Can you guess what all this talk, talk, talk about gun control is doing?

[99th_Monkey]

Fearful of Ban, Frenzied Buyers Swarm Gun Stores
By By JOSEPH PISANI AP Business News Writer
NEW YORK December 29, 2012 (AP)
The phones at Red's Trading Post wouldn't stop ringing. Would-be customers from as far away as New York wanted to know if the Twin Falls, Idaho gun shop had firearms in stock. Others clamored to find out if their orders had been shipped.

Overwhelmed, gun store manager Ryan Horsley had to do what no employee would ever think of doing just days before Christmas: He disconnected the phone lines for three whole days.

"We had to shut everything off," says Horsley, whose family has owned Red's Trading Post, the state's oldest gun shop, since 1936. "We were swamped in the store and online."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/fearful-ban-frenzied-buyers-swarm-gun-stores-18086623#.UOCVw7vy5Fx




IMHO they either need to just fucking DO IT (preferably in the middle of the night) or STFU about it.

[Eleanors38]

1. Gin, guns, gays, ganja. Our nation is addicted to prohibition.

[Hoyt]

2. Yep, who are we to deny these yahoos a chance to own an (or another) assault weapon?

Yahoos standing in line, praying for a chance to buy an assault weapon one week after Sandy Hook.

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/cobb-gun-show-attracts-scores-looking-for-semi-aut/nTdMm/

[Eleanors38]

8. Ah, Hoyt. You keep the vacuum tubes of prohibition glowing orange, long into the night

Have a happy New Year!

[Hoyt]

10. Happy New Year to all those so steeped in guns their user name is a reference to lethal weapons.

[Eleanors38]

21. Well, blame it on Eleanor. Hear-tell Franklin only had a .32 by his side of the bed.

[Hoyt]

24. Read that from NRA represents years ago. Democrats named after guns. . . . .

[oneshooter]

25. Why Thank You Hoyt!!!

And the same back to ya.

I am but "one shooter" among many.

[Hoyt]

27. Not a time to be proud of it, OS, but here's to a wonderful New year sans guns.

[datasuspect]

23. buncha goddamn pearl clutching puritans, i tells ya

[Scootaloo]

26. And the false equivalency continues

When you make an M16 in your bathtub, and then smuggle it across the border in your rectum, give me a call. Until then, your point is invalid.

[Eleanors38]

43. Stuff is smuggled in parts and in diff media, reassmb.

[Scootaloo]

44. it's the economy of the black market, and a matter of scale.

Prohibition on drugs and alcohol was an abysmal failure for several reasons;

1) Addiction. People become dependent on these substances; their bodies come to regard them as integral to life. With that being the case, an addict isn't going to be especially worried about the laws they break. People are not addicted to guns.

2) Because of addiction, any amount of drugs / alcohol is valuable. More is better, sure, but if all you've got is an in-flight bottle of jack daniels or a single line's worth of coke, you will find a buyer for it. Individual pieces of guns are completely useless, even to the majority of people who want them; you need the whole thing.

3) This makes transportation a cinch. Drugs and alcohol, being desired (and thus still valuable) even in small quantities makes small shipments profitable. Most drugs are quite compact on their own (alcohol, being liquid, is pretty bulky). Guns of any variety are bulky and much more difficult to transport... which makes transport costs higher.

4) Alcohol and many drugs are easy to manufacture and are basically infinitely renewable; so long as you have sugar, you can make booze, so long as you have dirt, you can make pot, etc. Gun parts are not so easy to make - at least, not with any quality. They require machining, often quite precise machining. And of course, you need the metal - I don't suppose people will be running bootleg smelters?

5) The ease of production makes drugs and alcohol extremely profitable under prohibition. For a few cents' investment, you can make several dollars' return. Guns and other manufactured products have a much lower margin of profit, because of the money investment, the costs of transportation, and market saturation; a batch of heroin will disappear, an illicit gun never will.

This isn't to say there will not be a black market for firearms under a ban - of course there will - but it will be under no circumstances comparable to the markets for illicit drugs or alcohol under prohibition. It'd be more comparable to the illegal ivory trade - less than that actually since ivory is another commodity that is still valuable in small amounts.

[PavePusher]

94. "Gun parts are not so easy to make..."

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/179192-DIY-Shovel-AK-photo-tsunami-warning

http://www.northerntool.com/shop/tools/NTESearch?storeId=6970&Ntt=lathe

http://www.northerntool.com/shop/tools/CompareProductsDisplay?storeId=6970&catalogId=11652&langId=-1&catentryId=200431263&cr=&numR=0&catentryId=200418473&cr=5&numR=1&catentryId=200418474&cr=&numR=0&catentryId=200418475&cr=&numR=0

http://www.rolanddga.com/products/milling/

http://www.network54.com/Forum/550526/thread/1211906717/Rifling+Machine

http://www.practicalmachinist.com/vb/gunsmithing/home-built-rifling-machine-126815/



What was that you said about a black market?

[Scootaloo]

98. And all of that is a hell of a lot more work than making bootleg alcohol.

I said that there would be a black market, that there always is for prohibited items - but that it would not be comparable to that which exists for cheaply-produced consumable commodities like drugs and alcohol, that rely on a dependent consumer base and are easily transported.

