re: Upcoming Supreme Court session on legality of gun ownership....

[zanne]

http://www.freedomstatesalliance.com/?p=160

This site will provide you with some issues worth exploring. It's a pro-gun control site, so be advised.

[davepc]

1. Know your local gun control astro-turf organization....

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/davepc/2

Theirs just something so....democratic...about a small group of wealth people spending money absent a grass roots movement to push policy.

[jody]

3. Thanks for the link. n/t

[SteveM]

2. Over 40 briefs have been filed on behalf of Heller. A splendid one:...

www.georgiacarry.org This brief outlines the history of gun control and has found it to be a font of racism of the worst sort. And it isn't just old history. If you support gun control, you will find this interesting, but not very enjoyable.

[Paladin]

9. The Racists In This Country All Over On The Far Right Side......

....keeping company with liberal haters like you....

[johnbraun]

28. Fail. Fallacy of the illicit major.

Are you kidding? The Stormfront wackos LOVE gun control!

They favor the creation of a special class of people (ie. them) that are allowed to bear arms, while the racial minorities they hate need to be disarmed.

They favor liberalizing gun laws for everybody and will take advantage of it until they can implement the set of laws they like favoring them.

Hence, your comparison is just a common logical fallacy: the illicit major.

In case you don't know what that is:

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

Your argument runs thus:
Racists are bad.
Racists favor individual gun rights.
Therefore, individual gun rights are bad.

To illustrate the flaw in your position:
Racists are bad.
Racists eat vegetables.
Therefore, eating vegetables is bad.

:)

[Boomer 50]

34. Not true at all

You have hate mongers on all sides. I've been on the receiving end of many racial slurs from Democrats for years, up until they find out I'm coming out to vote Dem then their whole attutide changes.

Hell, I was spit on by a Dem poll worker because I had a GOA hat on. The woman had no qualms about showing that kind of hatred in front of her young daughter who was with her. Sad.

[SteveM]

41. That went over like a bad fart in a good VW. (nt)

[jody]

4. All briefs filed in D.C. v. Heller can be found at the link below.

http://dcguncase.com/blog/case-filings/

[zanne]

5. You can also go to

http://www.gunguys.com/?p=1806

They keep track of gun homicides in the U.S. They send a weekly newsletter. Excellent site with real statistics.

[beevul]

6. "Excellent site with real statistics". Yes. Real PHONY ones.

"People have said that they can use this for hunting, but the damage that it'll do to an animal is so tremendous that it actually vaporizes the area that it strikes," said Maj. Greg Letcourt."


This in talking about a rifle, and you dare to insinuate that this site has so much as a shred of credibility?

Wait, aren't these guys the same assclowns that said that handguns weren't invented until after the civil war?


"Handguns-- as we know them-- did not exist at the time the Constitution was written, until the forerunner of the modern handgun became mass marketed after the Civil War. So how can they have been protected under the Second Amendment when they didn't exist at the time?

http://www.gunguys.com/?p=1966

Yup. Same bunch.


You have got to be able to do better than this.

[verges]

7. Respectfully disagree.

"Handguns-- as we know them-- did not exist at the time the Constitution was written, until the forerunner of the modern handgun became mass marketed after the Civil War. So how can they have been protected under the Second Amendment when they didn't exist at the time?"

Handguns in the 18th century were single shot wad and pellet affairs. The practical revolver wasn't invented until mid-19th century, and the automatic even later than that. And, I don't have a problem believing that they weren't available to the general public until post-civil war. Therefore, handguns as we currently know them, weren't available at the time of the constitution.

[hack89]

8. Crappy logic though

apply it to the First Amendment and see where it takes you. It would make Bush and his wire tapping cronies happy as hell.

[verges]

10. First Amendment?

Don't you mean Second? And, I don't really currently have an opinion on the issue. Just defending the accuracy of the statement, which you seemed to be questioning.

