Gun Control: Where are Optometrists on National Issues?

Time to check your information...

The Children's Defense fund is an anti-gun organization. If you want to use statistics, how about using the FBI or other unbiased legitimate governmental statistics keeping entities. I don't think you would trust the pro-gunners argument by stating "the NRA's statistics say..."

And let's be clear in our definition of children. Many anti-gun organizations, the AMA is also another, distort the numbers by using people below the age of 21, not 18 or 15. Some like the CDC include misleading data also. They report the deaths of youth by firearm that are killed in the act of a crime, not just by accident or by suicide.

The bias and just plain lies cannot be hidden when you look at all the facts with unbiased research.

This a description of the Children's Defense Fund (CDF)...

"The Children's Defense Fund’s Leave No Child Behind® mission is to ensure every child a Healthy Start, a Head Start, a Fair Start, a Safe Start, and a Moral Start in life and successful passage to adulthood with the help of caring families and communities.

CDF provides a strong, effective voice for all the children of America who cannot vote, lobby, or speak for themselves.

We pay particular attention to the needs of poor and minority children and those with disabilities.

CDF encourages preventive investment before children get sick or into trouble, drop out of school, or suffer family breakdown.

CDF began in 1973 and is a private, nonprofit organization supported by foundation and corporate grants and individual donations. We have never taken government funds."


How you can interpret these varied interests as an anti-gun organization is interesting. They appear to be pro-children.

Children are killed by guns. It makes sense the less guns out in a community, the less chance for kids to get killed by guns. Is this even an issue for discussion in other industrialized nations where there is strict gun control?

If you wish however, government statistics will show we have the highest rate of homicide using firearms of any industrialized nation. John and Robert Kennedy as well as Martin Luther King plus John Lennon were murdered using using firearms. Even the darling of the conservatives Ronald Regan's presidency was almost cut short by a gunman.

Notice no hatchets, knives or baseball bats were used. If guns were more difficult to get would the mayhem stop? Of course not, but a rapid firing instrument is so much more efficient.

Why can't gun proponents admit it is the murder weapon of choice.
 
...

There is a far greater chance under your scenario that your son or daughter would be killed by accidental gunfire with children kidding around than any crazed gunman.

Swimming pools kill more children than accidental gunfire.



Where's the anti-swimming pool lobby?

source
 
No anti-swimming pool lobby but...

Swimming pools kill more children than accidental gunfire.



Where's the anti-swimming pool lobby?

source

Some very strict laws about fences around private swimming pools.

Careless parents result in child swimming deaths. Equally careless adults not securing firearms can result in even graver consequences.

Think Columbine!
 
Why can't gun proponents admit it is the murder weapon of choice.

I'll admit it, guns are an extremely effective tool to use to kill someone or destroy something. It is what they do. That's like admitting that a hammer is really good at driving nails.

It does not change the fact that gun control is unconstitutional. It does not stop the fact that these mad men will continue to kill/maim/rape/destroy even with 'gun control', whether they use a gun or not.

Secondly, gun control doesn't work, and it prmarily affects those that would be unlikely to commit crimes, that is, the law abiding citizens that would follow the law AGAINST MURDER...

What evidence do we have that it doesn't work? How about this study from the FBI... the last sentence summarizes the findings of their study..."In summary, the Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence."

Here's a more balanced look at "Gun Death" Statistics International Violent Death Rate Comparison

Here's a different side to the "how many times are guns used in self defense question" LINK

From the FBI's statistics: LINK
Violent Crime Rate in the last 20 years (1987 to 2006) is at all time lows currently.

For comparison:
Highest value: 757.7 in 1992
Lowest value: 463.2 2004
Values for this decade so far:
2000 506.5
2001 504.5
2002 494.4
2003 475.8
2004 463.2
2005 469.0
2006 473.5

Many gun control laws have sunsetted or been relaxed during the 2000's, yet our violent crime rates are at historic lows.

Here's an interesting read on the 'Wild West' CLICK ME I will admit, I don't necessarily buy the extrapolation to apply to all western towns, but it certainly gives us pause to think.

Ever hear of this in the mainstream media? A town in GA mandates that everyone owns a gun... LINK

I think that's all I have for now...
 
Some very strict laws about fences around private swimming pools.

Careless parents result in child swimming deaths. Equally careless adults not securing firearms can result in even graver consequences.

Think Columbine!

If it had not been firearms, it would have been a bomb or some other method of killing.

Firearms were ubiquitous for most of the 20th century, yet 'school shootings' were not as common as they are now (even though they aren't THAT common in the grand scheme of things). Guns are not the issue. Education and a decline in morality/parenting and too much 'feel good' politics are more to blame than any gun.
 
How you can interpret these varied interests as an anti-gun organization is interesting. They appear to be pro-children.

Oh for crap's sake, please don't trot out the 'it's for the children' argument. i think we can agree we all want to protect children. I choose to protect mine with firearms, and teach them the proper use and safety of them when they are of age.

I don't let my kids drive my truck, I don't let them run with knives, I don't let them play with matches, and I secure my firearms either in my safe or on my hip.

An old quote (which I'll change to not offend), "Blaming a gun for violence is like blaming my fork for making me fat."
 
I already know everything you're going to say, and I'm confident that you aren't going to make any arguments that are going to give me a different perspective on this, not because I wouldn't mind a different perspective but because you subscribe to the philosophy of "What would Rush do?" I already know what Rush would do, so there isn't much point in hanging around and listening to you parrot it.

Dr. Elder, why you are so smart...and a clairvoyant to boot. The people you can meet on a mere optometry discussion board is simply amazing.

I don't know how long the Rushmeister has been on the air, but I believe he is about the same age as me. Consequently it is not unreasonable that we might share similar views. You know we on the right are rather dull and easy to command. So there you go, you got me. Why should anyone be surprised...I mean, you already know it all. Must be a burden.

My life view was pretty much set long before the rise in popularity of Limbaugh. Besides, even if it were true that I listen to Rush every waking minute, which I rarely do as by definition, Republicans have jobs, such would beat taking my cue from Pelosi, Hussein O, and Billary.

I don't KNOW that you are a liberal. Got me there too, I suppose. But perhaps you might be...I mean only Liberals get upset when stating the obvious...sorta an epithet to most of them to be called what they are. Now my experience with those 'non-ideologues' like yourself is they tend to hurl "ideologue" at those with whom they might be losing an argument...a game closer, so to speak, for such persons and often interpreted by the intended target to be an abusive or contemptuous word...or maybe you loosely tossed out the word merely as a term to characterize a person(me)....ergo, epithet... defined...right out of the American Heritage Dictionary.

Perhaps we can engage in more fruitful discussions in the future.
 
More on the topic at hand...

There will be endless data and argument between the pro and anti gun lobbies and supporters of each. We can agree that control and ownership responsibility is essential without getting into unseemly epithets to substitute for issue argument. What can we learn about this newest gunman?

He could be your friendly next door neighbor until apparently he stopped taking his medication for as yet an condition not discussed. Are there HIPAA restrictions for deceased individuals? :eek:

What is a fact however, is that he did his damage with a shotgun but had other weapons with him as back up. How can someone have access to so many firearms? Shouldn't there be controls? We fight over contact lens prescription controls endlessly on ODwire.org. :rolleyes: Isn't gun control a little more important?

Here is a follow up story in the 2/16/08 edition of the New York Times...


"Gunman, Active and Successful, Showed Few Hints of Trouble


By MONICA DAVEY
Published: February 16, 2008

DeKALB, Ill. — Steve Kazmierczak, the man who walked silently into a classroom here on Thursday and opened fire, was not seen as struggling in college. He was not an outcast. And until recently, at least, he was not brooding.

In a stark, puzzling contrast to the usual image of a rampaging gunman, Mr. Kazmierczak, 27, was described Friday as a successful student — “revered,” the authorities said, by his professors — who had served as a teaching assistant and received a dean’s award as an undergraduate here at Northern Illinois University, where he returned Thursday, killing himself and five students and wounding 16 others.

Here, he had campaigned for a leadership post in a student group that studied the failings of the prison system, an issue he was passionately concerned about, and had apparently won. He was a co-author of an academic paper called “Self-Injury in Correctional Settings: ‘Pathology’ of Prisons or of Prisoners?” which examined why inmates might hurt themselves with behaviors like cutting their skin.

He was personable, easy to talk to, an excellent student, said his professors at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, some 130 miles south of here, where he was on his way to receiving a master’s degree in social work. The specialty he selected was in mental health.

