Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Second Amendment - Commentaries
Personal Archives | 11-06-03 | PsyOp

Posted on 11/06/2003 6:19:06 PM PST by PsyOp

click here to read article

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-232 last
To: All
Judge Rules Against New Orleans in 2nd Amendment Case

On Thursday, Federal Judge Carl Barbier ruled against a motion by the city of New Orleans to dismiss a Second Amendment lawsuit involving the city’s confiscation of residents’ firearms in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The suit was brought by the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation and names Mayor Ray Nagin and Police Superintendent Warren Riley for violating citizens’ Second Amendment rights.

“We’re encouraged by this latest ruling,” said Alan Gottlieb, founder of the SAF. “For almost a year, we’ve been fighting the city’s delay tactics, which included outright lying by city officials that any firearms had been seized. Only when we threatened Mayor Nagin and Superintendent Riley with a motion for contempt did the city miraculously discover that they actually did have more than 1,000 firearms that had been taken from their owners.”

More than an effort to protect New Orleans gun owners, SAF intends this suit “as a warning to public officials across the country to forget about seizing firearms from their law-abiding owners in the event of a natural or man-made disaster.” The People’s Republic of New Orleans still holds two trailers filled with citizens’ firearms confiscated after Katrina.

18 August 2006, PatriotPost.US, Patriot Vol. 06 No. 33

201 posted on 08/21/2006 9:25:32 AM PDT by PsyOp (There is only one decisive victory: the last. - Clauswitz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: All

“You won’t get gun control by disarming law-abiding citizens. There’s only one way to get real gun control: Disarm the thugs and the criminals, lock them up, and if you don’t actually throw away the key, at least lose it for a long time... It’s a nasty truth, but those who seek to inflict harm are not fazed by gun controllers. I happen to know this from personal experience.” —Ronald Reagan, 1983.

202 posted on 03/16/2007 11:05:01 AM PDT by PsyOp (Self-defense is a part of the law of nature… - Barclay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: PsyOp

The Patriot Post
Patriot Vol. 07 No. 11 Digest | 16 March 2007

The Foundation
“Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.” —Thomas Jefferson

Right to carry v. right to know

In a St. Louis suburb this week, Riccardo Crossland was charged with robbery and assault after he and another thug held a 23-year-old Florida man at gunpoint, demanding his money. After obtaining his wallet and watch, Crossland turned and took a few steps away from the robbery victim, then turned back and raised his weapon.

Unfortunately for Crossland, the man he was robbing was legally permitted to carry a concealed handgun—and was carrying one at the time. (Florida permits are honored by Missouri. In fact, most Southeastern states—where constitutional rule of law still prevails—have reciprocity agreements for concealed carry permits.)

As Crossland brandished his weapon, the “victim” drew his weapon and opened fire, wounding Crossland. Police arrived soon thereafter, transported Crossland to the hospital, and congratulated his intended victim. Bridgeton Police Major Don Steinman told reporters, “Here was a robbery where we have a good ending.”

In a footnote to this crime, it turns out that Crossland was carrying a pellet gun modeled after a.45 caliber automatic. A shoe-in for the Non Compos Mentis Award, you say? Granted, Crossland was ignorant of the fact that his intended victim could defend himself, but I relate his story only as a segue to introduce the real winner.

That would be one Christian Trejbal, a writer with the Roanoke Times in Virginia.

Trejbal describes himself in his bio as “a philosopher and historian who discovered editorial writing.” He queries, “Who needs to finish a Ph.D.?” Apparently not Trejbal, who is already “piling it higher and deeper” as an editorialist.

Trejbal is the Don Quixote de la Roanoke, who jousts with government-database windmills using the Freedom of Information Act lance. In an editorial last Sunday celebrating “Sunshine Week, the annual week in which we reflect on the importance of open government and public records,” Trejbal boldly went where no man had before. “To mark the occasion,” he wrote, “I want to take you on an excursion into freedom of information land.”

And that he did.

In the interest of public safety, Trejbal and the Roanoke Times would have done a fine public service by launching, say, an Internet database listing paroled violent felons, stalkers and murderers. Instead, however, he went after what he apparently considers an equally dangerous lot.

Trejbal wrote, “A state that puts sex offender data online complete with an interactive map could easily do the same with gun permits, but it does not... There are plenty of reasons to question the wisdom of widespread gun ownership, too.”

That’s right. After obtaining a list of all 135,789 Virginians who are permitted to carry a concealed weapon, Trejbal and his employer posted them in a searchable online database.

According to Trejbal, “People might like to know if their neighbors carry. Parents might like to know if a member of the car pool has a pistol in the glove box. Employees might like to know if employers are bringing weapons to the office.”

One would hope that someone in the Roanoke Times editorial room would have weighed the risk that stalkers, rapists and murderers might also like to know whether a potential victim had a carry permit. Trejbal unintentionally created a “do not mess with” list of Virginians, but what about all the folks who are not on that list?

The paper’s publisher, Debbie Meade, says that she, Editorial Page Editor Dan Radmacher, and Trejbal discussed the pros and cons before posting the database. “I think Dan would say that we probably underestimated the kind of response that this would prompt,” Meade said. “I think we could have asked for a broader and deeper discussion.”

“Underestimated” does not quite capture the tone of the thousands of objections, legal, moral and ethical, the paper received.

As it turns out, the database was only up for about 24 hours before Meade had it removed, “out of a sense of caution and concern for the public.” Perhaps Meade removed the database not “out of a sense of caution” but “out of common sense.” After all, wasn’t the paper’s “concern for the public” the reason it posted the names in the first place? Perhaps it hit too close to home when Meade realized that neither she, nor Radmacher and Trejbal, are listed as permit holders.

Trejbal feigns concern that “so many people have missed the point about the column. It was not fundamentally about guns. It was fundamentally about open government.”

No, it was fundamentally a hit piece against not only those who have concealed carry permits, but any gun owner. As noted above, Trejbal’s original essay justified posting the database because, “There are plenty of reasons to question the wisdom of widespread gun ownership.”

