The Miami (FL) Herald let lose with another propagandistic broadside against the 2nd Amendment on Thursday featuring some more moaning and false statements about how horrible it is for America that the misnamed "assault weapons ban" has lapsed. There is much wringing of hands, waterworks, histrionics and over dramatics by the aptly named Fred Grimm here. In "What's a few dead cops to the gun lobby?" Grimm's final pronouncement is that the 2nd Amendment is a "mythical right" but in between there are many misstatements and out right lies.
Grimm starts out putting on some faux "shock" that a modern "semiautomatic assault rifle" he had the occasion to handle was so light. "The shock was in the weight of the thing. Less than six pounds," Grimm writes. And, what exactly does this mean? A butcher knife weighs less then a pound and can kill, too. What does weight have to do with anything?
Then the scare tactics:
I thought how easy it would be for some kid, some 110-pound wild-dog street punk, to heft an AR-6520 and wield it to hellish effect.
OK, so the gun is not heavy. This makes the gun somehow less than safe? Guess what, Mr. Grimm. Cars weigh in the tons and teenagers kill themselves by the thousands each year with them. In fact, they kill themselves FAR more with cars than they do guns. Yes, thousands die a year, Mr. Grimm, even though cars are really, really heavy.
Shocking, eh?
Then Grimm goes off lamenting that police forces are spending money on "assault rifles" because of the lapse of the so-called "assault weapons ban."
No wonder Fort Lauderdale is spending $82,000 for guns designed to kill enemy soldiers. Police know that since the expiration of the federal assault weapon ban, young criminals have ginned up the arms race.
So, Grimm seems to make the claim that "assault weapons" are suddenly everywhere? Naturally, Grimm doesn't bother to give us any facts and figures to buttress this wild claim. He just states it as fact and moves on. He also makes the absurd claim that small time criminals can easily come up with the "three grand" that he says the street price for one has reached, saying that illegal gun dealers...
...Sell them out of car trunks at twice the price to gangbangers, drug dealers and armed robbers who want to upgrade to cop killers. Sell them to felons. Sell them to kids. Sell them to certifiably crazy people as long as crazy people can ante up a cold three grand.
Nice scare tactics and propaganda. Lacking in truth, but nice propaganda.
Then Grimm makes with what he must think are "facts."
In 2004, Congress allowed the ban on assault weapons to expire. The federal law suffered major loopholes, but it still had the effect of tamping down the firepower cops faced on the streets. Since the ban was jettisoned, police groups like the International Association of Chiefs of Police have lamented that the bad guys have the cops outgunned.
But, there is no evidence whatsoever that this gun ban really did have the "effect of tamping down firepower." Even those in the Senate that support this gun banning law said that the rate of so-called "assault weapons" used in gun crime was only at 3.5 percent of gun crimes before the ban went into effect. And that is using their own numbers which are probably suspect because they are being used for their own propaganda.
Three percent of anything is statistically insignificant. In 1999 a study was done by Jeffery A. Roth and Christopher S. Koper of the National Institute of Justice and paid for by the Clinton Administration. The study of 15 states found that there might have been a 6.7% decline in murder rates where the Federal gun ban "could have" made a difference. But, in the end, even this Clinton paid for study admitted that assault weapons had been used in such a tiny number of crimes before the ban that it wasn't really provable that the assault weapons ban had any significant effect at all. Saying, "it is highly improbable that the assault weapons ban produced an effect this large," the report didn't do much to help Clinton prove the ban worked in 1999 and things have not changed that much since.
It should also be noted that the claims of "cop killer bullets" linked with the word "assault weapon" is meaningless rhetoric. The same, high power, so-called "cop killing" bullets that some military weapons fire can also be fired by some hunting rifles. So, to link these high powered bullets only with "assault weapons" as if only those sorts of weapons can use them is disingenuous to say the least.
Our Grimm one ends his propaganda with some suitably dramatic nonsense.