“In this case, I was overwhelmed,” said Jan Carter-Black, Mr. Kazmierczak’s adviser and an assistant professor in the School of Social Work at the University of Illinois, after learning that Mr. Kazmierczak was the gunman. “I was amazed. I was shocked. I was overwhelmed.”

Officials said the only hint of trouble from Mr. Kazmierczak, who fatally shot himself moments after firing at a large class with rounds from some of his four guns, had come in the last few weeks.

Family members told the authorities that Mr. Kazmierczak had stopped taking his medication. Law enforcement authorities would not say what the medication was for, but said Mr. Kazmierczak had grown erratic, according to his family, in the days after he quit taking the drugs.

The gunman bought his weapons legally from a Champaign gun dealer, officials said. He also bought some accessories from the popular Internet dealer who sold a gun to the gunman in the Virginia Tech massacre last year.

In Champaign, neighbors at a modest apartment complex Mr. Kazmierczak had moved into not long ago said they, too, had sensed that something was not quite right. The look on his face suggested he had “a lot on his mind,” said Martha Shinall, 78, who lives across the hall from Mr. Kazmierczak’s apartment, where he sometimes blared his music and spent time with a girlfriend.

But beyond the recent changes and some glimpses of inconsistency through the years — a quick end to a stint in the military, a prison job he left with no explanation — the authorities here said they knew nothing of signs, overlooked warnings, or known grudges when it came to Mr. Kazmierczak. He said nothing when he burst into an ocean sciences lecture in Cole Hall here on Thursday afternoon and started firing.

He left no known notes behind, said Donald Grady, the police chief at the university. He had no known relationships with any students or teachers inside the class. He had no previous run-ins with the police.

“He was an outstanding student, revered by faculty and staff,” said Chief Grady, acknowledging how that increased the mystery of the violence.

Mr. Kazmierczak grew up on a tree-lined street of ranch-style homes in the suburbs of Chicago with a sister and parents who retired to Lakeland, Fla., in recent years, records show. His mother, Gail, died in 2006, at age 58.

In a modest golf and country club community in Lakeland, at the home of his father, Robert Kazmierczak, plastic pink flamingos adorned the lawn and a sign, “Illini fans live here,” a reference to his son’s most recent university, hung on the front door.

“Please leave me alone,” the elder Mr. Kazmierczak told reporters from his front stoop in a brief, televised interview. “This is a very hard time. I’m a diabetic, and I don’t want to have a relapse,” he added, bursting into tears.

In Champaign, at the home of his sister, Susan, a message was taped to the door offering prayers and sympathies to all of the victims.

“We are both shocked and saddened,” the note said. “In addition to the loss of innocent lives, Steven was a member of our family. We are grieving his loss as well as the loss of life resulting from his actions.”

At Elk Grove High School, from which Mr. Kazmierczak graduated in 1998, he was a B student with a baby face who was active in chess club, “Peer Helpers,” a Japanese language program, a public service program and the school band, school officials and his yearbooks showed. In his 1996 yearbook, Mr. Kazmierczak offered his take on being in the band this way: “Fine arts was a way to escape reality, and at the same time they gave you new goals to reach.”

The shooting occurred on the campus of Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, Ill.
As an undergraduate and then a graduate student at Northern Illinois, Mr. Kazmierczak began focusing on sociology, a field that led him to his particular interest in prisons, prisoners and their re-entry into society.

“He was an exemplary student and a nice guy,” said Kristen Myers, one of his professors when Mr. Kazmierczak was in college here. “Something dreadful must have happened to him.”

In 2006, he won a dean’s award for his work at an annual awards ceremony. He became a leader in the university’s Academic Criminal Justice Association chapter, a group that saw its mission as helping the community understand the criminal justice system, especially corrections and juvenile justice, according to its Web site.

“I feel that I’m committed to social justice, and if elected as treasurer I promise to serve the NIU chapter,” he wrote, “to the best of my ability.”

In describing himself on a paper he had helped write, he told of his “interests in corrections, political violence, and peace and social justice” and said he was also working on a manuscript on “the role of religion in the formation of early prisons in the United States” with two others.

By the summer of 2007, he had left DeKalb for Champaign, where he was seeking a master’s in social work, said Dr. Carter-Black, his adviser at the University of Illinois. There, she said, he was well-prepared and respectful, and showed no signs of any troubling pattern.

Last fall, he dropped out of Dr. Carter-Black’s class, “Human Behavior and the Social Environment,” because he said he had gotten a job at a prison — an area in which she knew he was deeply interested.

He also served as a research assistant for Chris Larrison, an assistant professor in the School of Social Work, who said he saw him as an appealing, personable student and a hard worker.

“He really had a very compassionate outlook about prisoners coming back into society and getting a fair shake,” Professor Larrison said. “He really wanted to be part of that process in a very idealistic way.”

Although the authorities and professors painted a glowing outward portrait of Mr. Kazmierczak, a few indications emerged of inconsistencies in his life.

He enlisted in the Army in September 2001, a Department of Defense spokeswoman said, and was “administratively discharged” in February 2002. The spokeswoman, Lt. Col. Anne Edgecomb, said that under privacy laws, the Army would not describe the circumstances of the discharge, but that such discharges were commonly given because of a recruit’s failure to complete training or discovery of a medical condition that was not evident at the time of enlistment.

And while Mr. Kazmierczak was hired last September as an officer at the Rockville Correctional Facility in Indiana, he barely lasted two weeks there, and failed to complete training, said Randy Koester, chief of staff for the Indiana Department of Correction. His professors seemed unaware that he had left the job.

“He quit; he just didn’t show up,” Mr. Koester said. “He called in with an excuse about why he couldn’t come the last day, but he never called after that, and he never came back.”

Late Friday, the authorities here still were piecing together the hours leading up to Mr. Kazmierczak’s rampage in a search, in part, for some explanation of how someone seemingly so unlikely had committed such violence."

 
Last edited:
Yes, firearms are the weapons of choice to kill someone. If I could use a Martian death ray and it worked better I'd want that to protect myself.

The CDF, while has some worthy causes, is for more gun control. Thus they are anti-gun. I'm sure with enough Googling we could find where they have used their name for anti-gun issues or donated money to anti-gun candidates. Strange how civil liberty organizations love to tout how we must protect our civil liberties but they want to government to get involved in controlling the one thing that gives citizen's a way to fight back if government becomes tyrannical. Limit the number of firearms? Who says enough is enough? Who's the government accountable to? I then say let's put a limit on violent video games and damn cell phones that keep ringing in my office. Don't think we want our First Amend. rights messed with either. But if we can banish the 2nd, why not the First too?

Actually, per capita, we do not have the highest rate anymore. That would be England. If there was a direct correlation with violence and guns per capital, then Switzerland would be in chaos. All able bodied men must keep a automatic firearm (M-16) in their home and serve in the militia. Wow! You'd think it would be the wild west. But it's not.

Getting back to the original premise, we don't need more gun laws. We need to look at the deeper issues. Our country is sick and these horrible attacks are the symptoms. Can we agree to that?
 
Perhaps we can engage in more fruitful discussions in the future.

That would be nice, but I'm skeptical of it. Your use of rhetoric like Swimming Ted, Billary, and Hussein Obama only further show your ideological viewpoint which makes engaging in discussion a somewhat pointless endeavor.

Case in point....your classification of me....I support the Republican position on just about every major issue, from the war on terror, waterboarding, school prayer, school choice, taxes, immigration etc. etc. with the exception of the following:

1) I support a woman's right to choose, in a limited form
2) I support a universal health care system in a limited form.
3) I support a person's right to bear arms, but I draw the line at bearing heavy artillery.

Now according to someone like you, that would make me a flaming liberal because I don't pass every single solitary one of the "true conservative" litmus tests.

In much the same way, the ideologues on the left threw Joe Lieberman under the bus because he dared to suggest that the war in Iraq wasn't such a bad idea. He was labeled a Bush puppet, and a closet conservative even though he takes a liberal position on every single other issue out there. That wasn't good enough....he was all but cast out of the democratic party.
 
Your use of rhetoric like Swimming Ted, Billary, and Hussein Obama only further show your ideological viewpoint which makes engaging in discussion a somewhat pointless endeavor.

Case in point....your classification of me....I support the Republican position on just about every major issue, from the war on terror, waterboarding, school prayer, school choice, taxes, immigration etc. etc. with the exception of the following:

1) I support a woman's right to choose, in a limited form
2) I support a universal health care system in a limited form.
3) I support a person's right to bear arms, but I draw the line at bearing heavy artillery.