Also, there are several key differences between the US and Pakistan you may want to research. A more apt comparison would be say, Australia or the UK or France, y'know, first-world nations with secure borders that aren't in a near-constant state of civil war while under rule of a brutal military government that still manage ot restrict possession and sale of firearms.

[PavePusher]

99. 1. You've apparently never made "bootleg alcohol" in saleable quantities.

I can assure you it's a good bit of work, especially if you don't want to attract attention.

2. "secure borders"? "that still manage ot restrict possession and sale of firearms"? Bwwwwaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahhaaha.... whew. Yeah, whatever.

What you said: "easily transported". If you can move a ton of MJ or coke across the southern border going north, or a few dozen guns going south, it rather knocks the bottom out of your premise. Imagine that gun flow reversing direction, then multiplying 100-1000-fold or more.

Then add in water-borne and northern-border smuggling.....

[Recursion]

103. People make AK's in their toolsheds in Afghanistan

It's not remotely as hard as you think.

And, in fact, there are tons of zip gun designs that can be hidden in your rectum if needs be.

[Paladin]

107. Will....Not....Make....Obvious....Suggestion.... (nt)

[Recursion]

108. I admire your restraint (nt)

[Tommy_Carcetti]

56. Lots of things are prohibited and regulated. Some necessary, some not.

That's the nature of government and an organized society.

It's a libertarian fallacy that any prohibition or regulation is always bad.

Some things need to be prohibited (murder, rape, larceny, etc.) Other things need to be regulated, including drugs, alcohol and firearms. That's just how things have to be.

[Eleanors38]

60. Prohibition only works when there is near universal agreement

on a societal value (punishing murder), But then the prohibition becomes viable law. With gay status, gin, guns and ganja, you don't have this universality. Regukation? We already this for liquor and guns. We need it for now-illegal drugs. Instead we have prohibition without anything close to universality of agreement, and that means virtually no control.

Prohibition of guns -- or anything near it -- will not work in this society. Nothing "libertarian" about any of this.

[Eleanors38]

100. Regulation and prohibition (the goal of many here) must deal

with dubious popular & political support for such, and the unique circumstance of Constitutional protection.

I don't think much in the way of prohibition is the way to go, nor will much be enacted for these reasons, wiith the possible exception of mag caps; few here seem concerned about that.

Review my other post for how prohibitions can be enacted. That is how things have to be to work.

[Arctic Dave]

3. What I find interesting, in a sick way,

is that after every one of these massacres the gun nuts go running out and buy up more guns and ammo because they "just know" they will be banned, taxed or whatever.

Now. Doesn't that seem like an admission of guilt?

If they thought what happened was right, why would they go on a spending spree after these things happen? If they were not as bad at it seems in their mind, what is the purpose of hoarding.

So, is it in their mind they know what happened was over the top but they don't care about the violence or the victims, they just care about the guns?

[99th_Monkey]

4. Near as I can tell, the gun nuts envision a world where we all look like this

[Arctic Dave]

5. Ahhhh, the military glam shot.

Everyone wants to be Rambo.

[Eleanors38]

6. Man, if I see someone like that, I'll get in line!

[Hoyt]

11. Yep, here are some fine folks from the Michigan Militia, confederate flags and all.

Supporters of the NRA, and apparently KKK.

[Chorophyll]

15. What a bunch of chickenshit wastes of oxygen.

[Hoyt]

16. I agree. The deeper you get into the gun culture, the more disgusting this whole thing becomes.

Yet, the majority of folks will just sit here and act like nothing can be done. Then, the next big massacre will occur, then the next.

Then one day we will have a serious national disaster. Then, we'll find what it is like to fight folks like this to preserve some semblance of civilization.

[Chorophyll]

20. Well, I hope that doesn't happen.

But I'm in complete agreement with you. And the people here who say nothing can be done make me nuts. What if the civil rights movement just decided to pack it in? Or the gay rights movement? But they didn't. Racism and homophobia haven't disappeared, but things have gotten a lot better in some obvious ways.

I'm not gonna shut up this time.

[Rex]

29. No doubt all served in some branch of the armed forces.

[Crackinrocket]

40. I wouldn't be surprised if some of them did serve.

Why would you think they haven't?

[Scootaloo]

30. Guys like this crack me up

They're always going on about being well-armed in a "shit hits the fan" scenario. They envision themselves as guerrilla guardians of freedom, patriots fighting to the last.

if they were serious, they'd be stocking up on antibiotics, shoes, and water purification kits, and worrying about ammo later. Having all the guns in the world won't help you if your entire "force" is suffering dysentery.

Welcome to guerrilla warfare, boys; it's 100% not like Red Dawn.

[Hoyt]

33. Except I think they figure their guns will put them in control, and they can take whatever

Last edited Sun Dec 30, 2012, 09:43 PM - Edit history (1)

They want/need from those trying to survive peacefully. You can guess what these cretins will do to certain groups in society.

[Crackinrocket]

41. I shudder just imagining it.

[jmg257]

39. What wonderful poster children to represent gun owners.

These fuckers look like they most likely wouldn't be lawful gun owners if a gun law was passed they didn't like.
Nor, on appearance, would they be the 1st people I'd trust with a gun.

Just sad. I think any serious gun control plans will have to include the National Guard.

Just in case there is that whole "unlawful combination" thing...

[Tsiyu]

46. In the first group pic upthread

Those dogs all look like each one thinks he is the Alpha. No matter what organizational model they set up for themselves, if SHTF, each one of these guys will probably try to run the show.