[sergeiAK]

12. He meant

That the logic in that post was dangerous. If the 2nd Amendment only covers muzzle-loading weapons, "wad and pellet affairs" as you call them, the 1st can be assumed to only mean hand presses and unamplified voice.

The founding fathers wrote those amendments as they did for very good reasons, they knew technology would change, but they left all of the rights so broadly defined that they covered any imaginable invention.

[SteveM]

42. Yep, First. See "press." Yet you are on a computer and protected. (nt)

[BadgerLaw2010]

13. And all guns were single shot muzzleloaders at the time. What's your point?

The functionality of a handgun was the same as a modern handgun in that it is a concealed weapon that is only good for killing people at very close range, and that it is generally much better suited to criminal activity than long arms.

I do not see how this argument has merit.

[krispos42]

15. It's the second part of the phrase that's misleading

The implication is that is has some bearing on the first sentence, which it does not. A handguns, whether from 1790 or 1990, is indisputedly an arm you can bear.

Repeating rifles and shotguns didn't exist, either. You see where this is going.

Similarly, the government cannot arbitrarily shut down gunguys.com because it wasn't printed on a printing press.

[L1A1Rocker]

17. If we follow that logic path then the first amendment

will only apply to the spoken word and ONLY on anything printed on a Gutenberg press. All other forms regarding freedom of speech could be banned. No modern printing, internet, etc etc.

NOT a good analogy!

[Plague]

25. Agreed

Using time period specific considerations in regards to the bill of rights really goes wholly against the entire concept of the bill of rights. They don't 'expire' due to changes in technology.

[EricTeri]

27. You can BELIEVE they werent available to the general public

And you'd be wrong.

They were available to the general public before they were available to the military. This may surprise you to realize this, but technological advances in firearms tend to hit the public before the government.

BTW - if you're going to use that "logic" you have to use the same "logic" on the 1st Amendment too.

[SteveM]

48. Case in point: lever-action repeating rifles...

This was a practical and reliable technology during the Civil War (Henrys and Spencers), but the hide-bound U.S. Army refused to adopt the rifles, even after Lincoln tried one out and approved. Only when some commanders and soldiers pooled money to acquire repeaters on their own were special brigades formed to combat the Confederacy: "that infernal rifle you load on Sunday and fire all week!" Even after the Civil War, the Army refused to adopt these rifles. The civilian population and native Americans, however, saw great use for them. (I believe that Custer's command suffered annihilation in large measure because the Indians they opposed had special squadrons armed with repeaters. The Army used single-shot rifles.)

[Boomer 50]

35. Multi shot pistols came out in the1600's

The forerunner to the "pepperbox" and the "duckfoot" pistols were used before the United States ever existed.

The first true revolver invented by Samuel Colt was available to the public in 1836, nearly twenty five years before the civil war. The first cartridge arms were manufactured before the civil war as well. The first "machine gun" was introduced in 1854 and saw limited action in the civil war. That same design with a couple of modernizing modifications is in use today. It was invented by a dentist named Gatling.

[BadgerLaw2010]

11. Having used a .338 with high energy softpoints at 20 yards, I don't think a rifle can vape animal.

And handguns actually predate useful rifles. By a lot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheellock#History

[L1A1Rocker]

18. Why let reality get in the way of hyperbole?

[johnbraun]

26. GunGuys is also funded by the anti-gun Joyce Foundation.

nt

[jody]

32. Obama was a board member of the Joyce Foundation that gave $4,154,970 to Violence Policy Center for

programs to ban handguns.

Presumably as a board member, Obama approved those donations to fund programs seeking a ban on handguns.

No problem, BO is a political chameleon and he's really into "change".

It will be interesting to see BO masquerade as a born-again, NRA zealot.

IMO, the Repugs will have a field day with BO on the RKBA issue if he's our candidate in the GE.