Congress demonstrated in 2004 how much value was placed on the mythical right of private citizens to own semiautomatic military assault rifles.
How much? More than a few dead cops.
I see. So the Second Amendment is a "mythical right," eh? Sorry, but the Founders just don't agree with you, Mr. Grimm.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
What a moron!
June 5, 2008 - 22:50 ET by americaneagleThe cops should have upgraded their weapons a long time ago, IMO. Riot guns are great and all, but when the cops are facing semi-auto rifles that shotgun just isn't going to cut it! And where would the cops in the bank shootout in LA a few years ago have been without the firepower they were abe to get from the gun stores? Without that "mythical" right the cops would have remained outgunned and held off by two perps!
It never ceases to amaze me that people like this think that only the cops should have access to weapons. Why don't they go ask the cops in England how that is working out? I bet they would be shocked to find out that when the government there banned guns for private citizens that gun crime actually rose!
What the British are
June 5, 2008 - 23:05 ET by MidAmericaWhat the British are really concerned about is rising knife crime. Hey... do you suppose guns are not the real problem? Maybe it's that people intent on violence will use any means available.
I hear in France there are
June 5, 2008 - 23:08 ET by BlazerI hear in France there are rampant drive-by trebuche-ings.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
Am I a bad person for
June 6, 2008 - 09:26 ET by CortillaenAm I a bad person for wanting to see that?
www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
The LA Police had only buckshot.
June 6, 2008 - 11:47 ET by ahusserIf they had carried rifled slug for their shotguns as well as buckshot they wouldn't have needed to get the guns in the gunshop. Even so most rural police especially in the western states carry rifles of some sort. I recall the liberal hoolabaloo in the early 70's when the the police wanted to use Jacketed hollow point rather than the somewhat puny ball ammo they carried back then. You would have thought the police were being given the double oo status and were going to kill everyone with the new ammo the libs were howling at the moon over this "killer" ammo.
Hey, Fred, what say you to
June 5, 2008 - 23:26 ET by motherbeltHey, Fred, what say you to talking about the mythical right to abortion on demand?
I'll bet you think that one's cast in stone!!
Fred Grimm
June 5, 2008 - 23:25 ET by thebronzeis an anti-gun buffoon. Liberalism is a mental disease...
Mr. Grimm knows
June 5, 2008 - 23:28 ET by sixgunMr. Grimm knows perfectly well that it is not about dead Police Officers, bullets, or assault weapons. It's ALL guns. It's in the libs play book. Start with "military" hardware. Who "needs" it? It should be banned. Now, who "needs" these "high powered" rifles. They should be banned. Now, who "needs"......ect. ect. ect. And, they never let facts get in their way. Ever notice who comes out to support the convicted cop killers? Mr. Grimm knows!!
Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty teeth.-George Washington
Grimm represents one of the
June 6, 2008 - 00:41 ET by bigtimerGrimm represents one of the reasons why we have the Second Amendment.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
Monumentally stupid Fred Grimm - anti gun moron
June 6, 2008 - 00:48 ET by jefflebowskiI think that Fred should concentrate on writing about the proper face creams or fashion accessories for homo/metrosexuals in South Beach.
Same old tired liberal attempts to get rid of the 2nd Amendment which he calls "mythical." Is the First Amendment "mythical?"
Jeff Lebowski
www.angrywhitedude.c...
For some balance with the mulletwrapper...
June 6, 2008 - 05:20 ET by sarcasmoI present one of the many libertarians who makes me seem "reasonable." L. Neil Smith, courtesy of JPFO -- a group this world needs way more than it needs an NRA, even though they're less widely known.
JMR
ALERT FROM JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP
America's Aggressive Civil Rights Organization
June 5th 2008
JPFO ALERT:THE KIMBER KISS-UP
By L. Neil Smith <mailtto:lneil@netzero.com
For Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
http://www.JPFO.org
For those of us who make the transition from gun owner and shooter
to Second Amendment activist, the most disillusioning phenomenon we
have to face is that not everyone we might expect to be an ally in the
fight for the right to own and carry weapons can actually be relied
on.