They'll no doubt end up offing each other before they can do much damage.

But, yeah, these militia types think they will eventually own the country - because they've got camo and some gunz and some unclassified military handouts. And they have no desire to leave you alive if you stand in their way.

Scary, deluded old men and their boyz.

Gonna restore white male authoritai.......

[Straw Man]

96. And then there are these ...

Note to the incurably obtuse: I'm not suggesting any sort of equivalence between the Michigan Militia and the Bielski Partisans. The point is that the guns are morally neutral; the intention of those who wield them is the crucial matter.

[Hoyt]

97. But let's don't let the racists terrorists have the friggin things. To keep

You guys happy in your assault weapons, we keep those fuxk*rs in them too. Not worth it.

[Rex]

28. How stupid our culture is.

Wonder what branch of the military they served in?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

7. I was looking to buy a particular rifle for $1600 4 weeks ago and waffled...

And now it's over $2500. This is fucking ridiculous - $2500 for a regular semi-auto .308 rifle. That's more than a REAL fully automatic SMG costed me just a few years ago. I've been saving for this rifle for awhile and now it's nearly another $1000 more money. I guess I should've just bought it at the beginning of the month.

I'm going to play the world's smallest violin now.

[99th_Monkey]

12. Ever get the feeling we are being "played"

like that violin. ? to squeeze every last drop of blood to create a more
dangerous and more impoverished world. ?

[Eleanors38]

22. LBJ's programs make the present Democratic Party look center-right. And all I got was this stinking

gun-control issue, reserved by that smiling valet from the GOP.

[G_j]

93. cry me a river

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

9. Do it in the middle of the night?

That's the style of Michigan's lame-duck legislature and newly-teabagged governor.

Stealth legislation.

[99th_Monkey]

14. Call it "national security"

gets a pass every time.

and it's not like that's a totally unreasonable claim,
with mass murders climbing like they are.

[aikoaiko]

13. And this is what scares politicians more than anything.

Not that the populace is arming itself to act them or other government officials. No, not that.

The massive panic buying of 2009 and now shows politicians that a lot of people across the political spectrum are spending hard earned money (or credit) to assure their right to keep and bear arms as they see fit.

If it ever came to be that bans of certain rifles and magazines were put in place, legislators know that many of those same people will spend their money and votes to change legislators come primary or election time.

Polls give you some information, but consumer trends are hard proof of concept.

[Lizzie Poppet]

18. It already happened once.

Sure, there were lots of other reasons for the "1994 massacre," but there's little doubt that passage of the first AWB was a huge boon to the GOP. If any legislation offered in reaction to Sandy Point isn't written with extreme care, history will repeat itself in 2014. Mind you, the original AWB was signed into law only three weeks or so before the elections...and (sadly) the American electorate has the collective attention span of a gnat...but it's still a huge risk for the Democratic Party to push for a comprehensive, sweeping bill. Is compromising (but not remotely eliminating) the ability of spree killers* to obtain certain weapons worth the distinct possibility of losing the Senate? Where is the least harm?

*a class of criminal responsible for a fraction of one percent of all homicide

[rrneck]

36. I was living in Tennessee in 2000. Gore's position on guns hurt him. nt

Gore's position on guns hurt him.

[Lurks Often]

49. Which probably cost him TN

and that caused him to lose the election and we all know what happened after that. If Gore had won TN, FL would not have mattered and he would have been President.

To put it more plainly, the Democratic position on gun control helped lead to the election of George W. Bush.

[L0oniX]

17. Gee whodathunkit n/t

[Igel]

19. Who, indeed.

When my brother thought that all incandescent lights were going to be banned he went out and stocked up.

Same kind of mentality.

I used to do the same thing. During pie cherry season in Upstate New York I'd buy baskets of the things and take a few days doing nothing but pitting and canning them. Laying in stock against future scarcity.

When in Brno and Prague, I loaded up on books in the local language. I was learning it. Hard to get them here. Again, laying in stock against future scarcity.

[Crackinrocket]

42. I don't understand why some call them paranoid.

If something you want is being banned, it only makes sense to buy enough to last.

[Eleanors38]

64. But no one is calling for banning anything, right?

Not politicians, not the MSM, not anyone in the many DU threads. Where are these folks getting this idea. Paranoid, I say!

[jmg257]

31. And that's why you have to not only ban new arms, but ban possession. Let the suckers

lose a few bucks when they have to turn them in during the grace period.

Then we won't have to worry about it again.

[Lizzie Poppet]

32. What do you figure the compliance rate would be? 10% Maybe 15%?

Just sayin'...

[jmg257]

34. I don't know - how many "law abiding gun owners" want to become felons?

just sayin...

edit:
How 'bout you? Would YOU risk all and willingly become a felon just to keep a certain type of gun or 2?

[Lizzie Poppet]

35. A lot.

Really a lot if retroactive bans are enacted.

Me personally? Oh, I would never, ever break the law.

[jmg257]

38. Good answer! :) I wonder just how many would REALLY take the risk.

When they realize the odds of them ACTUALLY needing a certain type of arm, vs the odds of gettigng caught with an illegal arm?
Whew - not me!

All those 4473 forms are out there somewhere. Nosey neighbors, talkative kids...I wouldn't take that chance just to keep say an AR instead of a 12ga pump or revolver - REALLY not worth it.


