Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
TPaine7
TPaine7's Journal
TPaine7's Journal
December 28, 2012
The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment enshrined in the Constitution their clear, uncompromising understanding that the right was individual:
The Fourteenth Amendment is part of the Constitution, a more important part, I would argue, than the Second. It cannot be ignored. And the language of the Fourteenth Amendment, read in historical context, clearly shows that the Second Amendment is a personal, individual right that is enforceable against the states.
The Early Supreme Court and the Guys who Wrote the Fourteenth Amendment Disagreed with You
While it is true that the emphasis on individual self-defense was later, the right itself was ALWAYS an individual right. The very first time the Supreme Court mentioned the Second Amendment it called it a right "of person." The idea that this is a personal right is not some modern invention, it was well understood from the beginning:
For example, no one, we presume, will contend that Congress can make any law in a Territory respecting the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people of the Territory peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for the redress of grievances.
Nor can Congress deny to the people the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel any one to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding.
These powers, and others, in relation to rights of person, which it is not necessary here to enumerate, are, in express and positive terms, denied to the General Government;...
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=60&invol=393
Nor can Congress deny to the people the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel any one to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding.
These powers, and others, in relation to rights of person, which it is not necessary here to enumerate, are, in express and positive terms, denied to the General Government;...
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=60&invol=393
The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment enshrined in the Constitution their clear, uncompromising understanding that the right was individual:
“{The Fourteenth Amendment's} first clause, . . . relates to the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States . . . . To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be—for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature—to these should be added the personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all of the people; the right to keep and bear arms. . . .
…The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees.”—Senator Jacob Howard introducing the Fourteenth Amendment to the Senate, quoted by Yale Professor Amar. Akhil Reed Amar, The Bill of Rights, Creation and Reconstruction (Harrisonburg, VA: R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company, 1998), 185-6 (emphases supplied).
…The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees.”—Senator Jacob Howard introducing the Fourteenth Amendment to the Senate, quoted by Yale Professor Amar. Akhil Reed Amar, The Bill of Rights, Creation and Reconstruction (Harrisonburg, VA: R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company, 1998), 185-6 (emphases supplied).
The Fourteenth Amendment is part of the Constitution, a more important part, I would argue, than the Second. It cannot be ignored. And the language of the Fourteenth Amendment, read in historical context, clearly shows that the Second Amendment is a personal, individual right that is enforceable against the states.
December 28, 2012
NRA Press Conference: Wayne LaPierre Calls For Armed Police Officers At Every School: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/nra-press-conference_n_2346382.html
I have seen the light; I now agree with Nutter and most of the people on DU. It's a "completely dumbass idea" to have police in schools to stop a mass shooting. That just brings more guns and violence into the situation.
To be consistent, however, we must admit that calling police into a situation with an active school shooter is not much better. After all, it's the same thing, just a little later. Why would it be OK to have more guns and violence on the scene 5 to 10 minutes later? If dialing 911 causes the same negative effect with just a few minutes delay, obviously that's wrong too.
I don't want to speak ill of the dead, but charging the shooter was violent. So the admin and teachers at the school took two bad, violent actions--they called in more violence and guns to the area and they personally attacked the shooter.
It's understandable to make mistakes under extreme pressure, but with training and indoctrination everyone should do better.
If there is an active shooter in a school, teachers and administrators should try to help students escape, but under no circumstances should they resort to violence of any kind. And calling police after the shooting starts is little better than having one on site. Police simply add more guns and violence to an already bad situation. The principal should have an emergency button in her office to shut down all the phones and jam cell phones to prevent this natural mistake that teachers and students alike are prone to make.
Actually, come to think of it, why should anyone dial 911 regarding gunshots? If you're in a mall and there's an active shooter, doesn't calling the police simply add more guns and violence to the situation? Isn't that the lunatic, right wing position of the fool at the head of the NRA?!
We have to get beyond such right wing, cowboy thinking. No one should ever call the police to an active shooting or gun crime.
I feel so much better, now that I've seen the light.
Right Wing Extremist LaPierre's Lunatic Plan for Police in Schools Debunked
Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter on Wednesday slammed the National Rifle Association's proposal to put an armed guard {police officers} in every school in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., school shooting, calling it a "completely dumbass idea."
