Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Wanted: 21st-century gun laws for 21st-century weapons [WARNING: Graphic stupidity!]
The Ogden Standard-Examiner ^ | January 28, 2011 | Donald Kaul

Posted on 01/28/2011 3:03:35 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet

Before the Tucson shootings are lost forever in the mists of time (which, given this country's attention span, figures to be two weeks from now), we might do well to ponder the various reactions to the outrage.

President Barack Obama responded as a president should, with dignity and eloquence. I thought his speech at the memorial service in Arizona was one of his strongest. He set the bar pretty high. "If this tragedy prompts reflection and debate, as it should, let's make sure it's worthy of those we have lost," he said. Amen to that.

House Speaker John Boehner, who has set the leadership bar fairly low during his time in Congress, didn't clear it. Justifying the House not passing a resolution to honor the victims, he said:

"We feel a litany of unwanted emotions that no resolution could possibly capture." Boehner choked up a little when he said it, but he also chokes up at basketball games.

He then refused the president's offer of a ride to Arizona for the memorial, preferring to stay a few minutes at a similar Washington event before going off to a fund-raiser.

Congress responded in a congressional way. It issued sympathetic noises and then talked about increasing security -- for members of Congress. No murmur on gun control legislation.

The American people -- a lot of them -- responded by buying guns. Gun sales surged in the wake of the shooting. Apparently people see themselves standing in a shopping mall, taking dead aim on a gunman who's spraying the place with bullets, and bringing him down with a single shot. Lots of luck with that. Life seldom imitates Clint Eastwood movies. Even when it does, you rarely get to be Clint.

Sarah Palin, the Republican Party's answer to Eva Peron, took the opportunity to excoriate "journalists and pundits" who dared to link the sometimes-violent rhetoric she and her Tea Party cohort use in political battle.

"Within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not be manufacturing a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence that they purport to condemn," she said. "That is reprehensible."

In other words, she -- the Divine Sarah -- is the victim here, not the people lying in their blood in Tucson.

In any case, "blood libel" -- an ancient and absurd belief among anti-Semites that Jews use the blood of Christian children in religious rituals -- is a curious phrase to use in connection with the gunning down of a Jewish lawmaker.

"We know violence isn't the answer," said Sarah. "When we take up arms, we're talking about our vote."

Or, to quote Humpty Dumpty: "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less."

I guess it was just bad luck that Ms. Palin put a gun sight over Gabrielle Giffords' district during the run-up to last year's elections. Poor Palin; poor, poor Palin. She just can't catch a break.

I know I am speaking to the wind. But after all is said and done, the Tucson shootings stand as a condemnation of our gun laws -- or lack of them. To believe, as the Supreme Court seems to do, that the Constitution guarantees the right of every person to buy a weapon that can kill dozens in seconds is to believe that the men who wrote that document were idiots.

They weren't. They were 18th-century creatures of the Enlightenment who were conscious of their limitations in laying down rules for the formation of a nation.

The country would evolve, they knew, and the Constitution would have to expand and evolve with it. Weapons of the 21st century aren't those of the 18th.

Yet a majority of our Supreme Court chooses to ignore the "well-regulated Militia" part of the Second Amendment and focus exclusively on citizens' right to bear arms. For this they went to law school?

I fear that "Supreme Court" is becoming an oxymoron, like "jumbo shrimp."


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; banglist; boehner; congress; donaldkaul; giffords; obama; palin; reichstagfire; rtkba; sarahpalin; scotus; tucson
This fool was a columnist for the Des Moines Register when I lived there. I wondered what happened to him.
1 posted on 01/28/2011 3:03:37 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
In other words, she -- the Divine Sarah -- is the victim here, not the people lying in their blood in Tucson.

When someone uses the term "in other words," it is usually followed by something substantially different from the text described.
2 posted on 01/28/2011 3:07:56 PM PST by Dr. Sivana (There is no salvation in politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

What about 7th century rules for 7th centure weapons, (knives in this case). Author is beyond stuipid....