Now according to someone like you, that would make me a flaming liberal because I don't pass every single solitary one of the "true conservative" litmus tests.

In much the same way, the ideologues on the left threw Joe Lieberman under the bus because he dared to suggest that the war in Iraq wasn't such a bad idea. He was labeled a Bush puppet, and a closet conservative even though he takes a liberal position on every single other issue out there. That wasn't good enough....he was all but cast out of the democratic party.

Yet Liberman still plays ball with the Ds rather than with the Rs. I worry about ol' Joe, though I like his lugubrious contenance. I see you have no stomach for rhetoric which I find amusing. Do you not appreciate the undeniably delicious irony that Ted K. could be so much in the face of 2ND Amendment types whilst he left poor Mary Jo Kopekne (sp?) at the bottom of the drink to die....reporting the "accident" some tens hours later. As is obvious, this conduct would get you 10-20 in the Big- House here but it makes you senatorial material in MA.

How many times did you read, or hear and still read, or hear:

George Herbert Walker Bush....or George Walker Bush...or Ronald Wilson Reagan....bet you have and will continue to do so. The media have their reasons and I have mine for pointing out to the public that the Senator from Illinois' full name is B. Hussein Obama. Has a nice ring to it...don't you think..and the Japanese in Obama love the way it rolls off our collective lips as we all swoon at the mere mention of Hussein Obama. (H.O. to some of us...and no, I don't mean the Rap communtiy!)

The Billary deal just makes it shorter and sweeter than having to independently refer to Bill and Hillary....the twofer ol' Bill promised us the first go 'round can be collapsed into a single name. I think it's sweet.

I support a woman's right to choose too...BEFORE she gets into the rack, I taught my daughter to ask herself a simple question...do I want this man to be the father of my children.....otw keep your dadgum legs closed! In the 70s I held a different view and am now very sorry for contributing to abortion on demand to include the devolution of abortion wherein we began to kill babies into the ninth month of gestation, or for sex selection, convenience of the mother and a host of other sad and sorry reasons that have led to about 45 M babies being trashed since 1973. I really got off the abortion train when the politicos started PUBLIC FUNDED abortions.....bad idea..tax me to help keep a child up not to help you kill it! Growing up in a children's home (13 years) will give you a different perspective on the pro-abortion movement.

I hate the universal health coverage ideas so far. As for me, I would rather have universal access to the local steakhouse or something like universal CPA services or legal services or all the gasoline I could burn at 3 cents a gallon....my point is, the list I want is different from the list of potential goodies Billary and H.O. want to "give" me. My guess is, people don't want to be compelled to deliver their services for what some government entity decides they're worth. I like free markets and forcing me to work for slave wages is not consistent with freedom.

I like heavy artillery. Makes me feeeeeeeel safer...and who in the good ol' USA can be required to deny their feelings? No sense in being outgunned by the criminal element (as the cops sometimes find themselves.) I still remain partial to the idea of mandatory marksmanship courses at the Universities and colleges. Then the little rascals can carry a concealed weapon and the turds who walk into the next classroom with intent to kill can't be so certain that someone won't shoot back!

My 21 yo daughter attends the UNC- Chapel Hill. Tried to give her a gun to keep in her car. She informed that UNC-CH is ripe for psychos and criminals because the law-abiding student, even with one of those fancy NC Concealed Carry Permits on their person, are not permitted to have a gun on campus. Now that is genius at work!

I believe Liberals have mad it easier for us to be targeted by passing this sort of Anti-American and unconstitutional laws and Regulations and it is because of their nonsense, my child remains at enhanced risk. I would like to potentially even the odds just a little, but she stands to be dismissed from school if such action is taken by her, or on her behalf.

Have a nice day.
icon7.gif
And you're correct...With your extreme views on these subjects, I would be unable to support you if you ever seek the presidency of the United States.
icon10.gif
 
Back to topic...

The last post clearly defined a point of view of a segment of the US population. I'm certain many disagree with the writer but do not wish to debate this issue where ideologies are set in stone.

For now let's bring us back to topic with an editorial in the 2/20/08 edition of the New York Times...

"Packing Heat in the Parks

Published: February 20, 2008

A sound and bipartisan public lands bill is being held up in the Senate in behalf of the gun lobby’s attempt to overturn decades-old safety regulations barring people from carrying loaded guns in national parks.

Owners are now required to keep their guns unloaded, disassembled and stored when in national parks and wildlife refuges. Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, is threatening to block the public lands bill unless it includes his amendment to allow the packing of live firearms in the parks.

There is no justification for such a change. Senator Coburn’s office is reduced to offering a scenario out of a “Death Wish” movie: “Guns locked in your trunk are of no use when a rapist is attacking your family.” A coalition of retired park rangers has warned that wielding live firearms would increase the risk to public safety and more easily empower game poachers than family vigilantes.

The Coburn amendment is another attempt by the gun lobby to extend laissez-faire gun rights to college campuses, churches and workplaces even as the nation suffers firearm fatalities and rampages that take 30,000 lives a year. The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, is right to oppose it as a poison-pill intrusion into the lands bill, which — among a multitude of useful and largely noncontroversial provisions — would authorize new wilderness areas and safeguard historic and cultural sites from coast to coast.

The temptation for lawmakers to pander to the gun lobby is never-ending, and 47 senators are on record in favor of tolerating loaded weapons in the parks. But at least their position was expressed in a plea to the Interior Department, where a hearing process would presumably encourage open public debate. The Coburn amendment is the gun culture’s dangerous end run around the public interest."
 
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175095,00.html

Local News story from near me...

Yeah, I don't know why anyone would want to carry a firearm for personal protection in a park...

IT IS NOT THE GUNS, IT IS THE INDIVIDUAL

A park is no different than the local mall or grocery store. There is no reason to have a carry ban in those places.
 
Packing heat is the only sane and "sound" alternative

The last post clearly defined a point of view of a segment of the US population. I'm certain many disagree with the writer but do not wish to debate this issue where ideologies are set in stone.

For now let's bring us back to topic with an editorial in the 2/20/08 edition of the New York Times...

"Packing Heat in the Parks

Published: February 20, 2008

A sound and bipartisan public lands bill is being held up in the Senate in behalf of the gun lobby’s attempt to overturn decades-old safety regulations barring people from carrying loaded guns in national parks.

Owners are now required to keep their guns unloaded, disassembled and stored when in national parks and wildlife refuges. Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, is threatening to block the public lands bill unless it includes his amendment to allow the packing of live firearms in the parks.


Paul,

First, let those that disagree make their own case about the "ideologues" amongst us. My experience with the tolerant classes is they are mighty intolerant to messengers of sanity and are easily offended by those with whom they might disagree.

The following, while lengthy, is just a representative sampling of why I don't want the government requiring me to be disarmed visiting the wild. National and State Parks can be dangerous...along with the usual members of the Wild Kingdom, murderers and deranged people inhabit these areas as well as the normal tree-hugger crowds and tourista types.

Disarm me? I don't think so.

The Grizzly Storm
Field and Stream – February 2008

“Seven Montana (bow) hunters were attacked by grizzly bears in a span of as many weeks” in the Fall of 2007. “Five maulings left one man with a broken arm and another with an eye torn from its socket.”

“Bear-human conflicts are on the rise for several reasons: a growing bear population (approximately 600 grizzlies roam in the Yellowstone ecosystem, compared with 200 in 1975); an expanding range that now includes all of western Wyoming and Idaho.”


Lion pounces on hunter
Posted: Monday, Nov 12, 2007
By JIM MANN/Daily Inter Lake

Backpack saves man from more serious injuries
A big-game hunter was jumped by a stalking mountain lion Sunday in the Swan Valley’s Squeezer Creek drainage.

The young man, who was not identified by Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, managed to walk several miles to reach his vehicle, then drive himself to Kalispell Regional Medical Center for treatment.

By THEO EMERY
Published: April 14, 2006

NASHVILLE, Tenn. April 14 — Game wardens in a remote Tennessee forest set traps baited with doughnuts and sardines today to lure a bear that attacked an Ohio family, killing a 6-year-old girl and mauling her mother and 2-year-old brother, the authorities said.

The adult black bear attacked the mother and her two children Thursday afternoon at a waterfall in Cherokee National Forest.


Jan. 28, 2007

SAN FRANCISCO -
Wildlife officials credited a woman with saving her husband's life by clubbing a mountain lion that attacked him while the couple were hiking in a California state park.

