of those who would harm us? Actually, I think it’s funny that it’s YOUR viewpoint that is so ‘bass-ackwards.’
“But only after the fact Jeffery no other right is penilized before the act except for firearms.”
So? As I stated above, the Founding Fathers clearly intended for something different with respect to the right to own a firearm.
They clearly intended for it to be ‘regulated’ which is, by definition a ‘before the fact’ condition.
Jeffrey_Grey on January 30 at 10:12 a.m.
rosehips,
I didn’t state my case very well. Actually, I was trying to agree with you - albeit in a rather round-about way - by saying that even though I could be misinterpreted as arguing for banning firearm ownership, in point of fact I’m another citizen who believes in (and exercises) the right to own a gun.
So to my way of thinking, you’re right to ask just how many citizens are in favor of outright banning guns. I think the number is actually perishingly small. The point being; I’m NOT one of them.
As for locking my doors; I already do. That’s just prudent these days. But not because I’m afraid someone will try to come and swipe my assault rifle. You see, I’m still pretty proficient with it. (After all, I was a military small arms instructor / range master.) And being proficient with it, I don’t have any qualms about submitting myself to reasonable regulation.
rosehips on January 30 at 10:22 a.m.
good response jeffrey. It made me smile when you noted your proficiency. I think I’ll stay clear of your neighborhood just in case I am mistaken for a cat burglar. :)
gmorton on January 30 at 10:23 a.m.
Jeffrrey_Grey wrote,
“If you want more proof of what the Founding Fathers really meant by “well regulated militias” as the context for firearm ownership, read Federalist Papers #29.”
Yes. Except that Federalist #29 has nothing to do with firearms ownership or the 2nd Amendment (which did not exist when Federalist #29 was written). It gives the rationale for the power of Congress to “federalize” the militia granted in Article I, Sec. 8.
The right to keep and bear arms is “self-contained;” it does not derive from the need or desire for a militia. The possibility of a “well-regulated militia,” on the contrary, depends on *it*. The right is the independent variable; the militia the dependent variable.
The right to keep and bear arms derives from the ancient and fundamental natural right of self-defense. Like all other natural rights, it precedes government and transcends the needs or desires of governments (such as “well-regulated militias”).
The_Seer on January 30 at 10:24 a.m.
orphan: Who decides what are rights and priveleges? Why is there a distinction? Is it your claim that people have a “natural right” to self-defense?
gmorton on January 30 at 10:38 a.m.
Thje_Seer wrote,
“Who decides what are rights and priveleges? Why is there a distinction? Is it your claim that people have a “natural right” to self-defense?”
Perhaps this will help you:
http://www.freespokane.net/?page_id=25
WillyPeter on January 30 at 10:50 a.m.
Soooo, Looney Lenny wants law abiding citizens to have more laws and controls governing gun ownership in America….while the government’s agency for regulating guns, the ATF, gives them away to unknown drug dealers in Mexico….HOOT!
And c’mon Seer, you read that in Sarah Brady’s book, right?
mikeln on January 30 at 11:05 a.m.
Free men need no ones permision to defend themselves period.
Orphan on January 30 at 11:14 a.m.
Seer Yes it is my contention that all people have a natural right to self defence.
What you over look is that the Constution does not grant anything it only enumerates some of our natural god given rights and restricts the federal government from interfearing with those God given rights.
Rights were decided a long time ago and are listed in the Constitution & bill of rights. Please dont over look all of the Amendements.
drywitt99 on January 30 at 11:34 a.m.
Remember……the Second Amendment refers only to “…a well-regulated militia…”
NOTHING about hunting…….
NOTHING about preventing street crime……
A “strict constructionist” view……
Scalia and Thomas would be so proud of me!!!
WillyPeter on January 30 at 12:12 p.m.
Almost forgot - it was decades ago - that I taught advanced university ROTC students. After attending a summer seminar at West Point, I was certified to teach military history.
Firearms regulations and laws were not an issue prevalent in the late 18th century. Although the British disapproved of a gun in every home….and we know why. The 2d Amendment addressed military drill by local civilian militias…that men would form that militia and muster…WITH THEIR PRIVATELY OWNED FIREARMS…for appropriate activities.
“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate…..for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it,” Senator Dianne Feinstein.
Orphan on January 30 at 12:25 p.m.
Drywitt99 No it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
also where have you been the SCOTUS ruled that keeping and bearing arms was an individual right, look up the McDonald or Heller cases.