"I guess, you know, out of last week's bizarre press statement -- it wasn't a press conference -- I guess Mr. [Wayne] LaPierre would then say firefighters need to have armed guards go with them," Nutter said on MSNBC's "Andrea Mitchell Reports." I think it just shows that was a completely dumbass idea from the start with the announcement last week," he said.
Nutter was referring to the briefing held Friday by LaPierre, the NRA's vice president, in which he called for armed guards at every school in the wake of the Newtown tragedy. "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," LaPierre said.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/26/michael-nutter-nra_n_2366214.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003
"I guess, you know, out of last week's bizarre press statement -- it wasn't a press conference -- I guess Mr. [Wayne] LaPierre would then say firefighters need to have armed guards go with them," Nutter said on MSNBC's "Andrea Mitchell Reports." I think it just shows that was a completely dumbass idea from the start with the announcement last week," he said.
Nutter was referring to the briefing held Friday by LaPierre, the NRA's vice president, in which he called for armed guards at every school in the wake of the Newtown tragedy. "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," LaPierre said.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/26/michael-nutter-nra_n_2366214.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003
NRA Press Conference: Wayne LaPierre Calls For Armed Police Officers At Every School: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/nra-press-conference_n_2346382.html
I have seen the light; I now agree with Nutter and most of the people on DU. It's a "completely dumbass idea" to have police in schools to stop a mass shooting. That just brings more guns and violence into the situation.
To be consistent, however, we must admit that calling police into a situation with an active school shooter is not much better. After all, it's the same thing, just a little later. Why would it be OK to have more guns and violence on the scene 5 to 10 minutes later? If dialing 911 causes the same negative effect with just a few minutes delay, obviously that's wrong too.
I don't want to speak ill of the dead, but charging the shooter was violent. So the admin and teachers at the school took two bad, violent actions--they called in more violence and guns to the area and they personally attacked the shooter.
It's understandable to make mistakes under extreme pressure, but with training and indoctrination everyone should do better.
If there is an active shooter in a school, teachers and administrators should try to help students escape, but under no circumstances should they resort to violence of any kind. And calling police after the shooting starts is little better than having one on site. Police simply add more guns and violence to an already bad situation. The principal should have an emergency button in her office to shut down all the phones and jam cell phones to prevent this natural mistake that teachers and students alike are prone to make.
Actually, come to think of it, why should anyone dial 911 regarding gunshots? If you're in a mall and there's an active shooter, doesn't calling the police simply add more guns and violence to the situation? Isn't that the lunatic, right wing position of the fool at the head of the NRA?!
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
We have to get beyond such right wing, cowboy thinking. No one should ever call the police to an active shooting or gun crime.
I feel so much better, now that I've seen the light.
December 23, 2012
Of course, people can always call the police. Here is some DC legal history on that:
Let's summarize the legal reality in DC, the “best in the nation” gun control regime that got a “B-” rating from the Brady Campaign:
You were legally required to pay for police protection, but the police had no obligation to protect you.
It was a crime in the District of Columbia to have a gun in your home that could actually shoot bullets. Guns were OK, as long as they were useless. In order to ensure their uselessness, they had to be kept unloaded. In order to be doubly sure, they had to be kept disassembled or bound by a trigger lock. Making a gun useful by assembling (or unlocking) and loading it was a crime. The excuse that you were trying to protect your family—or repel a rapist or avoid death—would not do.
These were the laws regarding long guns—rifles and shotguns. The situation with handguns was even worse.
You could not possess a handgun that you did not register before Sept 1976. Even if you had a registered handgun, you needed a special permit to move it from room to room in your own house. Permits were impossible to get. And of course your registered handgun had to remain useless at all times. (You could load guns kept at your place of business.)
Basically, if your family was being killed, raped, tortured, or kidnapped in your own house, you were forbidden by law to load a weapon to defend them (or yourself). You were, however, allowed to load a gun to protect your money and goods at your place of business.
If that earned a good grade from the Brady Campaign, what would earn a perfect score?
When I hear terms like “reasonable” “common sense” and “sensible” coming out of the mouths of the Brady Campaign and the like, I know what they really mean. And now, so do you.
If Heller had gone the other way, this is the type of gun control that the Brady Campaign (and the politician and leaders who supported them) wanted to move this country towards. It valued defense of money and property over family and self and criminalized defense of self and family with a gun in one's home.
