Skip to comments.Gun Control, Ad Infinitum - Gun control is something Americans almost never stop talking about.
Posted on 12/13/2012 3:18:19 PM PST by neverdem
Gun control, according to a recent blog post by Timothy Egan of The New York Times, is the issue that dare not speak its name. Egan is upset that people who do not like gun control recently said mean things about sportscaster Bob Costas, who does. This proved to Egan that you cannot talk about guns in America.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg agrees. Thanking Costas for speaking up, he tweeted: A frank discussion about gun laws and gun violence is a discussion we need to have.
Bloomberg has an ally in NPRs Neal Conan. In a Talk of the Nation segment back in March titled, Trayvon Martin Story Sparks Difficult Conversations, Conan lamented: I feel we're missing the opportunity to also have a discussion about guns.
Liberals arent alone in talking about how nobodys talking about gun control. This country needs an honest debate about the issue, says Juan Williams of Fox News. The issue should be debated as a matter of public safety. But anti-free speech forces have prevented this debate from happening.
Williams is absolutely right. Remember the movie-theater shooting in Aurora, Colo., earlier this year? After that horrible crime, there was no discussion of gun control whatsoeverat least if you dont count the several thousand news stories such as, Gun Debate Reignited by Aurora Shooting (Chicago Tribune) and Aurora Shooting Highlights Gun Debate (MSNBC) and Aurora Shooting Sparks Gun Debate (AP) and so on.
Yet despite those stories, plenty of gun-control advocates felt enough wasnt being said.
I think its time there was a serious debate about guns in the U.S., tweeted Piers Morgan of CNN. Calif. Sen. Dianne Feinstein said she wanted a sane national conversation about guns. Can We Please Have an Honest Debate About Guns Now? asked Amy Sullivan in The New Republic.
Why Cant We Talk About Guns? asked the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle...
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
A frank discussion about gun laws and gun violence is a discussion we need to have.
We have it all the time and you people always LOSE because your positions are ludicrous nonsense.
I had a long, serious talk with my youngest son on gun control and its importance - just one of many such talks. Today the emphasis was on trigger control. I hope he was paying close attention; I’m tired of him jerking his aim to the right on an otherwise perfect shot.
“Gun control, according to a recent blog post by Timothy Egan of The New York Times, is the issue that dare not speak its name. Egan is upset that people who do not like gun control recently said mean things about sportscaster Bob Costas, who does. This proved to Egan that you cannot talk about guns in America.”
Perhaps because the very suggestion of “Gun control” is an attack upon other people’s natural rights to keep and bare arms. To stay nothing of their Constitutional rights(depending upon which state they live in).
It is simply not legitimate to support Gun control in States like Texas where it is constitutionally prohibited.
The proper definition of gun control. First breath control, to steady the aim, then SQUEEZE the trigger (rather than an abrupt pull, which causes a waver from the aim), followed by chambering in the next round (whether by bolt action, or as a semi-automatic).
That bear just might keep on coming. Aim for the kill shot the first time, or if that is not successful, be ready to send in a follow-up shot to the (now much closer) bear, using the same gun control exerted earlier.
This is no time to go wobbly.
A pinch of wisdom from the Founders with a dash of commentary.
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
--- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.
--- Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.The thoughtful reader may wonder, why wasn't Jefferson's proposal of "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms" adopted by the Virginia legislature? Click here to learn why.
---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
---Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.To model our political system upon speculations of lasting tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character.Quotes from the Founders During the Ratification Period of the Constitution
---Alexander Hamilton[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.
---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)
John Adams recognizes the fundamental right of citizens, as individuals, to defend themselves with arms, however he states militias must be controlled by government and the rule of law. To have otherwise is to invite anarchy.
The material and commentary that follows is excerpted from Halbrook, Stephen P. "The Right of the People or the Power of the State Bearing Arms, Arming Militias, and the Second Amendment". Originally published as 26 Val. U. L.Rev. 131-207, 1991.Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.During the Massachusetts ratifying convention William Symmes warned that the new government at some point "shall be too firmly fixed in the saddle to be overthrown by anything but a general insurrection." Yet fears of standing armies were groundless, affirmed Theodore Sedwick, who queried, "if raised, whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?"
