Steep penalties for the illegal use of firearms against another person.

STEEP.

If the 1st Amendment allegedly allows pornography, the 2nd certainly protects individual firearms ownership. This nonsense of treating some amendments (2nd, 9th and 10th) as truisms while the others are sacrosanct is nothing more than agenda politics.

"other people's guns."

You down with OPG?

McDonald v. Chicago is a challenge to a law that makes it extremely difficult to own a handgun within Chicago's city limits.

The first eight of the 10 amendments that make up the Bill of Rights contain specific rights that the federal government may not infringe. Over the years, the Supreme Court has "incorporated" most of the amendments to apply to the states as well. The exceptions are the Second, Third, Seventh and the grand jury clause of the Fifth.

There is another right, however, that should not get lost: the right of people, through their elected representatives, to adopt carefully drawn laws that protect them against other people's guns.

And how about the right of the people to ban gay marriage through amendments to their state constitution? Can I get a "Prop 8?"

We fought a pretty big war over states rights vs. the fed... the fed won. If the Supreme Court says we can all have guns then that is the law of the land and any carefully drawn laws that protect people "against other people's guns," can go fuck themselves.

The first two entries in the Bill of Rights is to be able to dissent with your government and then to protect you from the government... that wasn't an accident, or just the way the chips fell in the penning of the Bill of Rights.

Pussy libs have passed 49,000 gun laws and not one law has stopped anyone from getting shot. Then some lib judge and the ACLU fight to get the killer out of jail.

KBM, all that's been debunked over and over. And over and over. By the FBI and other non-biased studies.

-------------

Hagbard, we can agree that the penalties for misuse should be severe.

-------------

Penalties for those using guns illegally like Hag said, should be very severe. Morons make responsible gun owners look bad.

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon depriving a whole nation of its arms as the blackest." Mohandas Gandhi
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall."- Adolf Hitler
"Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms."- Aristotle, Politics Ch 10 para 4.
"1935 will go down in History! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead to the future!"- Adolf Hitler
"If the opposition (citizen) disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves."- Josef Stalin
"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."- Mao Tse-tung
"Only the police and Military should be allowed to have guns."- Stalin Rock (Canadian Justice Minister)
"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal"-Janet Reno
---
"No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."- Thomas Jefferson
"The right declared [in the Second Amendment] was meant to be a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and as a necessary and efficient means of regaining rights when temporarily overturned by usurpation."- Thomas Cooley
"The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion."- James Burgh
The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."- James Madison
"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."- Samuel Adams
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were once our countrymen."- Samuel Adams
"[A] string of amendments were presented to the lower House; these altogether respected personal liberty."- William Grayson
And from Penn Jillette:
Read the words
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state. Sure. You need an organized military force to defend your country, but the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This is the People in contrast with the militia. It doesn't say the right of the militia, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, it says the right of the people.
Now why the word People, because the people that wrote this had just fought a war for two years, against a tyrannical state militia. They knew the time might come when they would have to do that again, so they made the possession of weapons a right that the militia could never take away.
Now gun control advocates will say the phrasing is clumsy and the comma, separating the state from the people is just a.. pause to get your breath. Strange they can't they can't seem to point out any other places where those hack framers ****ED UP the wording.

It's not the guns that are the problem it's the people who use them. Liberals are much better at using them for legitimate reasons. Texans and hillbillies should be banned altogether from owning guns. There is too many ignorant hillbillies in Texas and the south in general.

In Hawaii there is a lot of hippies who don't even own guns. I don't even lock my doors here or roll up my car windows because the state is so liberal and anti gun. Go figure

Only one thing is certain, you will never convince the republicans, southern Christians and redneck hillbillies.

You have lost your mind, ring.

You have lost your mind, ring.

#13 | Posted by andyuhenet

It was lost a long time ago or then again, maybe it never was there to be lost in the first place.

Hey ring, ask all those tourists who have had vehicles broken into how safe your islands are!