Trejbal is one of those nescient libs who think that crime is a “gun problem” (http://PatriotPost.US/alexander/edition.asp?id=300). Using his logic, one may conclude that black leather gloves cause stabbings, matches cause arson, vehicles cause wrecks, cameras cause pornography, swimsuits cause drowning, cigarette lighters cause cancer, wine glasses cause alcoholism, spoons cause obesity, credit cards cause bankruptcy, elections cause corruption, ad nauseum...

Had “philosopher and historian” Trejbal pursued his Ph.D., he might have come across these words from Lucius Annaeus Seneca, circa 45 AD “Quemadmoeum gladuis neminem occidit, occidentis telum est.” (A sword is never a killer, it is a tool in the killer’s hands.)

I contacted Trejbal and asked him to outline his views on Second Amendment rights, but received no answer. I suspect he doesn’t know that by conservative estimates, handguns are used more than 1.3 million times each year in self-defense. He must not know that convicted violent felons tell researchers that they choose victims they believe are least able to defend themselves, avoiding those likely to have a gun.

Trejbal may not realize that his chances of becoming a victim are significantly reduced by the fact that violent offenders do not know who is likely to be carrying a weapon—well, before Trejbal identified who, in Virginia, is not permitted to carry a concealed weapon.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the criminal use of firearms declined as the number of states issuing concealed-carry permits increased. Yale researcher John Lott addressed the relationship between gun possession and crime, and summed up his research with the title of his book, More Guns, Less Crime.

The relationship between victimization and the ability to defend oneself is timeless. In Commonplace Book, Thomas Jefferson quotes Cesare Beccaria from his seminal work, On Crimes and Punishment: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

Despite last week’s legal victory for gun-owning residents in Washington, DC, Democrat majorities in the House and Senate, with help from Leftmedia trucklings like Trejbal, are now trying to reincarnate the Feinstein-Schumer gun ban (http://PatriotPost.US/alexander/edition.asp?id=521), which expired 13 September 2004.

In the words of Patrick Henry, “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.”

203 posted on 03/16/2007 11:07:24 AM PDT by PsyOp (Self-defense is a part of the law of nature… - Barclay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: PsyOp
In The Federalist #8, Alexander Hamilton states the fear of having a standing army.
The institutions chiefly alluded to are STANDING ARMIES and the correspondent appendages of military establishments. Standing armies, it is said, are not provided against in the new Constitution; and it is therefore inferred that they may exist under it. Their existence, however, from the very terms of the proposition, is, at most, problematical and uncertain. But standing armies, it may be replied, must inevitably result from a dissolution of the Confederacy. Frequent war and constant apprehension, which require a state of as constant preparation, will infallibly produce them. The weaker States or confederacies would first have recourse to them, to put themselves upon an equality with their more potent neighbors. They would endeavor to supply the inferiority of population and resources by a more regular and effective system of defense, by disciplined troops, and by fortifications. They would, at the same time, be necessitated to strengthen the executive arm of government, in doing which their constitutions would acquire a progressive direction toward monarchy. It is of the nature of war to increase the executive at the expense of the legislative authority.

The expedients which have been mentioned would soon give the States or confederacies that made use of them a superiority over their neighbors. Small states, or states of less natural strength, under vigorous governments, and with the assistance of disciplined armies, have often triumphed over large states, or states of greater natural strength, which have been destitute of these advantages. Neither the pride nor the safety of the more important States or confederacies would permit them long to submit to this mortifying and adventitious superiority. They would quickly resort to means similar to those by which it had been effected, to reinstate themselves in their lost pre-eminence. Thus, we should, in a little time, see established in every part of this country the same engines of despotism which have been the scourge of the Old World. This, at least, would be the natural course of things; and our reasonings will be the more likely to be just, in proportion as they are accommodated to this standard.

A militia of the people, or Posse Comitatus would be a counter-balance to a standing army. In The Federalist #29, Hamilton states the need for a militia to be regulated by the States, not the Federal government:
THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.

It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert; an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS."

Hamilton then argues that the formation of the militia by itself should be enough to prevent a standing army from forming.

Of the different grounds which have been taken in opposition to the plan of the convention, there is none that was so little to have been expected, or is so untenable in itself, as the one from which this particular provision has been attacked. If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper.

Hamilton now argues that it is impractical to expect a militia to act as a standing army.
``The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

Hamilton then reasons that if there should be a need for a standing army, there should at least also be a disciplined militia to offset the power of the army.
"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

Finally, Hamilton supposes that a militia under the control of the States would resist the temptation of a Federal authority using it for it's own purposes.
There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia, that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous artifice to instil prejudices at any price; or as the serious offspring of political fanaticism. Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests? What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its services when necessary, while the particular States are to have the SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS? If it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the States ought at once to extinguish it. There can be no doubt that this circumstance will always secure to them a preponderating influence over the militia.

A sample of this is to be observed in the exaggerated and improbable suggestions which have taken place respecting the power of calling for the services of the militia. That of New Hampshire is to be marched to Georgia, of Georgia to New Hampshire, of New York to Kentucky, and of Kentucky to Lake Champlain. Nay, the debts due to the French and Dutch are to be paid in militiamen instead of louis d'ors and ducats. At one moment there is to be a large army to lay prostrate the liberties of the people; at another moment the militia of Virginia are to be dragged from their homes five or six hundred miles, to tame the republican contumacy of Massachusetts; and that of Massachusetts is to be transported an equal distance to subdue the refractory haughtiness of the aristocratic Virginians. Do the persons who rave at this rate imagine that their art or their eloquence can impose any conceits or absurdities upon the people of America for infallible truths?