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.The Virginia ratifying convention met from June 2 through June 26, 1788. Edmund Pendleton, opponent of a bill of rights, weakly argued that abuse of power could be remedied by recalling the delegated powers in a convention. Patrick Henry shot back that the power to resist oppression rests upon the right to possess arms:
---Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.Henry sneered,O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone...Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation...inflicted by those who had no power at all?More quotes from the Virginia convention:[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor...Zacharia Johnson argued that the new Constitution could never result in religious persecution or other oppression because:
---George Mason[T]he people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.The Virginia delegation's recommended bill of rights included the following:That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.The following quote is from Halbrook, Stephen P., That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right, University of New Mexico Press, 1984.The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...[I]t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.Gallatin's use of the words "some rights," doesn't mean some of the rights in the Bill of Rights, rather there are many rights not enumerated by the Bill of Rights, those rights that are listed are being established as unalienable.
---Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789, MS. in N.Y. Hist. Soc.-A.G. Papers, 2.
Roger Sherman, during House consideration of a militia bill (1790):[C]onceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular states, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend, by force of arms, their rights, when invaded.
14 Debates in the House of Representatives, ed. Linda Grand De Pauw. (Balt., Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1972), 92-3.
For post-ratification quotes, see GunCite's: Quotes from constitutional commentators.
[gun usage]... shall not be infringed.
It's just hard to embellish that since it is so clear. Yet, morons among us, we have to.
Let’s talk about the 99.97% of guns that aren’t used for criminal purposes.
Ya beat me to it
Bump and Dittos
” A frank discussion.”
They want you to sit down, allow them to yell at you, and attempt to disgrace you, while showing their complete contempt and lack of knowledge about the Constitution, the Founding Fathers, and THEIR discussions and thoughts, which went into the very Second Amendment.
No thanks. I can get that from either of my ex-wives.
I would bring along a Marine Public Relations Officer, who has had a few ‘hours’ dealing with anti-gun idiots.
Most of these folks that want to have “frank discussions”, have denied this nation the priviledge of returning the favor of all that makes America great, by donning the uniform of this great nation. They haven’t the heart, nor the stomach, to put any words into action, other than what other folks should do while being mandated from ‘the government’. It is folks like this, when I read the papers/blogs, when they suffer any kind of calamity, that maybe it was supposed to happen, to humble them, to have them examine their life. But, with these folks, that is wishful thinking, I guess.
How about a frank talk on recidivism?
I’ve noticed, watching the mass media presstitutes and the dmocrat party, there are three (3) things they cannot stop talking about and trying to control. #1` Social Security deposits (payroll tax), #2 Tax the Rich, but not themselves. #3 Gun control, but not their body guards. They really have nothing else to “Bring before the American Public”.
> Lets talk about the 99.97% of guns that arent used for criminal purposes.
As long as you have facts, figures, and fancy graphs to prove it to the liberals otherwise they won’t believe it. Funny thing is they don’t seem to have enough intellegence to realize that all those facts, figures, and graphs might be complete fabrications created by political forces to sway public opinion to get them to do their bidding in order to accomplish their hidden agendas.
The don’t want a frank discussion about guns. An honest discussion is the last thing they want.
What they want is to shout down and then dictate their beliefs and agenda: To ban guns, or as many as they can, until the are all banned.
You see the left usually says the opposite of what they really want. We have to remember this is a cultural war and never give them an inch, and respond to their absurdity faithfully.
I’ll be happy to have a serious dicussion about gun control:
Bloomberg: We need to have a serious discussion about gun control.
Bloomberg: I think we should ban semiautomatic pistols and rifles, mark all ammunition with serial number and register ammunition buyers, eliminate internet ammunition sales. Further we should require all reloaders to turn in their loaded rounds and outlaw reloading. The guns would stamp the cartridges with an identifier when fired so we can tell who fired them.
Bloomberg: But...but...I thought we were going to have a serious discussion on gun control.
TTTC: We did. I am very serious about the no. Dead Serious.
Bloomberg: Is that a threat?
TTTC: No. A figure of speech you liberal moron.
Bloomberg: Just what are you afraid of that makes you want to own guns?
TTTC: Not one damn thing.
How about this for a frank discussion?
The founders created the Second Amendment as the second highest priority right behind the freedom of speech because firearms in the hands of the people are for protection not from bears or burglars, but the government. AS such, they have to be of the character and capability, not to protect us from not just bears or burglars, but equal to anything the government has that is likely to be used against the people.
That means that at a minimum, whatever the SWAT teams have to use against us has to be available to the people. They should also be capable against the individual weapons used by an invading army.
So, if Obama wants to ban such firearms, you will have to admit we no longer protect the right of the people to protect themselves from our government. That our government is totally trustworthy. That there is no chance another Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pot can come to power and deny us our other Constitutional rights. The Second Amendment is then disposable, as the communists say, ‘for the people’.
And if the Second Amendment is disposable, what about the others????
Poll after poll shows Americans of both parties support the right to own a gun.
If you don't agree with the leftist elites, your opinion might as well not even exist.
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.