Jim and Nell Hamm, who will celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary next month, were hiking in Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park when the lion pounced, officials said Thursday.

"He didn't scream. It was a different, horrible plea for help, and I turned around, and by then the cat had wrestled Jim to the ground," Nell Hamm said in an interview from the hospital where her husband was recovering from a torn scalp, puncture wounds and other injuries.


By CRAIG MEDRED
Anchorage Daily News


Treadwell: 'Get out here. I'm getting killed'

MAULING: Sound of bear attack that killed two was captured by video camera.

Published: October 9, 2003

Among the last words Timothy Treadwell uttered to his girlfriend before a bear killed and partially ate both of them were these: "Get out here. I'm getting killed.''

Words caught on a tape recording of the attack also reveal Treadwell's girlfriend, Amie Huguenard, shouting at him to play dead, then encouraging him to fight back.


Jul 1996 by Mantilla, Karla

Murder on the Appalachian Trail


Two women who were hiking and camping along the Appalachian Trail in Shenandoah National Park in Virginia were found murdered at approximately 8:30 in the morning on Saturday, June 1. The women killed were Julianne Williams, 24, of St. Cloud, Minnesota, and Lollie Winans, 26, of Unity, Maine. (See sidebar about the women's lives.) Shenandoah National Park received word from Williams' father that they were overdue from returning from their trip on May 31.



November 10, 2000 | 11:52 PM ET
CBC News

A handyman who worked in Yosemite National Park in the United States has confessed to several grisly murders. He says he killed four women -- a park naturalist and three sightseers.

Cary Stayner confessed to a San Francisco TV station Monday night in an off-camera jailhouse interview.

Stayner said he was responsible for the murder of a Yosemite National Park worker who was killed last week and three park tourists who were killed in February.

Stayner said he was acting out fantasies about killing women that he had dreamed about for over 30 years.

In the chilling interview the 37-year-old man described in meticulous detail how he killed the three tourists, Carole Sund, her daughter Juli and a 16-year-old family friend from Argentina Silvina Pelosso.

He also talked about killing the park worker Joie Ruth Armstrong last week. He said he could not resist the urge to kill her once he realized that she was alone.

"I am guilty," Stayner said, but he denied that any of the women were sexually molested.


U.S. Rangers, Park Police Sustain Record Levels of Violence

WASHINGTON, DC, September 1, 2004 (ENS)
- Attacks, threats, harassment against National Park Service rangers and U.S. Park Police officers reached a all-time high in 2003, according to agency records released Tuesday by an association of federal employees, keeper of the country's only database documenting violence against federal resource protection employees. At the same time, "scores" of park law enforcement personnel have been reassigned to desks, rangers say.

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) reports that National Park Service commissioned law enforcement officers were victims of assaults 106 times in 2003. More than one-quarter of these encounters resulted in injury to the officers.

This figure tops the 2002 total of 98 assaults but parallels the 2001 previous high of 104 violent incidents.

"Law enforcement officers in the National Park Service are 12 times more likely to be killed or injured as a result of an assault than FBI agents – a rate triple that of the next worst federal agency," said Randall Kendrick, executive director for the U.S. Park Rangers Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police.

A midnight shift with only one ranger, a nuclear power plant threatened by terrorists, rangers sent out on patrol without dispatch, without backup, without even pepper spray - these are real situations that place the defenders of America's public lands in grave danger, the officers' association warns.

On their 2003 "Most Dangerous National Parks" list, released in June, the Fraternal Order of Police handed the Number One spot to Arizona's Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument for the third year in a row.


Man Receives Two Life Sentences for Hindman Park Murders
posted 4:38 pm Fri November 09, 2007 - Little Rock


Channel 7 News - Share Man Receives Two Life Sentences for Hindman Park Murders

One of three men arrested in connection with a pair of Hindman Park murders has been sentenced to life behind bars. Cameron Williams received two life sentences in the murder of 21-year-old Monte Johnson, and his cousin, 8-year-old Sean Johnson.

Both were found dead near the entrance to the Little Rock park.


Murder never takes a holiday
Hiker's New Year slaying may be just the tip of the iceberg
By Clint Van Zandt
MSNBC
updated 4:01 p.m. ET, Fri., Jan. 11, 2008


It was a bright, snowy New Year's Day in northern Georgia, a perfect day for a hike for 24-year-old former Colorado resident and local packaging company sales manager Meredith Emerson. She was an experienced outdoorswoman with a blue belt in martial arts, an outgoing and whitty young woman taking in the fresh air the wonderful park about 100 miles north of Atlanta had to offer.

Emerson never returned home from the hike she went on with her dog. The black lab, Ella, was found three days later, some 50 miles south of Blood Mountain, where Emerson hiked, a name that would later eerily resonate with officials on the crisp and clear January day that marked the start of 2008.

Emerson's body was found on Monday evening, nearly a week after she disappeared. An autopsy revealed she died of a blow to the head, and was later decapitated, according to the medical examiner.


*

Bear Attacks 2000s-- And this is NOT all of them!
Name, age, gender Date Species Location, comments
Don Peters, 51, male November 25, 2007 Brown Mountain Aire Lodge west of Sundre, about 90 km northwest of Calgary. The 51-year-old did not return from a hunting trip in Western Alberta. He was killed by a grizzly near his vehicle after going hunting alone. His body was found three days later. His rifle was found nearby. It had been fired but there was nothing to indicate the bear had been hit. Officials were trying to trap the bear but would not say whether it would be destroyed if captured. Upon capture, the bear may be shot, moved to another area or let go, depending on an evaluation of the bear; said Alberta resources spokesman Dave Ealey. [1]
Robin Kochorek, 31, female July 20, 2007 Black The 31-year-old woman was reported missing on July 20th after being separated from friends while mountain biking at Panorama Mountain Resort, British Columbia. She was killed by a black bear who was right where the body was recovered at 8 a.m. July 21st. Indications were that the bear had preyed upon this person or obviously was trying to claim ownership. The bear was shot on site by RCMP.[2]
Samuel Evan Ives, 11, male June 17, 2007 Black Taken from a tent in American Fork Canyon in the Uinta National Forest in Utah County, Utah where he was sleeping with his stepfather, mother and 6-year-old brother. The bear was later destroyed by state Wildlife officials.[3]
Jean-Francois Pagé, 28, male April 28, 2006 Brown Fatally mauled while staking mineral claims near Ross River, Yukon, Canada. He unknowingly walked right past a bear den containing a sow and 2 cubs. [4]
Elora Petrasek, 6, female April 13, 2006 Black She was killed and her mother and 2 year-old brother seriously injured in an attack in the Cherokee National Forest in Tennessee.[5]
Arthur Louie, 60, male September 20, 2005 Brown Killed by a female and two cubs while he was walking back to his mining camp after his truck had a flat tire at Bowron River, British Columbia.[6]
Jacqueline Perry, 30, female September 6, 2005 Black Killed in a predatory attack at the Missinaibi Lake Provincial Park, north of Chapleau, Ontario, Canada. Her husband was seriously injured trying to protect her. Ministry staff shot and killed the bear at approximately 8:00 a.m. Saturday, September 10, 2005, near the area where the fatal attack occurred in a remote area of the park. [7][8] The bear involved had already attempted to attack two fisherman an hour before this attack occurred
Harvey Robinson, 69, male August 26, 2005 Black Fatally mauled while picking plums at Selkirk, north of Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Rich Huffman, 61, male; Kathy Huffman, 58, female June 23, 2005 Brown Killed in their tent at a campsite along the Hulahula river 12 miles upriver from Kaktovik in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Isabelle Dube, 35, female June 5, 2005 Brown Killed while jogging with 2 friends on the Bench Trail in Canmore, Alberta
Merlyn Carter, 71, male 2005 Black Found dead in the main cabin of his fishing camp located 300 km Northeast of Ft. Smith, Northwest Territories, Canada.
Timothy Treadwell, 46, male ; Amie Huguenard, 37, female October 2003 Brown Found by their pilot, dead and most of their bodies consumed at Kaflia Bay, Katmai National Park, Alaska on October 6, 2003. Treadwell was world-famous for his books and documentaries on living with wild bears in Alaska. State Troopers investigating the incident recovered an audiotape of the attack. Only a few days before, Treadwell filmed himself with the bear that killed him in the background, while commenting that it was a bear just like this one — older, struggling to bulk up for the winter — that posed the most threat to humans. The two were killed on the last night before their scheduled pickup, after spending several months in the Alaskan bush. [9]
Forestry worker April 17, 2003 Black Stalked, killed and partially consumed by a large, black bear near Waswanipi, a village in northern Quebec.
I will never understand why some just do get it. :confused:
 
EEEK! A dangerous world out there!