If there should be an army to be made use of as the engine of despotism, what need of the militia? If there should be no army, whither would the militia, irritated by being called upon to undertake a distant and hopeless expedition, for the purpose of riveting the chains of slavery upon a part of their countrymen, direct their course, but to the seat of the tyrants, who had meditated so foolish as well as so wicked a project, to crush them in their imagined intrenchments of power, and to make them an example of the just vengeance of an abused and incensed people? Is this the way in which usurpers stride to dominion over a numerous and enlightened nation? Do they begin by exciting the detestation of the very instruments of their intended usurpations? Do they usually commence their career by wanton and disgustful acts of power, calculated to answer no end, but to draw upon themselves universal hatred and execration? Are suppositions of this sort the sober admonitions of discerning patriots to a discerning people? Or are they the inflammatory ravings of incendiaries or distempered enthusiasts? If we were even to suppose the national rulers actuated by the most ungovernable ambition, it is impossible to believe that they would employ such preposterous means to accomplish their designs.


204 posted on 03/16/2007 11:17:39 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too (It's still not safe to vote Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

“Gun control historically serves as a gateway to tyranny... Only armed citizens can resist tyrannical government.” —Rep. Ron Paul.

205 posted on 03/16/2007 11:29:24 AM PDT by PsyOp (Self-defense is a part of the law of nature… - Barclay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

Unfortunately it is Hamilton's very statements that have been used through misinterpretation to support the notion that states have the right to regulate the ownership of guns.

They get away with this because people have forgotten that the "militia" consisted of every able-bodied male "citizen", and that it was not simply a state controlled "reserve army".

I've also posted these quotes:

The Federalist Papers

206 posted on 03/16/2007 11:38:34 AM PDT by PsyOp (Self-defense is a part of the law of nature… - Barclay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: All

Court overturns DC gun ban

March, 16 2007.

In a major triumph for the Constitution, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled last Friday that the Second Amendment means exactly what it says. Six plaintiffs had sued the District, saying that their rights were infringed by the District’s ban on hand guns. In the 2-1 decision the majority agreed, tossing the District’s gun ban onto the scrap heap of history.

Even more surprising was the straightforward logic the court used in reaching its decision, going back to the words of the Founders. From the ruling: “To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad).” We couldn’t have said it better ourselves. The ruling is truly sweeping in its scope, and while the District said it will appeal, losing such an appeal has the potential to sweep aside more of the nation’s anti-gun laws.

207 posted on 03/16/2007 11:58:40 AM PDT by PsyOp (Self-defense is a part of the law of nature… - Barclay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: All

Second wind for the Second (Amendment)

208 posted on 03/16/2007 1:42:29 PM PDT by PsyOp (Self-defense is a part of the law of nature… - Barclay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All

“This is not about personal freedom—getting shot in the workplace by someone who has retrieved a gun from the parking lot is the opposite of freedom. This is about preserving the ability of companies to make workplaces as safe as they can be, and free from gun violence.” — Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign on state legislatures contemplating the restoration of 2nd Amendment rights stripped away by PC companies.

209 posted on 03/28/2007 3:42:40 PM PDT by PsyOp (Self-defense is a part of the law of nature - Barclay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: All

Citizens Crime Comission (Rudy Giuliani on Guns)

210 posted on 03/28/2007 4:47:41 PM PDT by PsyOp (Self-defense is a part of the law of nature - Barclay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

Gun-Shy Liberals - Who cares about the Second Amendment?

The high-water mark of anti-gun-rights shabbiness was the 2000 release of Arming America by then-Emory University historian Michael Bellesiles. The book purported to prove that gun ownership was never a major part of American society and that America’s gun culture was a useful myth for the gun-nutters eager to make the Second Amendment mean something it doesn’t. The book received lavish praise from the liberal establishment, including a rave review by Gary Wills in The New York Times, and won Columbia University’s prestigious Bancroft Prize.

The only problem was that the whole thing was an elaborate hoax, perpetrated with faked or nonexistent evidence. Intellectually honest liberals had to recant. The Bancroft Prize was revoked. Wills admitted: “I was took. The book is a fraud.”

211 posted on 03/30/2007 3:37:02 PM PDT by PsyOp (Self-defense is a part of the law of nature - Barclay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: PsyOp

for later reading; too much good to pass up

212 posted on 04/18/2007 5:13:09 AM PDT by pigsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
The Fight To Bar Arms

American Thinker ^ | April 19, 2007 | Janet Ellen Levy

Posted on 04/19/2007 8:26:50 AM PDT by Kaslin

With the recent tragedy at Virginia Tech in which 32 people were slain on campus by a lone gunman who turned his weapon on himself, no doubt the clamor to ban personal ownership of guns will be raised again. Yet amidst the grief and anguish over this terrible incident it should be noted that the campus itself had gained a well-known reputation as a "gun free zone."

Virginia Tech earned that reputation from widespread, national coverage arising from the 2005 disciplining of a student who brought a permitted firearm on campus. That reputation was further enhanced in January of 2006, when H.B. 1572, a bill that would have given students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus, was quashed in subcommittee review before it ever got to the Virginia General Assembly for a vote. Meanwhile, last June, Virginia Tech's governing board passed a violence prevention policy that further strengthened the ban against weapons on campus.

With the notoriety of its no-gun policy as a backdrop, the Virginia Tech campus thus ensured that students and faculty were practically sitting ducks, stripped of their ability to defend themselves during Monday's tragic sniper shooting. Who can say if the methodical shooter, Seung-Hui Cho, a senior who was a Virginia Tech student during the 2005 student-disciplining incident, was aware of the school's reputation and took it into account? What can be said, however, is that this most recent disaster, featured prominently on the national stage, underscores for many how necessary is our constitutional right to bear arms. ...

213 posted on 04/19/2007 2:30:04 PM PDT by PsyOp (Any dangerous spot is tenable if brave men will make it so. - John F. Kennedy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: PsyOp


214 posted on 04/19/2007 2:57:15 PM PDT by Gelato (... a liberal is a liberal is a liberal ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Centurion2000

Bump! McClintock is one of the best if not thee best out there. I really fear for our republic when people want to elect “celebrities” over men and women with ideas. Esp. those who seem to understand the life and everyday struggles of the common men and women they choose to serve (as opposed to “celebrities” that live in a cloistered isolated world).