... because the state is so liberal and anti gun. Go figure

I guess that explains the shooting ranges in Waikiki (of all places) and people walking around with sandwich signs advertising them that I saw this week. Also saw a couple of them in the much less populated North shore. Why does an anti-gun state love shooting ranges? Kind of odd if you ask me. Furthermore, what does liberalism have to do with anti-gun, except for your usual ignorant broad-brushing, of course?

Just another example of activist Judges. One set of rules for Conservative Rethuglicans and quite another for Demowussies and Liberals. No stinking Liberals should ever assert their beliefs, even if they're right.

Its really always just about the money.

It comes down to whether or not the Bill of Rights 2nd Amendment trumps the Bill of Rights 10th Amendment.

Should be interesting...

Only the government should have guns;
they are responsible for our well-being.

Be Well.

Only the government should have guns;
they are responsible for our well-being.

Be Well.

#19 | Posted by skip_wellington

A cross between Deadpotato and Jackass?

My owning a gun should never be a problem for you, unless your worthless stealing ass crawls in my window... then the state can pick up the remains.

Wonder if we could take the same restrictions on other rights... let's see... you can have gay marriage (or free speech, or religion, or whatever), just pay the $ (often hundreds of bucks) license fee, take a few tests, prove to the state they you are knowledgeable about all tenants of marriage/speech/whatever, and allow the state free rights to inspect you and your home at will.

Oh, yes, and you cannot be married/speak/etc. in city parks, city or state buildings, etc. Hmm... what else.. oh, yes, the fact that you are 'gay'/opinionated/baptist/ whatever should be flagged when they stop your car, so the cops can be warned that you are a dangerous subversive...

Can't imagine that anyone would argue with that.

then the state can pick up the remains.

Seems to me a true Libertarian would handle that all by his ownself.

Yeah, buy a fucking shovel, lazy-ass.

If states are able to regulate the second ammendment, I am sure one day they will try to regulate the first.

There are laws that protect us from other people's guns...

...commit a crime using a gun and go to jail.

Don't you wish we could all be as safe as the folks living in Chicago?

If states are able to regulate the second ammendment, I am sure one day they will try to regulate the first.

All Rights come with Responsibilities too.

Your right to free speech should be tempered by acknowledging the limits of that right.

Ever try inciting a mob to violence?

Ever try screaming "FIRE!!" at the top of your lungs in a crowded theater?

Same thing with guns.

Should people be allowed to buy tanks or thermonuclear weapons from the government fer personal use?

Should toddlers be allowed to conceal carry?

Common sense regulations should not be a big issue.

That there are some who continually see black helicopters swooping down to "take our gunzez!" dictates that common sense aint as common as it used to be.

Be Well.

There is too many ignorant hillbillies in Texas and the south in general.
#12 | Posted by RingMaster at 2010-03-02 08:32 PM

In Hawaii there is a lot of hippies who don't even own guns. I don't even lock my doors here or roll up my car windows because the state is so liberal and anti gun. Go figure

Only one thing is certain, you will never convince the republicans, southern Christians and redneck hillbillies.

#12 | Posted by RingMaster at 2010-03-02 08:32 PM

Only the government should have guns;
they are responsible for our well-being.

Be Well.

#19 | Posted by skip_wellington

Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot all agreed with you.

"No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."- Thomas Jefferson

When folks like Nancy Pelosi know they are right; laws, rules, and consent of the governed...

...do not really matter anymore.

I keep guns primarily to protect myself against tyranny in my Government...

...you should too.

I know, I know...

...that's a pretty scary statement to make.

Especially since I really mean it.

To which I would reply, exactly!

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty". -Thomas Jefferson

"45 beaver pelts and I make glacier leave farmland", pronounced Al Gore's ancestor.

"fuck you", replied mine.

The media always intentionally over-sensationalizes violence in which a firearm is used.

Funny thing, they intentionally neglect to mention the number of violent incidences "legal gun ownership"
prevents every single day.

They also conveniently, intentionally neglect to give you the number of how many millions of people each day guns did not kill.

