PDA

View Full Version : SFChron Open Forum (11/28/07): "Unholster the 2nd Amendment," by Robert A. Levy


Paladin
11-29-2007, 10:10 AM
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/11/28/EDQBTJCCK.DTL&hw=amendment&sn=002&sc=1000

Unholster the 2nd Amendment

Robert A. Levy

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

It's been 68 years since the U.S. Supreme Court examined the right to keep and bear arms secured by the 2nd Amendment. It's been 31 years since the District of Columbia enacted its feckless ban on all functional firearms in the capital. It's been eight months since the second most important court in the country, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, declared the D.C. ban - among the most restrictive in the nation -unconstitutional. The obvious incongruity of those three events could be resolved soon.

The Supreme Court announced last week that it will review the circuit court's blockbuster opinion in Parker vs. District of Columbia, the first federal appellate opinion to overturn a gun control law on the ground that the 2nd Amendment protects the rights of individuals. Oral arguments likely will be held this spring, with a decision expected before June 30. (Full disclosure: I am co-counsel for the plaintiffs and am one of the attorneys who initiated the lawsuit.)

The stakes are immense. Very few legal questions stir the passions like gun control. And this round of the courtroom battle will be fought during the heat of the 2008 election. Further, Washington is home to the federal government, making it an appropriate venue to challenge all federal gun laws, no matter where an alleged 2nd Amendment violation might have occurred. Thus, Parker could have an immediate effect not only on D.C. gun regulations but on federal regulations.

Equally important, if the Supreme Court affirms the D.C. circuit's holding, state gun control laws across the nation could be vulnerable to constitutional attack. But before that happens, two other issues would have to be litigated.

The first is the knotty question of whether the 2nd Amendment can be invoked against state governments.[/B] Until 1868, when the 14th Amendment was ratified, the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government. But in the aftermath of the Civil War, much of the Bill of Rights was considered "incorporated" by the 14th Amendment to bind the states as well. Regrettably, the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment has not yet been settled. And that issue did not arise in Parker because the District of Columbia is a federal enclave, not a state.

The second question is even more complicated: What restrictions on gun possession and use would be permissible? Almost no one argues that 2nd Amendment rights are absolute. After all, under the 1st Amendment, the right to free speech does not protect disturbing the peace; religious freedom does not shield human sacrifice. Similarly, gun regulations can be imposed on some weapons (e.g., missiles), some people (e.g., preteens) and some uses (e.g., murder). Indeed, the appeals court acknowledged that Washington might be able to justify such things as concealed-carry restrictions, registration requirements and proficiency testing.

But the Constitution does not permit an across-the-board ban on all handguns, in all homes, for all residents, as in the case of the Washington ban (with the exception of current and retired police officers). Somewhere in the middle, regulations will be deemed constitutional even if the Supreme Court upholds the lower court.

Meanwhile, the high court also will have to re-examine its 1939 gun case, United States vs. Miller, which generated more heat than light regarding the 2nd Amendment. The core holding of Miller, stripped of confusing clutter, was that protected weapons must be "in common use" and must bear "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia."

Parker is entirely compatible with that holding. Pistols, which are banned in D.C., are self-evidently "in common use," and they have been carried into battle by American troops in every conflict since the Revolutionary War. But a proper reading of the 2nd Amendment should not attempt to link each and every weapon to the militia - except to note that the grand scheme of the amendment was to ensure that people trained in the use of firearms would be ready for militia service.

Significantly, the 2nd Amendment refers explicitly to "the right of the people," not the rights of states or the militia. And the Bill of Rights is the section of our Constitution that deals exclusively with individual liberties.

That is why there has been an outpouring of legal scholarship - some from prominent liberals -- that recognizes the 2nd Amendment as securing the right of each individual to keep and bear arms.

Considering the text, purpose, structure and history of our Constitution, and the clear weight of legal scholarship, it's time for the Supreme Court to revitalize the 2nd Amendment, which has lain dormant for nearly seven decades.

Robert A. Levy is senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute.

This article appeared on page B - 9 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Soldier415
11-29-2007, 10:14 AM
I saw that yesterday in the Chronicle...I had to say I was surprised to see such a pro 2A message printed by the Chronicle.