215 posted on 04/19/2007 4:22:55 PM PDT by Clock King ("How will it end?" - Emperor; "In Fire." - Kosh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: PsyOp


216 posted on 04/20/2007 4:45:36 AM PDT by bmwcyle ( Freep Fox they drop the ball on GOE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: All

Unarmed And Dangerous
IBD Editorials ^ | 20 April 2007 | Staff

Gun Control: Five years ago, armed college students subdued a gunman embarking on a college killing spree. Last year, Virginia Tech applauded the fact that its students couldn’t do the same.

On Jan. 16, 2002 , a killer stalked the campus of the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Va., not far from the site of Monday’s massacre at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg. A disgruntled former student killed Law Dean L. Anthony Sutin, associate professor Thomas Blackwell and a student.

Two of the three law students who overpowered Peter Odighizuwa before he could kill more innocent victims were armed. Mikael Gross and Tracy Bridges, seeing the killing spree begin, went to their cars, retrieved their guns and used them to disarm the shooter. ...

217 posted on 04/20/2007 9:19:54 AM PDT by PsyOp (Any dangerous spot is tenable if brave men will make it so. - John F. Kennedy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: archy

Gun control isn’t the answer
LA Times ^ | April 20, 2007 | James Q. Wilson

Posted on 04/20/2007 8:47:13 AM PDT by neverdem

Why one reaction to Virginia Tech shouldn’t be tightening firearm laws.

THE TRAGEDY at Virginia Tech may tell us something about how a young man could be driven to commit terrible actions, but it does not teach us very much about gun control.

So far, not many prominent Americans have tried to use the college rampage as an argument for gun control. One reason is that we are in the midst of a presidential race in which leading Democratic candidates are aware that endorsing gun control can cost them votes.

This concern has not prevented the New York Times from editorializing in favor of “stronger controls over the lethal weapons that cause such wasteful carnage.” Nor has it stopped the European press from beating up on us unmercifully.

Leading British, French, German, Italian and Spanish newspapers have blamed the United States for listening to Charlton Heston and the National Rifle Assn. Many of their claims are a little strange. At least...


AS FOR THE European disdain for our criminal culture, many of those countries should not spend too much time congratulating themselves. In 2000, the rate at which people were robbed or assaulted was higher in England, Scotland, Finland, Poland, Denmark and Sweden than it was in the United States. The assault rate in England was twice that in the United States. In the decade since England banned all private possession of handguns, the BBC reported that the number of gun crimes has gone up sharply.

Some of the worst examples of mass gun violence have also occurred in Europe. In recent years, 17 students and teachers were killed by a shooter in one incident at a German public school; 14 legislators were shot to death in Switzerland, and eight city council members were shot to death near Paris...

218 posted on 04/20/2007 9:24:14 AM PDT by PsyOp (Any dangerous spot is tenable if brave men will make it so. - John F. Kennedy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: PsyOp

keepin’ track...

219 posted on 04/20/2007 10:52:38 AM PDT by pigsmith (Someone murders innocents in cold blood, and leftists immediately want to disarm everybody else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: All

Zogby: Gun Control Won’t Prevent Tragedy
NewsMax ^ | April 20, 2007

Most Americans don’t believe that stricter U.S. gun control policies would help prevent tragedies such as this week’s shootings at Virginia Tech, a new MSN-Zogby poll shows.

While 59 percent don’t think stricter gun control policies would help, 36 percent believe they could make a difference by helping to prevent future shootings.

More than two in three Americans (69 percent) believe the recent shootings at Virginia Tech were the actions of a deranged man determined to inflict mayhem and could not have been prevented. But 16 percent believe stricter controls of guns and ammunition would have prevented the tragedy.

The interactive survey of 1,336 adults nationwide was conducted April 17-18 with a margin of error of +/- 2.7 percentage points. Younger adults are more likely than older adults to see stricter gun policies as a means of preventing shootings: among those 18 to 29 years of age, 39 percent say more stringent gun control could avert tragic shootings, compared to 26 percent of those age 65 and older.

But more than half (53 percent) of those age 18 to 29 say increased gun control won’t help, a stance that becomes increasingly prevalent as adults get older. Nearly three in four (72 percent) of those age 65 and older don’t think tighter gun control policies will prevent shootings.

Even if more people were allowed to carry guns for protection, 54 percent of Americans don’t believe it would help prevent tragedies such as the mass shooting at Virginia Tech, the poll shows. But overall, 38 percent believe more armed Americans could prevent future tragedies.

220 posted on 04/20/2007 1:26:15 PM PDT by PsyOp (Any dangerous spot is tenable if brave men will make it so. - John F. Kennedy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: All

“There are those in America today who have come to depend absolutely on government for their security. And when government fails they seek to rectify that failure in the form of granting government more power. So, as government has failed to control crime and violence with the means given it by the Constitution, they seek to give it more power at the expense of the Constitution. But in doing so, in their willingness to give up their arms in the name of safety, they are really giving up their protection from what has always been the chief source of despotism—government. Lord Acton said power corrupts. Surely then, if this is true, the more power we give the government the more corrupt it will become. And if we give it the power to confiscate our arms we also give up the ultimate means to combat that corrupt power. In doing so we can only assure that we will eventually be totally subject to it.” — Ronald Reagan.

221 posted on 04/23/2007 9:15:26 AM PDT by PsyOp (Any dangerous spot is tenable if brave men will make it so. - John F. Kennedy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: All

“Clearly, there remains to this day a horrible, condescending attitude toward armed American citizens. Haven’t the British yet gotten over the fact that a ragtag, often disorganized force of American colonials, wielding their own arms, was able to defeat what at the time was the most powerful armed force in the world? Our forefathers, armed with their own flintlock rifles and pistols, and an assortment of muskets—the ‘assault weapons’ of their era—threw off the yoke of oppression under which they were forced to live. When British broadcasters today demand to know just what it is about gun ownership that Americans defend so vigorously, the answer is too simple for them to comprehend. Simply put, we defend this individual civil right because without our own guns two centuries ago, we would still... likely be British subjects...” — Alan Gottlieb.