When I first became involved in this historical struggle, Smith &
Wesson, that quintessentially American revolver manufacturer was
actually owned by a British holding company that didn't give a rap
about the Second Amendment, was much more concerned with the company's
sales to police departments across the country, and was inclined to go
along with any regulatory scheme politicians and bureaucrats came up
with.
Similarly, the late Bill Ruger, the head Sturm Ruger & Company,
never seemed to understand the Second Amendment. Paternalist and
aristocrat that he appeared to fancy himself, he actually volunteered
advice to the government concerning what he believed ought to be legal
(whatever his company manufactured) and what should be outlawed. We
have Ruger mostly to thank for the ten-round limit that was imposed
during the ill-conceived Clinton-Dole Ugly Gun and Adequate Magazine
Ban.
Some gun companies and their executives care only about the bottom
line. Hired away from soft drink or underwear manufacturers, the men
at the top don't really have any moral or sentimental attachment to
the product itself. They don't love what they do. They might as well
be manufacturing faucet washers. I don't suppose there's anything
wrong with that, as far as it goes -- I'm a big fan of capitalism,
myself -- but other companies are like the historic makers of fine
musical instruments -- violins and guitars. Money is important chiefly
in that it keeps the company and its employees going. What really
counts is the quality of their product and the satisfaction of their
customers.
Wildey J. Moore, inventor of magnum automatic pistols comes to
mind. He actually ran for office in his home state as a libertarian
and Second Amendment advocate. Ronnie Barrett stoutly refuses to sell
his famous .50 caliber rifles to agencies of gun-banning governments,
and he won't service the ones they already have. STI International
won't sell their nifty 1911s to California police agencies because of
the bizarre, insane microstamping scheme passed by that state's
legislature.
Regrettably, another famous maker of 1911s, Kimber Manufacturing,
seems to have trouble separating the goodguys from the badguys.
According to an article by Ken Hanson, Esq., circulated on the Web by
the Buckeye Firearms Association, and appearing on _U.S. Concealed
Carry Magazine_'s website, Kimber has acquired a bad habit: kissing up
disgustingly to the destroyers of individual liberty by creating
weapons especially dedicated to various California police agencies. In
Hanson's words, these guns were specifically "designed for a local
government committed to stripping civilians of the right to own _this
same gun_."
Emphasis added.
See: http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/5674
Hanson urges his readers to "educate" Kimber with regard to what a
terrible idea this is. It's exactly as if Jewish tailors in the 1930s
had taken pride in making uniforms for the Nazi S.S. There is no moral
distinction. The author suggests a number of actions that concerned
gun owners might take. chiefly calling or writing to the company at
914-964-0771x324, or via US mail at Kimber, 2590 Hwy 35, Kalispell, MT
59901.
Although Hanson wants you to warn Kimber and its dealers of a
possible boycott of their products by shooters concerned with their
rights, he suggests your communication remain "polite, professional
yet firm". I would make no such suggestion. This is a major breach of
an implicit moral bond between a gunmaker and its clients, it is the
rankest, most repulsive kind of hypocrisy, and it must be dealt with
no less promptly and harshly than I urged in my 2000 essay "S&W Must
Die".
See: http://www.jpfo.org/alerts/alert20000406.htm
The worldwide boycott which that essay helped to start broke S&W
and sent them plunging -- repeatedly -- into bankruptcy. (Much the
same thing happened to K-Mart when they foolishly hired the slavering,
hysterical anti-gunner Rosie O'Donnell as their spokeswoman.) It is a
story of which no firearms manufacturer today can possibly still be
ignorant.
In short, we must ask shooters to _kick the Kimber habit_.