Smart people should turn em in and move on.

[hack89]

50. How many "law abiding" DU'rs disregard marijuana laws?

I suspect there are many "felons" posting here - me included.

[jmg257]

51. Huh - not really sure. Is marijuana use really a felony?

What are the risks involved with breaking those laws?

What is...'the level of seriousness'(?) with regards to LE when it comes to enforcing personal use marijuana laws? What is the public interest in seeing it done?

[hack89]

52. In most states it is.

risk has nothing to do with it.

Either you are law abiding or you are not.

[jmg257]

53. Wow - a felony? Around here it is mostly a violation, or a misdemeanor...

depending on quantity etc. Often just a fine.

"Either you are law abiding or you are not."

Or the risk is worth taking when breaking the law - for the law(s) one wishes to break.

[hack89]

55. Owning a gun would be relatively risk free in many places

not hard to imagine law enforcement in most red states looking the other way - they have the same cultural attitudes towards guns that the populace would have. Same can be said for elected judges and sheriffs.

[jmg257]

57. I didn't see it that way. Figuring they realize they could eventually face those guns they ignore.

I see I have to think on that some more!

Cheers!

[hack89]

58. Why would they start killing cops when they are not doing it now?

why would you expect real criminals to turn in their weapons in the first place?

[jmg257]

62. Right now they are not criminals; some cops will enforce new laws;

federal involvement; LE feeling more at risk with people having illegal guns vs illegal marijuana.

Many people themselves may choose NOT to take the risks and so follow new laws - are they law abiding, or not? Those that are not?

Many criminals would be dealt with eventually - much harsher penalities, less guns for them to have access to, more active and stringent law enforcement, more public interest in seeing it done (unlike say - prohibition).

Those that aren't will most likely keep their contraband guns - a litttle less public - which almost as good.

[hack89]

67. The point is all these new "illegal gun owners" were not threats before

and will not be threats afterwards. LEOs will not be concerned about people like that having guns - they have more important things to worry about.

Which is why they will resist turning in their weapons - mass resistance makes it easy and resistance will be massive. Think Prohibition type resistance.

It is a moot issue anyway - there will no gun bans. There is no public support and, more importantly, the votes in Congress are not there.

[jmg257]

69. Not "all" - which of course is THE problem, hard to know who will be and who won't be...

And who has guns now and who will get them quite easily when they want to become a threat.

Many (agree - not all) LE will be concerned with upholding the law - ALL laws, bet more then a few might even like the idea...especially as long as they get to keep theirs (not a good idea when talking banning others). Federal LE? Plenty...

Again, the level of resistance will be determined by the risks faced, AND the number of those willing to break the law - it is not like prohibition where so many people felt drinking as a harmless vice. If there is no will to make the stakes high enough? Then of course there will be resistance.

As mentioned elsewhere - everything would be determined by the true will to get it done. (including public support of course).
So no argument if the support is not there.

[Recursion]

105. Yes, any prohibition regime will kill people. Period.

Will a gun prohibition regime save more lives than it would cost? It would surprise me.

[jmg257]

106. In the long run? yep. Don't think resistance would be that steadfast if a few examples were made.

For the most part, these are law abiding citizens after all, remember?

[EX500rider]

95. In the State of Florida..

...anything over 20 grams is a felony.

[Recursion]

104. How many pot users risk it?

Quite a few.

[jmg257]

109. See #50 et. al. The risks must not be high enough, the public interest not serious enough. nt

[Socal31]

45. What else in the BoR are you so anxious to repeal?

Just like the different factions of relig-nuts think their god is the "right" one, you for some reason believe that the one amendment you disagree with is the "right" one.

This is Democratic Underground. If you think all legal gun owners are knuckle-dragging, "legitimate rape" young-earthers, I really suggest you read some statistics.

And unfortunately statements like yours and those like Kucinich give the RWers the ammo (no pun intended) to completely discredit the needed discussion for better background checks and restrictions that are already in my state.

Your post is as bad as a "my cold dead hands" nutter on the other extreme.

Hopefully cooler heads prevail, we take a serious look at mental health in the country (thanks Reagan), and come to the table with something that could actually stand up in the SCOTUS. Otherwise, the shock and despair in Newton will be drowned out by Xmas, New Years, and the "fiscal cliff."

[jmg257]

47. I don't disagree with any amendments. Just figure their 'restrictions, no matter

how strongly worded, will not matter when opposed to the decided sense of the pubic'. I see no need to repeal anything. For instance, the 2nd amendment has been circumvented before. (see 1994 Crime Bill, NY AWB, Gun Free School Zone laws, and other numerous and various municipal, state and federal 'gun control' laws).

Never said (or even thought) all legal gun owners are knuckle draggers - in fact, mine and those of most others I know clear the floor by numerous inches. (so I'll skip the statistics, thanks!). However, there are those I would prefer did NOT have such unfettered access to guns, and/or guns of certain types/capacity.

My comments are based on experience, and the notion that better background checks and typical restrictions won't matter much IF the real goal is to substantially reduce the levels of gun violence, gun murders, suicides, massacres, etc. Only severly reducing the number of guns will do that. And the only chance of doing that is by banning AND confiscating the ones found desirable to remove....NOT by allowing the entire nation to stock up on the deadliest rifles, handguns and accoutrements available every time there's the slightest whiff of 'a new ban'.