222 posted on 04/23/2007 9:17:59 AM PDT by PsyOp (Any dangerous spot is tenable if brave men will make it so. - John F. Kennedy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: All

“In its proper constitutional sense, the term [militia] means all the able-bodied people who can be trained and disciplined to act in the community’s defense when it’s attacked. Since it encompasses every able-bodied person, it does not refer to those—such as the police, the military, or even the National Guard—who formally compose the official defense forces of the nation. Every citizen able and willing to act in an emergency becomes a potential defender against attacks aimed at the general population. Unfortunately, because of the anti-gun folly of the leftist media and politicians, we have lost sight of this vital element of our defense... The anti-gun crowd seeks to establish a modern version of [the medieval era], a kind of bureaucratic feudalism, in place of the republican self-government established by our Constitution... The answer is not gun control, but self-government, self-defense, and self-control. We must act to live as free people, else like sheep for the slaughter, we will die, and freedom with us.” — Alan Keyes.

223 posted on 04/23/2007 9:20:14 AM PDT by PsyOp (Any dangerous spot is tenable if brave men will make it so. - John F. Kennedy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

“Fifty years ago [Cho Seung-Hui] probably would have ended up, more likely, in a state mental hospital, than in a state university. But from the pictures we’ve seen, the kind of iconic photograph of the way he was methodical in everything he did, the one thing you can say psychiatrically speaking, is he was not as schizophrenic—that we colloquially think of as delusional or hallucinating. This is a man who planned it out. This was very methodical—schizophrenics are quite disorganized. He wasn’t. He was too organized. What you can say, just—not as a psychiatrist, but as somebody who’s lived through the past seven or eight years, is that if you look at that picture, it draws its inspiration from the manifestos, the iconic photographs of the Islamic suicide bombers over the last half-decade in Palestine, in Iraq, and elsewhere. That’s what they end up leaving behind...” — Charles Krauthammer.

224 posted on 04/23/2007 9:21:59 AM PDT by PsyOp (Any dangerous spot is tenable if brave men will make it so. - John F. Kennedy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: All

“The trouble with gun control laws is they target the law abiding. ‘If you disarm good people but not the criminals, instead of making things safe for the potential victims you may unintentionally make them safe for the criminals,’ said Dr. John Lott, coauthor of a massive study on guns and crime... Both crime rates and shooting deaths have declined in most states which have adopted ‘concealed carry’ laws, says Dr. Lott. The decline in ‘multiple victim public shootings’ has been especially pronounced, he said. ‘Bill Landes of the University of Chicago law school and I examined multiple-victim public shootings in the U.S. from 1977 to 1999 and found that when states passed right-to-carry laws, the rate of multiple victim public shootings fell by 60 percent. Deaths and injuries from multiple victim public shootings fell even further, on average by 78 percent, as the remaining incidents tended to involve fewer victims per attack,’ Dr. Lott said... In applauding the defeat last year of a measure in the Virginia legislature to permit those with concealed carry permits to have a gun on campus, Associate Vice President Larry Hinckler said Virginia Tech’s strict gun control policy made students feel safer. But there is a difference between feeling safer and being safer, as Virginia Tech has learned to its sorrow.” — Jack Kelly.

225 posted on 04/23/2007 9:26:17 AM PDT by PsyOp (Any dangerous spot is tenable if brave men will make it so. - John F. Kennedy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: All

“Instantly, on the day of the shooting at Virginia Tech, the media were already promoting gun control and pre-emptively denouncing right-wingers who point out that gun control enables murderers rather than stopping them. Liberals get to lobby for gun control, but we’re disallowed from arguing back. That’s how good their arguments are. They’re that good. Needless to say, Virginia Tech is a Gun-Free School Zone—at least until last Monday. The gunman must not have known. Imagine his embarrassment! Perhaps there should be signs. Virginia Tech even prohibits students with concealed-carry permits from carrying their guns on campus. Last year, the school disciplined a student for carrying a gun on campus, despite his lawful concealed-carry permit. If only someone like that had been in Norris Hall on Monday, this massacre could have been ended a lot sooner. But last January, the Virginia General Assembly shot down a bill that would have prevented universities like Virginia Tech from giving sanctuary to mass murderers on college campuses in Virginia by disarming students with concealed-carry permits valid in the rest of the state. Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker praised the legislature for allowing the school to disarm lawful gun owners on the faculty and student body, thereby surrendering every college campus in the state to deranged mass murderers... Others disagreed. Writing last year about another dangerous killer who had been loose on the Virginia Tech campus, graduate student Jonathan McGlumphy wrote: ‘Is it not obvious that all students, faculty and staff would have been safer if [concealed handgun permit] holders were not banned from carrying their weapons on campus?’ If it wasn’t obvious then, it is now.” — Ann Coulter.

226 posted on 04/23/2007 9:30:25 AM PDT by PsyOp (Any dangerous spot is tenable if brave men will make it so. - John F. Kennedy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: All

Which is safer? More guns or fewer? - Armed college students mean fewer victims,1299,DRMN_38_5496672,00.html ^ | April 21, 2007 | Glenn Reynolds

On Monday, as the news of the Virginia Tech shootings was unfolding, I went into my advanced constitutional law seminar to find one of my students upset. My student, Tara Wyllie, has a permit to carry a gun in Tennessee, but she isn’t allowed to have a weapon on campus. That left her feeling unsafe. “Why couldn’t we meet off campus today?” she asked.

Virginia Tech graduate student Bradford Wiles also has a permit to carry a gun, in Virginia. But on the day of the shootings, he would have been unarmed for the same reason: Like the University of Tennessee, where I teach, Virginia Tech bans guns on campus.

In The Roanoke Times last year - after another campus incident, when a dangerous escaped inmate was roaming the campus - Wiles wrote that, when his class was evacuated, “Of all of the emotions and thoughts that were running through my head that morning, the most overwhelming one was of helplessness. That feeling of helplessness has been difficult to reconcile because I knew I would have been safer with a proper means to defend myself.”