I agree with Hanson about the need for gun owners to react to
Kimber's suicidal stupidity, but I would suggest _also_ dealing with
the problem at the other end. Why not a written pledge, to be taken
and signed by individual police officers, that they will never attempt
to confiscate weapons from civilians, whether it's during disasters
like Hurricane Katrina, or as a result of local, state, or federal
legislation.
If it's unconstitutional, it's automatically null and void.
That pledge can be archived by an organization like JPFO, and
openly displayed online, making it easier to see who the goodguys and
the badguys are. We could probably even design and make a nice little
embroidered patch -- it might say "BILL OF RIGHTS ENFORCER" -- for the
pledge-making police officers to sew on their uniforms. Until their
superiors, veins standing out on their foreheads and little gobbets of
spit blasting from their lips as they scream, order them to take it
off.
Of course that, in itself, will teach cops everywhere a valuable
lesson, and even make them ask themselves an important question,
"Why am I helping to destroy The Bill of Rights", and the Kimber
Kiss-ups should ask themselves the same question.
Visit JPFO.org, and learn how you can obtain a Springfield Armory
pistol for just a few hundred dollars ........
http://www.jpfo.org/alerts02/alert20080415.htm
Please support JPFO with donations, memberships and purchase of
our materials ( http://shop.jpfo.org/ ) - so we can continue to
provide you with these alerts.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PS - Visit our alert archive / sign up to receive email alerts -
http://www.jpfo.org/alerts.htm
(Please - if you receive these and do not want them,
use the unsubscribe option below, we do not wish
to spam anyone.)
==================================================================
Remember, JPFO annual membership only costs 7c a day - go to -
http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/member.htm
New! - need help with links,downloads, file saves etc?
Check out our help page -
http://www.jpfo.org/articles-assd/jpfo-help.htm
~~~ JPFO mirror site: http://www.jpfo.net ~~~
==================================================================
Box 270143,Hartford ,WI 53027, USA
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
THE BILL OF RIGHTS...
June 6, 2008 - 05:59 ET by danybhoyI hear/read crap like this & it makes me wonder about the 1st Amendment, but as a loudmouth I take the freedom of speech seriously, for everyone. What sort of noise would we hear if right wingers decided to close the Miami Herald because of their view about guns? Everyone would be right in saying that they have the right to say what they like, but about 20% of those people would have no problem taking our guns. Disarm the people, & then they are at the will of whatever gov't wants to do. Hitler disarmed the population, & he could do as he pleased, & he did.
The Miami Herald needs to rethink this stance, scrapping the 2nd Amendment could pave the way for scrapping the whole constitution, destroying the nation as we know it. It is already being balkanized as it is, this would go a long way to splitting this nation up, & there are secession groups in the south & north who want nothing to do with the other. How about western oil states that might seek engery independence through secession from northeastern elites & Hollywood types & try leaving the union. Many people in conservative states feel they are being screwed, & outside of what I listed above, scrap the ELECTORAL COLLEGE, to make sure these conservative western states have no real power in the political process, & what I have said will not seem so "out there". The old Soviet Union is gone, Yugoslavia is gone, so could the United States of America because of political extremism. I hope I'm wrong, but who knows...
"...it's still We The People, Right?" Megadeth
Everyone would be right in
June 6, 2008 - 07:20 ET by motherbeltEveryone would be right in saying that they have the right to say what they like
Well, danybhoy, not necessarily.
I suggest you read the results of this survey published by FreedomForum (Starts on page 7). While a majority said people should be free to say offensive things that might offend religious groups, a majority (not necessarily the same majority) said there should be restrictions on speech that might offend racial groups.
I repeat...speech that might offend.
And often, people confuse
June 6, 2008 - 08:05 ET by sarcasmoDefense of the freedom to speak offensively with defense of the the often ugly ideas behind said offensive speech, even though the controversial ideas are irrelevant to (if not antithetical to) the First Amendment principle behind the argument.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
RESPONSIBILITY...