When I first turn the page and saw the graphic and title, I braced myself for more drivel from the Brady nutjobs.

chickenfried
11-29-2007, 10:17 AM
I've stopped visiting SFgate since reading this http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=76434&highlight=sfgate

Bizcuits
11-29-2007, 10:30 AM
Hmm mixed feelings, I just hope AR15s, AKs aren't considered missiles :rolleyes:

bulgron
11-29-2007, 12:06 PM
Many liberals like guns too. Maybe the SF Chronicle is finally figuring that out?

Hopi
11-29-2007, 12:33 PM
Many liberals like constitutional rights too. Maybe the SF Chronicle is finally figuring that out?

Fixed it for ya......

troyus
11-29-2007, 12:35 PM
Many liberals like guns too. Maybe the SF Chronicle is finally figuring that out?

Hey there. :) I'm fairly liberal. And I don't really like guns. The world would be a better place without senseless violence.

But my good intentions don't make the world any more safe for me.

Hopi
11-29-2007, 12:38 PM
Hey there. :) I'm fairly liberal. And I don't really like guns. The world would be a better place without senseless violence.

But my good intentions don't make the world any more safe for me.

Ummmmm hello Troll..........guns are an irrelevant cause and effect example of "senseless violence". People have done crazy, violent things with all types of tools. Tools do not create violence, people's actions do.
Thank you for playing.....

Rhys898
11-29-2007, 12:46 PM
Hey there. :) I'm fairly liberal. And I don't really like guns. The world would be a better place without senseless violence.

But my good intentions don't make the world any more safe for me.

You seem to be under the same mistaken impression that guns = senseless violence that most liberals are.

If open/concealed carry was allowed for all non-felon citizens there would be a hell of a lot less senseless violence in America.

Jer

Damn Hopi and I are on the same wavelength.

troyus
11-29-2007, 12:57 PM
You seem to be under the same mistaken impression that guns = senseless violence that most liberals are.

If open/concealed carry was allowed for all non-felon citizens there would be a hell of a lot less senseless violence in America.

Jer

Damn Hopi and I are on the same wavelength.

You guys have me wrong. What I am saying is that, I wouldn't have a need for a gun in my ideal world... but the world isn't what I'd like for it to be, and so, I do have a need for a gun.

Target shooting, hunting, those are not the primary reason I have guns. It is for protection, pure and simple.

And I didn't say senseless violence is a result of guns. Rather, guns can protect you AGAINST senseless violence. Senseless violence also includes a knife or bat wielding !@#$head who breaks into my house. And a gun is the appropriate tool for that kind of situation.

I agree on CCW, it would not change criminal behavior, other than being less inclined to commit crimes. "Yeah man, I decided to stop robbing people, too risky, I don't want to get in a shootout!"

And though I am sure many do NOT agree, I think a background check that takes a day or two is a GOOD idea to help slow down crazy idiots (they are out there), in their quest to blow away innocent people, and get them back into the mental health facility.

Patriot
11-29-2007, 1:08 PM
Ummmmm hello Troll..........guns are an irrelevant cause and effect example of "senseless violence". People have done crazy, violent things with all types of tools. Tools do not create violence, people's actions do.
Thank you for playing.....

Umm, how is he a troll? It seems to me that you have misconstrued what he said (with which I have great deal of sympathy for the most part).

I like guns, but I certainly don't like the thought of having to use one against another human being. No one posited that guns cause violence. Guns are only implements of the violence that stems from human behavior/choices. Nevertheless, as such, they signify - in a way - the reality of such interpersonal violence. Quite frankly, some firearms are poorly-suited for sporting purposes. Their functionality is self-evident.
There is a saying attributed to Homer, "The blade itself incites to violence." That of course is nonsense. What it represents is human projection of an impulse into a symbolic instrument.

Because of senseless (which I would label predatory or pathological) violence behavior on the part some individuals, there is a need for effective self defense, often in the form of firearms and other weapons which allow a person to use force beyond their unaided physical capabilities. It is deplorable, but necessary (and even just/appropriate). I think this is probably closer to what troyus meant.

Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest thing. Some things are worth fighting for.