With all those wild animals...dangerous humans combined external enemies ready to destroy our way of life, I can understand now why you want to be well armed and prepared. :rolleyes:

With that type of life model it's a wonder that anyone ever leaves the security of home!:eek:
 
With all those wild animals...dangerous humans combined external enemies ready to destroy our way of life, I can understand now why you want to be well armed and prepared. :rolleyes:

With that type of life model it's a wonder that anyone ever leaves the security of home!:eek:

The world IS a dangerous place. The difference is I believe I have the right and ability to protect myself, whereas most that favor gun control believe the government and it's agencies should provide protection at the cost of liberty in many cases.

I view leaving the house armed the same way I as I view wearing a seat belt, having life insurance, having health insurance, eating a healthy diet (ok, maybe not THAT one)... the list can go on and on. I hope I never need it... EVER. But, I'll be damned glad I have it with me if I do need it.

And, for the record, I have NEVER had the urge to unholster my firearm when:
(1) I was cut off in traffic
(2) Involved in a traffic accident
(3) Pulled over for speeding
(4) In a crowded mall, and I was bumped into
(5) Someone cursed at me or 'shot me the bird'
(6) Had to handle aggressive people

Furthermore, for the record, my firearm has never jumped out of my holster and gone on any shooting rampages, all by itself.

Here in Tennessee...339,000 handgun permits.

6,038,803 state population.

So, about 5.61% of the population has been issued a HCP (Handgun Carry Permit), or about 1/20 people you cross paths with in Tennessee may very well be carrying a firearm, openly or concealed, not including LEOs. So, spend any amount of time in the state, and it is very probable that you have spent significant time next to an armed citizen, and never even knew it.
 
So that is why I felt so safe...

My only trip to Tennessee was to Memphis at the Peabody Hotel. I didn't know the populace felt under attack and were carrying weapons to protect themselves and us unwitting visitors.

The ducks that came into to lobby every night as a Peabody feature, seemed harmless enough. Maybe the ducks were trained not to attack at risk of being blown away.

Personally, I could not live in a community that is so fearful and does not trust law enforcement to be the protectors. You pro-gun folks are intelligent and thought the issue through. Your philosophy of life and trust is something that is not for everyone.

I hope you can respect those with an alternative point of view.
 
My only trip to Tennessee was to Memphis at the Peabody Hotel. I didn't know the populace felt under attack and were carrying weapons to protect themselves and us unwitting visitors.

The ducks that came into to lobby every night as a Peabody feature, seemed harmless enough. Maybe the ducks were trained not to attack at risk of being blown away.

Personally, I could not live in a community that is so fearful and does not trust law enforcement to be the protectors. You pro-gun folks are intelligent and thought the issue through. Your philosophy of life and trust is something that is not for everyone.

I hope you can respect those with an alternative point of view.

I respect your right to have an opposing view, and I don't feel I have disrespected you in any way.

But, how respectful is it of you to use veiled insults about trained ducks to mock OUR viewpoint?

**
I have the utmost respect for the Law Enforcement community. But, let's face it, they are there to fill out paperwork and find the criminal AFTER the fact. What is the average response time for a 911 call? In that time a motivated criminal can do a WORLD of hurt.

If you are not comfortable owning firearms, fine, by all means DON'T. But I get riled up when my rights are trampled, and criminals are unaffected, because someone else doesn't 'feel' good. Don't try to deny me my ability and right to defend to the best of my ability, simply because you are uncomfortable.

I'm uncomfortable around folks who use words and phrases I don't like. But, I don't attempt to deny them of their right to say whatever drivel they may be spouting. Gun control punishes the law abiding citizen, not the criminal. The criminals will continue to get guns. Gun control is about CONTROL, not guns. There are many more lethal items than firearms out there, that are easier to get, without the cries for their restriction.

The 2nd Amendment was put in to protect the first. Otherwise, we are all toothless tigers, and it would be only a matter of time before the other 'rights' fell. I fail to see how anyone could tout the benefits of the first, and take a dump on the second... it truly baffles me.

*you is meant to be an inclusive after the asterick, not singling you out there Paul*
 
Guns on Campus...

As reported in the 3/5/08 edition of the New York Times...

"Arizona Weighs Bill to Allow Guns on Campuses

By RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD

Published: March 5, 2008

PHOENIX — Horrified by recent campus shootings, a state lawmaker here has come up with a proposal in keeping with the Taurus .22-caliber pistol tucked in her purse: Get more guns on campus.

The lawmaker, State Senator Karen S. Johnson, has sponsored a bill, which the Senate Judiciary Committee approved last week, that would allow people with a concealed weapons permit — limited to those 21 and older here — to carry their firearms at public colleges and universities. Concealed weapons are generally not permitted at most public establishments, including colleges.

Ms. Johnson, a Republican from Mesa, said she believed that the recent carnage at Northern Illinois University could have been prevented or limited if an armed student or professor had intercepted the gunman. The police, she said, respond too slowly to such incidents and, besides, who better than the people staring down the barrel to take action?

She initially wanted her bill to cover all public schools, kindergarten and up, but other lawmakers convinced her it stood a better chance of passing if it were limited to higher education.

“I feel like our kindergartners are sitting there like sitting ducks,” Ms. Johnson said last week when the bill passed the committee by a 4-to-3 vote.

This is a generally gun-friendly state, where people are allowed to carry a weapon on their hip without a permit as long as people can see it. Even so, Ms. Johnson acknowledges that her views come from the far right — she recently described herself, half-jokingly, she says, as a “right-wing wacko.”

Still, the proposal has troubled advocates of gun control here and elsewhere because it appears to be gaining popularity and has fed long-smoldering debates over restrictions on carrying firearms.

Since the Virginia Tech killings last April, other states have weighed similar legislation, to the disbelief of opponents, who note that the odds of lethal attacks are small, despite the publicity they attract.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a Washington nonprofit organization, said 15 states were considering legislation that would authorize or make it easier for people to carry guns on school or college campuses under certain conditions. Those states include Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan and Virginia, according to the center, but it considers the Arizona proposal particularly egregious because it would not only allow students and faculty to carry such weapons, but staff members as well.

Utah, the organization said, is the only state with a law that expressly allows people with a concealed-weapon permit to carry guns on college campuses. That law, adopted in 2004 and upheld by Utah’s Supreme Court in 2006, arose out of concern that a state law allowing concealed weapons was not being enforced on college campuses.

The critics of such laws predict that they would cause more problems, including making it hard for the police to sort a dangerous gunman from a crowd of others with guns. They also argue that the guns would make it easier for people barely out of adolescence, or perhaps emotionally troubled, to respond lethally to typical campus frustrations like poor grades or failed romances.

Fred Boice, president of the Arizona Board of Regents, which oversees the state’s three public universities, said he sympathized with people concerned about campus safety. In October 2002, a nursing student at the University of Arizona in Tucson who was failing his classes shot and killed three professors before killing himself.

But Mr. Boice said he believed security and a system of alerting people about crises had been improved since then, and he worried that disputes best handled by campus security could quickly turn deadly with more guns on campus.

“I grew up in the country and a lot of people had guns,” Mr. Boice said. “But my father said never carry a gun unless you are prepared to kill somebody, and I believe that.”

Proponents concede the proposal could face a fight, even in this state’s Republican-controlled Legislature. The police chiefs at Arizona’s universities and several law enforcement groups have condemned the bill.

“This is a very polarizing issue,” said John Wentling, vice president of the Arizona Citizens Defense League, a gun-rights group that has pushed for the bill.

Even if Ms. Johnson’s bill eventually passes both chambers, it will probably take some convincing for Gov. Janet Napolitano, a Democrat, to sign it. Ms. Napolitano rejected a bill a few years ago that would have lifted a prohibition on carrying loaded firearms into bars, restaurants and other places that serve alcohol.

Ms. Johnson’s proposal has gotten a mixed reception on the campuses.

Jason Lewis, 23, an aerospace engineering major at the University of Arizona, said he was mugged twice on campus last year, at knife point and at gunpoint. He now has a concealed-weapons permit and carries his gun everywhere he can.

“It would at least let me protect myself,” said Mr. Lewis, one of a few students to testify in support of the bill at a recent hearing. “If word gets out students are arming themselves, criminals will be, like, ‘Maybe we should back off.’ It will be a deterrent.”