June 6, 2008 - 09:37 ET by danybhoyLook sarc & motherbelt, I am all about free speech, I also understand the fact that sometimes when you exercise free speech at the wrong place, in the wrong way, & at the wrong time, you can pay the price. I get it, better then say, the Dixie Chicks at least. The 1st Amendment has very few limits, & the fewer, the better. The biggest problem is with who & how free speech is ruled on, & in our nation, where political correctness & progressivism are growing like cancer, I don't trust those who will rule on this issue for less then good intentions.
"...it's still We The People, Right?" Megadeth
I have trouble with forgiving
June 6, 2008 - 09:47 ET by sarcasmoThe McCain-Feingold free political speech restrictions. For me, the only acceptable result is tail between the legs retreat, and that's not likely to happen. The idea that he'd appoint constitutionalist judges is, IMO, just as laughable as the idea that Obama would appoint such judges.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
SARC...
June 6, 2008 - 11:39 ET by danybhoyIt's not just McCain-Feingold, I do not want the "Fairness Doctrine" to shut down talk radio, & as a fan of rock/hard rock/heavy metal, I never liked the Al Whore's wife Tipper & her band of facists in the PMRC, which would think nothing of censoring all music that they deemed offensive. That's just a shortlist of free speech issues I have, & there is no way in hell Obama appoints anybody who would help in this manner, or any other for that manner.
"...it's still We The People, Right?" Megadeth
Agreed.
June 6, 2008 - 11:44 ET by sarcasmoThe free speech First Amendment absolutist in me is constantly battling the self defense Second Amendment absolutist for who gets to be more outraged.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
BILL OF RIGHTS...
June 6, 2008 - 11:58 ET by danybhoyAm I the only person who sees the 2nd Amendment as what defends the 1st Amendment if evrything else fails? Say what you want, & own your firearms, legally. Keep in mind, I do not own any fire arms, but I am for people hunting & protecting themselves. I am a big conseal/carry guy, if you get a permit to do so. I also think gun free zones & most big city, liberal gun control laws do nothing to prevent gun violence.
"...it's still We The People, Right?" Megadeth
Before we all start bashing
June 6, 2008 - 09:21 ET by BruzillaBefore we all start bashing the Libs, I would just like to remind everyone that it was Ronald Reagan who signed the laughably named Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA), which set the precedent for banning firearms by category and enabled the AWB to be implemented. I would also remind everyone that it was the leadership of the NRA that supported this bill and refused to oppose it that enabled it to pass. We in the NRA rank and file opposed it vehemently, but the leaders said "there are so few people who have selective-fire weapons, and plenty of weapons on the market to meet the need, go ahead and do the ban." Our argument was once the govenment can ban any gun by type, they won't stop at selective-fire (aka machine guns). Next they'll come after semi-autos, and we were told by NRA leadership and the Reagan Administration not to worry... that's never going to happen. Then along comes the AWB.
The issue with the police is many people tend to think that criminals don't think. Criminals are just like any other businessman. They adapt to changes in the market. If cops shoot them, they get body aromor. If the cops get body armor, they get armor-piercing bullets. If the cops have revolvers, they get semi-autos. If the cops get semi-autos, they get assault rifles. At the end of the day the problem is not the technology, be it weapons or armor, it's the criminals. You want to stop cops from getting shot, start killing the guys who will shoot at cops. Only about 20% of the criminal element is of the type who would shoot at the police, and these guys are usually always repeat offenders multiple times. Killing these guys and making dead certain they never return to the streets is the best way to ensure officer safety.
Okay, we've been reminded.
June 6, 2008 - 09:26 ET by Ruths husband BenOkay, we've been reminded. Can we go back to bashing liberals now? After all, that's what most of us are here for.
"Whatever Michelle Says Is The Message." –
Senator Barack Obama October 1, 2007, Chicago HQ
Ben
June 6, 2008 - 09:49 ET by ricklailI am ready.