Edit: whoops, I see troyus responded. Maybe I'll read to the end next time before piping up :p

Hopi
11-29-2007, 1:09 PM
Fair enough.....BUT...a waiting period violates the terms of the 2nd am. To have a regulating body forcing a wait period seems silly when the intent of the 2nd am. is to protect us from that regulating body and the dangers of unchecked powers......


You guys have me wrong. What I am saying is that, I wouldn't have a need for a gun in my ideal world... but the world isn't what I'd like for it to be, and so, I do have a need for a gun.

Target shooting, hunting, those are not the primary reason I have guns. It is for protection, pure and simple.

And I didn't say senseless violence is a result of guns. Rather, guns can protect you AGAINST senseless violence. Senseless violence also includes a knife or bat wielding !@#$head who breaks into my house. And a gun is the appropriate tool for that kind of situation.

I agree on CCW, it would not change criminal behavior, other than being less inclined to commit crimes. "Yeah man, I decided to stop robbing people, too risky, I don't want to get in a shootout!"

And though I am sure many do NOT agree, I think a background check that takes a day or two is a GOOD idea to help slow down crazy idiots (they are out there), in their quest to blow away innocent people, and get them back into the mental health facility.

Hopi
11-29-2007, 1:13 PM
Maybe, but the implication is that w/out guns, there wouldn't be senseless violence. I can concede my misunderstanding, but the implications of the original post still seem fairly clear. He did later clarify his original post and everyone is entitled to his/her opinions.


Umm, how is he a troll? It seems to me that you have misconstrued what he said (with which I have great deal of sympathy for the most part).

I like guns, but I certainly don't like the thought of having to use one against another human being. No one posited that guns cause violence. Guns are only implements of the violence that stems from human behavior/choices. Nevertheless, as such, they signify - in a way - the reality of such interpersonal violence. Quite frankly, some firearms are poorly-suited for sporting purposes. Their functionality is self-evident.
There is a saying attributed to Homer, "The blade itself incites to violence." That of course is nonsense. What it represents is human projection of an impulse into a symbolic instrument.

Because of senseless (which I would label predatory or pathological) violence behavior on the part some individuals, there is a need for effective self defense, often in the form of firearms and other weapons which allow a person to use force beyond their unaided physical capabilities. It is deplorable, but necessary (and even just/appropriate). I think this is probably closer to what troyus meant.

Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest thing. Some things are worth fighting for.

troyus
11-29-2007, 1:17 PM
Umm, how is he a troll? It seems to me that you have misconstrued what he said (with which I have great deal of sympathy for the most part).


Because of senseless (which I would label predatory or pathological) violence behavior on the part some individuals, there is a need for effective self defense, often in the form of firearms and other weapons which allow a person to use force beyond their unaided physical capabilities. It is deplorable, but necessary (and even just/appropriate). I think this is probably closer to what troyus meant.

Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest thing. Some things are worth fighting for.

Edit: whoops, I see troyus responded. Maybe I'll read to the end next time before piping up :p

Thanks that sums it up pretty well. Though I did some shooting growing up, I just recently got into gun ownership. And it is actually BECAUSE I ran into a certifiable crazy person and realized... jesus... this guy is crazy and if he knew where I lived, he'd probably try and kill me! And that's WHY I ended up getting into guns, and that's WHY I am for a background check.

Crazy people don't think about cause and effect, and they don't care about the end result of their actions. Sociopaths should not own or be around ANY weapons of ANY kind. But there's no way to stop them, only slow them down... And at the end of the day, if all else fails, the 'final solution' to stopping them is with a weapon.

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

You guys think somebody like that should own a gun (or a bat, or a knife)?

That's why I own a gun.

...And yes, if the government got out of control and Stalin incarnate took over, but that's a lot less realistic scenario than the former.

Wulf
11-29-2007, 1:22 PM
An amazing lack of comments on the Sfgate site. Only 2 as of this posting.

Are you sure they actually published it and linked to it?

Hopi
11-29-2007, 1:24 PM
...And yes, if the government got out of control and Stalin incarnate took over, but that's a lot less realistic scenario than the former.

Depending upon which angle you look, you might find this very much a "realistic" scenario, and one would perhaps argue that this is the exact state we find ourselves in now.

bulgron
11-29-2007, 1:59 PM
Fixed it for ya......