What do you think?
Do you support the Brady Campaign's Idea of “Reasonable,” “Common Sense,” “Sensible” Gun Control?
As discussed here ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022033393 ), there is a lot of talk by good and decent people about “reasonable,” “common sense,” “sensible” gun control. The Brady Campaign, powerful politicians, leaders and anti-gun scholars have also used these terms, but they haven’t always meant what you might think.
I can’t tell you exactly what the Brady Campaign and their fellow travelers mean by these terms, but I can get close.
As the Parker case (the case that became the Heller case) was working its way through the courts, I went to the Brady Campaign website to see how the District of Columbia was rated.
The Brady Campaign maintained a grading system somewhat like the NRA’s. DC had a higher rating than any state in the union. DC’s grade was in the “B” range; if I recall correctly, the exact grade was a “B- “.
In other words, the District’s gun control, though not flawless enough to get an “A” was close.
And what was close to perfect? Here are descriptions of the laws, as outlined in an open letter I wrote to Obama at the time (these laws were overturned by Heller):
D.C. Code § 7-2502 says that no one can possess or control a firearm unless they have a valid registration certificate for the firearm. Registration certificates are available for rifles and shotguns, but D.C. Code § 7- 2502.02(a) forbids issuing a registration certificate for any pistol that was not registered to the current registrant in the District prior to September 24, 1976.
D.C. Code § 7-2507.02 requires that registrants keep all firearms in their possession “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device.” The only exceptions are for guns kept at a place of business and guns being used for lawful recreational purposes within the district.
It is illegal to move a lawfully registered pistol on your own property. D.C. Code § 22-3204, an old law, once made an exception for people moving a gun within their own home or business or on their own land. The new law, D.C. Code § 22-4504, forbids any carrying of a handgun, even in your own house or business or on your own land.
“{W}ith very rare exceptions licenses to carry pistols have not been issued in the District of Columbia for many years and are virtually unobtainable.” Bsharah v. United States, 646 A.2d 993, 996 n.12 (D.C. 1994).
Quoted at http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/Parker_cross_petition.pdf app. 18, no 32.
Quoted at http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/Parker_cross_petition.pdf app. 18, no 32.
“BTW, the issue in Heller is not the trigger lock requirement per se. It's that the there is no exception allowing the gun to be unlocked in a self-defense emergency; in the 1977 case of McIntosh v. Washington, the D.C. Court of Appeals upheld the home self-defense ban against challenges that it violated equal protection and the common law right of self-defense. The McIntosh court agreed with D.C's lawyers and recognized the statute as an absolute ban on home self-defense with any firearm; this was held to be rational because of the number of fatal gun accidents was (according to the McIntosh court) larger than the number justiable self-defense homicides with guns.”—David Kopel, Polls on handgun bans, March 16, 2008. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_03_16-2008_03_22.shtml .
Of course, people can always call the police. Here is some DC legal history on that:
Illustrative of this {police} failure is the case of Warren v.District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981.) In the late winter of 1975, three women (Warren, Taliaferro and Douglas, plus Douglas‟s four-year-old daughter) were asleep in a rooming house on Lamont Street, NW in the District. In the early morning hours, two burglars entered the property and raped Douglas. Warren and Taliaferro heard Douglas‟ screams and called the MPD at 6:23 a.m. to report a burglary in progress. They were assured police were on the way. At 6:26 a.m., three cruisers were dispatched to the rooming house on a “priority 2” call. One officer knocked on the door while other officers remained in their cruisers. Receiving no response at the door, the officers left. Warren and Taliaferro watched in horror from the roof of their building before crawling back into their room, where they continued to hear Douglas‟ screams. They called the MPD again at 6:42 a.m. and asked for immediate assistance. Again, they were told assistance was on the way. The dispatcher never dispatched additional police, unbeknownst to the two who yelled reassurance to Douglas and were, as a result, discovered by the burglars. All three women were then abducted at knifepoint and held prisoner for 14 additional hours, while being beaten, robbed, raped and directed to perform sex acts on each other.
All three women subsequently brought a tort action against the MPD for its failure to respond and protect them from the assaults. All three had their cases dismissed. Amicus Brief of Buckeye Firearms Foundation http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wpcontent/
uploads/2008/02/07-290_amicus_buckeye.pdf , 37-8.