“A debate is a conflict which clarifies a position. A dialogue is a conversation which compromises a position.” –John E. Ashbrook, The New Neutralism II, P. 7
Good (rubbing my hands
June 6, 2008 - 10:04 ET by Ruths husband BenGood (rubbing my hands together), let's get busy. BTW, anyone who quotes Ashbrook is my kinda guy.
"Whatever Michelle Says Is The Message." –
Senator Barack Obama October 1, 2007, Chicago HQ
That's good... let's start
June 6, 2008 - 14:31 ET by BruzillaThat's good... let's start with Chuckie Schumer! But lets also make sure we keep a good eye on the guys who are supposed to be on our side. At this point I trust John McCain with my guns about as far as I can throw him.
At this point I trust John
June 6, 2008 - 23:24 ET by bigtimerAt this point I trust John McCain with my guns about as far as I can throw him.
Don't feel alone Bruz...he was one of the sponsors if not the sponsor for the gun-show loop-hole law...
You made good points above as far as I am concerned.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
Ruth is married
June 6, 2008 - 23:17 ET by JerOkay, we've been reminded. Can we go back to bashing liberals now? After all, that's what most of us are here for.
Ruth is married to a very funny guy.
But, more to the point, is my mere presence sufficient for the bashing to commence, or do I need to actually say something like "Gosh, that Jane Fonda sure is a swell gal.":-)
Jer
Get the kids to exercise a little more then!
June 6, 2008 - 11:10 ET by JTP"I thought how easy it would be for some kid, some 110-pound wild-dog
street punk, to heft an AR-6520 and wield it to hellish effect."
Reinstate gym classes and get kids off their butts and we could go back to heavier guns.
Also, how did the kid turn into a wild-dog street punk?
Could it possibly be the socialist handouts that allowed the kid to live without holding down a job? Or maybe the "war on drugs" that is being fought like a playground game? Or maybe by subsidising Mom and letting Dad off the hook the kids are only being half ass raised. Grimm should look a little deeper or the future will only get grimmer for the 2nd amndt.
without the 2nd .... then there would none at all
June 6, 2008 - 11:14 ET by texan1953Without the Second Amendment...where would his First Amendment be? There is no real free press...just a kept press...the mistress of the enemy domestic...the American Liberal.
To Libs the bad old 2nd
June 6, 2008 - 12:25 ET by ahusserTo Libs the bad old 2nd Amendment never goes away. They wish to cherry pick the bill or rights. I don't even know if the people can amend the constitution to do away with or change any of the first 10 amendments. I think they are inviolate. These rights were instituted to keep government more or less honest and not to act arbitrarily against it's citizens without cause or due process of law. Lord know government continually tries to do so. It is somehow easier for libs to blame inanimate objects as the cause of misery and crime. But maybe do away with paroles, probations, suspended sentences, early releases, concurrent sentences may just help with the crime problem. There is a high cost to having these rights but there is no better way to ensure our individual freedom. Many criminals go free because of the other amendments too and I am sure many citizens are killed because these criminals go free but these procedural deaths are much quieter than when someone is shot by a firearm.
lazy "journalism"
June 6, 2008 - 14:41 ET by bktthis story smack of the "I've got a deadline to meet, and I've got to pound out something on my keyboard" syndrome.
No statistics, no facts, just a bunch of B-S.
It's not the Onion??
June 6, 2008 - 16:30 ET by wizardjrI thought the Miami Herald was the print edition of The Onion. So, I was not the lest bit surprised by this sillyness.
That's okay, as the Miami Herald is a mythical newspaper.
June 6, 2008 - 22:56 ET by R D Helm:-)
I agree that Grimm should
June 6, 2008 - 23:36 ET by JerI agree that Grimm should have come up with a more appropriate word than "mythical", although, in fairness, he wasn't referring to the Second Amendment in that manner, but the "mythical right of private citizens to own military assault rifles".
Jer
...and he's WRONG there too.
June 6, 2008 - 23:42 ET by Warner Todd Huston...and he's WRONG there too. The Founders MEANT that we were to have military arms!!