But Cole Hickman, a student at Arizona State University in Tempe, said he had sought to rally opposition to the bill, concerned that, among other things, it would further jeopardize people during a mass shooting. Proponents of the bill, Mr. Hickman said, underestimate the difficulty in shooting a live target in a chaotic episode.

“If another student in the room or a teacher had a gun and opened fire they may hurt other students,” he said, “because unlike police officers, concealed-weapon permit holders are not necessarily well-trained in shooting in crowds and reacting to those kinds of situations.”

Ms. Johnson is not fazed by the skeptics.

“We are not the wild, wild West like people think we are,” she said. “But people are more independent thinkers here when it comes to security.”
 
I am in agreement with Dr. Shorter. I lived in Memphis for for four years Dr. Farkas, and no the ducks did not attack me, but my apt was broke into twice. I lived downtown not in some gated community in Boca Raton.

If one does not want to buy guns don't.

If someone comes into my house uninvited to do harm, I will shoot them, dead. I have seen and experieced the result in my family when the bad guys ara armed and the good aren't.

Good luck to you if it happens to you. Me, I don't rely on luck anymore.
 
Fun with the Founding Fathers!!!

Some fun quotes from the Founding Fathers... or the 'Framers' to be PC :rolleyes:

Thomas Jefferson: "No Freeman shall ever be disbarred from the use of arms."

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self-defense", John Adams.

"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed with Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, where the Government are afraid to trust their people with arms", James Madison.

"Arms discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue if the law-abiding were deprived the use of private arms", Thomas Payne.

"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 prevent homicides from an unarmed man, may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man", Thomas Jefferson.

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves. They include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms and be taught alike how to use them", Richard Henry Lee.

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms", Samuel Adams.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them", George Mason.
 
Now the Supreme Court will offer an opinion...

An editorial in the 3/18/08 edition of the New York Times...

"EDITORIAL

The Court Considers Gun Control

Published: March 18, 2008

Today the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a politically charged challenge to the District of Columbia’s gun control laws. The case poses a vital question: can cities impose reasonable controls on guns to protect their citizens? The court should rule that they can.

The District of Columbia, which has one of the nation’s highest crime rates, banned private ownership of handguns. Rifles and shotguns were permitted, if kept disassembled or under an easily removed trigger lock. It is a reasonable law, far from the ban that some anti-gun-control advocates depict.

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the law violates the Second Amendment, which states: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” The decision broke with the great majority of federal courts that have examined the issue, including the Supreme Court in 1939. Those courts have held that the constitutional right to bear arms is tied to service in a militia, and is not an individual right.

The appeals court made two mistakes. First, it inflated the Second Amendment into a sweeping right to own guns, virtually without restriction or regulation. Defenders of gun rights argue that if the Supreme Court sticks with the interpretation of the Second Amendment that it sketched out in 1939, it will be eviscerating the right to own a gun, but that is not so. Americans have significant rights to own and carry guns, but the scope of those rights is set by federal, state and local laws.

The second mistake that the appeals court made — one that many supporters of gun rights may concede — was its unduly narrow view of what constitutes a “reasonable” law. The court insisted that its interpretation of the Second Amendment still leaves room for government to impose “reasonable” gun regulations. If so, it is hard to see why it rejected Washington’s rules.

The District of Columbia City Council concluded that prohibiting the easily concealable handguns preferred by criminals, and imposing prudent safety rules on rifles and shotguns, was a good, practical strategy for reducing crime, suicide, domestic violence and accidental shootings. Far from a blanket ban, the law strikes a balance between gun owners and the larger community.

The latest campus massacre, at Northern Illinois University, reminded us all of the dangers that come from too-easy access to weapons best suited for murder. For the high court to choose this moment to strike down reasonable gun rules would defy common sense, and needlessly put innocent people at risk."

 
Today the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a politically charged challenge to the District of Columbia’s gun control laws. The case poses a vital question: can cities impose reasonable controls on guns to protect their citizens? The court should rule that they can.


WRONG. The case is about whether or not the 2nd A. is an 'individual' or 'collective' right at it's core.

The District of Columbia, which has one of the nation’s highest crime rates, banned private ownership of handguns. Rifles and shotguns were permitted, if kept disassembled or under an easily removed trigger lock. It is a reasonable law, far from the ban that some anti-gun-control advocates depict.


After reading much of the oral arguments, one of the Justices (Roberts? My memory escapes me) asked a very simple, yet enlightening question. To paraphrase, "what is reasonable about a full ban?", especially on the class of firearms most commonly used for self defense?

Secondly, what damned good is a disassembled, trigger-locked weapon when you need it for self defense? The same functionality as a base ball bat.

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the law violates the Second Amendment, which states: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” The decision broke with the great majority of federal courts that have examined the issue, including the Supreme Court in 1939. Those courts have held that the constitutional right to bear arms is tied to service in a militia, and is not an individual right.


WRONG. The court has not decided this question AT ALL, including the 1939 case (U.S. v. Miller). The 1939 case was cryptic and the only thing it ended up deciding was that Miller could not own a sawed off shotgun (barrel less than 18 inches) because it was not shown to be "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense".

The second mistake that the appeals court made — one that many supporters of gun rights may concede — was its unduly narrow view of what constitutes a “reasonable” law. The court insisted that its interpretation of the Second Amendment still leaves room for government to impose “reasonable” gun regulations. If so, it is hard to see why it rejected Washington’s rules.


Again, how is a complete ban considered 'reasonable'? It is not hard to see how that was rejected.

It is a bad law, and deserves to be struck down. Furthermore, uneducated drivel like this is why the Times isnt even fit to line my cat's litter pan.
 
40 Reasons to Support Gun Control

40 Reasons to Support Gun Control
(Apparently derived from the essay by Michael Z. Williamson.)
  1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns.
  2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 80.6 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Arlington, VA's high murder rate of 1.6 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.
  3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."
  4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994, are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.
  5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.
  6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.
  7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
  8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
  9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense — give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).
  10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns and Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.
  11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for spinal paralysis, a computer programmer for Y2K problems, and Sarah Brady [or Sheena Duncan, Adele Kirsten, Peter Storey, etc.] for firearms expertise.
  12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1791, refers to the National Guard, which was created by an act of Congress in 1903.
  13. The National Guard, funded by the federal government, occupying property leased to the federal government, using weapons owned by the federal government, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a state militia.
  14. These phrases," right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumeration's herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people," all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.
  15. We don't need guns against an oppressive government, because the Constitution has internal safeguards, but we should ban and seize all guns, thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments to that Constitution.
  16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense, which is why the army has millions of them.
  17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they serve no military purpose, and private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles," because they are military weapons.
  18. The ready availability of guns today, with waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, et cetera, is responsible for recent school shootings,compared to the lack of school shootings in the 40's, 50's and 60's, which resulted from the availability of guns at hardware stores, surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, mail order, et cetera.
  19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, and the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.
  20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.
  21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.
  22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."
  23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.
  24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.
  25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.
  26. A self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."
  27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.
  28. The right of online pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.
  29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.
  30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.
  31. Charlton Heston as president of the NRA is a shill who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.
  32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.
  33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.
  34. Police officers, who qualify with their duty weapons once or twice a year, have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.
  35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.
  36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.
  37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people, which is why the police need them but "civilians" do not.
  38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.
  39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.
  40. When Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands," they don't mean you. Really.
 
What is a militia?

I ask that question with no prejudice towards the issue of gun control whatsoever. But that seems to be the central theme of the debate over the 2nd amendment.

So, let's put aside the arugment of whether guns increase or decrease crime or whether guns are or aren't safe for a minute.

Let's discuss what exactly is a militia? And is a militia something different today than it was in 1791?

Please don't post a link to the wikipedia definition. I understand that. I'm wondering what the founding fathers considered to be a militia and if it's different today.
 
I ask that question with no prejudice towards the issue of gun control whatsoever. But that seems to be the central theme of the debate over the 2nd amendment.

So, let's put aside the arugment of whether guns increase or decrease crime or whether guns are or aren't safe for a minute.

Let's discuss what exactly is a militia? And is a militia something different today than it was in 1791?

Please don't post a link to the wikipedia definition. I understand that. I'm wondering what the founding fathers considered to be a militia and if it's different today.

Alexander Hamilton: "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" Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No.2

Patrick Henry: "Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?, 3 Elliot Debates 168-169.

George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)

George Washington: "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

[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.