SMARTGUY on January 30 at 12:26 p.m.
The girl who recently shot those drug seekers, who were after her husbands medication defended her home and children with a shotgun. The single best weapon for home defense, except for maybe a flame thrower. Available at any sporting goods store without a background check, difficult to conceal for use in crimes, shot does not travel for miles like regular firearms.Hand guns and assault rifles are unnecessary for home defense or hunting.
drywitt99 on January 30 at 12:48 p.m.
@Orphan
First……the phrase “…..well regulated militia…” was included for a specific reason…..the Bill of Rights was NOT an exercise in creative writing.
Second…..glad that you support SCOTUS decisions.
Please employ any influence you may have with those right-wing nut jobs who murder abortion providers because they disagree with Roe v Wade.
misjustice on January 30 at 12:58 p.m.
Re: shotguns
“Available at any sporting goods store without a background check…”
Not true, at least in WA state. I had to submit to a “background check” when I purchased my shotgun. Additionally, I had to provide a current photo ID showing my street address, and fill out a questionnaire asking about criminal convictions and mental health issues.
Mr. Mossberg, potentially, a gal’s best friend.
WHS on January 30 at 1:04 p.m.
I really find it interesting… Here you have people that are essentially agreeing, yet both sides continue to argue. Other than the fanatics on both sides of the aisle, who can see no compromise, if some of you would just take a step back you might be able to see that.
Personally, I think anybody who wants to buy and own a firearm should have to pass a background check and take a simple firearms safety course. That would be the only new law I would support. Other than that, I think we have more than enough laws on the books already and in fact, if properly enforced we could probably review and get rid of quite a few of them.
By the way… Arguing about the intent is silly. Remember, in the 1700’s slavery was still ok, bounties were being offered for indian scalps, trapping was about the only industry that required a license, pistol duels were still being fought and a mans word was enough… even in capital cases.
As far as the gun shows go, it seems to me that most of you don’t have a clue as to what even caused this problem in the first place, or that it is essentially a moot point any longer (and kind of bummer in someways). Same with the fully automatic weapons ban. So, either learn about it or shut the heck up, because you are not doing either side any good with your senseless arguments.
WHS
WHS on January 30 at 1:05 p.m.
hey mis, did you get the “pink” version?
WHS
misjustice on January 30 at 1:10 p.m.
NOPE! Flat black for me!
Although they did have the “pink” models. I think they look like “play” guns, and IF I ever have to chamber a round (pump action) I want the person on the other end of the weapon to know that I’m not playin’!
; )
WHS on January 30 at 1:46 p.m.
Good for you mis! Good for you.
johnclarke on January 30 at 2:01 p.m.
well well, all the big thinkers are out today.
I guess until people accept that there is no legitimate sporting need for even semi-automatic rifles or high capacity pistol magazines, we are locked in the same stupid argument. (I have never worried about legal owners of fully automatic weapons, although I fail to see WHY anyone needs one)
There is only one way to prevent killers from getting access to killing machines - make them unavailable. Even then, killers will get access, but it will be much much harder and become more rare. This is clearly supported by facts and data, but those bothersome details will never enter in this same, stupid argument. Yes, then people will kill with bolt action rifles or 10 round magazines, but they will kill less and be easier to stop. Maybe in this dream world we will never see, police could stop acting like the military.
Jeffrey_Grey on January 30 at 2:23 p.m.
“Yes. Except that Federalist #29 has nothing to do with firearms ownership or the 2nd Amendment (which did not exist when Federalist #29 was written). It gives the rationale for the power of Congress to “federalize” the militia granted in Article I, Sec. 8.”
Please point to the language in Federalist #29 that leads you to that conclusion. (I think you’re thinking of Federalist #28.)
If Federalist #29 has nothing to do with ‘well-regulating’ the militia, please explain why, in the second paragraph, it says things like:
And then goes on to describe in broad terms what form that organization and discipline are to take.
But by all means; do, please, point to the language that supports your assertion.
“The right to keep and bear arms is “self-contained;” it does not derive from the need or desire for a militia.”
If you say so. But we’re talking about the Constitution and it very specifically states, “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.” It says nothing about ‘a self-contained natural right.’ It only speaks of a free state’s interest in the security that a well-regulated militia can provide.
johnclarke on January 30 at 2:24 p.m.
Stupid argument.