Wiles reported that when he told a professor how he felt, the professor responded that she would have felt safer if he had had a gun, too.

What’s more, she would have been safer. That’s how I feel about my student as well (one of a few I know who have gun-carry permits). She’s a responsible adult; I trust her not to use her gun improperly, and if something bad happened, I’d want her to be armed because I trust her to respond appropriately, making the rest of us safer.

Virginia Tech doesn’t have that kind of trust in its students (or its faculty, for that matter). Neither does the University of Tennessee. ...

227 posted on 04/25/2007 1:23:12 PM PDT by PsyOp (The commonwealth is theirs who hold the arms.... - Aristotle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: All

“Arms are the only true badges of liberty. The possession of arms is the distinction of a free man from a slave.” - Andrew Fletcher.

“Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen.” — Jeff Cooper.

228 posted on 06/27/2007 11:16:53 AM PDT by PsyOp (Truth in itself is rarely sufficient to make men act. - Clauswitz, On War, 1832.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: All
"Whatever drugs he's doing altered his brain chemical, and he did something he probably didn't want to do," Van Arsdale said. "When somebody points a gun at me, it alters my brain chemistry and makes me do things I don't normally do."

Gun-toting store owner runs off bandit (UT)

229 posted on 08/08/2007 1:15:18 PM PDT by PsyOp (Truth in itself is rarely sufficient to make men act. - Clauswitz, On War, 1832.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: All
"Big business" is interested in governmental stability here in the United States and throughout the world. Since dictatorships or parliamentary oligarchies rule most countries, American big business has no interest in promoting the model our system of government is based upon, fearing the possibility of revolutions like our American Revolution in other countries. Big business exercises a lot of control over our media, our government, and governments in other countries.      Public schools no longer teach the underlying governmental principles held by the Founding Fathers. School textbooks do not include information on these underlying principles. Large media conglomerates (part of big business) write and publish school textbooks. - Dr. Joseph L. Bass, A Little Handbook On The Second Amendment, 1999.

Personal defense (protecting yourself) is the first principle included in the right to keep and bear arms, as found in the Second Amendment. Personal defense is considered a "natural right" against lawless attacks, that government cannot prevent. - Dr. Joseph L. Bass, A Little Handbook On The Second Amendment, 1999.

Only by being armed, can "the people" maintain sovereignty over necessary, but limited government. If government becomes excessively repressive, "the people" are justified in using their arms to overthrow the government and create a new one. Under our model of government and in the thinking of the Founding Fathers, we are either armed or we are slaves. - Dr. Joseph L. Bass, A Little Handbook On The Second Amendment, 1999.

"The people" are mentioned in the Preamble of the Constitution and in five of the amendments that make up the Bill of Rights (First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments.) To accept the "collective rights" argument we would have to believe that "the people" in the Second Amendment are not the same people found in the Preamble of the Constitution and the other four amendments. - Dr. Joseph L. Bass, A Little Handbook On The Second Amendment, 1999.

The English had a system of government recognizing the right of "the people" to be armed. During ancient times, the English were exposed to raids from Germanic tribes. All of "the people" made up the "militia."      The ancient English kings required subjects to be armed at all times. The Laws of Alfred (871-899) and the Laws of Cnut (1020-1023) considered being armed a right and a duty of all male citizens. A person was fined if he failed to have arms available so that he could respond to a community emergency. Such response was known as "responding to the hue and cry." - Dr. Joseph L. Bass, A Little Handbook On The Second Amendment, 1999.

During Anglo-Saxon times a ceremony was conducted when a slave was freed, placing weapons into his hands, indicating his new status as a free man. Having and bearing arms was a symbol of liberty. Anglo-Saxon laws made disarming a free man a Crime. - Dr. Joseph L. Bass, A Little Handbook On The Second Amendment, 1999.

In 1066, the Normans (from what would be part of France today) conquered the English and thus began a process of the English losing their rights. Henry II's 1181 Assize of Arms recognized being armed as a right and a duty. But individual English subjects were to possess arms according to their "station" in life. That is to say, subjects could only have certain arms based on their wealth and the amount of land they owned. Because the king feared revolt, the poor could own only certain weapons and certain quantities of weapons.      In 1199, King John came to the throne and proceeded to disarm nobles and commoners alike. This action and other efforts to establish an absolute monarch resulted in a revolt in 1215. The nobles forced John to sign the Magna Charta which included recognition that the nobles had a right to correct the king by use of force and recognition of the right to keep and bear arms as established in the Assize of Arms….      But the development of firearms and their ownership by the poor and middle classes caused the monarchy to fear this new power in the hands of commoners. Henry VII (1485-1603), Henry VIII (1509-1647), and Charles II (1660-1685) issued edicts seeking to disallow firearms and crossbow ownership to all but wealthy landowners. But even Henry VIII, who sought to establish an absolute monarchy, still recognized the value of an armed citizenry, encouraging in 1511, that every man own, practice, and "have available long bow and arrows. - Dr. Joseph L. Bass, A Little Handbook On The Second Amendment, 1999.

Classical Greek Thinking - Aristotle discussed the works of Plato, who advocated an elite "philosopher king." Plato comes across as a naIve, rich kid, who never experienced much of the real world. He thought that a well-educated philosopher would rule his people with goodness and benevolence. The common people were supposed to mind their own business, leaving government decisions to the educated elite. Plato didn't take into account how power and wealth can corrupt even educated people.      Aristotle advocated an armed citizenry and a balance of power within government, providing checks against the human tendency to hoard wealth and power for the benefit of a wealthy elite. - Dr. Joseph L. Bass, A Little Handbook On The Second Amendment, 1999.