In re: C Heston quote, my post is accurate...see:"...NOT by allowing the entire nation to stock up on the deadliest rifles, handguns and accoutrements available every time there's the slightest whiff of 'a new ban'". There are ways to do that...but it takes the people to have the will, and the balls, to get it done.

As for "mental health" issues, see: "...IF the real goal is to substantially reduce the levels of gun violence, gun murders, suicides, massacres, etc. - only severly reducing the number of guns will do that."


Otherwise, what is being done or will be done that will REALLY matter?

[Savannahmann]

54. The individual right to bear arms is a new development

Previously, SCOTUS felt it was a collective right. The Milita part of the second amendment. However, do you really think that SCOTUS would not uphold regulations? Already States have laws that make certain weapons illegal. The David Gregory Thirty round clip story proves that. In DC, it is illegal to even possess one. So why can't we make it illegal nationwide? Oh no, we can't, you see the Second Amendment makes that bad. Crap.

If we can ban thirty round magazines, and several states have, then why can't we ban semi-automatic rifles? California makes it illegal to own a .50 caliber gun, and it should be illegal everywhere.

We can regulate the second amendment. For those of you who think it is a right the founders intended, fine. You can have a gun like the founders had. Flintlock black powder rifles and pistols. That is what the founders had when they passed this abomination of an amendment right?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

59. Important, if true.

You say,

"The individual right to bear arms is a new development"
"Previously, SCOTUS felt it was a collective right."

Somehow, however, the Supreme Court in its Heller opinion said that there are no Supreme Court decisions to the contrary.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

Could the Supreme Court's observation be wrong while you are otherwise right?

[Savannahmann]

63. Then allow me to help you.

From another thread on this very site.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022072202

[AnotherMcIntosh]

68. The reason why that doesn't support the statement is because the

headline found with the link is not supported by the text found with the link.

The headline and first line provides:

"former Chief Justice Burger - individual right to bear arms was “one of the greatest pieces of"

"fraud—I repeat the word ‘fraud’—on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

That's followed by two words which show that the posted expressly admitted knowing that the subsequently posted quote did not originate from Burger:

"not Burger-"

Then, following the words "not Burger," there is a quote:

"Until that time (Heller), legal precedent and conventional wisdom held that the Second Amendment protected only a state’s right to maintain a militia, and not an individual’s right to bear arms independent of the state’s need for a militia. (The amendment provides, somewhat awkwardly and ambiguously, that “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.”) In 1991, former Chief Justice Warren Burger, a conservative Republican, said that the idea that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to bear arms was “one of the greatest pieces of fraud—I repeat the word ‘fraud’—on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” Yet just seventeen years later, in Heller, five justices proclaimed that the Framers had intended to protect an individual right to bear arms."

Within the larger quote is a shorter one. One that is attributed to Burger, but without a link or other reference where Burger suposedly said the statement attributed to him:

“one of the greatest pieces of fraud—I repeat the word ‘fraud’—on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

And you are going to accept the headline without any critical thinking? And post "Then allow me to help you."?

Somehow, I don't think that the posting of a link to quote attributed to Burger in a headline, but not supported an actual reference where Burger supposedly made a statement, is going to help anyone at all. Come back, if you ever find any actual evidence to show that the Supreme Court ever had the view that the 2nd Amendment was a collective right. Don't you think that if the Supreme Court had ever held that the 2nd Amendment was a collective right, the advocates for the collective-right position would have been able to find that by now? Wouldn't they have been able to find that by now? Don't rely upon people who just make things up. Be more sensible than that.

[jmg257]

72. There are quite a few links to that quote, all of which refer to an interview on PBS.

See here:
http://www.lclark.edu/live/files/772 pg 358, as the best source I have found (without locating the actual transcript or seeing the DVD).

Assuming the person who wrote this would not mis-quote a transcript they supposedly provide the source for:


"In a PBS television interview in 1991 marking the two hundredth anniversary of ratification of the Bill of Rights, Burger commented: “If I were writing the Bill of Rights now there wouldn’t be any such thing as the Second Amendment . . . . This has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. Now just look at those words. There are only three lines to that amendment. A well regulated militia—if the militia, which was going to be the state army, was going to be well regulated, why shouldn’t 16 and 17 and 18 or any other age persons be regulated in the use of arms the way an automobile is regulated? It’s got to be registered, that you can’t just deal with at will. . . . I don’t want to get sued for slander, but I repeat that they [the NRA] . . . have had far too much influence on the Congress of the United States than as a citizen I would like to see—and I am a gun man. I have guns. I have been a hunter ever since I was a boy.”

MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour: Interview by Charlayne Hunter-Gault with Warren Burger (PBS television broadcast, Dec. 16, 1991) (Monday transcript # 4226), available at http://www.lexisnexis.com (News Library, NewsHour with Jim Lehrer File) (quoted in UVILLER & MERKEL, supra note 9, at 13)."

[AnotherMcIntosh]

77. None of that changes the fact that the "SCOTUS" NEVER "felt it was a collective right."

At #54, the poster wrote:

"The individual right to bear arms is a new development"

"Previously, SCOTUS felt it was a collective right."

If facts matter, what was said at #54 is not true.

[bongbong]

74. LOL

This article summarizes why the lies about "individual right!" are just, well, lies.