Jeffrey_Grey on January 30 at 2:32 p.m.
One more comment in passing, then I’ll probably leave this thread alone because it’s going the way of all similar discussions to date. (And oddly enough - exactly the way Mr. Pitts predicted it would go.)
My comment is; I find it interesting that here - as it has in the past - once I bring up Federalist #29, the discussion always seems to swerve away from the Constitution in favor of proclaiming firearm ownership to be a ‘natural right.’
misjustice on January 30 at 2:53 p.m.
“And oddly enough - exactly the way Mr. Pitts predicted it would go.”
Not odd at all.
What I find odd is that so many (those that usually decry Mr. Pitts’ syndicated contribution) would participate on a thread that they believe, and vociferously declare, is ALWAYS about race AND written by a “racist”… Now THAT’S odd, IMO!
; )
gmorton on January 30 at 3:11 p.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,
“If Federalist #29 has nothing to do with ‘well-regulating’ the militia, please explain why, in the second paragraph, it says things like: . . .”
I didn’t say it had nothing to do with regulating the militia. I said it had nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arms. Hamilton is trying to explain why the Constitution grants Congress the power to federalize the militia and set standards for their training. He is not talking about the right to keep and bear arms. Those are two different issues, which are related only in that the former is dependent on the latter, and thus forms one reason for protecting the latter which relates to another provision of the Constitution (Art. I, Sec 8).
.
gmorton on January 30 at 3:18 p.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,
” … once I bring up Federalist #29, the discussion always seems to swerve away from the Constitution in favor of proclaiming firearm ownership to be a ‘natural right.’”
This may perhaps be news to you, but natural rights are what the Bill of Rights was intended to protect – from government.
Jeffrey_Grey on January 30 at 3:40 p.m.
Oh, come on gmorton!
The discussion was about how rights, no matter how sacred, can nevertheless be regulated and how the right to bear arms is especially subject to regulation because out of all the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, ‘regulation’ is specifically mentioned only in that right’s enumeration.
But as always, when you get stuck for an answer, the question magically changes into a different question - one for which you think you have an answer.
Hamilton was talking about regulating the militia and - at least with respect to the Constitution - the right to bear arms is predicated upon the interest of the state in maintaining that well regulated militia. That’s what the words say - provided you parse them as they’re ever-so-clearly meant to be read. Now you can jabber on about abstractions and natural rights all you want. You can try to twist things around how ever you want. But what you come up with won’t be what’s in the Constitution unless you recognize that simple fact.
gmorton on January 30 at 5:01 p.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,
” … ‘regulation’ is specifically mentioned only in that right’s enumeration.”
So are “state,” “security,” and several other words. The adjective modifies “militia,” not “right.” I.e., it does not say, “A well regulated right to keep and bear arms . . .”
You’re trying to shoehorn an adjective in a prefatory clause into the main clause of the sentence, Jeffrey. You need some remedial English?
” … the right to bear arms is predicated upon the interest of the state in maintaining that well regulated militia.”
Oh, certainly not. Nothing in the Bill of Rights is “predicated” on any interest of the State. The Bill of Rights was added to *protect citizens against the State*, not to facilitate its interests.
The same right was listed in several State constitutions, where there was no mention of any militia. Pennsylvania’s article, adopted in 1776, is typical: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power.”
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statedat.htm
The “interests of the State” indeed. You suffer from a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of the Bill of Rights, Jeffrey.
johnclarke on January 30 at 5:59 p.m.
Jeffrey, step away from the gmorton.
Orphan on January 30 at 7:07 p.m.
It simply amazes me that seemingly very smart people can not figure out that the Constitution was designed to protect the people from the government. The Constitution does not grant rights, it does not give the government powers it limits the governments power. Massive fail in our education system.
Orphan on January 30 at 7:10 p.m.
Why oh why would anyone think the rest of the Constitution protected the people from the government but the 2nd Amendment did not?
Some of you think the founding fathers just stuck the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights randomly to give the government power over the people, think about it for Gods sake it does not make sense.
johnclarke on January 30 at 7:45 p.m.
Orphan on January 30 at 7:07 p.m.