Withouot ANY limitations?
June 6, 2008 - 23:50 ET by JerWithout ANY limitations? 18th century cannon? 21st century surface-to-air missiles? .50 cal machine guns?
Jer
Man...
June 6, 2008 - 23:56 ET by Warner Todd HustonYou are wrong with about every post you ever make!
The Founders language did NOT include canons, bombs, planes, nuclear bombs, etc. etc.
FIREARMS are personal rifles and pistols. Canons were NOT included in the term firearms at the time of the founding. Firearms were military arms. Bombs are ordnance, cannons are (as they were called then) "guns," NOT firearms.
So, the founders would have seen excluded from the terminology tripod mounted .50 cal machine guns as well as jet planes, nukes and missiles, etc.
However. The founders would have AGREED with submachine guns and fully automatic rifles being owned by individuals.
And I do too.
Okay, Warner....
June 7, 2008 - 00:15 ET by JerYou are wrong with about every post you ever make!
Good night,
Jer
See!
June 7, 2008 - 00:52 ET by Warner Todd HustonIt's morning!
(LOL)
Depends on where Jer is at
June 7, 2008 - 01:21 ET by bigtimerDepends on where Jer is at WTH...plus I think the bed-bugs got him....
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
WTH...
June 7, 2008 - 01:23 ET by JerBut remember, you also once said that all my posts were "jokes"...that was just another one.
Good night, good morning, good grief,...I'm just getting the hell outa here. :-)
Jer
LOL
June 7, 2008 - 01:31 ET by Warner Todd HustonThe world is a joke and we are just each of us punch lines!
Me, all too often I am a prat fall! Ha, ha.
WTH, I seriously believe the founders intended for us to
June 7, 2008 - 23:33 ET by R D Helmhave the ability to keep the government at bay, as I believe the 2nd Amendment was created specifically for that purpose.
Therefore, I demand my constitutional right to own a nuke! :-^)
I fear a government that does not want me owning a firearm. If you value your freedom, you should, too.
Just ask Randy Weaver's wife.
-Oh, wait, the government killed her.
I disagree solely with the
June 8, 2008 - 02:48 ET by CortillaenI disagree solely with the nuke statement. A nuclear device, like all WMDs, cannot be used as a defensive weapon or as a sporting weapon. Therefore, civilians have no need of such weapons. This lack of need combined with the inherent risk in allowing civilians to control and maintain (or not) such dangerous weapons makes it unreasonable to grant such a right.
www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
Well, not to worry then. The
June 8, 2008 - 02:52 ET by Warner Todd HustonWell, not to worry then. The Founders DEFINITELY would have been against a citizen having a nuke!
Cortillian, perhaps you missed the :-^) in my post.
June 10, 2008 - 00:16 ET by R D HelmAs for your contention that "civilians" should not have access to certain weapons, sporting or not, suggests to me that you believe only government should be allowed to have such weapons.
Sorry, pal, but my sense of freedom (and I am a libertarian) doesn't allow government even the benefit of the doubt here.
BTW, Therefore, civilians have no need of such weapons.
Well, as us "civilians" are at least, theoretically, in control of our government, why should government have the monopoly here?
And finally, who the F_ing Hell are you to dictate to the rest of us what weapons civilians might need, or posses, in the first place?
D.
WTH. I have to get my 2
June 7, 2008 - 23:42 ET by bassndudeWTH. I have to get my 2 cents in here. Arms, as the term was used by the founders was considered a weapon, either offensive or defensive. There were no jet planes, nukes or missiles around. I also belive the founders would have been in agreement with .50 cal machine guns in the hands of civilians. The M2 is a sweet thing. I do belive if you read the writings of James Madison, you will see that he belived the people had to have the same weapons as the Goverment had. With out them, how is one to defend himself aginst said goverment?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
You don't think the founders
June 8, 2008 - 00:04 ET by balboaYou don't think the founders would assess today as a little different than colonial times, and therefore it's unnecessary to "have the same weapons as the Goverment had"?