You say that as if the SF Chronicle tends to attack and bash constitutional rights other than the 2A.

Ironchef
11-29-2007, 2:43 PM
Thanks for that Patriot (#11). I am a liberal, and I love guns and the 2A considerably. I hate violence and crime but I'm ready to visit violence on any of the ghetto trash that comes into my home (yep, i live in a real **** hole part of antioch).

I hope the good members of calguns can come to realize that there are not only gun toting/loving liberals, but that this forum has them as well and that they can be tolerated. :)

Hopi
11-29-2007, 2:44 PM
You say that as if the SF Chronicle tends to attack and bash constitutional rights other than the 2A.

My reference was towards liberals and their apparent like or dis-like for guns and how that relates to an objective write-up regarding the 2nd am.....Fortunately, the 2nd am. does not respect your likes or dislikes, it honors our RIGHTS. Whether the Chronicle attacks and bashes any other constitutional rights, I'll leave that up to your investigation.

Hopi
11-29-2007, 2:49 PM
Thanks for that Patriot (#11). I am a liberal, and I love guns and the 2A considerably. I hate violence and crime but I'm ready to visit violence on any of the ghetto trash that comes into my home (yep, i live in a real **** hole part of antioch).

I hope the good members of calguns can come to realize that there are not only gun toting/loving liberals, but that this forum has them as well and that they can be tolerated. :)

If these "gun toting/loving liberals" are voting for gun grabbers, they CANNOT BE TOLERATED. Sorry to break it to you.....and generally, people do not favor violence and crime, neither liberal nor conservative. Safety and security are not partisan ideals.....

Ironchef
11-29-2007, 3:04 PM
If these "gun toting/loving liberals" are voting for gun grabbers, they CANNOT BE TOLERATED. Sorry to break it to you.....and generally, people do not favor violence and crime, neither liberal nor conservative. Safety and security are not partisan ideals.....

Not sure if you're insulting me, not tolerating me, or accusing me..so I'll just say this.

Not sure if you're aware, but being liberal does NOT always mean you vote democrat. And on that note, ANY voter who foolishly votes along party lines has no clue about democracy. Sadly, most in this country vote that way, or vote because someone had some good photo ops, spoke cleverly on TV, caved to peer pressure (or family pressure), or just were told how to vote. I doubt I'm alone, but I"m the only person I know who actually fact checks (to my best ability) in order to qualify a candidate I'm considering to vote for. I vote for INDIVIDUALS who represent my convictions.

Hopi
11-29-2007, 3:15 PM
Not sure if you're insulting me, not tolerating me, or accusing me..so I'll just say this.

Not sure if you're aware, but being liberal does NOT always mean you vote democrat. And on that note, ANY voter who foolishly votes along party lines has no clue about democracy. Sadly, most in this country vote that way, or vote because someone had some good photo ops, spoke cleverly on TV, caved to peer pressure (or family pressure), or just were told how to vote. I doubt I'm alone, but I"m the only person I know who actually fact checks (to my best ability) in order to qualify a candidate I'm considering to vote for. I vote for INDIVIDUALS who represent my convictions.

BTW, I see your post count and join date, welcome to the boards........

To answer the first question: I'm not insulting or accusing you, but for the record, if you vote for ANY gun grabbers, you will have a very hard time finding tolerance on this board. And for good reason.

To answer the second question: Yes, i am aware that people vote however they want. Thank you for clarifying that. I was not talking about voting along party lines, I was talking about voting in support of 2nd am. candidates and/or not voting for liberals who happen to account for 99% of gun grabbers.
Remember, Ron Paul is pro-2nd and does not generally represent the majority of republicans. Voting for him would not necessarily show support for the National Republican platform, nor would it be voting along party lines.

FreedomIsNotFree
11-29-2007, 3:29 PM
I dont believe Gura wrote this article for the SF Chron. I think I've seen it before.

bulgron
11-29-2007, 4:02 PM
If these "gun toting/loving liberals" are voting for gun grabbers, they CANNOT BE TOLERATED.

Unfortunately, our two-party system often times forces us to choose between the lesser of evils. Sometimes that means voting for an anti, because the other guy is even worse on some other Bill of Right and/or political issue.