It simply amazes me that seemingly very smart people can not figure out that the Constitution was designed to protect the people from the government. The Constitution does not grant rights, it does not give the government powers it limits the governments power. Massive fail in our education system.
ooooh sorry there old bean, but have to call you on that. The Constitution was created to establish the 3 branches of government, and to figure out a way pay to for it. No matter what the libertarian and other nutbags preach, it really quite that simple. The idea was a UNION between government and people. All this “protection from gubmint” is a bunch of paranoid hooey.
gmorton on January 30 at 9:57 p.m.
johnclarke wrote,
“The idea was a UNION between government and people.”
Egads.
No, John. There is no “union” between people and the government. The government is the creature of the people, created by them to secure their rights (” … to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men”). It is not an autonomous entity with interests of its own – in theory, though never in fact.
You’re right, Orphan. Massive fail of the educational system. Not in the eyes of the statists, of course. In their eyes that system is peddling its propaganda very successfully.
Arch_Druid on January 30 at 11:20 p.m.
A very interesting thread. For the NRA types, the right of the people who are members of the well-regulated militia to keep and bear arms for the purposes of securing a free state (which by the way, includes the government) shall not be infringed.
It doesn’t morph into the NRA hatred of “the government” if the “wrong party” is in charge. Nor does it morph into I’m a “man” see all my toys. Nor does it argue home protection or hunting. The 2nd Amendment is very specific in that regard.
The kind of arguments that some of you are having is that we need guns around because they’ve been around since the founding of the Republic, what you guys call “rights,” is simply something that you take for granted. Just because SCOTUS agreed with the NRA only means that they applied a liberal application to the 2nd Amendment that did not exist in history nor was it ever the Founding Father’s intent.
Oh, and given that situation with that woman who was fending off a home invasion… Neither would I desire to see a weapon’s ban. Just because bad people do bad things to the innocent.
Oh and GMorton, you should sit down with the Old Testament some time and really research all the rules, regs and laws that God handed down. Only to find that his chosen people chose to be rather (ahem!) libertarian as to whether those rules, regs, and laws would be applied or not. LOL!
greenlibertarian on January 31 at 2:00 a.m.
Fugly thread.
In my readings of the Founders writings about the Constitution, again, the GREAT COMPROMISE (on MANY issues) is supremely evident.
So yes, the Founders, in general, were quite cognizant of the horrors of a non-benevolent government, in spades, and part of it thusly deals with asserting and protecting the natural (or God given if you prefer, either is correct) rights of man.
It ALSO set detailed framework for establishment of a working representative democratic republic which sets such foundational document as the supreme law of the land, even as subject to amendment.
It’s a floor wax -and- a dessert topping.
gmorton on January 31 at 7:45 a.m.
Arch_druid wrote,
“Oh and GMorton, you should sit down with the Old Testament some time and really research all the rules, regs and laws that God handed down.”
Why would I be interested in that? What bearing does it have on public policy in the secular USA?
gmorton on January 31 at 7:48 a.m.
Arch_druid wrote,
” … the right of the people who are members of the well-regulated militia to keep and bear arms for the purposes of securing a free state (which by the way, includes the government) shall not be infringed.”
That is not what it says, Arch. Nor is that what it means, given the similar language in the Constitutions of the States at the time. See link above.
gmorton on January 31 at 7:52 a.m.
greenlibertarian wrote,
“So yes, the Founders, in general, were quite cognizant of the horrors of a non-benevolent government, in spades, and part of it thusly deals with asserting and protecting the natural (or God given if you prefer, either is correct) rights of man.”
Correct. That part is the Bill of Rights, where the 2nd Amendment appears. The original Constitution is the part concerned with devising a functioning government.
WHS on January 31 at 8:08 a.m.
I have found this to be a very good article pertaining to the Constitution and it’s varied interpretations. And personally, I was taught that one of the very things that makes our Constitution so great is it’s power to adapt to the times… Which has been proven and done multiple times since it’s inception. To hold to a single rigid interpretation is assinine in my opinion and completely contrary. That’s why there is a Judicial Branch of government… They are much smarter and better educated in these matters than you or me.
“The Constitution is many things to many people. Undoubtedly, it is the frame work for the Government of the United States of America, defining the three branches and clearing delineating the powers of the branches. It also undoubtedly grants certain power to the federal government and grants others to the states; and it undoubtedly guarantees the basic rights of the people.