Classical Roman Thinking - Cicero advocated an armed citizenry and a balance of power within government, like Aristotle. Rome at first had a republican form of government and the citizens were armed. The foundation of the Roman Republic rested on an army made up of citizens who provided their own arms. The symbolic end of the Roman Republic came when Julius Caesar marched a professional army across the Rubicon River in 49 B.C., starting a civil war that resulted in the establishment of an imperial monarchy under Augustus Caesar. Although citizens could own arms during the early years of the empire, the end of the republic marked the end of the superiority of an armed citizenry over a standing army. When emperors such as Tiberius sought to increase their power and wealth, they began by disarming the people… - Dr. Joseph L. Bass, A Little Handbook On The Second Amendment, 1999.

Governments are formed by "the people" to make life better, not worse. - Dr. Joseph L. Bass, A Little Handbook On The Second Amendment, 1999.

As the government of King George ill became more and more repressive against American colonists, it sought to disarm the Americans as it had the Irish, Scots, and other people throughout the world. During 1774 and 1775, the English attempted to disarm the Americans through use of arbitrary search of citizens' homes and seizure of all arms discovered. It also banned importing of arms and ammunition from England to America. …      They revolted against the king. "The shot heard round the world" was fired when an English army marched on Lexington, Massachusetts, with the intent of capturing the militia's powder magazine and disarming "the people." At the same time, the royal governor of Virginia seized the militia powder magazine at Williamsburg. …      All of these actions and the resulting American Revolution can be traced to writings of ancient and more recent scholars who advocated a republican form of government based on an armed citizenry. The armed citizens were known as "the militia," and "the militia" was made up of the entire body of the people. Each citizen provided his own gun, and an immediate supply of powder and lead. The armed citizenry provided a balance against repressive government and tyranny. All of this can be read in the speeches and writings of the Founding Fathers. - Dr. Joseph L. Bass, A Little Handbook On The Second Amendment, 1999.

The American gun control movement is firmly rooted in racial bigotry. And let us not assume that these roots are unrelated to today's gun control movement. - Dr. Joseph L. Bass, A Little Handbook On The Second Amendment, 1999.

In the South, the Ku Klux Klan increased its activities and membership. The Klan disarmed African-American citizens and terrorized those who sought to vote, often with silent government sanction. The wealthy and big business interests financially supported Klan activities. Very poor Klan members suddenly had enough money to purchase new, expensive firearms. What happened to African-Americans is a perfect example of what happens to any people who are disarmed. They were enslaved "in fact" although the Thirteenth Amendment outlawed slavery or involuntary servitude. - Dr. Joseph L. Bass, A Little Handbook On The Second Amendment, 1999.

[In] Anglo-Saxon times… a ceremony was conducted at the time a slave was freed, placing weapons into his hands, indicating his new status as a free man. Having and bearing arms was a symbol of liberty. The Klan, state governments, and the federal government made every effort to repress newly freed citizens. They reduced them to such a condition that they could do nothing to secure their personal security and exercise the rights of American citizens. Only in the mid-1950's did this start to change in some respects for African-American citizens. - Dr. Joseph L. Bass, A Little Handbook On The Second Amendment, 1999.

Thomas Jefferson envisioned a rural America. A very large percentage of families lived on farms of 40 acres or more. Governments, both federal and state, were small and had only limited powers. "The people" are to be always armed. An armed people will rise up against a tyrannical government. In one of his writings, he complained that many citizens ignored laws requiring them to purchase and own the same type of firearms carried by the regular army. - Dr. Joseph L. Bass, A Little Handbook On The Second Amendment, 1999.

Alexander Hamilton envisioned an industrial America. The powers of government will be used to promote business activities. A stronger central government will be needed with the power to maintain a small standing army. In the Federalist Papers, he argued a necessary, small, standing army would pose no threat to republican government because the body of the people are armed. - Dr. Joseph L. Bass, A Little Handbook On The Second Amendment, 1999.

For example, the most dramatic growth in the federal government is associated with the commerce clause. This clause delegates the federal government power to regulate interstate commerce. That is to say, the federal government can regulate commerce that flows between two or more states. Many, many laws have been enacted that take more than a "stretch" to be seen as being associated with regulating commerce that flows between two or more states. For example, the gun control law, making it a crime to carry a gun within 1000 feet of a school, was passed under the commerce clause. For this law to be in keeping with original intent, one has to believe that an otherwise law-abiding citizen standing 999 feet from a school with a gun in his or her possession is related to the flow of commerce between two states. It is interesting to note that the greatest increase in federal government growth is associated with business and wealth. - Dr. Joseph L. Bass, A Little Handbook On The Second Amendment, 1999.

People can be uncomfortable and feel threatened by people who are different. Following the Civil War there were dramatic increases in immigration into the United States from non-northern European countries. States in the industrial northeast and California experienced the greatest increases. Newspapers openly stated that a major reason for passing the New York State 1911 Sullivan, handgun, licensing law was to limit "ignorant and quarrelsome immigrants" from having handguns. Citizens of foreign birth were not supposed to go about armed. Italians made up seventy percent of those arrested under the Sullivan law the first three years following its enactment. What appears to be selective enforcement echoes the concealed carry laws applied against African- American citizens in the South and not applied against whites. - Dr. Joseph L. Bass, A Little Handbook On The Second Amendment, 1999.

The prohibition of alcohol through the 18th Amendment is an example of how government can enact a law (even inserting it into the Constitution) that does not have the support of "the people." "The people" had their booze regardless of the law. Alcohol prohibition produced the following results: a dramatic increase of wealth in the hands of members of organized crime; a dramatic increase in violent crime; passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934, placing a $200 tax and requiring registration with the federal government for citizens to own automatic weapons, and short-barreled shotguns and rifles. - Dr. Joseph L. Bass, A Little Handbook On The Second Amendment, 1999.