I consider myself an independent voter, which means I vote based on a candidate's voting record or, if one is not available, his public statements on various policies. All things being equal, I'll vote for the most pro-2A candidate every single time. But sometimes (sadly) there is no pro-2A candidate. Other times the pro-2A candidate is such a crook, or has such a vile record with regard to the rest of the constitution, that I cannot vote for him.

Under these circumstances, I'm often forced to hold my nose and vote the for the anti-2A candidate. Does that make me a bad person? No, I think that makes me someone who is sometimes forced by circumstances to do something I'd really rather not do.

The only way to fix this is to make sure honest, pro-constitution (and that means pro-2A candidates) advance through the political primaries so that I can vote for them. But in Santa Clara county, anyway, that doesn't happen nearly often enough.

Hopi
11-29-2007, 4:07 PM
Unfortunately, our two-party system often times forces us to choose between the lesser of evils. Sometimes that means voting for an anti, because the other guy is even worse on some other Bill of Right and/or political issue.

I consider myself an independent voter, which means I vote based on a candidate's voting record or, if one is not available, his public statements on various policies. All things being equal, I'll vote for the most pro-2A candidate every single time. But sometimes (sadly) there is no pro-2A candidate. Other times the pro-2A candidate is such a crook, or has such a vile record with regard to the rest of the constitution, that I cannot vote for him.

Under these circumstances, I'm often forced to hold my nose and vote the for the anti-2A candidate. Does that make me a bad person? No, I think that makes me someone who is sometimes forced by circumstances to do something I'd really rather not do.

The only way to fix this is to make sure honest, pro-constitution (and that means pro-2A candidates) advance through the political primaries so that I can vote for them. But in Santa Clara county, anyway, that doesn't happen nearly often enough.

To clarify, you feel forced by the system to vote for folks that you don't want to, and worse, for folks that have committed themselves to the efforts to dismantle YOUR constitution and YOUR rights? I'm sorry that you have bought that nonsense.

Ironchef
11-29-2007, 4:13 PM
All things being equal, I'll vote for the most pro-2A candidate every single time. But sometimes (sadly) there is no pro-2A candidate. Other times the pro-2A candidate is such a crook, or has such a vile record with regard to the rest of the constitution, that I cannot vote for him.


I was going to mention this too, but I feel I'm already extended a bit, and you said it so nicely.

As I was watching the Republican debate last night (being very impressed with Paul, as usual), I noticed Hunter getting all teary eyed when talking about 2A. Thompson being a coward not mentioning his guns, and Romney being a complete hoser trying to plug a family values moment (his son Sean keeping his two guns)... I don't think Giuliani is pro-2A despite his pandering.

My point...I will vote (dem/ind/rep/other) based on a total picture..and not ONE topic, no matter how big it is. And that means that if Hillary Clinton will improve international relations, end our wars, restore habeas corpus, destroy the patriot act, end nafta/nau, end illegal immigration, penalize employers of illegals, yank the IRS, etc, etc...all these good things...but abandon support for 2A?? Hell yes I'd vote for her (no, that was just a hypothetical..i don't trust her actually).

bulgron
11-29-2007, 4:14 PM
To clarify, you feel forced by the system to vote for folks that you don't want to, and worse, for folks that have committed themselves to the efforts to dismantle YOUR constitution and YOUR rights? I'm sorry that you have bought that nonsense.

So are you telling me that you always find a pro-2A candidate to back for every single political office that you ever vote for? Always? Really?

And are you saying that there are absolutely no other issues that you care about, none, when it comes to your voting record?

So if one candidate was pro-2A but recently indicted for embezzlement, but the other candidate was law-abiding but anti-2A, you would vote for the crook?

bulgron
11-29-2007, 4:18 PM
My point...I will vote (dem/ind/rep/other) based on a total picture..and not ONE topic, no matter how big it is. And that means that if Hillary Clinton will improve international relations, end our wars, restore habeas corpus, destroy the patriot act, end nafta/nau, end illegal immigration, penalize employers of illegals, yank the IRS, etc, etc...all these good things...but abandon support for 2A?? Hell yes I'd vote for her (no, that was just a hypothetical..i don't trust her actually).