All three women subsequently brought a tort action against the MPD for its failure to respond and protect them from the assaults. All three had their cases dismissed. Amicus Brief of Buckeye Firearms Foundation http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wpcontent/
uploads/2008/02/07-290_amicus_buckeye.pdf , 37-8.
Let's summarize the legal reality in DC, the “best in the nation” gun control regime that got a “B-” rating from the Brady Campaign:
You were legally required to pay for police protection, but the police had no obligation to protect you.
It was a crime in the District of Columbia to have a gun in your home that could actually shoot bullets. Guns were OK, as long as they were useless. In order to ensure their uselessness, they had to be kept unloaded. In order to be doubly sure, they had to be kept disassembled or bound by a trigger lock. Making a gun useful by assembling (or unlocking) and loading it was a crime. The excuse that you were trying to protect your family—or repel a rapist or avoid death—would not do.
These were the laws regarding long guns—rifles and shotguns. The situation with handguns was even worse.
You could not possess a handgun that you did not register before Sept 1976. Even if you had a registered handgun, you needed a special permit to move it from room to room in your own house. Permits were impossible to get. And of course your registered handgun had to remain useless at all times. (You could load guns kept at your place of business.)
Basically, if your family was being killed, raped, tortured, or kidnapped in your own house, you were forbidden by law to load a weapon to defend them (or yourself). You were, however, allowed to load a gun to protect your money and goods at your place of business.
If that earned a good grade from the Brady Campaign, what would earn a perfect score?
When I hear terms like “reasonable” “common sense” and “sensible” coming out of the mouths of the Brady Campaign and the like, I know what they really mean. And now, so do you.
If Heller had gone the other way, this is the type of gun control that the Brady Campaign (and the politician and leaders who supported them) wanted to move this country towards. It valued defense of money and property over family and self and criminalized defense of self and family with a gun in one's home.
What do you think?
December 19, 2012
Of course, people can always call the police. Here is some DC legal history on that:
Let's summarize the legal reality in DC, the “best in the nation” gun control regime that got a “B-” rating from the Brady Campaign:
You were legally required to pay for police protection, but the police had no obligation to protect you.
It was a crime in the District of Columbia to have a gun in your home that could actually shoot bullets. Guns were OK, as long as they were useless. In order to ensure their uselessness, they had to be kept unloaded. In order to be doubly sure, they had to be kept disassembled or bound by a trigger lock. Making a gun useful by assembling (or unlocking) and loading it was a crime. The excuse that you were trying to protect your family—or repel a rapist or avoid death—would not do.
These were the laws regarding long guns—rifles and shotguns. The situation with handguns was even worse.
You could not possess a handgun that you did not register before Sept 1976. Even if you had a registered handgun, you needed a special permit to move it from room to room in your own house. Permits were impossible to get. And of course your registered handgun had to remain useless at all times. (You could load guns kept at your place of business.)
Basically, if your family was being killed, raped, tortured, or kidnapped in your own house, you were forbidden by law to load a weapon to defend them (or yourself). You were, however, allowed to load a gun to protect your money and goods at your place of business.
If that earned a good grade from the Brady Campaign, what would earn a perfect score?
When I hear terms like “reasonable” “common sense” and “sensible” coming out of the mouths of the Brady Campaign, I know what they really mean. And while I think the odds of them getting what they want in toto are slim, they got close to “perfection” with the District of Columbia. I don’t want any Americans to be ruled by laws approved by the Brady Campaign and their fellow travelers.
There are things that can be done to keep unfit people from getting guns, things most people would gladly accept. But I don't trust the anti-gun leadership. I laid out the reason for extreme caution long ago:
What I Fear, What Made Me Drag my Feet on Gun Control: Brady-Style Gun Control
Why have I been so strongly opposed to gun control?
First I would like to be clear that some commonly cited reasons are low on my list.
Contrary to popular belief, the Second Amendment was intended to protect against government abuse. But that is a minor reason for me personally. Talk of armed revolution is unwarranted. Americans don’t have any excuse to dream of armed revolution when we can’t even be bothered to use EASY, peaceful methods to make our government stop reading our e-mails and listening to our phone conversations. We apparently have no problem with government feeling us up and looking at our naked bodies at airports; how can we pretend to be revolutionaries?