IMPORTANT NOTE: Back in the 18th century, a "regular" army meant an army that had standard military equipment. So a "well regulated" army was simply one that was "well equipped" and organized. It does not refer to a professional army. The 17th century folks used the term "standing army" or "regulars" to describe a professional army. Therefore, "a well regulated militia" only means a well equipped militia that was organized and maintained internal discipline. It does not imply the modern meaning of "regulated," which means controlled or administered by some superior entity. Federal control over the militia comes from other parts of the Constitution, but not from the Second Amendment.





I think I see where you are heading Ken...


I posted this link earlier, but there is a very good discussion of the grammar behind the 2nd Amendment (including using the word militia and it's impact on the meaning). CLICK HERE FOR ARTICLE

Most Founding Fathers were actually against a large standing military, believe it or not, fearing it would lead to an erosion of liberty. Who has the largest and most effective military in the world?

 





I think I see where you are heading Ken...




I'm not going anywhere with it. I just enjoy having these discussions with intelligent people. To be honest with you, I've enjoyed odwire.org in recent months more for the NON-optometric political debates rather than the endless regurgitation of the commercial/private practice debate.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong but...

Weren't firearms banned in the NRA meeting room when presidential candidates spoke to the members? :eek: I thought I read it or saw it on TV maybe the Jon Stewart, "Daily Show" or the "Colbert Report".

Please confirm or deny. We can't deny NRA members their 2nd amendment rights anywhere!:rolleyes:
 
Weren't firearms banned in the NRA meeting room when presidential candidates spoke to the members? :eek: I thought I read it or saw it on TV maybe the Jon Stewart, "Daily Show" or the "Colbert Report".

Please confirm or deny. We can't deny NRA members their 2nd amendment rights anywhere!:rolleyes:

That decision is up to the candidate and/or the security detail.

For instance, you can label him a crackpot if you like, but Ron Paul gave many speeches, and I know of several people who *gasp* OPENLY CARRIED their firearms to the event. No problem-o.
 
Liberals CAN make sense if they try...

Here, from the Daily Kos, see I have varied sources :)

Why Liberals Should Love the Second Amendment

Why Liberals Should Love The Second Amendment

by Angry Mouse

Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:01:33 PM PDT

Liberals love the Constitution.
Ask anyone on the street. They'll tell you the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a liberal organization.
I know liberal couples who give each other pocket size copies of the Constitution for Christmas.
Ask liberals to list their top five complaints about the Bush Administration, and they will invariably say the words "shredding" and "Constitution" in the same sentence. They might also add "Fourth Amendment" and "due process." It's possible they'll talk about "free speech zones" and "habeus corpus."
There's a good chance they will mention, probably in combination with several FCC-prohibited adjectives, the former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
So.
Liberals love the Constitution. They especially love the Bill of Rights. They love all the Amendments.
Except for one: the Second Amendment.