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/SpitzerChicago.htm

That link is a nice "one stop shop" to destroy dozens of NRA-bot Talking Points.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

75. (1) No it doesn't.

(2) Falsely calling any statements "NRA" talking points is not going to change the law. Raising the NRA-boogeyman is not going to make anyone fearful except for the the extraordinary timorous.

If facts still matter, and if the law still matters, the Heller opinion is the law.

Falsely calling statements "NRA" talking points is not going to change the law as expressed in the Supreme Court's Heller opinion.

[bongbong]

85. Ironic

> anyone fearful except for the the extraordinary timorous.

Ironic, since the "extraordinary timorous" are the ones buying a Precious to keep their terror-of-the-world at bay.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

86. Actually,

it is well known that many are buying because they are watching the value of their purchases go up.

As just one example (although I haven't bought any firearms in quite a while), I've seen the value of my firearm collection (if I had any) double in the recent past.

In addition, some may also be buying firearms because they know that their communities are cutting back on police services while home invasions and other criminal activities are on the increase. In Oakland, California, for example, the fifth-most crime ridden city in America, recently laid off one-fifth of its police officers. Those affected by home invasions by violent criminals who are no longer satisfied by street crimes can still call 911.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117297556

Are you afraid of firearms? Then don't buy any. Or are you one of the anonymous posters who actually owns firearms and wants to see the value of your collection go up?

[bongbong]

87. Yes!

> In addition, some may also be buying firearms because they know that their communities are cutting back on police services while home invasions and other criminal activities are on the increase.

Since the statistics prove you're at greater danger if you buy a gun, it appears the NRA and the MSM have done their jobs well in selling the lie that "guns keep you safe".

> Are you afraid of firearms?

No, if I was afraid I'd buy a gun like the Delicate Flowers do. DUH!

[Savannahmann]

76. Then how about some more links? I'll even exerpt them for you.

First up. http://voices.yahoo.com/on-warren-e-burgers-right-bear-arms-256514.html

He declares that the founding fathers implied that this right was a necessity because the people required a militia, or "state army.".......He compares owning guns to owning automobiles and motorboats, both of which are heavily regulated by the state.

But that's not main stream right? OK, how about this. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/supcourt/stories/courtguns051095.htm

When the Supreme Court has spoken in this area – and it has done so infrequently – it has begun with the idea that the Second Amendment protects a state's right to keep arms for a militia. In a nationally watched 1983 case, the justices let the town of Morton Grove, Ill., ban handguns. Without comment or dissent, they left intact a lower court decision rejecting the contention that Americans have a constitutional right to be armed.

But wait, the Supreme Court said there was no precident in the matter right?

http://www.guncite.com/burger.html

Americans should ask themselves a few questions. The Constitution does not mention automobiles or motorboats, but the right to keep and own an automobile is beyond question; equally beyond question is the power of the state to regulate the purchase or the transfer of such a vehicle and the right to license the vehicle and the driver with reasonable standards. In some places, even a bicycle must be registered, as must some household dogs.

So Chief Justice Burger didn't say fraud. However, he did say that the individual right was a not the Court's view. He should know, he was the Chief Justice when they refused to hear the appeal of the Morton Grove banning of firearms case. Yet, there was no case law right? So go on back, fondle your M-16, and pretend that it has always been this way, that you have an individual right to be armed to the teeth. In the meantime, the rest of us will be busy tring to bring some sanity to the world.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

78. As you said, "So Chief Justice Burger DIDN'T SAY FRAUD." Thank you.

[Savannahmann]

79. Was it considered an individual right?

Yes or no?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

80. If facts matters, contrary to what was posted at #54,

the "SCOTUS" NEVER "felt it was a collective right."

At #54, you wrote:

"The individual right to bear arms is a new development"

"Previously, SCOTUS felt it was a collective right."

That's not true.

[Savannahmann]

81. You're just a hair short of delusional aren't you?

Did the Supreme Court review the case in 1983 in which Morton Grove Illinois banned guns? No. Why would they not accept the appeal if there was in fact, and in law, an individual right to keep arms? By refusing to hear the appeal, they let the Appeals Court ruling stand, which said that Morton Grove was well within their rights to ban guns. That is a precedent. That is a ruling. That is the simple fact that there was NO individual right. Heller should never have gone as far as it did, by that Precedent. Yet the Justices found an individual right out of thin air. There isn't one in the Constitution. There isn't one in case law. But there is NOW.

Before Heller, collective right. After Heller, individual right. Now, is that statement true? Or are you busy polishing your AK-47 and unable to think it through for yourself?

[slackmaster]

82. You really can't infer anything from the SCOTUS declining to review a case

Sometimes a case that you think is important gets pushed down the priority stack because the SC is too busy.

And Morton Grove dropped its gun ban in 2008 after SCOTUS rendered the US vs. Heller decision because they knew it wouldn't pass muster.

By refusing to hear the appeal, they let the Appeals Court ruling stand, which said that Morton Grove was well within their rights to ban guns. That is a precedent. That is a ruling.

No, declining a case is neither precedent nor a ruling on the part of the SC.

[Savannahmann]

84. Seriously, you honestly think that?

Then these news stories are all wrong aren't they?

http://articles.cnn.com/2004-02-23/justice/scotus.terror.secrecy_1_mohamed-kamel-bellahouel-high-court-appeal?_s=PM:LAW

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday gave the government the power to pursue certain terrorism cases in near total secrecy, declining to hear an appeal by an Algerian immigrant detained after the September 11, 2001, attacks.