They do have an agenda and honesty and fairness would quickly induce common sense into the equation, where anyone with an IQ over 20 could clearly see guns are an asset to a law abiding populace.

Guns are (in fact) inanimate objects and cannot walk down the streets and kill indiscriminately without an operator and intent to kill.

Only the government should have guns;
they are responsible for our well-being.

Be Well.

#19 | Posted by skip_wellington

This explains SO much. Skippy believes we belong to the government. Otherwise, they wouldn't "be responsible for us."

Funny how the US Constitution and Amendments were created to avoid that outcome....

#36 - Skippy is a parody of Spudley.

Let me think here...

...Thomas Jefferson and the Federalist Papers.

Or...

...Nancy Pelosi and her analogies to itsy bitsy spiders.

I think I'll keep my guns.

If there is only one reason I could cite for being thankful for 8 years of Bush...

...it would be the Supreme Court's majority views on the 2nd Amendment.

Gore would resulted in moving us closer to the views on gun ownership also held by...

...Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot.

My statement is inarguable.

As a proud & responsible gun owner (and a couple of car antennas) I would suggest that EVERYONE, not just the bed-wetters, to read further articles written by the author of the 2nd amendment (James Madison for the ignorant).
The actual intent of the amendment is to have a population as well armed as the govt.
Now, we have to take into consideration that when the 2nd was written, tanks, launchers, nukes, etc... were not even a dream. I am not advocating that private citizens have access to that type of hardware, but as Americans, we have the right to arm & protect ourselves.
The WHOLE intent of the 2nd is to PROTECT US FROM OUR GOVT.
You don't have to like it, but it is a fact.

It comes down to whether or not the Bill of Rights 2nd Amendment trumps the Bill of Rights 10th Amendment.

#18 | Posted by MURPHY

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

How are they in conflict? They are NOT in conflict!!!!

"A well regulated militia..."

#24 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

Once again, words of wisdom from dok. Do you EVER have anything intelegent to say?

#12 Ringmaster> I don't even lock my doors here or roll up my car windows because the state is so liberal and anti gun.

How 'liberal' your state is determines whether the crime rate is low? Hmmmm, then I guess D.C. has to be about as crime-free as any other place in the U.S. of A, with cities like Detroit and NYC fighting over second place.

As usual, another fact-free post from Ringmaster.

Let me finish that for you Doc.

"A well regulated militia, consisting of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best, most natural defense of a free state."
~James Madison

Do you EVER have anything intelegent to say?
#42 | Posted by Sniper

I'm telling you -- each and every one -- this shit just keeps writing itself.

#27 Dethspud> Ever try screaming "FIRE!!" at the top of your lungs in a crowded theater?

I love that argument in relation to the 1st Amendment. To keep people from doing exactly that, do we:

1. Issue a muzzle to each theater patron to keep them from yelling?

2. Issue a big cork to each theater patron (to use on themselves or fellow patrons)?

3. Put big signs up everywhere telling patrons to check their mouths at the door?

Btw, it's perfectly legal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater ... IF THERE IS A FIRE! Otherwise the one yelling is violating the law. The same thing should apply to shooting someone: if there is legal justification for the shooting (death threat, violent attack, etc.) then the police should do the required investigation and write it up without filing any charges.

Simple, huh.

"write it up without filing any charges"

Here in Texas they usually let a grand jury have a look. When it's justified they score the shot grouping.

Wow, can't believe NYT printed this silly editorial. The author states "The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago, relying on 19th-century precedents, ruled that the Second Amendment does not apply to states and cities. "

So, let's see. The second amendment is an amendment to what? The Constitution, right? So, is it only the 2nd amendment that should not apply to states/cities, or is the entire Bill of Rights, or maybe the entire Constitution? So each state can deny all its citizens their Constitutional rights? Everybody from flaming homosexual, left-wing, Greenpeace anarchists to Dick Cheney better pray the SCOTUS doesn't agree with this completely absurd theory.

"ruled that the Second Amendment does not apply to states and cities"

Therefore the nth Amendment does not apply to states and cities.

That is insane.