[jmg257]

29. "Each dragoon to furnish himself with...a pair of pistols,"

" The officers to be armed with a sword or hanger, a fusee, bayonet and belt, with a cartridge box to contain twelve cartridges; and each private of matoss shall furnish themselves with good horses of at least fourteen hands and an half high, and to be armed with a sword and pair of pistols, the holsters of which to be covered with bearskin caps. Each dragoon to furnish himself with a serviceable horse, at least fourteen hands and an half high, a good saddle, bridle, mail-pillion and valise, holster, and a best plate and crupper, a pair of boots and spurs; a pair of pistols, a sabre, and a cartouchbox to contain twelve cartridges for pistols."


Militia Act of 1792 - pistols are clearly covered by the militia observation in the 2nd, and also by the intent to secure the people's right for self-defense, law enforcement, and private use.

[HiDemGunOwner]

39. I was at that hearing

"People have said that they can use this for hunting, but the damage that it'll do to an animal is so tremendous that it actually vaporizes the area that it strikes," said Maj. Greg Letcourt."

In addition to that hyperbole, he held up a .50 cal and said it would shoot down an airplane. Of course the fact that one of "ours" testified, and brought in a picture of a large deer taken with a .50 cal that was obviously NOT "vaporized" were facts immaterial to his load of crap. They had another hearing today on the matter, so I have to see what happened.

Gun control folks care little about facts, if they did, they probably wouldn't be so anti-gun.

[HiDemGunOwner]

47. Yeah! That Bill is dead for the year

In case anyone is interested...the Hawaii House of Representatives' omnibus Bill HB2999, of which the .50 cal ban was part, died for the year, as did a similar Bill in the Senate. It had been resurrected by the author for a reconsideration hearing, but he couldn't even get enough Representatives to come to make a quorum, so it's back to being dead again.

[bossy22]

49. good

I have yet to figure out why police push this kinda stuff....sometimes i think it is just a P.R. stunt to make the department look better- its good the legislature told them off

As much as i am pro-law enforcement (well im pro-beat cop, not so much the admin staff) sometimes i think that if they (the upper brass) had their way with everything we would have almost no constitutional rights at all

[L1A1Rocker]

16. those gunguys remind me

of the old axiom: Figures don't lie but liars figure. Beware of gunguys.

[benEzra]

19. This is the group that claims small-caliber rifles with modern styling...

are such a HUGE crime problem in the United States.

2005 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,860.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,543......50.76%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....1,954......13.15%
Edged weapons.............................1,914......12.88%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,598......10.75%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................892.......6.00%
Shotguns....................................517.......3.48%
Rifles......................................442.......2.97%

2006 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,990.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,795......52.00%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....2,158......14.40%
Edged weapons.............................1,822......12.15%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,465.......9.77%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................833.......5.56%
Shotguns....................................481.......3.21%
Rifles......................................436.......2.91%

Gullibility is not a progressive trait, FWIW.

[michreject]

20. Buncha ass clowns

Who wouldn't know the truth if it bit them in the ass.

[jmg257]

30. Best sites for homicide & violent crime data is the FBI. Accidental death data is CDC/WISQARS.

Pure stats, no bullshit.

[Ikonoklast]

14. From their website (thnx davepc)

Changing the Way Americans Think About Guns
Before America can enact significant policies to reduce gun violence we must challenge the belief that our citizens are safe in a country flooded with deadly guns; from junk handguns and cop-killing assault weapons to deadly sniper rifles and weapons designed for the battlefield. We have to engage in a dialog about whether Americans can be truly free when gun violence terrorizes our communities, destroys our families, and plagues our nation.


I have hanging from the mantle of my fireplace one of the most efficient weapons used in wartime, also as a sniper rifle, and was specifically designed to kill people on a battlefield. It also has a bayonet lug.



It is a Colts Rifled Musket, 1863 Type II Springfield. In a trained rifleman's hand, one of the most feared and accurate weapons of the U.S. Civil War.

Would this rifle be banned? It fits many of their criteria.