»→ Good point bal
June 8, 2008 - 01:42 ET by Cool ArrowGovernments never oppress their populace after taking their guns.
Unless you count the Nazis.
I'm sorry, I forgot Liberals don't let us talk about Nazis.
Lenin? Stalin? Dang those rules.
I guess you win again.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Don't forget Mao's
June 8, 2008 - 02:37 ET by CortillaenDon't forget Mao's would-be-famous-if-the-media-could-bother-with-honesty quote: "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
Bass...
June 8, 2008 - 01:27 ET by Warner Todd HustonSorry, but you are just wrong.
We need to understand the actual definitions of the words that the Founders used. Like most words, definitions change over time, or they lose their original emphasis.
So, let's look at some of the words as described in legal and common usages then... not now. These definitions come from noah Webster, the most famous American scholar of his day and creator of the American dictionary.
"Keep" was defined as "To hold; to retain one's power or possession; not to lose or part with ... To have in custody for security or preservation"; "Bear" as "to carry" or "to wear; name; to bear arms in a coat"; and "Arms" were defined as "weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body."
Only civilians would "bear arms in a coat" -- soldiers carried muskets in their hands, while officers carried pistols in holsters.
Thus the words "keep and bear arms" suggest a right to hand-held arms as a person could "bear," such as muskets, pistols and swords, but not cannon and heavy ordnance that a person could not carry.
So, there you go. NO nukes, no cannons, no tripod mounted machine guns, no planes and missiles.
The meaning is clear. military arms that can be held and "born" or you can "bear." You cannot "bear" a cannon or a missile... OR a nuke.
As I've said before, the
June 8, 2008 - 02:37 ET by CortillaenAs I've said before, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that the government is always threatened by the people. Rephrased, it is to ensure that the government cannot turn the military on the public and expect an easy victory or, preferably, victory at all. To this end I will eternally advocate no restrictions of ownership of any weapon or vehicle (violent criminals or those reasonably suspected of assisting such criminals should, naturally, lose this right) which may be used in a defensive manner. Restrictions on usage of said objects is acceptable to a certain extent (such as would unreasonably endanger oneself or others or result in property damage to others) as such restrictions become irrelevant in the face of the event the 2nd Amendment seeks to prevent.
www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
Basically...
June 8, 2008 - 02:41 ET by Warner Todd HustonBasically I agree with you.
Then would you also agree
June 8, 2008 - 03:06 ET by CortillaenThen would you also agree that one cannot hope to defend self, family, or property against aircraft, missiles, and tanks with only hand-held arms? If so, then limiting the 2nd Amendment to such weapons is still betraying its purpose. While I would prefer all military vehicles be allowed, I can understand how most people find this unreasonable. I feel allowing civilians to own heavy machine guns, LAWs, and shoulder-fired SAMs would still provide sufficient threat to military vehicles to enforce the 2nd Amendment's intent. However, restricting the permitted arms to mere (yes, "mere") submachine guns and automatic rifles would make the public's ability to resist the military insignificant.
www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
Well..
June 8, 2008 - 12:16 ET by Warner Todd HustonYour logic breaks down when it is pointed out that even the Founders didn't include cannons in the 2nd Amendment. How were common citizens supposed to protect themselves against cannons? They weren't. Cannons were weapons of mass destruction, then. A cannon blast could injure or kill several at once and destroy fortifications. A cannon's destructive power was quite well known to the Founders. Yet, they did not include them in the 2nd Amendment!
So, Constitutionally, your premise is in error.
Since the Founders, we've had PLENTY
June 7, 2008 - 07:00 ET by sarcasmoOf "limitations," to the point that in 1986, under the ironically named "Firearms Owner Protection Act," transferrable machine gun right sideplates literally became precious metal overnight, by government fiat. Have ANY of those "limitations" done America any good? How??
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.