Guns without controls

Virginia Times Community ^ | July 20, 2004 | Del. Kenneth R. “Ken” Plum (D-36th)

[B4Ranch]

>>With firearms in mind please explain this logic. We write laws because the people CANNOT be trusted and the people obey the laws because they CAN be trusted.<<


We write laws because the people NEED TO BE CONTROLLED!



----http://www.firearmsid.com/----

[B4Ranch]

kenplum@aol.com.

He's not too bright IMO.

[Eastbound]

"He's not too bright IMO."

Seems to be the consensus here. Heh. Oh well. On to bigger game. I expect there will be a barrage of stupid articles like this in the days to come. No telling how many eighth-graders they hired to swamp the net and media with crap like this.

[budwiesest]

Way to go coloradan! Great response to this pile of BS. I'd never before considered anti-gunners as the equivalent of bigots such as those who would deny blacks civil rights. Until I read your response.

But then I took it further and to my surprise--Imagine:
"You gotta ride in the back of the bus with all the other gun-wearers." or..
"We'll have to seat you in the section of the restraunt with the other gun-wearers."..or
There could be unarmed waterfountains and armed waterfountains. An unarmed ATM, and an armed ATM..etc.

At which point I got to thinking...dang! this doesn't sound too bad.
"I'm not letting my daughter date you because you carry a gun and know how to use it." "I'd prefer someone with a cell phone to call the authorities should she be threatened with rape, robbery, assualt, or carjacking."

[blackie]

I have a concealed carry permit but no radar detector ~ never have seen the need for one.

[kAcknor]

Not being allowed to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater is the most often cited limitation on free speech.

I love it when somebody uses this example on me.

Shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater is perfectly acceptable, legal, morally correct and even expected.... Providing of course, that the theater is in fact, on fire.

Having and even using a firearm in public is also perfectly acceptable, legal, morally correct and even expected providing that somebody's life is in mortal danger.

[B.O. Plenty]

Thought some of you would be interested in some of the responsed to Deligate Plum:

Responses to Deligate Plum

[Mulder]

Thought some of you would be interested in some of the responsed to Deligate Plum: Responses to Deligate Plum

Thanks for the link!

[YOUGOTIT]

"None of our constitutional rights are absolute... And controls on your guns can be imposed that would protect the public but allow enthusiasts to collect guns and to hunt as a sport."

All of our Constitutional rights are absolute. The Constitution is very plain; “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

If you believe that our Constitutional Rights are not absolute then we can shut down all of these anti-American media outlets and put a stop to all of the anti-American protesters. There should not be a free press if the government wants to shut it down. The right of people to partition the government for redress of grievances would stop and the right to be secure in your person would no longer be required. If the rights in the Constitution are not absolute, then we have no rights. By the way “free speech in the Constitution” was for political free speech not the perverted concept forced on us by left-wing judges.

I feel sorry for the person who does not believe that our Constitutional Rights are not absolute – They are ready for the dictatorship of the left like what happen in Europe and Russia in the 1930’s.

[Poser]

"On July 31-Aug. 1, “The Nation's Gun Show” will be held at the Dulles Expo Center in Chantilly. The promoters expect 1,000 tables where guns will be sold. "


I've *got* to get there. Sounds great.

[El Gato]

As horrifying as it is to contemplate, the next gunfight may not be at the O-K Corral; it might be in our own community.

Uh, dude, the OK Corral was in someone's community. The town of Tombstone Arizona to be exact. Did you think that was in Trashcanistan, or maybe on Mars?

Typical gun grabber, dumb as a bag of rocks, if that is not too insulting to the rocks.

[RogueIsland]

None of our constitutional rights are absolute. Not being allowed to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater is the most often cited limitation on free speech.

There is no law prohibiting you from yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater. In fact, if there is a fire, you are probably morally obligated to make others aware of that fact. There are, however, legal consequences if one irresponsibly yells "fire" in a crowded theater, just as there are consequences if one uses a firearm irresponsibly.

The author appears not to be a deep enough thinker to appreciate this.

[El Gato]

None of our constitutional rights are absolute. Not being allowed to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater is the most often cited limitation on free speech.

But the government can't tape your mouth shut because you might shout fire when there was no fire. If they did, you also couldn't shoult fire when there was one, and thus could not warn the other patrons about it. IOW, no prior restraint is allowed on free speech. Only abuse of free speech can be and is punished.

And controls on your guns can be imposed that would protect the public but allow enthusiasts to collect guns and to hunt as a sport.

Neither the Second Amendment to the US Constitution nor Art 1 Section thirten of the Virginia consitution (That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; ... ) have anything to do, directly, with hunting or collecting. It's all about protecting a free state. (The "safe" in the above quote means safe for the liberty of the people, unlike a standing army, or in the modern context, a standing police (in the sense of "law enforcement" rather than "peace officer") force or a police state.)

[RogueIsland]

As horrifying as it is to contemplate, the next gunfight may not be at the O-K Corral;

Umm, the gunfight at the O-K Corral was, at least ostensibly, a law-enforcement action on the part of peace officers (details and gray areas aside). Does the author have a problem with peace officers being armed in the course of their duties?

[El Gato]

For several years, I think, my membership included a monthly publication entitled "American Guardian" which was dedicated to self-defense. This was discontinued in favor of a monthly entitled "America's First Freedom", which focusses mainly on the political issues associated with the Second Amendment. But I do see self-defense articles also.

And all of the NRA membership publications you cite contain the "Armed Citizen" page, which documents the use of firearms for defense of self, others and property.

[Billthedrill]

Almost too easy. Shall we see what happens to crime statistics in Virginia over the next, say, six months and then revisit this hysterical nonsense?

The "OK Corral" and the "Wild West" are repeatedly invoked with horror by anti-gun zealots who know as little about those as they do about firearms. In point of fact, the bloodbaths that are always predicted somehow never materialize, but even so, we'd be very lucky to have crime rates as low as Tombstone or Dodge City in the "bad" old days.

Random thoughts - does the Consitution allow you to yell "MOVIE!" in a crowded firehouse?

[coloradan]

There isn't a dime's worth of difference between those who put used to put up signs "No colored people allowed here" from those who today put up signs "No CCWs allowed here". Bigots in both cases.

[supercat]

Having velcro on your dashboard is just cause for them to search your car for the radar detector, like that's the only thing you would use velcro for...

What if you had a pistol velcroed to the dash?

[Kay Ludlow]

What if you had a pistol velcroed to the dash?

Intersting question! I understand that velcro coffee mug holders had prompted searches, but may the pistol would make the velcro self-explanatory...