When it comes to discussing the Second Amendment, liberals check at the door their ability to think rationally. In discussing the importance of any other portion of the Bill of Rights, liberals can quote legal precedent, news reports, and exhaustive studies. They can talk about the intentions of the Founding Fathers.
And they will, almost without exception, conclude the necessity of respecting, and not restricting, civil liberties.
So why do liberals have such a problem with the Second Amendment? Why do they lump all gun owners in the category of "gun nuts"? Why do they complain about the "radical extremist agenda of the NRA"? Why do they argue for greater restrictions?
Why do they start performing mental gymnastics worthy of a position in Bush's Department of Justice to rationalize what they consider "reasonable" infringement of one of our most basic, fundamental, and revolutionary -- that's right, revolutionary -- civil liberties?
Why do they pursue these policies at the risk of alienating voters who might otherwise vote Democrat? Why are they so dismissive of approximately 40% of American households that own one or more guns?
And why is their approach to the Second Amendment so different from their approach to all the others?
Well, if conversations on this blog about the issue of guns are in any way indicative of the way other liberals feel, maybe this stems from a basic misunderstanding.
So, allow me to attempt to explain the Second Amendment in a way that liberals should be able to endorse.
No. 1: The Bill of Rights protects individual rights.
If you've read the Bill of Rights -- and who among us hasn't? -- you will notice a phrase that appears in nearly all of them: "the people."
First Amendment:
...the right of the people peaceably to assemble
Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects...
Ninth Amendment:
...shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
Tenth Amendment:
...are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Certainly, no good liberal would argue that any of these rights are collective rights, and not individual rights. We believe that the First Amendment is an individual right to criticize our government.
We would not condone a state-regulated news organization. We certainly would not condone state regulation of religion. We talk about "separation of church and state," although there is no mention of "separation of church and state" in the First Amendment.
But we know what they meant. The anti-Federalists would not ratify the Constitution without a Bill of Rights; they intended for it to be interpreted expansively.
We know the Founding Fathers intended for us to be able to say damn near anything we want, protest damn near anything we want, print damn near anything we want, and believe damn near anything we want. Individually, without the interference or regulation of government.
So why, then, do liberals stumble at the idea of the Second Amendment as an individual right? Why do they talk about it as a collective right, as if the Founding Fathers intended an entirely different meaning by the phrase "the right of the people" in the Second Amendment, when we are so positively clear about what they meant by the exact same phrase in the First Amendment?
If we can agree that the First Amendment protects not only powerful organizations such as the New York Times or MSNBC, but also the individual commenter on the internet, the individual at the anti-war rally, the individual driving the car with the "Fuck Bush" bumper sticker, can we not also agree that the Second Amendment's use of "the people" has the same meaning?
But it's different! The Second Amendment is talking about the militia! If you want to "bear arms," join the National Guard!
Right?
Wrong.
The United States Militia Code:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Aside from the fact that the National Guard did not exist in the 1700s, the term "militia" does not mean "National Guard," even today. The code clearly states that two classes comprise the militia: the National Guard and Naval Militia, and everyone else.
Everyone else. Individuals. The People.
No. 2: We oppose restrictions to our civil liberties.
All of our rights, even the ones enumerated in the Bill of Rights, are restricted. You can't shout "Fire!" in a crowd. You can't threaten to kill the president. You can't publish someone else's words as your own. We have copyright laws and libel laws and slander laws. We have the FCC to regulate our radio and television content. We have plenty of restrictions on our First Amendment rights.
But we don't like them. We fight them. Any card-carrying member of the ACLU will tell you that while we might agree that some restrictions are reasonable, we keep a close eye whenever anyone in government gets an itch to pass a new law that restricts our First Amendment rights. Or our Fourth. Or our Fifth, Sixth, or Eighth.
We complain about free speech zones. The whole country is supposed to be a free speech zone, after all. It says so right in the First Amendment.
But when it comes to the Second Amendment...You could hear a pin drop for all the protest you'll get from liberals when politicians talk about further restrictions on the manufacture, sale, or possession of firearms.
Suddenly, overly broad restrictions are "reasonable." The Washington D.C. ban on handguns -- all handguns -- is reasonable. (Later this year, the Supreme Court will quite likely issue an opinion to the contrary in the Heller case.)
Would we tolerate such a sweeping regulation of, say, the Thirteenth Amendment?
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
What if a politician -- say, a Republican from a red state in the south -- were to introduce a bill that permits enslaving black women? Would we consider that reasonable? It's not like the law would enslave all people, or even all black people. Just the women. There's no mention of enslaving women in the Thirteenth Amendment. Clearly, when Lincoln wanted to free the slaves, he didn't intend to free all the slaves. And we restrict all the other Amendments, so obviously the Thirteenth Amendment is not supposed to be absolute. What's the big deal?
Ridiculous, right? We'd take to the streets, we'd send angry letters to our representatives in Washington, we'd call our progressive radio programs to quote, verbatim, the Thirteenth Amendment. Quite bluntly, although not literally, we'd be up in arms. (Yeah, pun intended.)
And yet...A ban on all handguns seems reasonable to many liberals. Never mind that of 192 million firearms in America, 65 million -- about one third -- are handguns.
This hardly seems consistent.
No. 3: It's not 1776 anymore.
When the Founding Fathers, in their infinite wisdom, drafted the Bill of Rights, they could not have imagined machine guns. Or armor-piercing bullets (which are not available to the public anyway, and are actually less lethal than conventional ammunition). Or handguns that hold 18 rounds. A drive-by shooting, back in 1776, would have been a guy on a horse with a musket.
Of course, they couldn't have imagined the internet, either. But do we question the right of our gracious host, Markos, to say whatever the hell he wants on his blog? (The wisdom, perhaps, but not the right.)
Similarly, the Founding Fathers could not have imagined 24-hour cable news networks. When they drafted the First Amendment, did they really mean to protect the rights of Bill O'Reilly to make incredibly stupid, and frequently inaccurate, statements for an entire hour, five nights a week?
Actually, yes. They did. Bill O'Reilly bilious ravings, and Keith Olbermann's Special Comments, and Bill Moyer's analysis of the corruption of the Bush Administration, and the insipid chatter of the entire cast of the Today show are, and were intended to be, protected by the First Amendment.
We liberals are supposed to understand that just because we don't agree with something doesn't mean it is not protected. At least when it comes to the First Amendment.
But as for the Second Amendment? When discussing the Second Amendment, liberals become obtuse in their literalism. The Second Amendment does not protect the right to own all guns. Or all ammunition. It doesn't protect the right of the people as individuals.
Liberals will defend the right of Cindy Sheehan to wear an anti-war T-shirt, even though the First Amendment says nothing about T-shirts.
They will defend the right of citizens to attend a Bush rally wearing an anti-Bush button, even though the First Amendment says nothing about buttons.
They will defend the rights of alleged terrorists to a public trial, even though, when writing the Sixth Amendment, the Founding Fathers certainly could not have imagined a world in which terrorists would plot to blow up building with airplanes. The notion of airplanes would have shocked most of them (with the possible exception of Thomas Jefferson. He was always inventing things.)
No. 4: It's not like you can use it anyway.
Fine, you say. Have your big, scary guns. It's not like you actually stand a chance in fighting against the United States government. The Army has bigger, badder weapons than any private citizen. Your most deadly gun is no match for their tanks, their helicopters, their atom bombs. Maybe two hundred years ago, citizens stood a chance in a fight against government, but not today. The Second Amendment is obsolete.
Tell that to the USSR, held at bay for about six years by pissed off Afghanis with WWI rifles.
Tell that to the Iraqi "insurgents" who are putting up a pretty good fight against our military might with fairly primitive weapons.
The Second Amendment is obsolete?
What other rights might be considered obsolete in today's day and age?
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
When was the last time a soldier showed up at your door and said, "I'll be staying with you for the indefinite future"?
I'm guessing it's been a while. But of course, were it to happen, you'd dust off your Third Amendment and say, "I don't think so, pal."
And you'd be right.
And hasn't our current administration made the Sixth Amendment obsolete?
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
Shall we ask all of those "unlawful combatants" whether the Sixth Amendment still applies?
The President merely has to categorize you as an "unlawful combatant," and whoosh! No more rights to a speedy and public trial, an impartial jury, or even knowledge of the charges and identification of the witnesses who will testify against you. With one fell swoop of the pen, the President can suspend your Sixth Amendment rights.
Since it has no effect, whenever the President feels like it, why do we even need the Sixth Amendment anymore?
What about the Twenty-Sixth Amendment? How much use does that get?
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
We all know the youth vote is typically pretty abysmal. Those lazy kids can barely get out of bed before noon, let alone get themselves to the voting booth. If they're not going to use their Twenty-Sixth Amendment rights, shouldn't we just delete the damn thing altogether?
Of course not! I voted when I was eighteen, and I was proud to do so. In fact, most liberals will argue for greater enfranchisement. They support the rights of convicted felons to vote. Liberals are all about getting out the vote and rocking the vote. They sit at tables at their local farmer's market, trying to register new voters. They make calls to likely voters, even offering to give them a lift to the polling station.
For liberals, the Twenty-Sixth Amendment (for teens), the Fifteenth Amendment (for blacks), and the Nineteenth Amendment (for women) barely scratch the surface.
But the Second Amendment?
Crickets. Or, worse, loud calls for greater restrictions. More laws. Less access. Regulate, regulate, regulate -- until the Second Amendment is nearly regulated out of existence because no one needs to have a gun anyway.
And that, sadly, is the biggest mistake of all.
Because, to paraphrase a recent comment by mlandman:
The Second Amendment is not about hunting or even guns anymore than the First Amendment is about quill pens and hand-set type.
We do not quibble about the methods by which we practice our First Amendment rights because that is not the point. And red herring arguments about types of ammunition or handguns versus rifles (even scary looking ones) are just that -- red herrings. They distract us from what is at the true meaning of the Second Amendment. And that brings me to my final point.
No. 5: The Second Amendment is about revolution.
In no other country, at no other time, has such a right existed. It is not the right to hunt. It is not the right to shoot at soda cans in an empty field. It is not even the right to shoot at a home invader in the middle of the night.
It is the right of revolution.
Let me say that again: It is the right of revolution.
Consider the words of that most forward thinking of Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson:
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Tyranny in government. That was Mr. Jefferson's concern. And he spoke from experience, of course. He knew the Revolutionary War was not won with hand-painted banners or people chanting slogans. It was a long and bloody war of attrition where the colonials took on the biggest military machine in the world.
And we all know how that turned out.
Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government.
To alter or abolish the government. These are not mild words; they are powerful. They are revolutionary.
Mr. Jefferson might never have imagined automatic weapons. But he probably also never imagined a total ban on handguns either.
The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.
We talk about the First Amendment as a unique and revolutionary concept -- that we have the right to criticize our government. Does it matter whether we do so while standing on a soapbox on the corner of the street, or on a blog? No. Because the concept, not the methodology, is what matters.
And the Second Amendment is no different. We liberals tend to get bogged down in the details at the expense of being able to understand, and appreciate, the larger idea.
The Second Amendment is not about how much ammunition is "excessive." Or what kinds of guns are and are not permissible. We should have learned by now that prohibition is ineffective. That's why we repealed the Eighteenth Amendment, prohibiting the "manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors." It didn't work.
That's why our War on Drugs has been such an utter failure. Prohibition does not prevent people from smoking pot; it just turns pot smokers into criminals. (And what would our hemp-growing Founding Fathers think of that?)
And so it is with gun laws. They certainly don't prevent gun crimes. A total ban on handguns in DC has hardly eliminated violent crimes in DC. Although it may be correlation, rather than causation, crime tends to be lower in areas with more guns. After Florida and Texas passed concealed carry laws, crime rates went down.
So.
What is the point? Is this a rallying cry for liberals to rush right out and purchase a gun? Absolutely not. Guns are dangerous when used by people who are not trained to use them, just as cars are dangerous when driven by people who have not been taught how to drive.
No, this is a rallying cry for the Constitution. For the Bill of Rights. For all of our rights.
This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "I just don't like guns."
This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "No one needs that much ammunition."
This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "That's not what the Founding Fathers meant."
This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "Columbine and Virginia Tech prove we need more laws."
This is an appeal to every liberal who supports the ACLU.
This is an appeal to every liberal who has complained about the Bush Administration's trading of our civil liberties for the illusion of greater security. (I believe I’ve seen a T-shirt or two about Benjamin Franklin’s thoughts on that.)
This is an appeal to every liberal who believes in fighting against the abuses of government, against the infringement of our civil liberties, and for the greater expansion of our rights.
This is an appeal to every liberal who thinks, despite some poor judgment on the issues of, say, slavery or women's suffrage, the Founding Fathers actually had pretty good ideas about limiting government power and expanding individual rights.
This is an appeal to every liberal who never wants to lose another election to Republicans because they have successfully persuaded the voters that Democrats will take their guns away.
This is an appeal to you, my fellow liberals. Not merely to tolerate the Second Amendment, but to embrace it. To love it and defend it and guard it as carefully as you do all the others.
Because we are liberals. And fighting for our rights -- for all of our rights, for all people -- is what we do.
Because we are revolutionaries.
 
I thought I heard a lot of live munitions being shot off in my town this morning. lol

Well, the dead ones wouldn't be any fun. :D
 
Personally, I don't know how I feel about gun control. But, it is nice to see the Supreme Court support the Constitution. However, the 5-4 margin says that there are four Supreme Court justices that don't support the Constitution. What is up with this?
 
Personally, I don't know how I feel about gun control. But, it is nice to see the Supreme Court support the Constitution. However, the 5-4 margin says that there are four Supreme Court justices that don't support the Constitution. What is up with this?

I certainly don't pretend all the subtle nuances of the case that went before the court, nor do I completely understand their decision and the ramifications from it but I think it's a stretch to say that 4 justices don't support the constitution.

For me the issue hasn't been whether the individual has the right to bear arms. I've always believed that that's what the 2nd amendment says. However, there is a difference between "bearing arms" and "bearing heavy artillery" When does that line get crossed?