**The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes....Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.**

~TJ

#16 | POSTED BY GOATMAN
"Furthermore, what does liberalism have to do with anti-gun, except for your usual ignorant broad-brushing, of course?"

Well, the "broad-brushing" accusation applies (and justifiably so) to all sides.

But you raise a good point.
What DOES liberalism have to do with someone's position on the 2nd Amendment?
Beats me.

Being pro-gay marriage and pro-choice are seen as "liberal" positions.
Why would someone with these positions necessarily have to be
"anti-gun", which is also seen as a "liberal" position?

For that matter, why is being against gay marriage or abortion seen as a "conservative" position?
What's conservative about it?

The broad brush makes for a lot of ammunition, but when it comes down it, it's just shooting blanks.

#27 Dethspud> Common sense regulations should not be a big issue.

Gun owners have heard the phrase "common sense regulations" for years, mainly from a variety of anti-gun politicians. In the guise of same, we've seen certain types of firearms banned, certain kinds of ammo banned, waiting periods, etc.

My own 'common sense' idea is this:

1. Instant background check when purchasing a firearms, sale stopped only if the person is a convicted felon.

2. Allow open carry anywhere except: prisons, non-college schools and courtrooms, private property (unless property owner gives permission).

3. Allow concealed carry anywhere except: prisons, courtrooms and private property (unless property owner gives permission). Concealed carry would be a 'shall issue' to anyone meeting required background check and simple class that covered legal areas involving shooting or not shooting plus live firing at a target.

4. Convicted felons may not purchase firearms or ammo unless their rights have been fully restored.

5. Minors are prohibited from owning firearms or ammo, but may use a firearm when supervised by a parent or legal guardian (any misuse = guardian & minor being punished).

6. 1-5 does not apply to those in the country illegally, only U.S. citizens.

How about that for some 'common sense regulations'?

The fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual & emotional maturity....SIGmund Freud

ABSORB WHAT IS USEFUL, DISCARD WHAT IS USELESS, AND ADD WHAT IS UNIQUELY YOUR OWN......Mao Tse Tung

Let me start by saying I am NOT calling for arms to be raised against the governmnet....clear?

The second Amendment, I feel, was placed there to protect the nation from invading armies AND to protect the states from the Federal Government if need be AND the citizens from their government if need be.

It is a "Hands Off" Amendment in my eyes because the very people trying to limit it are those whom it was designed to limit.

zat, I think this is on of the few issues we agree on. The entire bill of rights applies to everyone the same, no exceptions. In case you people don't realize it, they are part of the constitution.

#55 i think you're right. there can and should be reasonable limits placed on types of guns to be owned, and who can own them. but this right cannot be legislated away entirely without some scrutiny like some would like to accomplish.

good disclaimer up front. i think you're still suspect and gonna wind up on a list somewhere though...

A good start, AKAT, but:

You shouldn't need a permit needed to carry concealed. Whether you carry openly or under cover should matter.

As someone said elsewhere, serious penalties for misuse of firearms.

Schools shouldn't be off limit just because they are schools. Most of our most heinous domestic attacks have been at schools. We don't need more free target zones.

Prisons and courtrooms, sure. There are armed officers there already.

Kids & guns? Some of the most responsible firearms owners started as kids.

--------
But as others have pointed out, the 2nd Amendment is pretty much an absolute as a guard against a government that gets "too big for its britches." It is, in many ways, the "Amendment of Last Resort" that preserves that "Last Resort" as a remedy to the People.

Let's hope it never is exercised. Our ballot box has worked out fairly well so far. But I'm sure they felt that way in Venezuela until recently.....

#57 Somoco> #55 i think you're right. there can and should be reasonable limits placed on types of guns to be owned, and who can own them.

Other than limits on children, convicted felons and mentally impaired, I see no reason to limit anyone else from owning firearms.