With the 14th Amendment African-Americans were made citizens of both the United States and the individual state where they lived. It said that no state could enact or enforce laws that prohibited from any citizen (black, white, or whatever) the privileges and immunities previously enjoyed by white citizens. The amendment gave Congress the power to ensure that states had no laws or enforced no laws that prohibited the personal rights included in the Bill of Rights, including the right to keep and bear arms.      U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876) is an example of… an artful dodge. A group of nearly 100 white Louisiana men were accused in federal court of violating the civil rights of two African-American men who were murdered. Court action charged the men with violating the murdered citizens' civil rights, including the right to assemble, the right to keep and bear arms, deprivation of life without due process of law, etc.. Three of the men were convicted, including William J. Cruikshank. The Supreme Court reversed the convictions ruling that the federal government had no police powers over private actions. The Supreme Court did not recognize a "sin of omission" on the part of the state of Louisiana, which did not seek to accuse and try the murderers for their crimes. Although the 14th Amendment granted Congress the power to enforce the amendment with appropriate legislation, the court ruled that a citizen whose rights are violated must look to his or her state government for protection of their civil rights and not the federal government.      The Cruikshank ruling is an example of the silent sanction of Ku Klux Klan activities by government. According to the ruling, Klan members can deprive African-Americans of their arms and kill them without legal interference from the federal government as long as there is no state law instructing them to do so. This ruling effectively excused the federal government from ensuring for minorities the privileges and immunities enjoyed by white people. States did not pass laws that instructed Klan members to murder African-Americans, but they also did not prosecute whites who murdered them. - Dr. Joseph L. Bass, A Little Handbook On The Second Amendment, 1999.

Among all other countries in the world, Switzerland is the only one that has a government based on an armed citizenry. Switzerland has maintained an armed citizenry since the Renaissance and the time of Machiavelli. A Sturmgewehr 90 assault rifle (a select fire machine gun) is kept in nearly every Swiss home in addition to a large supply of ammunition. Citizens can purchase machine guns, anti-tank weapons, howitzers, anti-aircraft guns, and cannons. Government constructs thousands of shooting ranges that are available to the public. Government sells ammunition to citizens at cost. - Dr. Joseph L. Bass, A Little Handbook On The Second Amendment, 1999.

Gun control advocates often suggest that the American suicide rate would go down if gun ownership were restricted or prohibited. This position can also be shown to be false. Japan has one of the highest rates of suicide in the world and almost completely restricts firearms ownership. Only the police, the military, a few well-connected wealthy people, and members of organized crime have guns in Japan. People, intent on killing themselves, will find a means to do so, one way or the other. Increased gun control will not reduce suicide rates. - Dr. Joseph L. Bass, A Little Handbook On The Second Amendment, 1999.

The right to keep and bear arms, as found in the Second Amendment, is infringed on by state governments and the federal government. In some states and the District of Columbia, all law-abiding citizens have been reduced to a status similar to African-Americans who until recent times were disallowed flfearms ownership and other rights the three Reconstruction Amendments were meant to protect. Except now, government is responsible for denied firearm ownership without the help of the Ku Klux Klan. Throughout the nation all citizens are disallowed ownership of the standard firearms carried by infantry soldiers and officers: the Colt Ml6 rifle and the M-9 Beretta handgun, each with magazines that will hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. All citizens are also disallowed many firearms carried by the military and law-enforcement agencies such as automatic weapons and short barreled rifles and shotguns. - Dr. Joseph L. Bass, A Little Handbook On The Second Amendment, 1999.

A public newspaper makes the multitude too familiar with the actions and counsels of its superiors, too pragmatical and censorious, and gives them not only an inch, but a kind of colourable right and license to be meddling with the government. - Roger L 'Estrange, The Public Intelligencer, August 3, 1663.

The words "people of the United States" and "citizens" are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the "sovereign people," and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty. - Chief Justice Taney, Dred Scott v. Sandford. 1857.

They had for more than a century before been regarded as being of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. – Chief Justice Taney, Dred Scott v. Sandford. 1857.

Be it enacted... That no freedman, free negro or mulatto, not in the military service of the United States government, and not licensed so to do by the board of police of his or her county, shall keep or carry firearms of any kind, or any ammunition, dirk or bowie knife,... – Mississippi “black code” law titled "Act to Regulate the Relation of Master and Apprentice Relative to Freedmen, Free Negroes, and Mulattoes", 1865.

Sir, I find in the Constitution of the United States an article which declares that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." For myself, I shall insist that the reconstructed rebels of Mississippi respect the Constitution in their local laws...      Nearly every white man in that State that could bear arms was in the rebel ranks. Nearly all of their able- bodied colored men who could reach our lines enlisted under the old flag. Many of these brave defenders of the nation paid for the arms with which they went to battle... The "reconstructed" State authorities of Mississippi were allowed to rob and disarm our veteran soldiers. - Representative Sidney Clark, during a debate in the House of Representatives condemning the enactment of “Jim Crow” laws in Mississippi.

It is reported that in some parts of this State, armed parties are, without proper authority, engaged in seizing all fire-arms found in the hands of the freedmen. Such conduct is in clear and direct violation of their personal rights as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, which declares that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” - General Rufus Saxton, "Report of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction", June 20, 1866.

Justice Harlan's dissenting opinion in Poe v. Ullman stated the thesis best: “[T]he full scope of liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This 'liberty' is not a series of isolated points picked out in terms of taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on.” - Laurence Tribe, Professor of Law at Harvard University, American Constitutional Law, 1988.

Indeed, James Madison introduced the ninth amendment in specific response to the arguments of Hamilton and others that enactment of a Bill of Rights might dangerously suggest “that those rights which were not singled out, were indeed to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure.” The ninth amendment, which provides that “[t]he enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,” ... - Laurence Tribe, Professor of Law at Harvard University, American Constitutional Law, 1988.

230 posted on 11/09/2007 1:49:39 PM PST by PsyOp (Truth in itself is rarely sufficient to make men act. - Clauswitz, On War, 1832.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: All

“The Gun is Civilization” by Marko

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat—it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

By Marko

231 posted on 04/15/2008 10:25:28 AM PDT by PsyOp (Truth in itself is rarely sufficient to make men act. - Clauswitz, On War, 1832.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: PsyOp


232 posted on 08/02/2011 10:28:00 AM PDT by EdReform (Oath Keepers - Guardians of the Republic - Honor your oath - Join us:
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-232 last

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
Topics · Post Article

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