The Constitution is short; it cannot and does not attempt to cover every eventuality. Even when it seems it is clear, there can be conflicting rights, conflicting spheres of power. When disputes arise, it comes time for people, and most importantly judges of the Judicial Branch, to interpret the Constitution. The concept of constitutional interpretation is foreign in some countries, where the constitution makes a reasonable effort to cover every eventuality. These constitutions are generally rigid and little changing, adapting slowly to advances in political views, popular opinion, technology, and changes in government. The U.S. Constitution, however, has been termed a Living Constitution, in part because it grows and adapts to internal and external pressures, changing from one era and generation to the next.
When new situations arises, or even a new variation on an old situation, the Constitution is often looked to for guidance. It is at this point that the various interpretations of the Constitution come into play.
There is no one right way to interpret the Constitution, and people often do not always stick to one interpretation.”
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_intr.html
WHS
gmorton on January 31 at 8:35 a.m.
WHS wrote (quoting),
“The U.S. Constitution, however, has been termed a Living Constitution, in part because it grows and adapts to internal and external pressures, changing from one era and generation to the next.”
No, it does not change, except by amendment. What changes is the spin various interests with an axe to grind place upon it, most of which are preposterous. That is what Orwell called “Newspeak.”
“There is no one right way to interpret the Constitution, and people often do not always stick to one interpretation.”
If there is no right way to interpret it, then it is meaningless – a Humpty Dumpty document: “Words mean whatever I want them to mean.”
And there is word for people who do not stick to one interpretation – “inconsistent.”
But of course, in a Humpty Dumpty world, that word is meaningless too.
WHS on January 31 at 9:06 a.m.
gmorton claims there to be only one interpretation of the Constitution, which of course is his and if you disagree with him in any way, shape or form, you are therefore wrong… Thus proving his point.
Which leads right into…
Egocentrism is a personality trait which has the characteristic of regarding oneself and one’s own opinions or interests as most important or valid.
Egocentrics believe everyone should see what they see, or that what they see in some way exceeds what most other people can see. They might believe that “how I see the world now is how the world is”. To them, any different perception than their own is either considered false or nonexistent.
WHS
gmorton on January 31 at 12:11 p.m.
WHS wrote,
“gmorton claims there to be only one interpretation of the Constitution . . .”
Certainly not. There are as many interpretations are there are axes to grind, free lunches to be gained, or elections to be won. For most of its provisions, however, there is only one *correct* interpretation, meaning one which is supported by evidence (historical documents and precedent).
” … and if you disagree with him in any way, shape or form, you are therefore wrong…”
Certainly not, if you can produce evidence supporting the interpretation you favor.
WHS on January 31 at 1:09 p.m.
gmorton, the master of the double (or even triple) entendre! ha ha ha
Hcklbery on January 31 at 5:20 p.m.
Interesting to note that the gunman was a known liberal democrat which is the real irony of it all seeing as they are the one’s trying to shove the second amendment into the dustbin of history.
Perhaps we need more laws restricting gun ownership to finally make those pesky law breakers to take notice that they just can’t ignore the law anymore.
DANG THEIR HIDES ANYWAY !!!
Don’t they know the liberals really mean it this time?
Becoming a liberal Dem has only one of two prerequisites,
1.
A fanatical predilection towards willful ignorance.
OR
2.
Be a card carrying, board certified IDIOT, in which case the requirements of #1 are met.
A waiver is automatic if you are a commie progressive socialist in which case BOTH #1 AND #2 prerequisite requirements are happily met.
Arch_Druid on January 31 at 11:05 p.m.
Hcklebery, what would you know about the labeling of “others” in your post as “commie” et al. For those of us who truly faced the menace of Marxism during the cold war; your labels can be regarded as a true joke.
So at what point do you forget the labels you paint on others as you pursue a gvt answer for your own agenda? Maybe you need to look in the mirror for that “commie.”
As for GMorton, it is entirely correct that the U.S. Constitution can be regarded as a living constitution. What I find to be a real irony is that various political agendas want a rigid constitution for the opposition and a living constitution for themselves. The next irony also gets proven by the succeeding poster: that by seeking out an activist gvt to answer specific constitutional issues including the judicial branch itself, is to effectively argue a need for an activist gvt. And again, a “small gvt” only for the opposition, but one that meets “my” every need can be as large as “I” demand it to be.
And yeah, Morton, you may claim a “libertarian” need to limit authority, but! LOL! man’s society has always needed laws, rules, and regs to even create the existence of one. So, it is in fact relevant. Whether it comes from “God” or a secular gvt, the only way that “the people” can get along with each other is by accepting and obeying laws, rules, and regs. Even further, knowing that the law breaker faces punishment for disobeying those laws.