So by declining to hear the appeal, the Government took that to mean that they could pursue terrorism cases in total secrecy. Now why would they think that. Oh perhaps the fact that the SC decided to ignore it gave them the power?

http://www.mainjustice.com/2012/01/17/justices-decline-to-hear-appeal-of-ex-arizona-congressman-renzi/

The Justices declined to hear the appeal of a Congressman, and allowed the Justice Department to go after him on corruption charges.

There are tens of thousands of news stories that say the same thing.

So lets see what the US Courts say on the matter of appeal.

http://www.uscourts.gov/FederalCourts/UnderstandingtheFederalCourts/HowCourtsWork/TheAppealsProcess.aspx

A litigant who loses in a federal court of appeals, or in the highest court of a state, may file a petition for a "writ of certiorari," which is a document asking the Supreme Court to review the case. The Supreme Court, however, does not have to grant review. The Court typically will agree to hear a case only when it involves an unusually important legal principle, or when two or more federal appellate courts have interpreted a law differently.

So according to that description. The city of Morton Grove banning firearms did not create a important legal principle. But how could that be? Weren't they violating the individual right to keep and bear arms in 1983? What about all those years those prospective gun owners were denied their individual rights between Morton Grove and Heller?

Every argument you make is false, and every assertion is proven wrong. Prior to Heller, there was no individual right to keep and bear arms in legal history. There simply wasn't. Every time guns were regulated, the challenge was shot down. From Machine guns, to right to carry. Every single one was shot down. Until we got to Heller. Then the NRA talking point had taken hold, and it was now an individual right. I'm astounded that you don't realize it. I'm at a loss as to how to further educate you on the truth of the history.

Tell you what, find a case where the Government was told they could not restrict gun ownership prior to Heller. There isn't one. There isn't one single case in legal history. US V. Miller, perfectly acceptable to restrict gun ownership and it goes on and on and on through history. Until Heller. Then suddenly we had an individual right to keep and bear arms. From out of nowhere.

Now the SC is able to do that. They found that Separate but Equal was both Constitutional, and then later Unconstutional. Both had equally vague answers in history. Yet, we at least admit that there is nothing specifically authorizing Separate but Equal or disallowing it. We just decided one was right, and then later, that it was wrong. Yet gun owners for some reason, refuse to believe that previous to Heller they had no right as an individual laid down in case law to own a gun. Look it up. You'll find much dissapointment in the search for case law to support your position.

[slackmaster]

92. The SC hears only about 1% of cases that are presented to it

The Justices have a long-established tradition of not giving a reason for declining to hear a case.

Tell you what, find a case where the Government was told they could not restrict gun ownership prior to Heller.

Heller does not say the government cannot restrict ownership or use of firearms. It says that DC's law went too far in restricting what an individual could do with a firearm in his or her own home. That's all. It doesn't say that DC can't restrict use of firearms in public, for example.

Here's a list of significant SC decisions related to this issue. You find one in which the court denies that the Second Amendment refers to an individual right.

http://www.saf.org/allsupremecourttable.html

The city of Morton Grove banning firearms did not create a important legal principle. But how could that be? Weren't they violating the individual right to keep and bear arms in 1983? What about all those years those prospective gun owners were denied their individual rights between Morton Grove and Heller?

Their rights were being infringed.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

83. Obviously not. If facts matter, it was FALSELY STATED at #54 that

"The individual right to bear arms is a new development"

"Previously, SCOTUS felt it was a collective right."

Those statements are either true or not true.

As noted at #59, the Supreme Court in its Heller opinion said that there are no Supreme Court decisions to the contrary.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

As shown by what was said by the the Supreme Court in its Heller opinion, those statements are not true.

[jmg257]

89. Though apparently - he did. Apparently there are transcripts (and DVDs) of him doing so.

In fact, here's an article from 1995 saying he said it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/supcourt/stories/courtguns051095.htm


Too many sources site him as doing so - I am with them for now.

[Savannahmann]

112. Don't sweat it.

The only Post they read is Huffington Post. The pro gun democrats are going to have to make a choice soon. Their guns, or their party.

[Socal31]

90. You aren't arguing with a gun-nutter here.

I live in California. I know what it is like already to have very strict gun laws, and I am not against some weapons being very hard to obtain. My post was responding to a Kucinich-esque statement of disarming everyone of everything, and that is just going to get thrown out in the SCOTUS, in fact it wouldn't even be passed into law. And if it was, it would be repealed in the next election when every politician who voted for it was replaced by someone who had a "repeal" platform.

As to your last paragraph, the easy and probably oft-repeated counter is that free speech does not extend to the internet, because all they had was a printing-press.

[jmg257]

91. Sorry - my post wasn't clear...not a "statement of disarming everyone of

everything".

It was a referral to the huge increase in sales of assault weapon-type arms, semi-autos, mags, etc. I see the OP was re: gun sales in general.

I do believe a new AWB won't make much difference if the goal is a decrease in gun-related deaths, massacres etc..

It will take much more drastic action then that.

[Savannahmann]

113. Free speech is limited.

There are laws against Libel, Slander, and public threats. There are laws against certain words, and laws preventing those words from being spoken on broadcast television.