3 posted on 01/28/2011 3:10:17 PM PST by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

[The American people — a lot of them — responded by buying guns. Gun sales surged in the wake of the shooting. Apparently people see themselves standing in a shopping mall, taking dead aim on a gunman who’s spraying the place with bullets, and bringing him down with a single shot. Lots of luck with that. Life seldom imitates Clint Eastwood movies. Even when it does, you rarely get to be Clint. ]

Statistics don’t lie when it comes to the many times an armed victim has turned the tables on a home invader or other assailant threatening their lives.


4 posted on 01/28/2011 3:12:06 PM PST by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
The country would evolve, they knew, and the Constitution would have to expand and evolve with it.

Speaking of "words." Perhaps the author should look up the term "Amendment!" It isn't up to a group of judges to "evolve" our Constitution! I believe there is an instruction booklet on how to amend it.

5 posted on 01/28/2011 3:15:58 PM PST by missnry (The truth will set you free ... and drive liberals Crazy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
From my 21st Century cold dead hands.

MOLON LAVE, stupid mfers!

6 posted on 01/28/2011 3:23:20 PM PST by TigersEye (Who crashed the markets on 9/28/08 and why?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
He's obviously a colossal dimwit.

This comes as Utah -- very correctly -- is about to designate native son Browning's M1911 as the official state firearm.

7 posted on 01/28/2011 3:23:52 PM PST by Bernard Marx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet; The Comedian

Ok, I have one here:

Amendment to the Constitution:
The Executive, Legislative or Judicial branch shall not regulate in any way an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, nor shall any agent thereof deprive, deny or interfere with the right to keep and bear arms or the manufacture or sale of arms. Any employee of the federal government attempting to subvert this amendment shall, upon conviction, be sentenced to death; any and all appeals of that employee must be heard and completed within one year of conviction.

Adoption of this amendment would:
1 — Restore the right to keep and bear arms to ex-felons.
2 — Allow felons and other criminals to carry weapons, for their own protection, within [federal] prisons.
3 — Give actual consequences to governmental-agents who would deprive a freeman [or even otherwise] of the right to keep and bear arms.


8 posted on 01/28/2011 3:32:06 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
The country would evolve, they knew, and the Constitution would have to expand and evolve with it.

What a laugh that he uses the words expand and evolve in justifying restrictions on guns. Isnt what he proposes the exact opposite of expanding and evolving?

Weapons of the 21st century aren't those of the 18th.

And the internet of the 21st century arent the books of the 18th century.

9 posted on 01/28/2011 3:32:22 PM PST by lowbridge (Rep. Dingell: "Its taken a long time.....to control the people.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Yet a majority of our Supreme Court chooses to ignore the "well-regulated Militia" part of the Second Amendment and focus exclusively on citizens' right to bear arms.

Ok smart guy. what does the phrase "well-regulated Militia" in the 2nd amendment mean? Go on, give us a chuuckle.

10 posted on 01/28/2011 3:34:08 PM PST by lowbridge (Rep. Dingell: "Its taken a long time.....to control the people.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I didn’t know the old communist was still around.


11 posted on 01/28/2011 3:58:15 PM PST by Luke21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

By this moron’s own philosophy, he should be restricted to writing his columns with a crow quill pen. After all, when our founders spoke of freedom of the press they could not have envisioned radio, TV or the internet.


12 posted on 01/28/2011 4:02:30 PM PST by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Luke21

I used to laugh at Donald Kaul’s columns back in the 90’s. He was all gung -ho about Clinton’s wars in Bosnia. I thought this idiot retired.


13 posted on 01/28/2011 4:04:10 PM PST by boop ("Let's just say they'll be satisfied with LESS"... Ming the Merciless)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
I'd back that in a microsecond.


Today is a good day to die.
I didn't say for whom.