What you are never going to be able to do, Morton, a la this Randian fantasy of yours, is change thousands of years of thinking that is based on this sort of biblical source.
gmorton on February 01 at 9:44 a.m.
Arch_druid wrote,
” … the only way that ‘the people’ can get along with each other is by accepting and obeying laws, rules, and regs.”
I agree, Arch. What have I said that would lead you to think otherwise?
Are you trying to change the subject?
PROFINTOX on February 01 at 10:16 a.m.
The rights enumerated in the Constitution (i.e., Bill of Rights) are considered natural rights of liberty and property for sure, but that does not mean there cannot be limitations placed upon them. Anyone arguing that specifically should just stop. As another poster indicated for instance, freedom of speech does not give you the right to communicate a non-existent threat that puts people in danger (i.e.,yell fire in a crowded venue or indicate a bomb has been planted or whatever when no such threat exists), to slander or to incite riot. And freedom of the press does not allow one to commit libel. And so on. In this respect, the 2nd amendment is not above limitation any more than the others are. So quit saying so. But as an enumerated right it is obvious that there is an intent that the people be allowed to bear arms, meaning that limitations should be as minimal as possible so that the right is preserved. The real question is to what degree can limitations be place upon this right. That is the only thing that should be being argued, IMHO.
gmorton on February 01 at 6:05 p.m.
PROFINTOX wrote,
“In this respect, the 2nd amendment is not above limitation any more than the others are.”
You’re a bit behind the curve, Prof. Check the backthread.
You’re right – it is subject to the same limitations as other rights, i.e., you may not exercise that right in way which injures others. As long as I am not doing that, you may not infringe that right. Nor may you infringe it on the hypothesis that I *might* injure someone with it, any more than you may bar me from owning a printing press on the hypothesis that I might libel someone with it.
PROFINTOX on February 02 at 10:55 p.m.
gmorton — does that mean that in your opinion then, a felon or mentally disturbed person should be allowed to own firearms? That is what I gather from your response — because that would seem to be an infringement based on the hyopthesis that such a person “might” inrue someone with it. Unless of course you consider such a limitation of that right as falling under due process.
gmorton on February 03 at 8:42 a.m.
PROFINTOX wrote,
” … does that mean that in your opinion then, a felon or mentally disturbed person should be allowed to own firearms?”
A felon is a felon. He may be barred from owning a firearm following a conviction for a crime involving a firearm, just as he may be denied liberty or even his life for such an offense. That is what “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law” means.
A “mentally disturbed person” may likewise be forbidden to own a firearm, if his alleged incapacity has been demonstrated by his actions, as proven in a court of law. He may not be deprived of that liberty right merely because he has been treated in a mental institution, or been diagnosed with a “mental illness.”
PROFINTOX on February 03 at 10:10 a.m.
gmorton — exactly my point. A right can be limited (at the individual level certainly) by more than simply “you have this right as long as you do not exercise it in a manner that injures others”. Due process is one example we have discussed (and may be the ONLY Constitutional allowanhce). A felony does not have to involve firearms whatsoever — perhaps a person was convicted of possession of stolen property. Due process allows, constitutionally, that an individual’s 2nd amendment rights be limited (revoked actually) even though in the commission of the crime had nothing to do with the misuse of the right to bear arms. That is my main point — there is more that can be used to limit a right than simply the misuse of that particular right. I think we likely agree with each other, at least substantially, and are just bantering about details.
gmorton on February 03 at 6:46 p.m.
PROFINTOX wrote,
“A felony does not have to involve firearms whatsoever — perhaps a person was convicted of possession of stolen property. Due process allows, constitutionally, that an individual’s 2nd amendment rights be limited (revoked actually) even though in the commission of the crime had nothing to do with the misuse of the right to bear arms.”
That is largely true, since the Constitution imposes no restrictions on what punishments may be imposed for various crimes, other than that they not be “cruel or unusual.” There is no settled proportionality requirement, although that issue was considered at some length in *Harmelin v. Michigan* and a few earlier cases.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/89-7272.ZS.html
Imposing a lifetime ban on firearms possession for an offense not involving a firearm might revive that discussion, in light of the *McDonald* decision, were an ambitious attorney to take it on.
gmorton on February 03 at 6:48 p.m.
PS: Imposing a lifetime revocation of the right to vote as punishment for many offenses seems equally dubious.