My chances of voting for Hillary improve tremendously with a positive ruling on Heller. But even with that, my chances of actually voting for Hillary approaches, but does not quite reach, zero.

It depends on who the Republicans put up, I guess. But this will probably be a year when I'm forced to vote third party for president.

It's the smaller races, especially for state office, that always has me fuming, because those really matter where gun laws are concerned, but around here all you'll find are anti-2A candidates.

Ironchef
11-29-2007, 4:22 PM
Arnold pissed me off when he signed the microstamp bill. I knew right then and there that he had turned the corner completely and lost any remaining semblance of being a R. I even made 36 calls (used the phones in my office) to his desk voicing my opposition to the bill.

Patriot
11-29-2007, 4:26 PM
So are you telling me that you always find a pro-2A candidate to back for every single political office that you ever vote for? Always? Really?

And are you saying that there are absolutely no other issues that you care about, none, when it comes to your voting record?

So if one candidate was pro-2A but recently indicted for embezzlement, but the other candidate was law-abiding but anti-2A, you would vote for the crook?

A little contradiction in terms here ;)

Regarding other issues, I may not support every 2A candidate, but I've never found an anti-2A candidate worth voting for on the other issues (state officials in my locality, governor, federal reps, and POTUS).

Smokeybehr
11-29-2007, 4:30 PM
(yep, i live in a real **** hole part of antioch).


There's a good part of Antioch? :D

bulgron
11-29-2007, 4:38 PM
A little contradiction in terms here ;)

Now we get to the crux of the matter, and the important point in all of this.

Since 1938, American politicians have been able to hide behind the (insanely broken) theory that the 2A is not an individual right. This has left them free to take whatever stance they want to on gun laws, because according to the courts they were not in violation of the Bill of Rights.

Therefore a politician who voted for strict gun control bills could arguable be said to not be a crook, not be anti-constitution, and not be anti-civil liberties.

But a positive ruling on Heller changes all of that.

If SCOTUS says the 2A is an individual right, then it becomes an instant civil liberty, not just in your eye and mine, but also in the eyes of the court. They might not like it very much, especially here in the 9th district, but it will indeed be a civil liberty under the law.

At that point, a politician who votes for strict gun control laws is clearly anti-constitution and anti-civil liberties. (Whether that also makes the politician a crook is a matter for another debate.) This means that they no longer get the free pass that they've been getting on their voting records.

And won't that be interesting.

"Candidate xxxxx, what are you views on gun control."

"Well, I think guns are the root problem of all the violence that plagues us, and I believe they should be only in the hands of law enforcement officers."

"What? What's wrong with you? Why do you hate the constitution?"

I can't wait for that day to arrive. :D

Hopi
11-29-2007, 4:38 PM
So are you telling me that you always find a pro-2A candidate to back for every single political office that you ever vote for? Always? Really? YES, there are lots of candidates on the ballot. You should read down past the 1st half of the page.

And are you saying that there are absolutely no other issues that you care about, none, when it comes to your voting record? Nope, didn't say that, you just did. But, I vote for what is important to me, and I vote for the people that support those issues.

So if one candidate was pro-2A but recently indicted for embezzlement, but the other candidate was law-abiding but anti-2A, you would vote for the crook?That is a pretty big logical jump, but to remind you, most politicians are crooks. And you are working under the presumption that there are only 2 candidates, again, you should read past the 1st half of the ballot....


........

bulgron
11-29-2007, 4:41 PM
........

Dude, I don't know where you live, but I just voted in an election for City Council in which one candidate ran unopposed.

Many of the elections for judges around here are unopposed too.

There isn't always a second half of the page. Hell, there isn't even necessarily a first half of the page.

Patriot
11-29-2007, 4:41 PM
"Candidate xxxxx, what are you views on gun control."

"Well, I think guns are the root problem of all the violence that plagues us, and I believe they should be only in the hands of law enforcement officers."

"What? What's wrong with you? Why do you hate the constitution?"