And 'the types of guns to be owned' reminds me of the idiotic 'assault weapons' ban (not that I'm saying that is what you are saying). I remember somebody telling me that the 10-round magazine limit was just fine, because "somebody might go off their rocker and start shooting innocent people". Their reasoning (and I'm being generous in calling it that) was that if a 20 or 30 round magazine was used, more people might get killed. Okay, why wouldn't a nutcase just use more 10 round magazines instead, or take the time to reload magazines between segments of random killing (until the swat team takes him out). Why not 3 round magazine limits instead of 10?

The 'reasonable limits' can be a red flag in the same manner as 'common sense regulations' that I ranted about in #53.

#59 I hear you. I'm thinking felons kids mentally impaired and I think forcing people who want to carry handguns to go through a simple safety course is probably ok too. Nothing other than that.

I'm thinking of bazookas at stuff like that. Agreed that 'reasonable' limits is where the devil resides. But, at the same time, I think there is a point that things can and should be regulated.

#58 Daprof> You shouldn't need a permit needed to carry concealed. Whether you carry openly or under cover should matter.

I don't think 'Vermont style CCW' is likely to happen at anytime in the near future nationwide, though I do think it is a good idea.
Thanks,
Akat

#55 i think you're right. there can and should be reasonable limits placed on types of guns to be owned, and who can own them.

#57 | Posted by somoco

OK, I'm writing the law. You can't own a gun of any kind.

Regarding the Second Amendment to the US Constitution:

If ever an amendment has been the subject of screwball interpretations, this is it
Where's the
It's an absolute, any and all arms -- battleaxes to bazookas -- should be legal, for everyone, everywhere, always, no exceptions
It's an absolute, any and all arms -- battleaxes to bazookas -- should be legal, with some exceptions (felons, illegal immigrants, gays, non-English speaking types, and monkeys)
It's an absolute and, with certain sensible exceptions, the right to any and all weapons is guaranteed
It's anabsolute, and with certain exceptions the posession of reasonable weapons (no machine guns, etc.) is okay
It's ridiculous and while it's clearly too late, we need to rein in gun ownership in this country
If you come and try to take my gun I'll prise yours out of your cold, dead hands
How else am I supposed to get beer money on Friday night?
It's probaby reasonable that it be extended to the right to dress in suicide vests
Only one vote will be counted per user.

the typical non slanted poll from the left

I can't imagine that I would ever want a bazooka, but if I did... why not? I could have a dozen and it wouldn't make me a criminal... and criminals find ways of getting their hands on whatever weapons they want, either through theft or bribes, etc.

I just never understood telling law-abiding citizens what they can and cannot have.

It isn't like you can't own fully automatic weapons or grenades. You can, in certain states, if you jump through the hoops of fees and forms.

Why CAN'T I have a shed full of Stinger missiles?
Or a front yard full of Bouncing Bettys?
Or an RPG strapped to my back on my trip to Starbucks?

Or yell "Fire" in a crowded theater?

I've got RIGHTS, goddamn it!

In Switzerland you can have your own artillery piece.
I sure like the pistols they make.
Lowest crime rate on earth.

How's their health care?

"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."
--- Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796.

"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
---James Madison

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."
---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

John Adams recognizes the fundamental right of citizens, as individuals, to defend themselves with arms, however he states militias must be controlled by government and the rule of law. To have otherwise is to invite anarchy.

"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."
--- Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796.

Needed repeating.

Shooting is a martial art.

I imagine in many countries you can, LetUsPrey... (#66) Definitely many in the Middle East. Heck, even Iraqi's are allowed a fully automatic AK47...

Heck, you can yell "Fire" in a crowded theater.

Context matters. If there is a fire or if it is part of the performance, it is certainly permissible.

As long you don't interfere with my rights then I don't care what other people do. I can do whatever I want as long as I don't interfere with anyone elses rights. The problem arises when one group of people (ie: politicians) try to tell others how they need to live. You violate my rights when you push your morals into laws that affect me.

Don't you think that it's just a tad hypocritical that all these anti gunner politicians are themselves protected by guards with guns.

In the part of Maryland that I live in they are indiscriminately banning people who are guilty of misdemeanor crimes from owning any kind of firearm. Crimes like burglary, drug possession, theft, etc.