People who don’t value their rights enough to pressure their Senators and President don’t start revolutions. So if anybody starts fighting the government, they will be a ragtag group of outliers, not America. Only after America fully exhausts her peaceful power should she even consider armed action.
My personal safety is not a huge concern, either. I am fortunate to live and conduct most of my business in a low crime area. I don’t live in terror of a home invasion or mugging, though I know crime is possible anywhere.
No, these are not my motivators. My concern is primarily for others. As a person who has know folks who were victimized by crime, and has been privileged to listen to intense intimate accounts of brutal savagery perpetrated on innocent victims (including a close relative), I want to live in a country that does not deny people the right—and the means, without which the right is meaningless—to defend themselves.
Now there is a lot of talk by good and decent people about “reasonable,” “common sense,” “sensible” gun control. The Brady Campaign, powerful politicians, leaders and anti-gun scholars have also used these terms, but they haven’t always meant what you might think.
I can’t tell you exactly what the Brady Campaign and their fellow travelers mean (meant), but I can get close.
As the Parker case (the case that became the Heller case) was working its way through the courts, I went to the Brady Campaign website to see how the District of Columbia was rated.
The Brady Campaign maintained a grading system somewhat like the NRA’s. DC had a higher rating than any state in the union. DC’s grade was in the “B” range; if I recall correctly, the exact grade was a “B- “.
In other words, the District’s gun control, though not flawless enough to get an “A” was close.
And what was close to perfect? Here are descriptions of the laws, as outlined in an open letter I wrote to Obama at the time (these laws were overturned by Heller):
D.C. Code § 7-2502 says that no one can possess or control a firearm unless they have a valid registration certificate for the firearm. Registration certificates are available for rifles and shotguns, but D.C. Code § 7- 2502.02(a) forbids issuing a registration certificate for any pistol that was not registered to the current registrant in the District prior to September 24, 1976.
D.C. Code § 7-2507.02 requires that registrants keep all firearms in their possession “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device.” The only exceptions are for guns kept at a place of business and guns being used for lawful recreational purposes within the district.
It is illegal to move a lawfully registered pistol on your own property. D.C. Code § 22-3204, an old law, once made an exception for people moving a gun within their own home or business or on their own land. The new law, D.C. Code § 22-4504, forbids any carrying of a handgun, even in your own house or business or on your own land.
“{W}ith very rare exceptions licenses to carry pistols have not been issued in the District of Columbia for many years and are virtually unobtainable.” Bsharah v. United States, 646 A.2d 993, 996 n.12 (D.C. 1994).
Quoted at http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/Parker_cross_petition.pdf app. 18, no 32.
Quoted at http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/Parker_cross_petition.pdf app. 18, no 32.
“BTW, the issue in Heller is not the trigger lock requirement per se. It's that the there is no exception allowing the gun to be unlocked in a self-defense emergency; in the 1977 case of McIntosh v. Washington, the D.C. Court of Appeals upheld the home self-defense ban against challenges that it violated equal protection and the common law right of self-defense. The McIntosh court agreed with D.C's lawyers and recognized the statute as an absolute ban on home self-defense with any firearm; this was held to be rational because of the number of fatal gun accidents was (according to the McIntosh court) larger than the number justiable self-defense homicides with guns.”—David Kopel, Polls on handgun bans, March 16, 2008. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_03_16-2008_03_22.shtml .
Of course, people can always call the police. Here is some DC legal history on that:
Illustrative of this {police} failure is the case of Warren v.District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981.) In the late winter of 1975, three women (Warren, Taliaferro and Douglas, plus Douglas‟s four-year-old daughter) were asleep in a rooming house on Lamont Street, NW in the District. In the early morning hours, two burglars entered the property and raped Douglas. Warren and Taliaferro heard Douglas‟ screams and called the MPD at 6:23 a.m. to report a burglary in progress. They were assured police were on the way. At 6:26 a.m., three cruisers were dispatched to the rooming house on a “priority 2” call. One officer knocked on the door while other officers remained in their cruisers. Receiving no response at the door, the officers left. Warren and Taliaferro watched in horror from the roof of their building before crawling back into their room, where they continued to hear Douglas‟ screams. They called the MPD again at 6:42 a.m. and asked for immediate assistance. Again, they were told assistance was on the way. The dispatcher never dispatched additional police, unbeknownst to the two who yelled reassurance to Douglas and were, as a result, discovered by the burglars. All three women were then abducted at knifepoint and held prisoner for 14 additional hours, while being beaten, robbed, raped and directed to perform sex acts on each other.