I can't wait for that day to arrive. :D

A little McCarthyism, perhaps :43:

"Have you stopped violating the Constitution?" :devil2:

RAD-CDPII
11-29-2007, 5:01 PM
Thanks that sums it up pretty well. Though I did some shooting growing up, I just recently got into gun ownership. And it is actually BECAUSE I ran into a certifiable crazy person and realized... jesus... this guy is crazy and if he knew where I lived, he'd probably try and kill me! And that's WHY I ended up getting into guns, and that's WHY I am for a background check.

Crazy people don't think about cause and effect, and they don't care about the end result of their actions. Sociopaths should not own or be around ANY weapons of ANY kind. But there's no way to stop them, only slow them down... And at the end of the day, if all else fails, the 'final solution' to stopping them is with a weapon.

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

You guys think somebody like that should own a gun (or a bat, or a knife)?

That's why I own a gun.

...And yes, if the government got out of control and Stalin incarnate took over, but that's a lot less realistic scenario than the former.

I'll agree on the background check, but that can be done in a few minutes, it's the waiting period. My brother who lives in Reno can go into a gun store and walk out in half an hour with a gun, including the BC.

troyus
11-29-2007, 5:14 PM
I'll agree on the background check, but that can be done in a few minutes, it's the waiting period. My brother who lives in Reno can go into a gun store and walk out in half an hour with a gun, including the BC.

The cool off period is especially retarded when you ALREADY own guns. Uh... that's useful because why? :shrug:

Jedi
11-29-2007, 6:27 PM
The comments (up until mine) were all flawed in their thinking... evidence that they were written by liberals. :)

Zebra
11-29-2007, 8:13 PM
...after reading this excellent opinion piece in Wednesday's paper, you turn the page to find an ad from Bullseye USA, smack in the middle of the back page. It includes a picture of a target, ammo and a really nice looking 1911. :D

Frank

tman
12-03-2007, 10:09 AM
This also appeared in the Sacbee under a different title. Here is a scan of the article:

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/4061/sacbeegg5.th.jpg (http://img228.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sacbeegg5.jpg)
(click to enlarge)

Davidk
12-03-2007, 7:59 PM
I think a background check that takes a day or two is a GOOD idea to help slow down crazy idiots (they are out there), in their quest to blow away innocent people, and get them back into the mental health facility.

So if said crazy person is stalking someone. Their victim should be prevented from protecting themselves by a day or two cooling off period?

Liberty1
12-03-2007, 8:32 PM
And though I am sure many do NOT agree...

I agree with you there! :p


...I think a background check that takes a day or two is a GOOD idea to help slow down crazy idiots (they are out there), in their quest to blow away innocent people, and get them back into the mental health facility.

This logic requires one to assume gun control works. NCIS and "waiting periods" have not stopped one determined criminal from acquiring and using a firearm in a crime. It has not saved anyone. What it has accomplished is the subjugation of the law abiding my making them prove their innocence prior to exercising a basic right under the guise of "reasonable" regulations and perhaps discouraged some "prohibited" persons (felons), who are no longer a violent threat (or never were) from buying a gun for legitimate protection or sport.

Those whom this type of legislation was designed to stop are not stopped. It just hands more power to government and is nothing better then feel good legislation. It has only made people "feel" safe while believing the government is prohibiting dangerous people from getting a gun. This very expensive joke is on us. Gun prohibition is no more successful then drug or alcohol prohibition and never will be.

Some of those I arrest, can buy a gun on the black market faster then you can fill out the purchase form (and no DROS to boot!). :)

What kind of "reasonable" legislation would I like to see? The militia well trained and organized at the state and local level to help in emergencies, assist in enforcement of our laws (the gang crime problem can't be addressed by professional law enforcement alone), protection of our constitution, and on the borders. It would unite communities and return a sense of involvement and pride in the great concerns of our great country.

Liberty1
12-03-2007, 8:53 PM
So if said crazy person is stalking someone. Their victim should be prevented from protecting themselves by a day or two cooling off period?

And don't forget that even in most "shall" issue concealed license states only 1-2% of the population gets licensed. When something like the East Coast power outages, Katrina, earthquake, 9/11 or LA Riots situation happens people who need a firearm for protection in the first place or just a "license to carry" are SOL with waiting periods and application processes in an emergency unless it's an open carry state with cash PPTs not prohibited.

It's well past time to unholster the 2nd Amendment. We need it now more then ever.