The other amendments are also limited by society in the form of laws. Yet, only the beloved Second can't be touched. The 4th, 5th, and 6th were nearly abolished by the PATRIOT ACT. The third can go the way of the California Condor if the President declares martial law. So why can't we so drastically restrict the 2nd?

[Socal31]

114. The 2nd has been touched already,

In most ways that I agree with. I agree with more of our CA laws becoming the standard in most states. But there is a reason that even this tragedy will bring a token watered-down "hey, look we did something" bill if it passes at all.

Like most issues, the two fringes get the attention (gun buy-backs on one side, and the Prepper Ted Nugent whackos on the other). But unlike most issues, the people in the "middle" are so spread out across political, racial, economical, generational, and geographical backgrounds, that there needs to be serious, level-headed discussion. The fact that I have even posted about guns on this forum after years of membership, when I would never be mistaken for a bible-loon or Re-thug of any sort, by anyone who knows me personally....

It feels like the people that want no restrictions on guns at all have never been to LA, Oakland, Detroit, or Chicago. It seems like the people who want to completely ban personal firearms have never seen the beauty of most of my state, Montana, Alaska, etc, where calling 911 doesn't bring the armada, and shooting at something and missing doesn't go through your wall and into your neighbor's home.

As far as your points about the rest of the BoR being touched, I would say that is a weak argument. If you "threaten" someone with a gun when you do not have a legal right to, you will lose your freedom and gun privileges with a felony. If I were to buy a gun here in California, there is a 10 day waiting period while the feds check me out and to make sure it is not an emotional purchase. (This is something I am 100% for. In fact, this needs to go deeper....into mental health records.) If the government was given 10 days to review this post before it showed up on a publicly accessible message board, I would definitely have a problem with that, as I hope most people would.

The abomination that is the "Patriot Act" should definitely never be used as a basis for more restrictions. But mental health needs to be re-examined on a national level, at the same attention as gun control is getting right now.

We need to look at not only the reason that most shootings happen (drug war and economics), but we need to look at the reason that most mass-shootings happen (mental health). They are not mutually exclusive either.

Believe me, when I read that x% of Americans are on Benzodiazapines or Opiates or Amphetamine Salts, I think about guns, I think about people behind the wheel, I think about people working with heavy machinery, I think about a lot of things.

To end this rant that probably nobody read anyway, my whole point is that starting high like a used car salesman, much like my Senator is doing with her national gun bill that goes beyond even the current CA one, won't put us with a reasonable price at the signing table. It will turn off so many people, that we walk off the lot empty-handed.

Have a good night!

[Recursion]

110. SCOTUS deliberately avoided deciding either way in Miller

I'd also add that Constitutional Law Professor Barack Obama said, before Heller came out, that he read it to mean an individual right.

[Savannahmann]

111. Constitutional Law Professor Obama also said

That the President did not have the right to unilaterally engage the United States in Combat. Or to keep prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, or keep the PATRIOT ACT. When he became President, the tune changed didn't it?

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[rl6214]

116. And you can have a quill pen and ink

"We can regulate the second amendment. For those of you who think it is a right the founders intended, fine. You can have a gun like the founders had. Flintlock black powder rifles and pistols. That is what the founders had when they passed this abomination of an amendment right?"

[AgingAmerican]

102. The poster has a right to his/her opinion

I own a couple guns, but I have no problem whatsoever with anyone who believes I shouldn't. It's a free country and free thought keeps it that way.

I do believe they should be registered and heavily regulated. I don't fall into the RW gun madness trap.

[slackmaster]

37. Tots

[randome]

61. Eww! What's that red, squelchy thing in the corner?

[slackmaster]

65. Depends on where you live

It's ketchup around here, but some people call it catsup.

[randome]

70. Oh. It looks more like a mutant onion. But ketchup works well with tater tots!

[Odin2005]

48. These people are sick in the head.

They rant ignorant shit about the mentally ill, while acting many times more bonkers than any mentally ill person I know.

[L0oniX]

66. YAwn n/t

[LanternWaste]

71. more and more people to engage in a collective discussion which impacts our nation and our culture

"Can you guess what all this talk, talk, talk about gun control is doing...?"

Allowing more and more people to engage in a collective discussion which impacts our nation and our culture, among many other things?


However, I realize many people believe that certain topics are either too sacred, or carry too many consequences and therefore, simply wish others would stop talking to better assuage their own sensibilities.

[nadinbrzezinski]

73. None can wish legislation into place

And if you talk to gunnies the President has passed gun legislation already. (True, though he signed it) that has restricted their rights. (False, it allows people to carry in national parks)

So they are going to go on buying sprees every shootout 'cause them evil lib'ruls are gonna take my gunz away.

You really don't get the mentality, really.

We talked to a few of these Einstein's yesterday, not pretty.

[closeupready]

88. Nobody wants an honest, frank discussion about gun control.

I've learned that over the last few weeks here, if this place can be seen as any kind of more general indicator.

[AgingAmerican]

101. They swarm gun stores because the RW media tells them

that guns will be banned. I hear it on other forums from Republicans. That Obama and the Dems are trying to ban all guns.

[Electric Monk]

115. The Newtown massacre was the best ad campaign for AR-15s since, well, ever.

Funny, that

[AgingAmerican]

117. I know

This country has become so flipping warped.