All three women subsequently brought a tort action against the MPD for its failure to respond and protect them from the assaults. All three had their cases dismissed. Amicus Brief of Buckeye Firearms Foundation http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wpcontent/
uploads/2008/02/07-290_amicus_buckeye.pdf , 37-8.
All three women subsequently brought a tort action against the MPD for its failure to respond and protect them from the assaults. All three had their cases dismissed. Amicus Brief of Buckeye Firearms Foundation http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wpcontent/
uploads/2008/02/07-290_amicus_buckeye.pdf , 37-8.
Let's summarize the legal reality in DC, the “best in the nation” gun control regime that got a “B-” rating from the Brady Campaign:
You were legally required to pay for police protection, but the police had no obligation to protect you.
It was a crime in the District of Columbia to have a gun in your home that could actually shoot bullets. Guns were OK, as long as they were useless. In order to ensure their uselessness, they had to be kept unloaded. In order to be doubly sure, they had to be kept disassembled or bound by a trigger lock. Making a gun useful by assembling (or unlocking) and loading it was a crime. The excuse that you were trying to protect your family—or repel a rapist or avoid death—would not do.
These were the laws regarding long guns—rifles and shotguns. The situation with handguns was even worse.
You could not possess a handgun that you did not register before Sept 1976. Even if you had a registered handgun, you needed a special permit to move it from room to room in your own house. Permits were impossible to get. And of course your registered handgun had to remain useless at all times. (You could load guns kept at your place of business.)
Basically, if your family was being killed, raped, tortured, or kidnapped in your own house, you were forbidden by law to load a weapon to defend them (or yourself). You were, however, allowed to load a gun to protect your money and goods at your place of business.
If that earned a good grade from the Brady Campaign, what would earn a perfect score?
When I hear terms like “reasonable” “common sense” and “sensible” coming out of the mouths of the Brady Campaign, I know what they really mean. And while I think the odds of them getting what they want in toto are slim, they got close to “perfection” with the District of Columbia. I don’t want any Americans to be ruled by laws approved by the Brady Campaign and their fellow travelers.
There are things that can be done to keep unfit people from getting guns, things most people would gladly accept. But I don't trust the anti-gun leadership. I laid out the reason for extreme caution long ago:
It would be stupid to attempt to negotiate in “good faith” regarding the regulation of your rights, when the person across the table refuses to admit the existence of those rights.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=170607&mesg_id=172751
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=170607&mesg_id=172751
December 12, 2012
What will happen when or if Illinois (and especially Chicago) are forced to allow shall issue CCW?
Now is the time to go on the record:
December 3, 2012
I don't understand how this post ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021917923 ) qualifies, unless it is considered "really big news." I have a hard time believing that a commentator taking the position of our President--there is a constitutional right to bear arms--and using halftime to praise lifesaving efforts with a gun and extoll gun rights would be considered "really big news" and allowed to remain in GD, never mind make it to The Left Column.
So my question is simple. Are the rules even supposed to be enforced evenly, or are they just pleasant fictions? If they are pleasant fictions, why not revise them to say the truth--"pro gun posts will be relegated to the gun forum; anti-gun posts will selectively be allowed in GD"?
Are the rules regarding gun related posts supposed to be enforced uniformly?
The Statement of Purpose of the General Discussion Forum:
Discuss politics, issues, and current events. No posts about... guns,... or sports unless there is really big news. No conspiracy theories. No whining about DU.
I don't understand how this post ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021917923 ) qualifies, unless it is considered "really big news." I have a hard time believing that a commentator taking the position of our President--there is a constitutional right to bear arms--and using halftime to praise lifesaving efforts with a gun and extoll gun rights would be considered "really big news" and allowed to remain in GD, never mind make it to The Left Column.
So my question is simple. Are the rules even supposed to be enforced evenly, or are they just pleasant fictions? If they are pleasant fictions, why not revise them to say the truth--"pro gun posts will be relegated to the gun forum; anti-gun posts will selectively be allowed in GD"?
Profile Information
Member since: Sat Apr 12, 2008, 04:28 PMNumber of posts: 4,286