14 posted on 01/28/2011 4:08:45 PM PST by The Comedian (It's 3am all over the planet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
President Barack Obama responded as a president should, with dignity and eloquence.

And free T-shirts. Don't forget the free T-shirts.


Today is a good day to die.
I didn't say for whom.

15 posted on 01/28/2011 4:13:47 PM PST by The Comedian (It's 3am all over the planet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Wanted: government that actually obeys the Constitution, and leaves us and our guns the hell alone.

These hoplophobes never learn.

16 posted on 01/28/2011 4:26:06 PM PST by backwoods-engineer (Any politician who holds that the state accords rights is an oathbreaker and an "enemy... domestic.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

I am down with your amendment. Especially the part about death to gungrabbing, oathbreaking usurpers taking liberty under color of law.


17 posted on 01/28/2011 4:29:22 PM PST by backwoods-engineer (Any politician who holds that the state accords rights is an oathbreaker and an "enemy... domestic.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

>>I wondered what happened to him.<<

You turned Right, he turned Left.


18 posted on 01/28/2011 4:38:51 PM PST by B4Ranch (Do NOT remain seated until this ride comes to a full and complete stop! We're going the wrong way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
They weren't. They were 18th-century creatures of the Enlightenment who were conscious of their limitations in laying down rules for the formation of a nation.

Being learned men, the founder’s knew that there would be advances in gun technology as they has seen up to their time.

They knew it was better to have unfortunate tragedy like Tucson than to live under tyranny.

19 posted on 01/28/2011 4:43:42 PM PST by chainsaw56 (Do you have the right to defend yourself??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GraceG
[The American people — a lot of them — responded by buying guns. Gun sales surged in the wake of the shooting. Apparently people see themselves standing in a shopping mall, taking dead aim on a gunman who’s spraying the place with bullets, and bringing him down with a single shot. Lots of luck with that. Life seldom imitates Clint Eastwood movies. Even when it does, you rarely get to be Clint. ]

So it would better to be disarmed? Yeah, good plan!

20 posted on 01/28/2011 4:46:38 PM PST by chainsaw56 (Do you have the right to defend yourself??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

>>Yet a majority of our Supreme Court chooses to ignore the “well-regulated Militia” part of the Second Amendment and focus exclusively on citizens’ right to bear arms.
>
>Ok smart guy. what does the phrase “well-regulated Militia” in the 2nd amendment mean? Go on, give us a chuuckle.

There’s a good reason that they don’t look into that phrase: it would show that the Supreme Court could be prosecuted for Treason.
It is defined in Art 3, Sec 3, of the Constitution: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

In 1973 the Supreme Court declared abortion-prohibitions to be illegal in Roe v. Wade.
From that time to 1992, there were a total of 28,511,400 abortions; of these 25 million we could multiply by .5 to get the approximation of the number of males, slightly better approximation would be .51*, which yields 14,540,814.

The selection of 1992 is not a coincidence; it is the year in which everyone born would now be 18, which is the age normally cited in State Constitutions as being in the militia. {i.e. “All able-bodied males between the ages of 18 and 45.”}

Now everyone knows that one way of defeating an army is to deplete its population; that is kill or maim or severely wound all who would be capable of resisting violence. (So, a massive killing of people who would otherwise be members of the Militia IS giving aid & comfort to the enemies of the States.) The above statistics show that the Supreme Court has DIRECTLY deprived the several States of more than 14 MILLION such persons.

Therefore, the Supreme Court is guilty of Treason. (Especially since it could have revisited Roe v. Wade at any time since.)

* http://www.bookofodds.com/Health-Illness/Pregnancy-Birth/Articles/A0042-Predicting-Baby-Gender


21 posted on 01/28/2011 4:57:36 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
What obnoxious, petty, whiny crap.
22 posted on 01/28/2011 6:29:22 PM PST by Celtic Cross (Prude Dude--Don't offend me or I'll swear at you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Can we apply the rules of 1917 to these?