[gorfle]

31. I love how they try to frame the argument.

Before America can enact significant policies to reduce gun violence we must challenge the belief that our citizens are safe in a country flooded with deadly guns; from junk handguns and cop-killing assault weapons to deadly sniper rifles and weapons designed for the battlefield.

I love how they try and frame the argument.

"Junk handguns". Right. Walk into any gun store and show me the junk handguns. Until very recently with the new Hi-Point C9, which retails for $140, just about any handgun bought from a gun store will set you back at least $200. Most are $350 and up. The Hi-Point C9 is the only low-cost, quality firearm that I am aware of today.

The whole "junk handgun" thing is the new "Saturdy Night Special". The idea is that there are tons of cheap handguns out there for anyone to buy. I'd love to know where they are, so I can go buy some, too. You aren't going to buy any cheap handguns from an FFL dealer, I can tell you that from experience. Maybe criminals get better deals on street corners, I don't know, but no law has slowed them down or is ever going to.

"Cop-killing assault weapons". Right. All rifles combined make up less than 3% of homicides in our country. I'm sure "assault" rifles make up even less. I'm sure police killed by assault rifles is even less. Why do we have to paint assault weapons as "cop killers", eh? Is it because they're trying to villify them? I think so.

"Deadly sniper rifles". Right. You can take just about any rifle and put a quality scope on it and you've got a "deadly sniper rifle". Also known as grandpa's hunting rifle. I've heard the old 1853 Enfield, a black powder arm from the Civil War, was good out to many hundreds of yards.

[johnbraun]

33. Don't forget that "Saturday Night Special" was originally "Niggertown Saturday Night Special".

...and to the mods, this phrase was used in Sherrill's book "The Saturday Night Special" written in 1973, now out of print. It referred to a handgun cheap enough that a black person could own it.

The term dates from the 1890s and was sanitized in the 1920s - but the message is the same. Legislators don't want dark people to have firearms. We DEMS should stay away from gun control, as it links us to racism and discrimination.

[SteveM]

43. Growing up in N. Florida as a kid, I used to hear that expression a lot...

or some variation of it. The pot-metal .25s (selling for $7 at the 7-11) were referred to as "N----- guns" by some racists. I learned quickly why most blacks got guns, cheap or no. Down the road a piece, in Rosewood, Fla., the Carrier family (January, 1923) had more stout weapons...

"At the foot of the stairs crouched Sylvester Carrier, waiting with a pump-handled shotgun and Winchester rifle... the front door burst open... Sylvester squeezed one of his triggers, and with a deafening blast, Poly Wilkerson (quarters boss) fell back on the porch, shot through the face. A voice shouted, Sylvester fired again, and Henry Andrews (sawmill superintendent, Otter Creek) dropped dead as well... One of the mob moved toward the bodies on the porch but was driven back by a fusillade from inside the house. Another tried climbing toward an upstairs window but was knocked back with a bullet wound to the head." LIKE JUDGMENT DAY, the Ruin and Redemption of a Town Called Rosewood, Michael D'Orso, Boulevard Books, 1996, NY.

The gun battle didn't prevent Rosewood's virtual destruction, but it may have marked the last time a race pogrom was attempted in Florida. To this day, in some rural areas, both blacks and Crackers, when approaching the others' respective houses try to stay off the porch to do any communicating or until invited to approach closer.

Saturday Night Special indeed.

[jmg257]

21. "According to a 1995 US News and World Report poll, 75 percent of American voters believe the..."

"According to a 1995 US News and World Report poll, 75 percent of American voters believe the Constitution gives them the right to own a gun."


Sweet! A huge majority of the people of this country actually knows the law - well it's intent anyway, of course "gives" is the wrong word - "secures" is much more accurate.

And even more recently - this year!

"Do you have a legal right to own a gun?
"By Joan Biskupic, USA TODAY
Nearly three out of four Americans — 73% — believe the Second Amendment spells out an individual right to own a firearm, according to a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll of 1,016 adults taken Feb. 8-10. {2008}"



Thanks Zanne - great stuff!

[sepulveda]

36. we need further evolvement

to the belief that the constitution recognizes the right to own and CARRY a gun

that's the goal

[EricTeri]

37. Evolvement?

Hardly. It just needs to be beaten into the heads of those who refuse to accept it.

You know, kinda like we had to do with stubborn whites who refused to accept blacks as equals.

People who attempt to infringe upon the 2nd Amendment should be sued and/or jailed - just as we did with other civil rights violations.

[jmg257]

38. Or face the National Guard! "Whenever an unlawful combination.."

...so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or
possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that
State or possession, that any part or class of its people is
deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted
authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or
refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; "

[HiDemGunOwner]

40. Here's an idea.

"People who attempt to infringe upon the 2nd Amendment should be sued and/or jailed - just as we did with other civil rights violations."

Here in Hawaii, it is virtually impossible to get a CCW, as it is a "may issue" state and the police refuse to issue to anyone. So, my thought is to have lots of folks go apply en mass, and do so every year. When one of those folks who applied and then denied a CCW is the victim of a violent criminal act, in which it is unlikely the police would be able to respond to quickly enough to prevent, the victim now has a basis to sue the State. To wit, the police do not have the obligation to protect you; they were unable to protect you; and you sought, and were denied, the means to protect yourself.

[sepulveda]

50. hawaii

you don't have a right to sue based on that scenario. there is plenty of case law on it.

and i used to be a cop in hawaii. even *i* could not get a permit to carry a gun. i could carry on my "badge" and that was it. you could be a cop there for 30 yrs with a spotless record and the day you retire you can't carry a gun.

it's one of the most ridiculously anti-gun states there is

[jmg257]

22. "A federal court strikes down DC Ban.."

-2007: A federal appeals court strikes down a Washington, D.C., ban on handguns and declares that the Second Amendment "protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for such activities as hunting and self-defense


What is also cool is that the USSC reviewing this case isn't trying to decide what the 2nd amendment means - we already know that, they are just trying to decide if DC's ban conflicts with the individual right it secures.

On the heels of the federal law congress enacted in 2005 - just more great news about our liberties...



Congress finds the following:
(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms.

[jmg257]

23. "gun control absent from presidential campaign" They can be taught!

Subject of gun control absent from presidential campaign
GAIL COLLINS

"I shot a banded duck," said Hillary Clinton.

Who says we have heard everything there conceivably could be to say from the presidential candidates?


"I'm pretty sure there will be duck hunting in heaven, and I can't wait." -- Mike Huckabee

"I've been a hunter pretty much all my life." -- Mitt Romney

"I've always been a rodent and rabbit hunter. Small varmints if you will." -- Mitt Romney, amending the record once it was pointed out that he had never had a hunting license.

"Maybe he can get out his small varmint gun and drive those Guatemalans off his yard." -- John McCain

"My father taught me to shoot 100 years ago." -- Hillary Clinton



More good news, along with Obama's recent switch.

[jmg257]

24. "Interior Department said this week it would review laws that ban guns.."

The Interior Department said this week it would review laws that ban guns on lands administered by the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service.


in 2006, there were 384 violent crimes, including 11 killings and 35 rapes, reported in the more than 272 million visits to the nation's 390 national parks, Kupper said. Many of those crimes were reported to the United States Park Police, which covers metropolitan areas such as Washington, D.C., New York City, and San Francisco

[dude77]

44. with our right wing court, the outcome is predictable

Their verdict will be pro-NRA.

[bossy22]

45. Pro-NRA?

you do know the NRA isnt funding this right? infact they tried to stop it and only recently came onboard with it. This is the work of a law firm and a rich lawyer looking to challenge the ban. Also it seems like you will be unhappy about a verdict that is pro-rights. You do know that gun controls will still be found constitutional- background checks, prohibited persons.

[jmg257]

46. Or pro-Constitution - GOTTA LOVE THAT!