23 posted on 01/28/2011 6:30:26 PM PST by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Gun sales surged in the wake of the shooting. Apparently people see themselves standing in a shopping mall, taking dead aim on a gunman who's spraying the place with bullets, and bringing him down with a single shot.

Uh no, Mr. Science, what they see is an opportunity a government can hide behind to advance the cause of tyranny, and want to get theirs while the getting's good. Moron.

24 posted on 01/28/2011 9:43:20 PM PST by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
In any case, "blood libel" -- an ancient and absurd belief among anti-Semites that Jews use the blood of Christian children in religious rituals -- is a curious phrase to use in connection with the gunning down of a Jewish lawmaker.

Gabby's Jewish? I didn't know that.

25 posted on 01/28/2011 9:44:41 PM PST by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
"Adoption of this amendment would:

1 — Restore the right to keep and bear arms to ex-felons.

2 — Allow felons and other criminals to carry weapons, for their own protection, within [federal] prisons.

3 — Give actual consequences to governmental-agents who would deprive a freeman [or even otherwise] of the right to keep and bear arms."

Man! I need you to explain #2 to me. Did you mean, "NOT allow"???

26 posted on 01/30/2011 3:45:40 PM PST by jackibutterfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: jackibutterfly

Nope, it WOULD allow them to carry weapons in prisons (re-read how it is written).
Now, you might be uncomfortable about the prospect, but if you’ve either been a [US] prison guard or known one then you’ll know that prisons actually have a LOT of weapons therein. The prisoners themselves are crafty about making shivs, in particular — some of the methods are quite unsanitary and that is the point in some of them: to introduce not only a wound but encourage infection.

Keep in mind that these are our current prisons I’m talking about. The “no weapons” policy is therefore more of a myth and illusion-of-safety. If we remove the federal government’s ability to prohibit people from carrying weapons wholly and completely then this illusion is destroyed. {Furthermore, it would mean that any secure/”no weapons” prisoner-facility MUST be under a State’s control.}


27 posted on 01/30/2011 4:14:06 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

No, I’m sorry, I still don’t get it. Help.


28 posted on 01/30/2011 9:41:31 PM PST by jackibutterfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: jackibutterfly

Hm, ok.
Let’s put it this way: if we allow the federal government *ANY* way to deprive people of the right to keep and bear arms they will. It may start off as a small thing like them saying “well, gee, no civilian REALLY needs a minigun...” (ie 20,000-60,000 rounds per minute) and then they’ll say “well, we don’t want bad-guys to have fully automatic rifles” and so they illegalize civilian possession thereof. Then they say, well felons are bad-guys, why don’t we bar them possessing guns? And so forth, until you get where we are today.

You may think we have a lot of gun freedom, but we really don’t. In fact there’s a bit of a timebomb: in 2014 obamacare kicks in and makes it a felony for someone not to have qualifying healthcare. {As far as I know there are no exceptions for unemployment or ‘gaps’ in coverage if you want to switch providers.} Now consider that carefully, a felony for not having health insurance! And out current real unemployment rate +20% , and looking like it won’t improve any time soon.

So yes, I mistrust the federal government when it comes to weapons so much that I’d rather see every felon issued a 9mm upon internment into federal prison than have the government abridge the rights of people who have otherwise served their sentences (which is the case today). What’s the worst they could do? Kill each other and reduce the prison population? Kill prison guards? {Yeah, they could... and then the question becomes “who’ll bring them food?”}


29 posted on 01/30/2011 10:07:35 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
"Kill prison guards? {Yeah, they could... and then the question becomes “who’ll bring them food?”

Ha! Ha! I getcha. I guess I'd rather see the same, also - every felon issued a 9mm upon internment into federal prison than have the government abridge the rights of people. Thanks so much for taking the time to keep responding.

30 posted on 02/03/2011 8:12:09 PM PST by jackibutterfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson